/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201009.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, October 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 203
Headlines
12291 CBW: Class Status Sought in Exotic Dancers' Action
AFM: US IP Rights Distribution Fund Suit Becomes Class Action
ALTERYX INC: Portnoy Law Alerts of Investor Class Action Filing
AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BAIDU INC: Portnoy Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
BALLINAS & VASQUEZ: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
BEAUTY BRANDS: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
BLACKBAUD INC: Arthur Sues Over Data Breach
BLACKBAUD INC: Trandem Sues in D.S.C. Alleging Personal Injury
BLINK HEALTH: Delacruz Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
BLOOMBERG LP: Syeed Suit Removed to Southern District of New York
CALGON CARBON: Faces Teamsters Suit Over Acquisition by Kuraray
CAZZOLINA RESTAURANT: Tapia Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
CHARMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces Ayard Labor Class Suit in California
CINCH HOME: Faces Cunningham Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
CIOX HEALTH: Williams Suit Moved to Middle District of Louisiana
COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Blackwell Suit Moved to E.D. California
CONAGRA BRANDS: Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Class Action
CONSUMER COLLECTION: Blake Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Faces Palm Tran Securities Suit in Michigan
CROZIER FINE: De La Cruz Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wages
CUETES CORP: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Salazar Suit Alleges
DEBRAGGA MAIL ORDER: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Carmona Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
DTM ENTERPRISES: Faces Quintero Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
EL BARCON DE LAS AMERICAS: Patino Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Volkman Class Action Settlement Has Initial OK
ENVISION PHYSICIAN: Weller Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
EVERALBUM INC: Walto Sues Over Unlawfully Collected Biometric Data
EXCLUSIVE FABRICS: Calcano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
FCA US LLC: Vehicle Owners Sue Over Defective Door Panels
FOX CORP: Court Dismisses Brokerage Jamie Suit With Prejudice
FRANK BRUSCO: Rivas Sues Over Maintenance Workers' Unpaid Wages
FRIENDS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Son Suit Alleges
FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Tapia Sues Over Negligent Background Checks
FUTURE VISION: Montanez Sues in Colorado Over Violation of TCPA
GATEWAY HEALTH: Jones Seeks Proper OT Pay for Care Coordinators
GEKKS INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
GENENTECH INC: Faces Wehner ERISA Suit Alleging Breach of Duties
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Certify Class in Gallagher FLSA Suit Denied
GENERAL MOTORS: Boddison Sues Over Defective Infotainment System
GRANITE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Suit Says
GRIMALDI LLC: Tesoro Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, West Alleges
HALO INNOVATIONS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says
HAMBLEN COUNTY, TN: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Filed in Bail Suit
HARRIET CARTER: West says Website Inaccessible to Visually-impaired
HC2 HOLDINGS: Lutin Files Doc to Support FVI's Stockholder Suit
HIGHPOINT FOOT: Fails to Secure Patient Information, Lipson Says
HK KITCHEN: Vera Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Kitchen Workers
HONDA MOTOR: Cummings Sues Over Defective Low-Pressure Fuel Pumps
HSC SOLUTIONS: Willis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
INTEL CORP: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
INTEL CORP: Labaton Sucharow Alerts of Expanded Class Action
IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES: Paguada Says Website Not Blind-Friendly
JIO INC: Romero Sues in N.Y. Over Violation of Disabilities Act
KDD RESTAURANT: Sapon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
LE BATTLE CREEK: Faces Delucenay TCPA Class Suit in W.D. Michigan
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Suit Over Refrigerator Cooling Issue
LIVE WELL: Judge Dismisses Claims in Property Tax Class Action
LIVONGO HEALTH: Kent Slams Sale to Teladoc Health
LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS: Faces $180MM Suit Over Pandemic Coverage
LUCKIN COFFEE: Pension Funds to Serve as Co-Lead Plaintiffs
LYFT INC: Keiner Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Litigation
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Luczak Seeks to Certify Suit as Class Action
NEILMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NESTLE USA: Carter Slams Mislabeling on Vanilla-Flavored Creamer
NEW YORK: Faces Nemni Class Suit vs. OCFS in N.Y. Supreme Court
NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
ONE IF BY LAND: Bid to Certify Class in Orellana Suit Okayed
OXY USA: App. Court Upholds Class Certification in Cooper Suit
PERRIGO COMPANY: Court Certifies Class in Securities Action
POINT PARK UNIVERSITY: Figueroa Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
PORTLAND GENERAL: Cannataro Hits Share Drop Over Losses
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Buffington Sues Over Vehicle Insurance Coverage
QUISQUEYA RESTAURANT: Marine Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Rodriguez FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Texas
RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Rosiello Sues Over Employment Discrimination
RLI GROUP: Guzman Sues Over Personal Data Access on Web
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL: Webster Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
SAINT JOHN: WorksafeNB Decision May Impact Water Class Action
SECRET CABARET: Bell Seeks Damages for Improper Wages
SHIPT INC: Young Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Unreimbursed Expenses
STERIGENICS US: Vallejo Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to S.D. Calif.
STORM SMART: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Lay Alleges
SWAGS GALORE: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks FLSA Collective Status
TEH REALTY: Ordered to Pay $52MM as Part of Class Action
TROPICANA ST. LOUIS: FLSA & Rule 23 Classes Certification Sought
TRSC INC: Fails to Pay All Wages Earned, Reed-Lewis Suit Alleges
TRUGREEN INC: Spence Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
UNIFIMONEY INC: Romero Sues Over Discrimination on Website Access
UNITED STATES: Sacked and Demoted Staff Sue for Unfair Treatment
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Carstairs Seeks Refund of School Fees
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Faces Martinez Suit in S.D. California
VICTORIA: Faces Class Action Over Coronavirus Restrictions
WALMART INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Johannes Says
WEGMANS FOOD: Romero Seeks Blind's Full, Equal Access to Web Site
WELLS ENTERPRISES: Romero Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
WISE INNOVATIONS: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
[*] Blank Rome Discusses Class Suits on Facial Recognition Software
[*] LongTerm Care Facilities Become Target for COVID-19 Suits
[*] McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Indemnity for Class Reps in Quebec
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $72.5MM Class Settlement Inked in Williams v. BASF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HB Fuller Settled Three Suits for US$80,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: National Stone Blocks Bill to Ban Asbestos
*********
12291 CBW: Class Status Sought in Exotic Dancers' Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELLE ROGERS AND ASHLEY
WILBURN, on Behalf of Themselves and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. 12291 CBW, LLC, RCI DINING SERVICES
(BEAUMONT), INC., and RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00266-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
with respect to a class defined as:
"all current and former exotic dancers who worked for the
Defendants at the Temptations Beaumont location or the
Temptations Fort Worth location and were classified as
independent contractors at any time during the three-year
period before the date the Court authorizes notice to the
present."
2. requiring the Defendants to produce the contact
information described above for all Class Members within
14 days of the granting this Motion in a computer-readable
format;
3. authorizing mailing of the proposed Notice and Consent
Form via regular mail, text messaging and email; and
4. allowing Class Members to execute their consent forms
electronically.
The Plaintiffs contend that while they and class members dancing
for the Defendants, they were improperly classified as independent
contractors and were not paid any wages by the Defendants for the
hours they worked. Worse, the Defendants required them to allegedly
pay fees and portions of their tips to the Defendants each shift.
The Defendants are doing business in hospitality industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3njCVrS at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiffs and Class Members are:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
AFM: US IP Rights Distribution Fund Suit Becomes Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that the
lawsuit being pursued by songwriter and record producer Kevin Risto
over the distribution of equitable remuneration monies to session
musicians in the US has been granted class action status. It means
at least 30,000 musicians could benefit from any ruling in Risto's
favour.
Risto's litigation targets American performer unions AFM and
SAG-AFTRA and the IP Rights Distribution Fund that they set up to
administrate various royalties due to performers who appear on
sound recordings. Most importantly, that includes the so called
Performer ER that is due to session musicians when their music is
played on online or satellite radio services in the US.
That money is initially collected by the collecting society
SoundExchange. However, whereas SoundExchange pays so called
featured artists directly, the cut due to session musicians is paid
out via the IP Rights Distribution Fund.
Risto's lawsuit takes issue with a decision made by the trustees of
that Fund back in 2013 to start paying both AFM and SAG-AFTRA a
1.5% fee for the services and data they provide. He argues that the
trustees violated their fiduciary duty to the fund's beneficiaries,
ie the session musicians, by allowing regular payments to be made
to the unions that set it up.
For their part, the various defendants have argued that the fund's
governing document gives the trustees wide discretion on how best
to run the royalty body and specific permission to pay the two
unions for any services or information they provide. Which means
that, although such payments only began in 2013, the right to pay
the unions for their input was there from the start.
Risto intended his lawsuit to be a class action, benefiting all
session musicians, when he first filed it in 2018. But back in
June, he filed new legal papers specifically requesting that the
court officially recognise that class action status.
And earlier it did. The judge overseeing the case, Christina A
Snyder, concluded that the action posed common questions of law
that were of equal concern to all class members.
It's thought that class will include at least 30,000 session
musicians who are paid ER royalties in the US. Though the Risto
side says that tens of thousands more musicians could also be
potential class members, those being music-makers who have never
registered for those payments but are due them under law. The judge
confirmed that those musicians would also qualify for class
membership. [GN]
ALTERYX INC: Portnoy Law Alerts of Investor Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Alteryx, Inc. ("Alteryx" or "the
Company") (NYSE: AYX) investors that acquired securities between
May 6, 2020 and August 6, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
It is alleged within the complaint filed in this class action that
throughout the class period, defendants made materially misleading
and/or false statements, as well as failed to disclose facts that
were materially adverse in regard to the company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the company was unable to close
large deals within the quarter, leading to deals being downsized or
postponed to subsequent quarters; (2) that, as a result, Alteryx
increasingly relied on adoption licenses in order to attract new
customers; (3) that, due to the nature of adoption licenses, it was
reasonably likely that the Company's revenue would decline as a
result; and (4) that, positive statements made by the Defendant
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, as a result
of the foregoing.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Williams, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES NETWORK, INC., d/b/a
JTV, Case No. 3:20-cv-00428 (E.D. Tenn., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought
for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory relief, and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff routinely worked for the Defendant 40 or more hours
per week within weekly pay periods during all times material to
this action when including "edited-out" and "off-the-clock" work
time, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff was paid on an
hourly rate basis plus commissions, but her commissions did not
exceed her wages within weekly pay periods during all times
material. The Plaintiff regularly worked an eight and one-half hour
shift, 5 days per week within weekly pay periods during all times
material to this action, and also worked in excess of eight and
one-half hour shifts when having a prospective or regular customer
on a telephone call at the end of her regular eight and one-half
shift. The Plaintiff was not paid for her entire eight and one-half
hour shifts during "workdays."
As a result of the Defendant's bad faith and willful failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class in compliance with the requirements of
the FLSA, they have suffered lost wages in terms of lost overtime
compensation, as well as having suffered other damages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid sales
agent.
The Defendant operates Jewelry TV, dba JTV, a company that sells
jewelry via TV shows and advertising across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
BAIDU INC: Portnoy Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) investors
that acquired shares between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020.
Investors have until August 7, 2020 to seek an active role in this
litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
Baidu founded iQIYI in 2010. Baidu currently owns an approximately
56% controlling interest in iQIYI.
After the market closed on August 13, 2020, iQIYI announced that
the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission sought "the production of
certain financial and operating records dating from January 1,
2018, as well as documents related to certain acquisitions and
investments that were identified in a report issued by short-seller
firm Wolfpack Research in April 2020."
Baidu's American depositary share ("ADS") price fell $7.83 per ADS,
or 6%, on this news, to close at $116.74 per ADS on August 14,
2020, damaging investors.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
BALLINAS & VASQUEZ: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BALLINAS & VASQUEZ CORP, d/b/a METATE and CECILIO
BALLINAS and ELSA BALLINAS, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-08244
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, spread of hours pay and
unlawfully withheld gratuities under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, for part of his employment with the
Defendants, the Plaintiff was scheduled to work more than 40 hours
each week but he was not compensated at the appropriate overtime
rate of pay for work weeks in which he worked more than 40 hours.
Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff has been paid
as a tipped employee at a rate that was lower than the required
tip-credit rate. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, management
unlawfully retained 8% of the Plaintiff's tips at the end of each
shift. However, the Plaintiff should have been classified as a
non-tipped employee and paid at the appropriate minimum wage rate.
When the Plaintiff is paid by the Defendants, they did not provide
the Plaintiff with a notation or any other documentation of his
hours worked during that pay period or his rate of pay, according
to the complaint. The Defendants never provided the Plaintiff with
a notation or any other documentation of the hours he worked. The
Plaintiff was not required to clock in or clock out at the
beginning and end of his shift.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from January 7, 2019,
through the present as a Delivery Worker.
Metate is a restaurant incorporated in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3rd floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
BEAUTY BRANDS: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beauty Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Beauty Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-08148 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beauty Brands, Inc., retails cosmetics and beauty products. The
Company offers cleansers, toners, moisturizers, conditioners,
lotions, hair brushes and combs, blow dryers, mirrors, and shower
gels, as well as provides salon and spa services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BLACKBAUD INC: Arthur Sues Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
Pam Arthur and Dorothy Kamm, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blackbaud Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-14319 (S.D. Fla., September 11, 2020), seeks actual
damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages and statutory
penalties, an award of punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs
and any other expense, including expert witness fees, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other
and further relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of express/implied contract.
Blackbaud manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for the
data obtained by schools and non-profit companies, including Bread
for the World and Planned Parenthood, which maintained Plaintiffs'
private information. In May of 2020, ransomware attack and data
breach of several schools, healthcare, non-profit companies and
other organizations whose data and servers were managed, maintained
and secured by Blackbaud compromised sensitive and personal data
from students, patients, donors and other individual users. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Tel: (865) 247-0080
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Trandem Sues in D.S.C. Alleging Personal Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackbaud Inc. The
case is styled as Emily Trandem, on behalf of Minor Child, PT, and
all others similarly situated v. Blackbaud Inc., a South Carolina
Resident, Case No. 2:20-cv-03487-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 1, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Personal Injury.
Blackbaud is a cloud computing provider that serves the social good
community--nonprofits, foundations, corporations, education
institutions, healthcare organizations, religious organizations,
and individual change agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank Burton Ulmer, Esq.
Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
MCCULLEY MCCLUER, PLLC
701 East Bay Street, Suite 411
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 444-5404
Fax: (843) 444-5403
Email: fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com
smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com
BLINK HEALTH: Delacruz Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blink Health LLC. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Blink Health LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-08185 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blink Health LLC operates as a medication purchase platform. The
Company focuses on medication search, advance payment, and
prescription discount services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BLOOMBERG LP: Syeed Suit Removed to Southern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NAFEESA SYEED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLOOMBERG L.P.; MATTHEW WINKLER; JOHN
MICKLETHWAIT; MARTY SCHENKER; RETO GREGORI; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Case No. 156215/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on September 11, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07464 to the proceeding.
Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and
media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York
City.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
Rachel S. Philion, Esq.
Allison L. Martin, Esq.
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 969-3000
Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com
rphilion@proskauer.com
amartin@proskauer.com
CALGON CARBON: Faces Teamsters Suit Over Acquisition by Kuraray
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEAMSTER MEMBERS RETIREMENT PLAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RANDALL S. DEARTH, ROBERT M.
FORTWANGLER, STEVAN R. SCHOTT, JAMES A. COCCAGNO, CHAD WHALEN, J.
RICH ALEXANDER, WILLIAM J. LYONS, LOUIS S. MASSIMO, WILLIAM R.
NEWLIN, JOHN J. PARO, JULIE S. ROBERTS, TIMOTHY G. RUPERT, DONALD
C. TEMPLIN, KURARAY CO., LTD., KURARAY HOLDINGS U.S.A., INC. AND
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Case No. 2020-0807-MTZ (Del. Ch., Sept.
24, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of
former Calgon Carbon Corp. stockholders, seeking a remedy for the
Individual Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties in connection
with an unfair proposed transaction, pursuant to which Calgon will
be acquired by Kuraray.
According to the complaint, Calgon's Officer and Director
Defendants have violated their fiduciary duties owed to the public
stockholders of Calgon as they acted to put their personal
interests ahead of the interests of the stockholders. The
Defendants acted to push through the acquisition, rather than
making any reasonable effort to maximize value for all stockholders
by either allowing the Company to remain independent and continue
executing its strategy, or by running a fair process to sell the
Company to the highest bidder at an appropriate time. And they
acted to mislead Calgon's stockholders into approving the
acquisition by concealing and misleading stockholders as to
material facts, including with respect to the Company's true value
and its true prospects as an independent company.
The Plaintiff alleges that Calgon Board's financial advisor, Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, has participated in the breaches of fiduciary
duty as it conspired with the Defendants to manipulate the
projections so that they would support Morgan Stanley's own
fairness analyses. Morgan Stanley then worked with management to
prepare a proxy that materially misled stockholders with respect
to, among other things, the financial projections and Morgan
Stanley's valuation analyses.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Kuraray also created and then
exploited conflicts of interests for key fiduciaries of Calgon, so
that it could buy out a valuable company at an inopportune time at
the lowest possible price. The Plaintiff adds that Kuraray
knowingly used the offer of continued employment for the Officer
Defendants to entice management to enter negotiations with Kuraray,
and then to favor Kuraray through a single-bidder negotiation
process and through helpful projection adjustments that made
Kuraray's offers appear more favorable.
Kuraray Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of chemicals, fibers, and other
materials, headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Kuraray Holdings U.S.A.,
Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Kuraray Co., Ltd.
Before the Acquisition, announced on September 21, 2017, Calgon
Carbon Corp. was allegedly a global leader in innovative solutions,
high quality products and reliable services designed to protect
human health and the environment from harmful contaminants in water
and air. As a leading manufacturer of activated carbon, with broad
capabilities in ultraviolet light disinfection, the Company
provides purification solutions for drinking water, wastewater,
pollution abatement, and a variety of industrial and commercial
manufacturing processes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
P.O. Box 1680
Wilmington, DE 19899-1680
Telephone: (302) 984-3810
E-mail: bmcnew@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
- and -
Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
CAZZOLINA RESTAURANT: Tapia Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONACIANO GALINDO TAPIA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. CAZZOLINA RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A LITTLE
ITALY PIZZA); LORENZO CARUSONE; VINCENZO DOE; and MOHAMMED DOE,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07396 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 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 Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as dishwasher.
Cazzolina Restaurant Corp. and the Individual Defendants own,
operate, or control a pizzeria, located in New York City, under the
name Little Italy Pizza.[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
CHARMAN MANUFACTURING: Faces Ayard Labor Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE AYARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHARMAN MANUFACTURING, INC a corporation; and DOES
1-20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV37730 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Oct. 1, 2020), is brought to remedy the Defendants'
wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against the
Plaintiff in violation of applicable California laws, including
failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failing to provide accurate wage statements,
failing to pay all earned wages upon separation of employment,
failing to reimburse for business expenditures and losses, failing
to provide suitable seating, and failing to pay reporting time
pay.
The Plaintiff is also entitled to recover civil penalties on behalf
of himself and other similarly aggrieved persons who are, or were
employed, by the Defendants and against whom or more of the alleged
violations were committed under the Private Attorneys General Act,
the suit says.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
2018 to March 2020 at Charman Manufacturing's Vernon location as a
non-exempt general laborer employee and was and is paid in whole or
in part on an hourly basis.
Charman Manufacturing is a sourcing supplier of pipes, valves, and
fittings (PVT) products and related items in Vernon, California. It
conducted and continues to conduct substantial business in the
state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
KJT LAWGROUP LLP 230
N. Maryland Ave., Suite 300
Glendale, CA 91206
Telephone: (818) 507-8525
E-mail: caspar@kjtlawgroup.com
- and -
Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL
230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306
Glendale, CA 91206
Telephone: (818) 425-1437
E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com
CINCH HOME: Faces Cunningham Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CINCH HOME SERVICES, INC. and EDATA BY
DESIGN, INC., DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case
No. 2:20-cv-08875 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against
the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants placed a call to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone ending in -9191 beginning on
February 19, 2020, by using an "automatic telephone dialing system"
(ATDS) or an "artificial or prerecorded voice" in an attempt to
sell or solicit its services. The Plaintiff contends that the
Defendant did not obtain his "prior express written consent" to
place calls using an ATDS and he was never a customer of the
Defendants' services nor has he provided any personal information
for any purpose whatsoever.
The complaint asserts that because of the unsolicited calls made by
the Defendants, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated members
of the Class were harmed by causing them to incur certain charges
as well as invading their privacy.
Cinch Home Services, Inc. and Edata by Design, Inc. are home
warranty companies offering consumers a collection of three
warranty plans designed to cover the repair or replacement costs on
built-in systems (often called major home systems) and
appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: 323-306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
CIOX HEALTH: Williams Suit Moved to Middle District of Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUDITH WILLIAMS; and NICHOLSON LAW FIRM, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIOX
HEALTH, LLC, Case No. C-698528, was removed from the Judicial
District Court of the State of Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on
September 11, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Louisiana assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-00608-SDD-EWD to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Judge Shelly D. Dick, and referred to Magistrate Erin
Wilder-Doomes.
CIOX Health, LLC, provides health care information solutions. The
Company offers electronic records, release of information, revenue
cycle, and audit management services. CIOX Health serves customers
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda L. Deto, Esq.
Christopher O. Massenburg, Esq.
Amanda L. Deto, Esq.
MG+M LAW FIRM
365 Canal Street, Suite 3000
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 535-2880
Facsimile: (504) 535-2886
E-mail: cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com
adeto@mgmlaw.com
COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION: Blackwell Suit Moved to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as TIM BLACKWELL, an individual and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION
SPECIALISTS, INC.; CLIMATE PROS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00282409, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on October 1, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-01968-KJM-CKD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure
to pay overtime time and minimum wages, failure to keep accurate
wage records, waiting time penalties, and unfair business
practices.
Commercial Refrigeration Specialists, Inc. is a company that
distributes refrigeration equipment and supplies, with its
principal place of business located in California.
Climate Pros, LLC is a provider of refrigeration and heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) repair, maintenance, and
construction services located in Glendale Heights, Illinois.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael C. Barnhill, Esq.
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
2750 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 560
Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121
Telephone: (801) 833-0500
Facsimile: (801) 931-2500
E-mail: mcbarnhill@michaelbest.com
CONAGRA BRANDS: Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Prust, Esq. of Keller and Heckman, disclosed that on
September 11, 2020, Defendant Conagra Brands, Inc. filed a motion
for summary judgment in which it argued that Plaintiff's claim --
that Conagra had misled consumers by marketing Wesson brand cooking
oils containing GMO ingredients as "100% natural" -- should be
dismissed because Plaintiff had failed to specify the injury that
she had suffered in a presuit demand letter as required by
Massachusetts law.
By way of background, the First Circuit Court of Appeals had
previously reversed a district court's dismissal of the complaint,
holding that Conagra could not demonstrate that its labeling
conformed with the FDA labeling policy and that Conagra had
"confused the FDA's informal policy not to restrict the use of the
term natural with a rule defining it." In other words, because the
FDA had not affirmatively approved the labeling of GMO products as
"100% natural," dismissal was not warranted.
In its motion for summary judgment, Conagra alleged that the demand
letter amounted to a bald assertion that Conagra's labeling
practices violated the law and did not allow Conagra to assess the
injury that the Plaintiff had allegedly suffered. In particular,
Plaintiff did not provide any details regarding her purchase or the
value of the product as purchased and "as promised" and, even when
prompted to correct the deficiencies in the letter, merely asserted
that that the injury was "apparent." Conagra's Motion also rebutted
Plaintiff's assertions and argued that (1) it had not waived the
presuit demand deficiency argument by failing to include it in its
motion to dismiss (because a waiver of an affirmative defense can
only be made in a pleading) and (2) a lawsuit in another
jurisdiction did not give Conagra notice or in any way modify
Plaintiff's legal obligation to write a legally sufficient demand
letter prior to litigation.
Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and provides updates on
lawsuits that target natural claims. [GN]
CONSUMER COLLECTION: Blake Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Does 1-25, et
al. The case is styled as Crystal Blake, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. John Does 1-25, Defendant;
Consumer Collection Management, Inc., Defendant Ad Litem; Case No.
4:20-cv-01412 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Consumer Collection Management, Inc. is a collection agency for
medical, commercial, and apartment businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Faces Palm Tran Securities Suit in Michigan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palm Tran, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE
CORPORATION, BRETT A. ROBERTS, and KENNETH S. BOOTH, Case No.
2:20-cv-12698-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the federal securities
laws, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from
November 1, 2019, through August 28, 2020 inclusive. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants made a series of false and misleading
statements and omissions, which artificially inflated the Company's
stock price.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' financing programs are
offered through a nationwide network of automobile dealers who
benefit from sales of vehicles to consumers who otherwise could not
obtain financing, as 95% of Credit Acceptance's loans are
considered subprime. The Company's tag line is "We change lives!"
and the Company asserts its financing programs give consumers "a
second chance" in improving their credit scores. However, rather
than change lives for the better or improve consumers credit
scores, Credit Acceptance employed a fraudulent scheme whereby it
knowingly provided consumer auto loans that it knew could not be
repaid and in fact consistently harmed consumers for its own
financial benefit. The Company did this despite knowing that it is
illegal to knowingly provide loans that cannot be repaid and also
charged usurious interest rates that violated state law. Further,
in order to fund its operations, the Company then packaged these
sub-standard loans in securitizations and knowingly misrepresented
the structure and composition of these securitizations to
unsuspecting investors.
The ugly truth about the Company's predatory and illegal business
practices was revealed on August 28, 2020, when the Massachusetts
Attorney General filed the Mass AG Complaint against Credit
Acceptance alleging that Credit Acceptance has, for years, been
making unfair and deceptive automobile loans to thousands of
Massachusetts consumers. In addition, the lawsuit specifically
alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false
and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed
securitizations they offered to investors, and that the Company
engaged in unfair debt collection practices as well.
As alleged in the Mass AG Complaint, Credit Acceptance has been
making high-risk, high-interest, subprime auto loans to
Massachusetts borrowers whom the Company knew, or should have
known, were unable to repay their loans. In approving the loans,
Credit Acceptance recklessly ignored the likelihood that the
borrowers would default on their loans and that a substantial
portion of its loans to high-risk, low-score borrowers would never
be repaid--a practice that is in fact illegal. Additionally, these
borrowers were also subject to hidden finance charges on their
Credit Acceptance loans as many borrowers were required to purchase
vehicle service contracts as a condition of obtaining loans from
the Company.
In response to the public disclosure of the Mass AG Complaint,
Credit Acceptance's stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%,
to close at $374.07 per share over two trading days ending on
September 1, 2020.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant damages as throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and adherence to the appropriate laws and regulations, the
Plaintiff contends.
Specifically, the Defendants allegedly failed to disclose to
investors: (i) that the Company was topping off the pools of loans
that they packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans; (ii)
that Credit Acceptance was making high- interest subprime auto
loans to borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable
to repay; (iii) that the borrowers were subject to hidden finance
charges, resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling
mandated by state law; (iv) that Credit Acceptance took excessive
and illegal measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (v)
that, as a result, the Company was likely to face regulatory
scrutiny and possible penalties from various regulators or
lawsuits; and (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
adherence to appropriate laws and regulations were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Plaintiff Palm Tran, Inc. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577
purchased Credit Acceptance common stock during the Class Period.
Credit Acceptance is a subprime auto finance company providing
loans and other related financial products that enable automobile
dealers to sell vehicles to consumers and provides financing
programs, and related products and services to independent and
franchised automobile dealers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maya Saxena
Joseph E. White, III
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Phone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606
Phone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
CROZIER FINE: De La Cruz Sues Over Improperly Paid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO DE LA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CROZIER FINE ARTS INC., Case No. 157942/2020
(N.Y. Sup., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff worked about
50-84 or more hours each week for the Defendant, his lawfully
earned overtime was not compensated by the Defendant at the rate of
at least 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week. Additionally, the Defendant
unlawfully deducted 30 minutes from the Plaintiff's wages despite
not receiving a "bona fide" meal break within the meaning of New
York Labor Law, thereby, failing to pay him about 2.5-3 hours
weekly. Moreover, the Defendant failed provide the Plaintiff
accurate wage statements and notices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from October 2011 to
August 5, 2020, as a manual worker performing all manual, physical
and repetitive tasks within the capacity including packing,
unpacking, moving, lifting and handling artwork throughout his
workday.
Crozier Fine Arts, Inc., provides special warehousing and storage
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
215-28 Hillside Avenue
Queens Village, NY 11427
Tel: 718-740-1000
Fax: 718-355-9668
E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com
CUETES CORP: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Salazar Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CUETES CORP. and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No.
7:20-cv-08167 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York
Labor Law, and New York Rules and Regulation.
The Defendants' violations include failure to pay the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated laborers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages, failure to pay spread of hours premium for all hours
worked in excess of 10 hours per day, and failure to furnish
accurate wage notices and wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer in New
York from 2015 until September 2020.
Cuetes Corp. is a motor carrier and trucking company, with its
principal place of business located at 186 Brookdale Ave., in New
Rochelle, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq.
WEISENBERG FIRM, PLLC
450 Lexington Ave., 4th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (917) 747-5303
Facsimile: (212) 365-5619
E-mail: ben@weisenbergfirm.com
DEBRAGGA MAIL ORDER: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Debragga Mail Order
LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Debragga Mail Order
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08182 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Debragga Mail Order LLC operates an online store at DeBragga.com
that allows people across the country to purchase the meats,
poultry and more that have been the exclusive property of the
highest rated restaurants and chefs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Carmona Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as EDMOND CARMONA, ABRAHAM MENDOZA, ROGER
NOGUERIA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, a Michigan Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Case
No. 30-2020-01145146-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on October 1,
2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:20-cv-01905 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code,
including failure to reimburse for necessary work expenditures,
unfair competition, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks,
failure to separately pay all wages for work performed, failure to
issue accurate itemized wage statements, and waiting time
penalties.
Domino's Pizza, LLC, is a company that operates a pizza restaurant
based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Steve L. Hernandez, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 400 North Tower
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
Telephone: (310) 595-3000
Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
E-mail: steve.hernandez@dlapiper.com
- and –
Taylor Wemmer, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Telephone: (858) 677-1400
Facsimile: (858) 638-5030
E-mail: taylor.wemmer@dlapiper.com
DTM ENTERPRISES: Faces Quintero Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALBA QUINTERO, and other similarly situated individuals v. D.T.M.
ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a CAFE FARAY and ESTEBAN MUNNE, Case No.
1:20-cv-24028 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated employees appropriate minimum wage and overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Ms. Quintero was employed by the Defendants as a server, cook and
cashier at Cafe Faray in Miami, Florida, from June 5, 2018, through
February 13, 2020.
D.T.M. Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Cafe Faray, is an operator of a
restaurant and cafeteria located in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
EL BARCON DE LAS AMERICAS: Patino Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria F. Patino, and other similarly situated individuals v. EL
BARCON DE LAS AMERICAS PRODUCTIONS, INC., EL BALCON DE LAS
AMERICAS, INC. AND ALVARO TOBAR, an Individual, Case No.
0:20-cv-62003-RAR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and for interference with rights granted under the
Family Medical Leave Act.
For the last three years prior to the Plaintiff's termination of
employment on March 8, 2020, the Plaintiff worked approximately 70
hours a week but she was never paid overtime, according to the
complaint. For some days of each week she worked at El Balcon
Restaurant and was instructed not to punch in a time clock during
that period of work. On days that she worked for both Corporate
Defendants she was instructed to punch in only when she was to
start work duties at El Balcon Productions. On days that she worked
solely at el Balcon Productions, she always had to punch in at El
Balcon Restaurant.
Each week, the Plaintiff was paid with two checks, one for her work
at El Balcon Production, and another for her work at El Balcon
Restaurant. On March 8, 2020, the Plaintiff spoke to the Individual
Defendant and requested time off because she was having respiratory
problems and coughs. The Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff
had respiratory health issues. The Individual Defendant informed
the Plaintiff that he was sorry, but he could not employ her if the
Plaintiff was sick. Since March 8, 2020, the Plaintiff's employment
with the Corporate Defendants terminated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an employee of the Corporate Defendants working
as a cook.
The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andres Rivera-Ortiz, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES RIVERA-ORTIZ, P.A.
3350 SW 148 Avenue, Suite 110
Miramar, FL 33027
Phone: 305-643-2255
Email: riveraortizpa@gmail.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Volkman Class Action Settlement Has Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK VOLKMAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, d/b/a ERC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00091-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William C.
Griesbach entered an order:
1. granting the motion for preliminary approval of the
Parties' class action settlement agreement; and
2. setting January 8, 2021 at 2:30 p.mM. as the date and
time for the Final Approval Hearing to consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
Settlement, and to consider the requests for fees and
expenses by Class Counsel.
The Court said the Settlement, the history of this case, and the
negotiation process appear sufficient for the Court to consider
granting final approval in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)
and to give notice to the Class with an opportunity to submit
objections to the Settlement in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(1).
The salient terms of the settlement agreement are:
Class Recovery:
ERC will create a class settlement fund of $133,000.00, which
the Administrator shall distribute on a pro rata basis
($78.70) to each of the 1,690 Class Members who did not
previously seek exclusion from the Class, and whose Notice of
Settlement is not returned as undeliverable.
Plaintiff's Recovery:
Subject to Court approval, ERC agrees to pay the Plaintiff
$1,000.00 for his statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. section
1692k(a)(2)(B), plus an additional $5,000.00 in recognition
of his service to the Class.
Attorneys' Fees and Costs:
ERC agrees Plaintiff brought a "successful action" under 15
U.S.C. section 1692k and, thus, subject to Court approval, is
entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs $151,000.00,
which covers all fees and expenses, including class
administration, arising from the Litigation.
On September 23, 2020, the Plaintiff and ERC participated in a full
day of mediation, which was preceded by ERC's supplementation of
its discovery regarding damages. The Parties' mediation was
successful and culminated in the Class Settlement Agreement.
On January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
class, filed this lawsuit alleging ERC violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by mailing him a letter which, by its
terms, only described a debt ERC sought to collect and failed to
"clearly and accurately" disclose the name of the creditor to whom
the debt was then owed in satisfaction.
Enhanced Recovery is part of the Collection Agencies Industry.
A copy of the Court's preliminary approval order is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HMgtaB at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Derek Volkman, and the Certified Class
are:
Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
Katelyn B. Busby, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Telephone: (973) 379-7500
E-mail: Andrew@SternThomasson.com
Francis@SternThomasson.com
Philip@SternThomasson.com
Katelyn@SternThomasson.com
ENVISION PHYSICIAN: Weller Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MITCHELL WELLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ENVISION PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court, County of Broward, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
September 11, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-61849. The case is assigned to Judge Rodney
Smith.
Envision Physician Services LLC is a multi-specialty physician
group and healthcare management team that provides anesthesia,
emergency medicine, hospital medicine, radiology, surgical
services, and women's and children's health services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Salky, Esq.
Stephanie Peral, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 579-0500
Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
E-mail: salkym@gtlaw.com
perals@gtlaw.com
- and -
David G. Thomas, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
One International Place, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 310-6040
Facsimile: (617) 897-0940
EVERALBUM INC: Walto Sues Over Unlawfully Collected Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynette Walto, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. EVERALBUM, INC., d/b/a PARAVISION, a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-06895 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for violating the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiff also seeks an order declaring that Paravision's
conduct violates BIPA, requiring that Paravision cease the unlawful
activities and destroy the biometric data it unlawfully collected,
and awarding the Plaintiff and the Class statutory damages of
$5,000 per violation, plus their attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, every company that has developed its
own facial-recognition software has faced a similar dilemma: where
to get enough photos of faces--with sufficient variance in photo
quality, lighting, and face shapes and features--to create a
robust, functional system. Paravision's solution was novel, but
also highly deceptive and illegal. To build its training database
of faces, Paravision mined Everalbum (later rebranded as Ever).
Everalbum was a website--and later, as Ever, an app--operated by
the Defendant, offering cloud photo storage.
Unbeknownst to its users, however, the billions of photos they
uploaded were fuel for Paravision's AI machine, according to the
complaint. While users may have thought they were merely ensuring
the lasting 1 storage of "Weekend with Grandpa" photos, they were
instead unwittingly ushering in a corporate surveillance dystopia.
Illinois's legislature saw this problem coming. In 2008, it enacted
the Biometric Information Privacy Act, which regulates the use of
biometric data (including facial-recognition scans), prohibits its
capture without consent, and outright prohibits companies from
profiting off it. Thus, Paravision's systematic and covert privacy
intrusion is plainly unlawful in Illinois, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Illinois.
Paravision is an artificial-intelligence software company that
provides facial-recognition technology to law-enforcement agencies,
militaries, defense contractors, and other private businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
- and -
J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
NICK LARRY LAW LLC
55 E Monroe St., Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 773.694.4690
Fax: 773.694.4691
EXCLUSIVE FABRICS: Calcano Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exclusive Fabrics &
Furnishings, LLC. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf
of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Exclusive
Fabrics & Furnishings, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08183 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Exclusive Fabrics & Furnishings is a supplier of fabrics &
furnishings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
FCA US LLC: Vehicle Owners Sue Over Defective Door Panels
---------------------------------------------------------
Dorothea Johnson and Jason Player, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC,
Defendant, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08314, (C.D. Cal., September
10, 2020), seeks an award of injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, including delay damages, attorneys' fees and such other
and further judiciary determinations and relief resulting from
unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraud by concealment and for violation of the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act, Song-Beverly Act, the California Business and
Professions Code, and the Texas Business and Commerce Code.
Defendant is an automotive manufacturer in the United States that
maintains the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Ram brand.
Johnson owns a 2016 Chrysler 300C. She claims that the interior
panel of door sides eventually all lifted up. She was only able to
have one door fixed and the rest of the three doors were denied
warranty.
Player owns a 2016 Dodge Charger. He experienced the same defect on
both front doors initially and was repaired. However, all door
panels manifested the same defects and soon was no longer covered
by warranty.
Both Plaintiffs allege that this was a manufacturing defect. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
Eric D. Barton, Esq.
Austin P. Brane, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Tel: (816) 701-1100
Fax: (816) 531-2372
Email: thudson@wcllp.com
ebarton@wcllp.com
abrane@wcllp.com
- and -
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Tel: (770) 444-0998
Fax: (770) 217-9950
Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com
Matt@WebbLLC.com
FOX CORP: Court Dismisses Brokerage Jamie Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BROKERAGE JAMIE GOLDENBERG KOMEN REV TRU U/A 06/10/08
JAMIE L KOMEN TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF JAMIE GOLDENBERG KOMEN, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, or, in the
alternative, derivatively on behalf of FOX CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v. JAMES W. BREYER, RODERICK I. EDDINGTON, JAMES R. MURDOCH, K.
RUPERT MURDOCH, LACHLAN K. MURDOCH, JACQUES NASSER, and ROBERT S.
SILBERMAN, Defendants, and FOX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
Nominal Defendant, C.A. No. 2018-0773-AGB (Del. Ch.), Judge Andre
G. Bouchard of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
The case arises out of a two-step transaction in which Twenty-First
Century Fox, Inc. ("Old Fox" or the "Company") spun off its news,
sports, and broadcasting businesses to a newly listed public
company, Fox Corp. ("New Fox"), and sold the rest of its businesses
the next day to The Walt Disney Co. for $71.6 billion in a merger
transaction. The parties signed the original merger agreement in
December 2017, but the transaction did not close until March 2019
due to regulatory review and an intervening bidding contest.
About five months before the transaction closed, an Old Fox
stockholder filed a derivative lawsuit challenging an estimated
$82.4 million in stock awards granted to Old Fox's three top
executives -- Rupert Murdoch and his two sons. The compensation
committee of the Old Fox board approved these awards in
anticipation of the transaction as part of a company-wide
compensation program for Old Fox's senior executives. The gravamen
of the complaint is that it was unnecessary and wasteful to approve
any "incentive" compensation for the Murdochs because they already
were highly incentivized to pursue and implement the transaction
given their collective holdings of approximately $11.7 billion of
Old Fox stock. The Plaintiff's initial claims were for breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste.
Count I asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Named Executive Officers for accepting the challenged stock awards
and against the Compensation Committee for awarding them. Count II
asserted an unjust enrichment claim against the Named Executive
Officers for retaining the challenged stock awards. Count III
asserted a waste claim against the Compensation Committee for
cauing the Company and New Fox to waste valuable corporate assets
by approving the Retention RSU Grants and the Performance Award
Modification.
On June 7, 2019, after the Transaction closed, the Plaintiff filed
an amended pleading styled as a "Verified Amended Class Action, or
in the Alternative, Derivative Complaint." The Complaint asserts
three claims on behalf of a putative class of Old Fox stockholders
or, in the alternative, derivatively on behalf of New Fox. Counts
I and II assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Murdochs as controlling stockholders of Old Fox" and against the
members of the Compensation Committee for faithlessly allowing the
Murdochs to extract from Old Fox's sale process unique benefits.
Count III asserts an unjust enrichment claim against the Murdochs
for retaining the challenged stock awards. In amending its
pleading, the Plaintiff dropped its waste claim and all of its
claims against two of the Named Executive Officers: Nallen and
Zweifach.
On July 18, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in
its entirety under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim for relief and Rule 23.1 for failure to plead demand
futility.
The Defendants' motion raises several issues. As a threshold
matter, the Defendants contend that all of the claims in the
Complaint, which are styled as "direct" claims, are actually
derivative in nature. From this premise, they advance two lines of
argument. First, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff does not
have standing to bring derivative claims on behalf of New Fox
because the Plaintiff was not a stockholder of New Fox at the time
of the challenged stock awards. Second, they argue as an
independent matter that the Plaintiff failed to make a pre-suit
demand on the New Fox Board or to allege facts sufficient to show
that making a demand would have been futile under Delaware law.
The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiff has failed to state
a claim for relief whether the claims are direct or derivative.
The Plaintiff's opposition presents its own array of issues. To
begin, it contends its claims may be brought as direct claims (i)
on the theory that the Murdochs improperly diverted to themselves
assets of Old Fox during the sale process that reduced the
consideration paid to its stockholders in the Transaction and (ii)
because the Defendants violated an "equal treatment" provision in
Old Fox's certificate of incorporation. The Plaintiff also
contends that, even if its claims are derivative, it has standing
to pursue them and the making of a demand would have been futile.
Finally, it contends it has stated an entire fairness claim and,
even if the Court were to apply the business judgment rule, the
Complaint states a claim that the Compensation Committee acted in
bad faith.
Judge Bouchard finds that nothing in the Complaint to support the
notion that the Defendants tainted the sale process or the
negotiations of the Transaction such that they caused anything to
be taken off the table that otherwise would have gone to all of Old
Fox's stockholders. The Plaintiff's claims are derivative in
nature. The Plaintiff has also failed to allege any facts from
which it is reasonably conceivable that the challenged compensation
awards violated the Equal Treatment Clause to entitle it to bring a
direct claim.
For the reasons, the Complaint fails to state a direct claim under
Parnes and its progeny or based on a violation of the Equal
Treatment Clause. Accordingly, the Complaint only alleges
derivative claims. The Judge turns next to consider whether the
Plaintiff has standing to pursue its claims "derivatively on behalf
of New Fox" as it contends.
The Judge finds that the facts do not come close to satisfying the
"mere reorganization exception." To start, the Complaint does not
allege that the New Fox spinoff was a mere reorganization. Nor
could it. After the Transaction closed, New Fox was vastly
different than Old Fox: only a portion of Old Fox's assets were
transferred to New Fox (i.e., its news, sports and broadcast
businesses); New Fox only assumed certain liabilities related to
those assets; and Disney retained everything else, for which it
paid $71.3 billion to combine with its own operations.
Post-closing, moreover, the composition of the New Fox board was
different than the Old Fox board.
In short, the Transaction plainly did not amount to merely the same
corporate structure under a new name. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
does not fall within an exception to the continuous ownership rule
and thus does not have standing to pursue its derivative claims on
behalf of New Fox.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bouchard granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/3iFoJG3 from Leagle.com.
Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J.
Springer, and David M. Sborz, ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC, Wilmington,
Delaware; Brian J. Robbins and Stephen J. Oddo, ROBBINS LLP, San
Diego, California; Steven J. Purcell, Douglas E. Julie, and Robert
H. Lefkowitz, PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP, New York, New York;
Attorneys for Plaintiff Brokerage Jamie Goldenberg Komen Rev Tru
U/A 06/10/08 Jamie L Komen Trustee for the Benefit of Jamie
Goldenberg Komen.
Blake Rohrbacher -- rohrbacher@rlf.com -- Rudolf Koch, and Matthew
W. Murphy, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware;
Sandra C. Goldstein and Stefan Atkinson, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New
York, New York; Attorneys for Defendants James W. Breyer, Roderick
I. Eddington, James R. Murdoch, K. Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan K.
Murdoch, Jacques Nasser, Robert S. Silberman, and Fox Corporation.
FRANK BRUSCO: Rivas Sues Over Maintenance Workers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE RIVAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
FRANK BRUSCO MAINTENANCE, LLC, FRANK BRUSCO, SR., and FRANK BRUSCO,
JR., Case No. 1:20-cv-08135 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York Labor Law, including failure to pay overtime
wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated maintenance workers
appropriate minimum wages, overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, and spread of hours premium for each
work shift that exceeded 10 hours.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
maintenance worker until March 2020.
Frank Brusco Maintenance, LLC, is a maintenance and contract
company that provides maintenance, cleaning, and repair services
for several residential Co-Ops and Brownstones throughout New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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@icpclaw.com
FRIENDS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Son Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
HYE YOUNG SON; JONG CHOUN KIM; and IN SOOK KIM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRIENDS HEALTH CARE
TEAM, INC.; and REBECCA T. CHO, Case No. 1:20-cv-01064 (E.D. Va.,
Sept. 11, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the
Plaintiffs and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as personal care
aides.
Friends Health Care Team, Inc., provides and manages health
education programs that help individuals, Senior Citizens,
families, and their communities maximize and maintain healthy
lifestyles.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
RYU & RYU, PLC
301 Maple Ave. West, Suite 620
Vienna, VA 22180
Telephone: (703) 319-0001
FRONTWAVE CREDIT: Tapia Sues Over Negligent Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Suarez Tapia, individual on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. FRONTWAVE CREDIT UNION, a California
corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-01950-JM-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 2,
2020), arises from the acquisition and use of consumer and
investigative consumer reports by the Defendant to conduct
background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective, current,
and former employees.
The lawsuit seeks statutory, compensatory and punitive damages due
to the Defendant's willful or grossly negligent conduct and its
systematic and willful violation of, inter alia, the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act,
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely obtain and use
information from background reports in connection with their hiring
processes without complying with state and federal mandates for
doing so. As part of this practice, the Defendant provides a
requisite disclosure form to applicants. However, the disclosure
form that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiff and each class
member as part of its hiring process is noncompliant with federal
and state statutes.
The Defendant has also violated the requirements under these
statutes by failing to provide proper "pre-authorization"
disclosures, according to the complaint. The procurement of
background reports for employment purposes is subject to strict
disclosure requirements under federal law pursuant to the FCRA and
under California law pursuant to the ICRAA and CCRAA. Among other
things, an employer may not procure a background report concerning
a job applicant unless a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure is made
in a stand-alone document that "consists solely of the disclosure"
informing the applicant that a report may be obtained for
employment purposes.
The Plaintiff applied for a job with the Defendant in November
2019.
The Defendant is a California Corporation with its principal place
of business located in Oceanside, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George S. Azadian, Esq.
Ani Azadian, Esq.
AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
707 Foothill Blvd., Suite 200
La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011
Phone: (626) 449-4944
Fax: (626) 628-1722
Email: George@azadianlawgroup.com
FUTURE VISION: Montanez Sues in Colorado Over Violation of TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Future Vision Brain
Bank, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Montanez, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Future Vision Brain
Bank, LLC, doing business as: The Green Solution, a Colorado
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02959 (D. Colo., Oct.
1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Green Solution is a vertically integrated cannabis
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
GATEWAY HEALTH: Jones Seeks Proper OT Pay for Care Coordinators
---------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE JONES, THERESE WARD, and FRANCINE DOMINELLI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GATEWAY HEALTH, LLC,
formerly known as GATEWAY HEALTH PLAN, LP, Case No. 20-1482 (W.D.
Pa., Oct. 1, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiffs as exempt under the FLSA and did not pay them overtime
pay when they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks.
Plaintiff Jones worked for the Defendant as a care coordinator from
November 2015 to October 2019. Plaintiff Ward worked for the
Defendant as a care coordinator from June 2017 to September 2018.
Plaintiff Dominelli worked for the Defendant as a care coordinator
from 2015 to January 2018.
Gateway Health, LLC, formerly known as Gateway Health Plan, LP, is
a subsidiary of Highmark Inc., which, together with its health
insurance subsidiaries and affiliates, is among the ten largest
health insurers in the United States and the fourth largest Blue
Cross and Blue Shield-affiliated organization.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
3634 California Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
- and -
Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (281) 572-0727
Facsimile: (281) 572-0728
E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com
- and -
Jack Siegel, Esq.
Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
Telephone: (214) 790-4454
GEKKS INC: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gekks, Inc. The case
is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Gekks, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08139
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gekks manufactures a low cut liner sock for men and women to avoid
foot odour. The Company's product features a sockless liner made by
permanently bonding naturally antimicrobial silver metal to the
surface of nylon fiber.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
GENENTECH INC: Faces Wehner ERISA Suit Alleging Breach of Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Wehner, Individually and as a representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, on behalf of the U.S. ROCHE 401(K)
SAVINGS PLAN v. GENENTECH, INC., the U.S. ROCHE DC FIDUCIARY
COMMITTEE and DOES No. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown,
Case No. 3:20-cv-06894 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought
against the Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Defined contribution plans that are qualified as tax-deferred
vehicles have become the primary form of retirement savings in the
United States and, as a result, America's de facto retirement
system. Unlike traditional defined benefit retirement plans, in
which the employer typically promises a calculable benefit and
assumes the risk with respect to high fees or under performance of
pension plan assets used to fund defined benefits, 401(k) plans
operate in a manner in which participants bear the risk of high
fees and investment underperformance. The importance of defined
contribution plans to the United States retirement system has
become pronounced as employer-provided defined benefit plans have
become increasingly rare as an offered and meaningful employee
benefit.
As of December 31, 2018, the Plan had 33,693 participants with
account balances and assets totaling over $7.6 billion, placing it
in the top 0.1% of defined contribution plans by plan size. Defined
contribution plans with substantial assets, like the Plan, have
significant bargaining power and the ability to demand low-cost
administrative and investment management services within the
marketplace for administration of defined contribution plans and
the investment of defined contribution assets. The marketplace for
defined contribution retirement plan services is well-established
and can be competitive when fiduciaries of defined contribution
retirement plans act in an informed and prudent fashion.
The Defendants maintain the Plan and are responsible for selecting,
monitoring, and retaining the service provider(s) that provide
investment, recordkeeping, and other administrative services. The
Defendants are fiduciaries under ERISA, and, as such, are obligated
to (a) act for the exclusive benefit of participants, (b) ensure
that the investment options offered through the Plan are prudent
and diverse, and (c) ensure that Plan expenses are fair and
reasonable.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan and have: (1) allowed unreasonable
recordkeeping/administrative expenses to be charged to the Plan;
and (2) selected, retained, and/or otherwise ratified high-cost and
poorly-performing investments, instead of offering more prudent
alternative investments when such prudent investments were readily
available at the time that they were chosen for inclusion within
the Plan and throughout the Class Period. To remedy these fiduciary
breaches and other violations of ERISA, the Plaintiff brings this
action under ERISA to recover and obtain all losses resulting from
each breach of fiduciary duty.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Genentech and is a current
participant in the Plan.
Genentech is a Delaware domestic corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California. As a member of the Roche Group, one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, Genentech combines
science, technology, and research to create medicines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq.
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94133
Phone: (415) 429-5272
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com
ktang@sfmslaw.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Phone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
– and –
James C. Shah, Esq.
Michael P. Ols, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com
mols@sfmslaw.com
aberin@sfmslaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Certify Class in Gallagher FLSA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY C. GALLAGHER, and ROBERT WYATT Plaintiff, v.
GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 19-11836 (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Robert H. Cleland of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied without prejudice
the Plaintiffs motion for conditional certification of a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Plaintiffs Gallagher and Wyatt commenced the action against the
Defendant claiming violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs allege
the Defendant failed to pay its nonunion contract employees
overtime wages, and that it did not keep and preserve required
records.
The Defendant is a major automobile manufacturer. The Plaintiffs
are former non-union employees of the Defendant. The Defendant
received the Plaintiffs' services as part of its agreements with
third-party contract houses. The contract houses would pay the
Plaintiffs' salaries, while it would allegedly manage the
Plaintiffs' day-to-day responsibilities. The Defendant controlled
approval for hours recorded on official timesheets, as well as
approval for business expenses.
Plaintiff Gallagher was a component validation engineer for the
Defendant and was employed through its agreement with the contract
house Aerotek. According to the complaint, the Defendant's
managers refused to approve hundreds of hours of overtime in over
two years of work that Gallagher provided the Defendant. He
asserts that he repeatedly informed his supervisors, employees of
the Defendant, that he was working extensive hours without overtime
compensation. The supervisors allegedly stated that Gallagher was
to tabulate his overtime hours in off-record notes so he could
receive compensation time off in lieu of overtime pay; Gallagher
contends that he never received overtime pay or comp time.
Plaintiff Wyatt worked through the contract house TEKsystems as a
business analyst for the Defendant. Wyatt, like Gallagher, alleges
that he worked hundreds of hours of overtime and was not adequately
compensated. His supervisors, employed by Defendant, purportedly
refused to approve entry of overtime hours onto official
timesheets. Wyatt asserts that the supervisors denied him the
ability to leave early in lieu of overtime pay and placed
time-intensive work demands on him. He was allegedly not given
recognition of the hours he was working.
The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of a collective
action. They seek to represent: All persons who are or have been
employed by or worked for General Motors, LLC in the capacity of
non-union contract workers compensated on an hourly basis during
any time from June 20, 2016 forward. General Motors, LLC includes
any predecessor in interest, agent, subsidiary, alter ego, and/or
any other entity operating the subject business or division of the
subject business from June 20, 2016 forward.
If conditional certification is granted, the Plaintiffs request
judicial approval to send two notices of the action to all
individuals who fall within the class.
The Plaintiffs contend they are similarly situated to all non-union
contract hourly workers, across all job types and departments
within Defendant's organization, who have been employed anywhere
around the country, at any time, and for any duration in the past
four years. They assert they and the proposed class have been
subject to the same unlawful overtime policy, although perhaps
effectuated by different means and in different environments.
Alleged violations include (1) preventing contract workers from
recording overtime hours worked, (2) requiring compensatory time in
lieu of overtime pay, (3) refusing to compensate for travel hours
resulting in overtime.
Judge Cleland notes that the Plaintiffs request conditional
certification for a nationwide class of non-union contract workers
but fail to make the required "modest factual showing" that the
proposed class of workers is "similarly situated" under the FLSA.
The degree of fairness and procedural impact of certifying the
action as a collective action does not weigh in favor of
conditional certification. The Plaintiffs seek to represent all
non-union hourly contractors but present evidence of only a narrow
group of contractors and fail to contest numerous affidavits from
the Defendant showing many in the class are not denied overtime
compensation.
The Judge holds that procedural difficulties may abound if the
Court grants certification. Conclusory statements as to how other
contractors are treated, without detail and description and without
diverse or numerous contractor affidavits, does not support the
conclusion that the proposed class is "similarly situated."
For these reasons, Judge Cleland denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and for Judicial Notice.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 26, 2020 Opinion &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/2GBGwkw from Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Boddison Sues Over Defective Infotainment System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Boddison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-02139 (M.D. Fla., September 11, 2020), seeks actual damages,
economic damages, restitution, and/or disgorgement, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
including expert's witness fees and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent omission, unjust
enrichment, negligence and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
General Motors is a manufacturer of automotive vehicles under the
GMC and Chevrolet brands and sells its vehicles across the United
States through a network of over 4,100 dealers, including those in
Florida.
Boddison purchased a new 2019 Chevrolet Colorado on August 28,
2019. He claims that the vehicle's Infotainment System would
inadvertently cause the volume to rapidly increase to the maximum
without user input while the driver is operating the vehicle
causing surprise, disorientation and/or distraction to the driver,
and increases the potential for a collision and injury. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
Keia James Atkinson, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1260
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1333
Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
- and -
Christopher Mat Hittel, Esq.
HITTEL LAW, P.A.
333 Sixth Avenue West
Bradenton, FL 34205
Tel: (941) 746-7777
Fax: (941) 746-1133
Email: service@hittellaw.com
GRANITE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and
FIELDCORE SERVICES SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case 8:20-cv-02129-VMC-JSS (M.D.
Fla., Sept. 10, 2020), seeks to recover back wages, liquidated
damages, attorney fees, costs, and all other remedies available
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as technical advisor.
Granite Services International Inc. provides professional
engineering services. The Company provides service solutions to the
power generation industry including turbine services, equipment
specialization, craft & labor, project management, commissioning,
installations, operations, and maintenance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
P.O. Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
E: Rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
GRIMALDI LLC: Tesoro Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Tesoro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GRIMALDI LLC d/b/a GRIMALDI'S PIZZERIA and JENNIFER
HEANEY, Case No. 2:20-cv-04708 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
seeking to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
As a result of their shift-pay policy, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff at least the statutory minimum wage rate for hours
worked up to forty per workweek, according to the complaint. The
Defendants also failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages at a
rate at least one and one-half times the statutory minimum wage
rate for all hours worked over forty per workweek. Although the
Plaintiff frequently worked in excess of ten hours per day, the
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay on days
when they worked more than ten hours. The Defendants also failed to
provide the Plaintiff with wage notices at their time of hiring and
with accurate wage statements at the end of each pay period.
The Plaintiff is a former bartender at Grimaldi's.
Grimaldi LLC is a New York limited liability company that owns,
operates, and does business as Grimaldi's Pizzeria, an Italian
pizzeria and restaurant located in Garden City, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Galen C. Baynes, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 583-9500
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
baynes@pechmanlaw.com
GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, West Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC., Case 1:20-cv-07365 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 10, 2020), alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http://www.menupages.com/,is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff.
Groupe Seb Holdings Inc. was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of electrical
appliances, television and radio sets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
HALO INNOVATIONS: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HALO INNOVATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08136
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 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.
According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the
Web site at http://www.halosleep.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; and that
denied him the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services
of the Web site. These access barriers on the Defendant's Web site
have allegedly deterred the Plaintiff from learning about those
various baby beddings for purchase and delivery, and enjoying them
equal to sighted individuals.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination, and seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies and practices
so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Halo Innovations, Inc., is a baby bedding 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
Defendant 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
HAMBLEN COUNTY, TN: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Filed in Bail Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE TORRES, et al., on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. W. DOUGLAS
COLLINS, in his official capacity as Hamblen County General
Sessions Judge, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00026-DCLC-CRW (E.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. granting their renewed motion for class certification
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2),
defined as:
"all people who are or will be arrested and charged with
criminal offenses in Hamblen County General Sessions
Court; and who (1) have not been bound over to Hamblen
County Criminal Court; (2) have or will have conditions of
release set by Defendants that include an amount of
monetary bail and/or otherwise require payment of a sum of
money prior to release; (3) are or will be unable to
afford to pay the amount of money required for their
release; and (4) because of nonpayment, are or will be
detained in the Hamblen County Jail";
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and
3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel of record as class
counsel.
On February 16, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the present action
against W. Douglas Collins, Hamblen County General Sessions Judge;
Teresa West, Hamblen County General Sessions Circuit Court Clerk;
Katie West Moore, Nancy Phillips, and Kathy Robertson, Judicial
Commissioners of Hamblen County General Sessions Court; and Esco
Jarnagin, Hamblen County Sheriff, all in their official capacities.
On the same day, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. In their
motion, the Plaintiffs proposed the following class definition:
"All people who are or will be arrested and charged with criminal
offenses and who are or will be detained in the Hamblen County Jail
because of Defendants' bail practices." On August 28, 2020, the
Court issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs Michelle Torres, Robbie Johnson-Loveday, Amanda
Cameron, and Bethany Edmond brought this action under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 alleging that the Defendants maintain bail and
pretrial detention practices that violate the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, as well as the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The
Plaintiffs at the time this action was filed, were being held
pretrial in the Hamblen County Jail solely because they could not
pay for their release.
The Hamblen County General Sessions Court is one of 95 General
Session Courts in Tennessee.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cYAAhc at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tara Mikkilineni, Esq.
CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
1601 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: 202-894-6124
Facsimile: 202-609-8030
E-mail: tara@civilrightscorps.org
- and -
Seth Wayne, Esq.
Jonathan Backer, Esq.
Mary B. McCord, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND
PROTECTION (ICAP)
Georgetown University Law Center
600 New Jersey Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: 202-662-9042
E-mail: sw1098@georgetown.edu
jb2845@georgetown.edu
- and -
George T. Lewis, III, Esq.
Matthew G. White, Esq.
BAKER DONELSON
265 Brookview Centre Way, Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37919
Telephone: 865-549-7000
E-mail: blewis@bakerdonelson.com
mwhite@bakerdonelson.com
HARRIET CARTER: West says Website Inaccessible to Visually-impaired
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary West, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Harriet
Carter Gifts, Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07364 (S.D.
N.Y., September 10, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent
injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such
other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights
Law.
Harriet Carter Gifts is a general products retail company that owns
and operates www.harrietcarter.com. It offers products and services
for online sale and general delivery to the public. Plaintiff is
legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by
the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
HC2 HOLDINGS: Lutin Files Doc to Support FVI's Stockholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit captioned as FAIR VALUE
INVESTMENTS INCORPORATED, on behalf of itself and similarly
situated stockholders, and derivatively on behalf of the Nominal
Defendant, DBM GLOBAL INC. v. JAMES RUSTIN ROACH, MICHAEL R. HILL,
R. RONALD YAGODA, PAUL J. HURLEY, AJ STAHL, KENNETH S. COURTIS,
ROBERT V. LEFFLER, JR., PHILIP A. FALCONE, MICHAEL J. SENA, PAUL K.
VOIGT, and HC2 HOLDINGS COMPANY INC., Defendants, v. DBM GLOBAL
INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2020-0847, Gary Lutin filed with
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware a declaration in
support of the lawsuit.
Gary Lutin is the chairman of Fair Value Investments Incorporated
(FVI), the Plaintiff. He informs the Court that he has reviewed the
Verified Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint to be
filed in this class action and the facts in the Complaint are true
to his personal knowledge.
Fair Value Investments Incorporated is an investment company.
DBM Global Inc. is a construction engineering company based in
Phoenix, Arizona. HC2 Holdings Company Inc. is a diversified
holding company with its principal place of business located in New
York City.[BN]
HIGHPOINT FOOT: Fails to Secure Patient Information, Lipson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN LIPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIGHPOINT FOOT AND ANKLE CENTER, LLC, Case No.
200902024 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Oct. 1, 2020), is
brought against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy,
breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, negligence
per se, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and breach of
physician-patient confidentiality.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to take steps
necessary to secure the personal and confidential information,
including Protected Health Information, of the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated patients from cyberattacks. The private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members that was held on the
Defendant's servers was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to
a data breach. The Defendant and its employees failed to properly
monitor the computer network and systems that housed the private
information. Had Highpoint properly monitored its property, it
would have discovered the intrusion sooner.
As a result of the Defendant's negligence and omissions, the
Plaintiff and Class members suffered ascertainable losses in the
form out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack.
Highpoint Foot and Ankle Center, LLC, is a company that provides
podiatry services, with its principal place of business located at
2000 Market Street, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 42902294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 283-3814
Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
HK KITCHEN: Vera Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay for Kitchen Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abel Vera and Osvaldo Castro Minaya, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HK KITCHEN CORP., Case No.
1:20-cv-08204 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2020), seeks to recover overtime
compensation for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's other kitchen
workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week for the Defendant without receiving the
statutory minimum wage and overtime premium pay equal to one and a
half times the statutory minimum wage for hours worked in excess of
40 in a workweek. The Defendant maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and the Collective/Class to work in excess
of 40 hours per week without providing overtime compensation
required by federal and state laws, and related rules and
regulations.
The Plaintiffs were employed as kitchen workers for the Defendant's
restaurant and were responsible for preparing food, related duties,
and the kitchen and other areas of the Defendant's restaurant.
HK Kitchen Corp. is a domestic business entity duly existing under
the laws of the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 206
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 766-9870
Email: fz@fzapatalaw.com
HONDA MOTOR: Cummings Sues Over Defective Low-Pressure Fuel Pumps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JIM CUMMINGS, DAVID DINKEVICH, AND RICHARD STEIN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY
LIMITED AND AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-13000-BRM-JAD (D.N.J., Sept. 21, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' unfair and deceptive conduct in designing and
manufacturing certain Honda and Acura vehicles with fuel pump
defect that has caused the Plaintiffs damage, including diminished
value of the Class Vehicles.
According to the complaint, the Defendants had manufactured,
marketed and sold the Class Vehicles with defective low-pressure
fuel pumps that cause unpredictable acceleration and engine stalls
and render the Class Vehicles unsafe to operate. Despite admitted
knowledge of the defect, the Defendants acted slowly and
insufficiently to address the scope and scale of the danger posed
by the defect. The Defendants also failed to fully and promptly
disclose the defect and the corresponding dangers to the Plaintiffs
and Class members, and had not repaired or replaced all the
defective systems.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of the proposed Classes
all relief to which they are entitled, including recovery of the
purchase price of their vehicles, compensation for overpayment and
diminution in the value of their vehicles, out-of-pocket and
incidental expenses, and an injunction compelling the Defendants to
replace or recall and fix the Class Vehicles.
Honda Motor Company Limited is a Japanese corporation which
designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Honda and
Acura automobiles in and throughout the United States.
American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Honda Motor Co. responsible for designing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, selling, and servicing Honda and Acura
vehicles throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Christopher Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-1000
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
cayers@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Scott A. George, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-2300
E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRIDY & ANGELO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
HSC SOLUTIONS: Willis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tore Willis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. HSC SOLUTIONS LLC, a California corporation, doing business as
HERBI, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-06878 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 2,
2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the
California Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants violated the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act,
California's Labor Code, and California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 9-2001 by failing: to pay its employees
premium wages for missed meal periods; to pay its employees premium
wages for missed rest periods; to pay its employees minimum wage as
required by California law for every hour worked; to maintain
accurate employment records for its employees in California; and to
pay its employees amounts owed at the end of Employment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former driver for "Herbi" in California.
Defendant Herbi's primary business activity is providing mobile
marijuana delivery service to customers at their homes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony J. Nunes, Esq.
NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: 530-848-1515
Fax: 424-252-4301
Email: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com
INTEL CORP: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on Sept. 16, 2020 filed a class action
lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws against Intel
Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company") and certain of the Company's
current and former senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"),
on behalf of investors in Intel common stock between October 25,
2019 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
BLB&G filed this action on behalf of its client, City of Hallandale
Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement
Trust, and the case is captioned City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Intel
Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-06493 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint is based
on an extensive investigation and a careful evaluation of the
merits of this case. A copy of the complaint is available on
BLB&G's website. This case is related to a previously filed
securities class action pending against Intel captioned Huang v.
Intel Corporation, No. 5:20-cv-05194 (N.D. Cal.).
Intel's Alleged Fraud
Based in Santa Clara, California, Intel designs and manufactures
microprocessors and other semiconductor components that are used in
computers, data centers, communications infrastructure, and other
devices. The claims alleged in this case arise from Defendants'
misrepresentations regarding Intel's development and manufacturing
of a new seven-nanometer chip.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the status of
Intel's production of its new seven-nanometer technology, assuring
investors that the Company was making "good progress" and that its
first seven-nanometer product was "on track" to launch by late
2021. Intel also touted its "in-house manufacturing as an
important advantage" over its competitors. As a result of
Defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Intel common stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
The truth began to emerge on June 11, 2020, when Intel announced
that Jim Keller, whom the Company hired in 2018 to lead its chip
engineering efforts, had abruptly resigned, effective immediately.
The Company also revealed significant leadership changes within its
Technology, Systems Architecture and Client Group -- the group
responsible for engineering and manufacturing Intel's chips. Then,
on July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that
production of its seven-nanometer chips was 12 months behind
schedule. The Company attributed the delay to a "defect" in
Intel's seven-nanometer manufacturing process. Intel also revealed
that, as a result of those production problems, it had established
plans to outsource chip production to third-party manufacturers.
As a result of these disclosures, the price of Intel common stock
declined precipitously.
Pursuant to the July 28, 2020 notice published in connection with
the Huang action, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intel
securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 28,
2020, seek to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. Any
member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi
Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com.
About BLB&G
BLB&G is widely recognized worldwide as a leading law firm advising
institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance,
shareholder rights, and securities litigation. Since its founding
in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence
and integrity and pioneered the use of the litigation process to
achieve precedent-setting governance reforms. Unique among its
peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most
significant securities recoveries in history, recovering over $33
billion on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about
the firm can be found online at www.blbglaw.com.
Contact
Avi Josefson
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
(212) 554-1493
avi@blbglaw.com [GN]
INTEL CORP: Labaton Sucharow Alerts of Expanded Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP disclosed that on September 15, 2020, it filed
a securities class action lawsuit, captioned Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust v. Intel Corporation, No.
5:20-cv-06467 (N.D. Cal.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client,
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 60 Pension Trust ("Local 60").
The Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC)
("Intel" or the "Company") securities during the period from
January 24, 2020 through July 23, 2020, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The claims under the Exchange Act have been
brought against the Company and certain of its executive officers.
The Action expands upon the related and first-filed case captioned:
Huang v. Intel Corp., No. 20-cv-5194 (N.D. Cal.) (the "Huang
Action"). The Huang Action has asserted claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Intel securities between April
23, 2020 and July 23, 2020. Pursuant to the notice published on
July 28, 2020 in connection with the Huang Action, as required by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors
wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff are required to file a motion
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff by no later than September 28,
2020.
Based in Santa Clara, California, Intel is a technology company
that designs and manufactures hardware and software for computing,
networking, data storage, and communications solutions worldwide.
Class Period statements made by the Company and its executives
repeatedly misrepresented the Company's business and financial
condition, particularly the current performance and production
status of its 10-nanometer products and its new generation
7-nanometer process, including that: (i) it was accelerating
production of its 10-nanometer products because of unexpectedly
strong demand; (ii) there was nothing unusual about its declining
gross margin performance other than 10-nanometer demand; and (iii)
the Company remained "on track" with plans it had previously laid
out with respect to its 7-nanometer product and its scheduled
delivery in 2021.
The Action alleges, however, that these statements were false
and/or misleading because they omitted that: (i) Intel's
7-nanometer product scheduled for release in 2021 was not on track
but was, rather, suffering from material production and yield
defects that threatened the 2021 delivery and timing of the product
and the Company's overall product roadmap; (ii) the Company's gross
margins and fiscal 2020 outlook had been adversely impacted and
would continue to be adversely impacted by the continued
acceleration of 10-nanometer production and simultaneous
7-nanometer technology development problems; and (iii) because of
the ongoing process and production defects in the 7-nanometer
products, the Company was considering material changes to its
manufacturing protocols to include third-party foundries -- a
process that Intel had long resisted.
On June 11, 2020, the Company announced the resignation of Senior
Vice President Jim Keller, who was in charge of Intel's chip
development group and had been hired just two years prior. On this
news, the price of Intel stock declined nearly 7%. Then, on July
23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that production
of its 7-nanometer chips would be delayed after the Company had
"identified a defect mode in [its] 7-nanometer process that
resulted in yield degradation." On this news, Intel stock dropped
$9.81 per share, or approximately 16% percent, to close at $50.59
per share on July 24, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Intel securities during the
Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the
"Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California no later than September 28,
2020. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for
absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as
Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in the Action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.
Local 60 is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many
of the largest pension funds in the United States and
internationally with combined assets under management of more than
$2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton Sucharow is available at http://www.labaton.com[GN]
IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES: Paguada Says Website Not Blind-Friendly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dilenia Paguada, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Iovate Health
Sciences U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07390 (S.D. N.Y.,
September 10, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Iovate Health Sciences USA is a weight loss supplement
manufacturing company that owns and operates the website,
www.hydroxycut.com, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services which Iovate ensures the
delivery of throughout the United States, including New York State.
Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
JIO INC: Romero Sues in N.Y. Over Violation of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jio, Inc. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Jio, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08140 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jio, Inc., provides self-learning wearable devices. The Company
operates on a platform of cloud services and mobile applications to
learn routine behavior and locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
KDD RESTAURANT: Sapon Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Sapon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. KDD RESTAURANT GROUP LLC (D/B/A MAKANA), DAVID CHAN,
and DAVID HOM, Case No. 1:20-cv-08238 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2020), is
brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New
York Commissioner of Labor.
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, according to the
complaint. 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. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.
The Defendants also allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
unlawfully appropriating the Plaintiff's and other tipped
employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from the Plaintiff's
and other tipped employees' wages. The Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees
to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the
minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the Defendants'
restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Hawaiian restaurant,
located in the city of New York under the name "Makana."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
LE BATTLE CREEK: Faces Delucenay TCPA Class Suit in W.D. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Le Battle Creek, Inc.
The case is styled as Kristina Delucenay, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Le Battle Creek, Inc.
doing business as: Doja, a Michigan Corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-00957 (W.D. Mich., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Doja is a cannabis dispensary located in the Portage, Michigan
area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ:
LX) between April 30, 2019 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
LexinFintech investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the LexinFintech class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates
by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) the
Company's business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by
prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the
Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating
direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the
Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the
Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Suit Over Refrigerator Cooling Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Choi Moon-hee, writing for BusinessKorea, reports that LG
Electronics has reached an agreement with U.S. consumers who filed
a class-action lawsuit, claiming defects in LG refrigerators.
The New Jersey Federal District Court said that LG Electronics'
North American subsidiary made a pact with the consumers, putting
an end to the class-action suit.
The consumers demanded compensation including repair costs, saying
that they suffered damage due to cooling problems related to
compressors in some models, including LG Electronics' French-door
(three or more doors) and double-door refrigerators manufactured
between January 2014 and December 31, 2017.
LG Electronics maintained that the problems were caused not by
defects in key components. It explained that it reached an
agreement with the consumers to give benefits to them and settle
the consuming dispute.
LG Electronics will pay up to US$3,500 to each of the consumers who
own the models. The number of the products covered by the deal
totals 1.6 million units of 31 models.
In addition to paying the settlement money, LG Electronics has
decided to extend the warranty periods of the products from one
year to five years and further strengthen customer services. [GN]
LIVE WELL: Judge Dismisses Claims in Property Tax Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
class action over allegedly improper payments made by Live Well
Financial, Inc. for borrowers' property taxes has been closed
indefinitely after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York dismissed all claims against the only viable
defendants.
If Live Well emerges from ongoing involuntary bankruptcy
proceedings, and plaintiff Margaret Shakespeare can articulate a
plausible claim against the reverse mortgage lender, the court will
reopen proceedings, Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein said in one of three
related orders issued on Sept. 15.
Each order adopted findings and recommendations made by Magistrate
Judge Anne Y. Shields, without modification, dismissing claims.
[GN]
LIVONGO HEALTH: Kent Slams Sale to Teladoc Health
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Livongo Health, Inc., Glen Tullman, Zane
Burke, Chris Bischoff, Karen L. Daniel, Sandra Fenwick, Philip D.
Green, Hemant Taneja, Teladoc Health, Inc. and Tempranillo Merger
Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01213 (D. Del. September 10,
2020), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Livongo Health, Inc. by Teladoc Health, Inc. and
Tempranillo Merger Sub Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the
merger, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Livongo's
stockholders will receive 0.5920 shares of Parent common stock and
$4.24 in cash for each share of Livongo common stock they own.
The complaint asserts that the solicitation statement with respect
to the proposed transaction fails to disclose all line items used
to calculate EBIT and unlevered free cash flow and a reconciliation
of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics and omitted the analyses performed
by Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.
Livongo has created a unified platform that provides
cellular-connected devices, supplies, informed coaching, data
science-enabled insights and facilitates access to medications
across multiple chronic conditions for its members. It currently
offers Livongo for Diabetes, Livongo for Hypertension, Livongo for
Prediabetes and Weight Management, and Livongo for Behavioral
Health.
Kent owns Livongo common units. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS: Faces $180MM Suit Over Pandemic Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Grant, writing for CBC News, reports that a Canmore vacation
rental business is suing its insurance company for "wrongfully
refusing" coverage for pandemic-related losses as part of a
proposed $180-million, class-action lawsuit.
The representative plaintiff, Wataga Properties, a property
management firm with a head office in Calgary, claims Lloyd's
Underwriters is in breach of the policy.
"These businesses purchased insurance to provide coverage from
unforeseen circumstances just like the COVID-19 pandemic. They
should be able to rely on this insurance when a disaster strikes,"
said lawyer Mathew Farrell.
The statement of claim was filed at the Calgary Courts Centre. A
statement of defence has not yet been filed. None of the
allegations have been proven in court.
The Guardian Law Group says Wataga is thus far the only company
involved in the suit but expects other businesses to come forward.
'Peace of mind'
The policy "was intended to provide peace of mind to property
owners," the claim argues.
COVID-19 and the resulting orders closing borders, businesses and
restricting travel, have significantly impacted Wagata's rental
business, particularly between March and May, according to the
court document.
Wataga, which has five properties in and around Canmore, has asked
for payout of its rental income coverage but says Lloyd's has
refused.
The business was insured under Lloyd's "all risks" commercial
insurance policy, which provided coverage for business interruption
loss or loss of rental income.
The claim argues the insurance policy contains nothing which
excludes coverage for pandemic-related losses.
Claim doesn't fall under 'direct physical loss or damage,' says
Lloyd's
In July, Wataga received correspondence from Lloyd's advising the
company's claim "must arise out of an order of civil authority
which prohibits access to the insured property due to direct
physical loss or damage."
But Wataga's lawyer argues the pandemic is physical because of the
virus's ability to spread in physical ways.
"Just because you can't see it doesn't make it less real or less
physical," said Farrell.
Wataga and other potential class members understood Lloyd's would
protect them from lost rental income "due to fortuitous or
unforeseen events that were beyond their control," reads the
lawsuit.
The suit must still be certified as a class action and Wataga must
be approved as representative plaintiff. [GN]
LUCKIN COFFEE: Pension Funds to Serve as Co-Lead Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Institutional Investor reports that Sjunde AP-Fonden (AP7), a fund
in Sweden's premium pension system, and Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension
& Relief Fund have been appointed by the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York to serve as co-lead plaintiffs in
the pending securities class action alleging that Luckin Coffee
Inc. fabricated hundreds of millions of dollars of sales. AP7 is
represented by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, co-lead counsel
in the class action.
The class action against Luckin Coffee involves one of the largest
cases of securities fraud involving a Chinese company trading on
U.S. stock markets. In late January 2020, noted short-seller Muddy
Waters Research published an 89-page report alleging that Luckin
had fabricated certain financial figures in 2019. The report was
based on the review of more than 11,000 hours of store video, more
than 25,000 customer receipts, and the Company's mobile application
data, and alleges that Luckin Coffee inflated per-store, per-day
sales figures, net selling price per-item metrics, its advertising
expenses, and certain revenue metrics.
Luckin Coffee dismissed the Muddy Waters report as containing
"misleading and false allegations." However, on April 2, 2020, the
coffeehouse chain admitted that an internal investigation had
preliminarily determined that Jian Liu, the Company's Chief
Operating Officer, and several employees reporting to him, had
fabricated approximately RMB2.2 billion (more than $300 million) in
sales during Q2, Q3, and Q4 2019 -- accounting for nearly half of
Luckin's revenues during that time period. After trading above $50
per share in mid-January 2020, Luckin Coffee stock now trades below
$4 per share. Before the truth emerged, Luckin raised more than $1
billion from investors when it completed its IPO in 2019, and a
secondary public offering in January 2020. The offerings were
underwritten by several notable banks including, Credit Suisse and
Morgan Stanley.
Scramble to be lead plaintiff
The allegations and Luckin's admissions have triggered significant
interest from the financial press as well as investors seeking to
lead the class action lawsuit in the U.S. Following Luckin Coffee's
spectacular collapse in April 2020, 18 movants filed motions
seeking to lead the action -- no other case filed this year has
resulted in more leadership applications. The movants claimed
losses ranging from $19 million to $5,000, with AP7 and Louisiana
Sheriffs claiming a combined loss of nearly $7 million, third among
the movants. While the movant asserting the largest loss is
typically appointed as the lead plaintiff, AP7's investigation
uncovered serious concerns with the two movants asserting larger
losses. In addition to flagging these concerns, AP7 successfully
fended off challenges to its own appointment.
Specifically, competing movants argued that: (1) AP7, as a non-U.S.
asset manager, lacked standing under Article III of the U.S.
Constitution to assert claims in connection with purchases by its
equity fund, and (2) AP7 was an atypical lead plaintiff because
AP7's status as a Swedish pension fund posed a res judicata risk
that Swedish courts would not recognize any judgment issued by U.S.
courts in this case.
The plot thickens
While AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs did not assert the largest losses
of the movants before the court, their investigation of the two
competing movants asserting larger losses -- the Chesi Group2 and
the Luckin Investor Group3 -- uncovered serious deficiencies
calling into question their ability to effectively represent the
class. Appointing an unqualified lead plaintiff potentially
jeopardizes all class members' claims as a court could deny class
certification (and potentially terminating all claims) if the lead
plaintiff is deemed to be inadequate. Honesty, trustworthiness, and
the ability to actively lead a case are a few of the many criteria
used by courts to assess adequacy.
As an initial matter, AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs determined that a
key member of the Chesi Group -- which claimed to have suffered the
largest losses -- had previous pled guilty to securities fraud
violations in Malaysia. After AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs's raised
their concerns about allowing an admitted fraudster to represent
the class, the court requested additional information from the
Chesi Group regarding the guilty plea. Rather than provide the
documentation, the Chesi Group withdrew its motion.
AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs also raised concerns about the ability
of the five unrelated investors comprising the Luckin Investor
Group to adequately oversee counsel and zealously represent the
class. Indeed, unlike AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs, the Luckin
Investor Group consisted of individual investors that had no
experience litigating federal securities claims and who had failed
to provide any evidence establishing protocols for the management
of the litigation. AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs further noted that
the Luckin Investor Group's willingness to support the appointment
of the Chesi Group (rather than oppose the Chesi Group's motion)
demonstrated inadequate representation.
Given these facts, AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs argued that they were
the movant that asserted the largest financial interest in the
litigation and satisfied the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act's (PSLRA) adequacy and typicality.
The court's opinion
In appointing AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs as lead plaintiff, the
court rejected the standing and res judicata challenges lodged
against AP7 and concluded that AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs had
satisfied the PSLRA's largest financial interest, adequacy, and
typicality requirements. Rejecting arguments challenging AP7's
standing, the court specifically noted AP7's recent appointments in
Ocwen, Goldman Sachs, and General Electric, where courts concluded
that concerns about AP7's standing were not grounded in evidence.
Critically, the court echoed the determination in Goldman Sachs
that the movant "opposing AP7's appointment had not identified a
single case in which AP7's standing was successfully challenged by
defendants, and concluded that competing movants had not presented
proof that AP7 lacked standing.
Similarly, the court determined that it did not find the res
judicata argument persuasive. Specifically, the Hon. Lewis J. Liman
explained that res judicata concerns "are not an issue with respect
to the selection of Lead Plaintiffs, since those persons will
clearly be bound by the judgment of the court," and acknowledged
that "courts routinely appoint foreign investors as lead
plaintiffs" and that "foreign lead plaintiffs have been responsible
for many large securities class actions."
Furthermore, the court shared AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs's concerns
that the Luckin Investor Group would not adequately represent the
class. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that the Luckin
Investor Group was "a random assemblage" that "does not provide
evidence that any member of the group -- much less the group as a
whole -- has had significant involvement in the litigation thus
far," that "the group members provide no plan for communicating
with one another across time zones" given that its members were
located in Georgia, Toronto, England, Saudi Arabia, and China, and
that "there is every reason to believe that the members agreed to
be assembled by counsel and to ratify counsel's representation of
them – rather than that they gathered together and engaged in a
truly independent selection of counsel."
In contrast, the court concluded that AP7 and Louisiana Sheriffs
"are institutional plaintiffs who have acted as fiduciaries and who
have combined assets under management of $64 billion along with
track records of successfully serving in lead plaintiff groups
under the PSLRA," that "their combined experience and resources
give some confidence that the group members will have the knowledge
and background to appropriately supervise counsel and protect
against lawyer-driven litigation," and that "both members and their
selected counsel bring benefits of longstanding lawyer-client
relationships, which include, inter alia, trust, effective
communication, and cost-effectiveness."
Luckin Coffee adds to the growing body of case law recognizing that
non-U.S. asset managers, such as AP7, are appropriate lead
plaintiff representatives in securities class actions. Moreover,
the case also illustrates the need for lead plaintiff movants to
actively vet competing movants to ensure that their and the class's
claims will not be jeopardized by the appointment of an unqualified
movant. [GN]
LYFT INC: Keiner Seeks to Certify Class in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit re: Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Lead Plaintiff Rick Keiner will
move the Court on December 17, 2020, for an order:
1. certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)
comprised of:
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Lyft issued and traceable to
the IPO Registration Statement."
Excluded from the Class are defendants and their families,
the officers, directors and affiliates of defendants, at
all relevant times, members of their immediate families
and their legal representatives, heir, successors or
assigns, any entity in which defendants have or had a
controlling interest and any entity that underwrote the
Lyft IPO including any officer, director or affiliate of
any Lyft IPO underwriter.;
2. appointing himself as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Block & Leviton LLP as Class Counsel pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
This action charges that Lyft's IPO Registration Statement
contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to
disclose material facts required to be stated therein. Lyft sold
32.5 million shares of common stock to public investors at $72 per
share, for total proceeds of $2.34 billion. The IPO was declared
effective by the SEC on March 28, 2019 and Lyft's shares were sold
to investors that day and began to trade on the NASDAQ stock
exchange.
Lyft develops, markets, and operates a mobile app, offering
vehicles for hire, motorized scooters, a bicycle-sharing system,
and food delivery.
A copy of the the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ldE0Q9 at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Rick Keiner and the Class are:
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
jake@blockleviton.com
- and -
Whitney E. Street, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 968-1852
E-mail: whitney@blockleviton.com
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Luczak Seeks to Certify Suit as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS W. LUCZAK, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL
BEVERAGE CORP., NICK A. CAPORELLA, and GEORGE R. BRACKEN, Case No.
0:18-cv-61631-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. certifying this securities litigation as a class action of
behalf of:
"all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired common shares of National Beverage Corp. between
May 4, 2017 and June 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the
Class Period)";
2. appointing him as Class Representative;
3. appointing Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, LLC as Co-
Class Counsel; and
4. appointing Hedin Hall LLP as Liaison Counsel.
This case arises from Plaintiff's allegations that Defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The Plaintiff contends that in May and June 2017, the Defendants
made false and misleading statements about two dubious sales
metrics that were held out to investors as "exclusive" and
"proprietary": Velocity Per Outlet" ("VPO") and "Velocity Per
Capita" ("VPC") (Velocity Metrics). According to the Plaintiff, the
Defendants represented that retailers were "amazed" by National
Beverage's use of "two proprietary techniques to magnify" the
Velocity Metrics to "create growth never before thought possible."
These representations were false because the Company's "proprietary
techniques" to interpret the Velocity Metrics lacked a verifiable
basis and were not important metrics used to grow sales, the
Plaintiff alleges.
National Beverage sells flavored beverages, including LaCroix
sparkling water and other carbonated soft drinks.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33xTCbr at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
- and -
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
Jared M. Schneider, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 S. LaSalle St., Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
jschneider@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
1200 Ashwood Pkwy., Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
NEILMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neilmed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz, On
Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v.
Neilmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08186 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 1, 2020).
The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
NeilMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., manufactures and supplies saline
nasal irrigation systems. The Company offers products such as nasal
and ear care, first aid, sterile saline and nasal decongestant
spray, dry noses, and other devices and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
NESTLE USA: Carter Slams Mislabeling on Vanilla-Flavored Creamer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nestle USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-07498 (S.D. N.Y., September 13, 2020), seeks injunctive
relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of
contract and for violation of the Consumer Protection from
Deceptive acts of New York business laws.
Nestle USA manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
vanilla dairy creamer under its "Coffee Mate Natural Bliss" brand.
Carter disputes Nestle's claim that their creamers are flavored
only with vanilla. He says the creamers contain non-vanilla flavors
which imitate and extend vanilla but are not derived from the
vanilla bean. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck, NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
NEW YORK: Faces Nemni Class Suit vs. OCFS in N.Y. Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SHEILA J. POOLE. The
case is styled as Chana Nemni, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, FOR JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 OF
THE NEW YORK CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. POOLE, SHEILA J., IN HER CAPACITY AS
COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES; MICHAEL P. HEIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE
OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE; AND STEVEN BANKS, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES
ADMINISTRATION, Case No. 158126/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty.,
Oct. 2, 2020).
The case type is stated as "E-ARTICLE 78."
Sheila J. Poole is Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office
of Children and Family Services (OCFS).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yisroel Schulman, Esq.
570 Lexington Avenue, 23rd Fl.
New York, NY 10022
The Defendants are represented by:
NY STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty St.
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 416-8000
- and -
CORPORATION COUNSEL
100 Church St., Rm. 4-313
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 788-0303
NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA,
NKLAW), f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: VTIQ, VTIQW,
VTIQU), between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Nikola investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Nikola class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding
its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house"
design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola
overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result,
Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel;
(5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a
misleading "test" video of the Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the
work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including
Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not
have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were
disclosed by a market research firm.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ONE IF BY LAND: Bid to Certify Class in Orellana Suit Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAIRON ORELLANA, et al. v.
ONE IF BY LAND RESTAURANT LLC, and DAVID GHATANFARD, Case No.
1:18-cv-07865-VSB-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick
entered an order:
1. denying the Defendant Ghatanfard's motion for summary
judgment;
2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class;
3. directing the Plaintiffs to distribute an opt-out
notice form to class members. However, the Plaintiffs
are directed to change the class definition in the
notice to the following:
"all non-exempt tipped employees employed by One If By
Land Restaurant LLC located at 17 Barrow Street, New York,
New York 10014 at any time between January 1, 2015 and the
present.";
4. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment;
5. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment on the issues of whether
Defendant Ghatanfard is/was Plaintiffs' employer,
Defendants' joint and severally liability, and the statute
of limitations;
6. granting the Plaintiffs' motion with respect to the
Defendants' liability for the Plaintiffs' minimum wage and
overtime claims, New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act
claims, spread-of-hours premium claims, and the issue of
liquidated damages. The application of these liability
findings as to Defendant Ghatanfard is contingent on
Plaintiffs' proving at trial that Ghatanfard is/was
Plaintiffs' employer within the meaning of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.; and
7. directing the parties to meet and confer, and file a joint
status update within 30 days, informing the court of the
following:
-- whether the parties will consent to proceed in front of
the magistrate judge to determine any outstanding
issues;
-- whether the parties are willing to conduct a settlement
conference in front of the magistrate judge; and
-- whether to the extent a trial is necessary, the parties
will consent to a bench trial.
The Court said the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing
willfulness. The Plaintiffs adduced insufficient evidence regarding
the defendants' state of mind, so as to establish that the
defendants knew their conduct was prohibited by the FLSA, or that
they consciously disregarded the risk that it was prohibited. The
Plaintiffs argue that, as a matter of law, failing to consult an
attorney regarding proper wage and hour compliance when one does
not know the requirements of a tip credit or spread of hours pay
constitutes willfulness.
Judge Broderick disagreed, saying there is insufficient evidence
beyond the violations themselves for the Plaintiffs to meet their
burden on summary judgment. Judge Broderick held that a genuine
dispute of material fact remains as to this issue that will need to
be resolved prior to concluding whether a two or three-year statute
of limitations applies to Plaintiffs' FLSA claims. Accordingly,
although there is not clear evidence that the putative class is at
least 40 members large, the putative class is not so small as to
fail the numerosity factor.
Judge Broderick also held that, looking at the payroll records
involved in this case, it is clear that a collective action would
be more practicable and cost-effective than having each individual
plaintiff bring suit, since the individual damages sustained by the
putative class members appear to be small and it would be
impractical for any one class member to bring a standalone suit.
Therefore, Judge Broderick found that the numerosity factor is
satisfied. The putative class members all worked as non-exempt
tipped employees at the same restaurant, over a similar period of
time, and worked in similar capacities as servers, bussers, food
runners, sommeliers, and bartenders. Therefore, Judge Broderick
said the Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy
the commonality requirement.
The Plaintiffs filed the Class and Collective Action Complaint on
August 28, 2018. The Defendants filed their Answer on October 26,
2018. After various discovery-related disputes, on December 16,
2019, the Defendant Ghatanfard filed a motion for summary judgment,
which Judge Broderick denied without prejudice on January 28, 2020,
for failure to comply with the local rules. On December 16, 2019,
the Plaintiffs filed the motion to certify a class, supported by a
memorandum of law and a declaration.
A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2GiOgYR at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 W 24th St 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: 212-465-1180
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal Sanford Comer, Esq.
NEAL S. COMER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
OXY USA: App. Court Upholds Class Certification in Cooper Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COOPER CLARK FOUNDATION, On Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Appellees, v. OXY USA INC., Appellant,
Case No. 120,371 (Kan. App.), the Court of Appeals of Kansas
affirmed the district court's decision to certify Cooper's
class-action lawsuit.
Cooper sued on behalf of Kansas landowners with leases allowing Oxy
USA to extract natural gas from their property in exchange for a
monthly payment. Cooper alleges that Oxy underpaid landowners for
several years by subtracting processing expenses from payments in
violation of Oxy's duties under the leases. The case involves a
class-action lawsuit about natural-gas leases. Cooper represents
190 Kansas gas wells owned and operated by Oxy until 2014. Oxy
produced gas from Class Wells under 245 leases. The leases covered
wells in the Hugoton Field, which stretches from southwest Kansas
down through the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas.
On Feb. 16, 2017, Cooper filed a class-action petition alleging
that Oxy had underpaid royalties on Class Gas from July 1, 2007, to
April 30, 2014. Oxy did so, the petition claimed, by deducting
several processing expenses from royalties. Cooper said that those
deductions violated Oxy's duties under Class Leases and entitled
class members to recovery of unpaid royalties.
Cooper sought to recover expenses from four deductions. First,
Cooper alleged that Oxy deducted processing fees charged by Amoco
for Residue Gas. Second, Cooper claimed that Oxy didn't pay
royalty on the full volume of NGLs and Crude Helium recovered from
Class Wells. In other words, Cooper said that Oxy didn't pay any
royalty on the 25% NGLs and 50% Crude Helium retained by Amoco.
Third, Cooper said Oxy paid royalty for Residue Gas on the Index
Price rather than on the price Occidental Energy received from
third parties when it resold the Gas. According to Cooper,
Occidental Energy's resale price was usually higher than the Index
Price.
Last, Cooper sought to recover interest on Conservation Fees
deducted from royalty. Oxy pays Conservation Fees to the Kansas
Corporation Commission and had been deducting them from royalty.
It repaid those Conservation Fees to class members after our
Supreme Court held that gas companies couldn't deduct them from
royalty. But Oxy paid no interest on the repaid Conservation Fees.
Cooper said that Oxy should have to pay interest on repaid
Conservation Fees.
When Cooper moved to certify these claims as a class action, Oxy
objected. And Oxy moved to strike the testimony of Cooper's expert
witness. Cooper filed a reply brief supporting its certification
motion and moved for partial summary judgment on several issues Oxy
raises in this appeal. Oxy hadn't responded to Cooper's
summary-judgment motion before the district court certified the
class, so the district court hasn't yet ruled on it and that motion
is not before the Court on appeal.
In a 24-page order, the district court granted Cooper's motion and
certified the class. Oxy appealed the district court's
certification decision to the Court. On appeal, it raises four
issues with the district court's certification decision.
First, Oxy argues that the district court misapplied a legal
doctrine underpinning many of Cooper's claims: the
marketable-condition rule. Oxy says the court misread a case
applying that rule, Fawcett v. Oil Producers, Inc. of Kansas. It
contends that, under Fawcett, the class cannot be certified because
the district court can't decide whether gas was marketable without
evaluating gas quality from individual wells.
Judge Leben holds that Oxy misreads Fawcett and ignores the way in
which Cooper has defined the proposed class. Under Cooper's class
definition, the only gas included is gas bound for the interstate
market. So even if some small amount of gas could be used at the
wellhead to run equipment or at a nearby farmhouse to provide heat,
that wouldn't affect the marketability of the gas headed to the
interstate market. And only that gas is included in Cooper's
class.
Second, Oxy challenges the district court's commonality finding. A
district court can't certify a class without finding commonality,
meaning that all the class members' claims depend on a common
contention that's capable of resolution classwide. Oxy says
several aspects of Cooper's claims present individual questions
that should have precluded a commonality finding. But Cooper
supplied ample evidence for the district court to find that the
class petition raised several common questions, so the district
court was right to reject Cooper's contrary claims.
Third, Oxy attacks the district court's predominance finding.
Cooper certified the class under K.S.A. 60-223(b)(3), so the
district court had to find that questions common to all class
members predominated over those affecting only individual members.
Oxy says that its statute-of-limitations defense presents
individual questions that predominate because the district court
will have to consider whether each class member has an excuse for
failing to timely file their claims. But Oxy's defense can be
litigated classwide; and even if it could not, the individual
questions that defense might pose would not predominate. So the
district court didn't abuse its discretion in finding
predominance.
Last, Oxy claims that the district court failed to rigorously
analyze the statutory requirements for class certification. Oxy
points out that, before certifying the class, the district court
didn't expressly rule on Oxy's motion to strike Cooper's expert
testimony. Oxy says the failure to do so violated a requirement
that the district court rigorously analyze the statutory
requirements for class certification. Yet nothing in the substance
of Oxy's motion would have precluded certification. And even if
the district court should have ruled on Oxy's motion before
certifying the class, the court implicitly did so with detailed
findings rejecting the substance of Oxy's motion. On Oxy's last
argument, like the other three, the Judge finds no error in the
district court's decision to certify Cooper's class action.
In short, the district court conducted a rigorous analysis when it
certified Cooper's class action. The court issued more than 20
pages of findings and showed that it had thoughtfully considered
the parties' arguments. The court did not have to oversee a
mini-trial on the battle-of-the-experts at this stage; it merely
had to determine that Cooper presented enough evidence to satisfy
the class-action requirements. Because the court did so, it did
not abuse its discretion.
For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed the district
court's judgment.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's June 26, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/3d7t5Vu from Leagle.com.
Mark C. Rodriguez -- mrodriguez@velaw.com -- and Deborah C. Milner,
of Vinson & Elkins LLP, of Houston, Texas, and James M. Armstrong
-- jarmstrong@foulston.com -- and Mikel L. Stout --
mstout@foulston.com -- of Foulston Siefkin LLP, of Wichita, for
appellant.
Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Barbara C. Frankland --
bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- Ryan C. Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- and Scott B. Goodger --
sgoodger@midwest-law.com -- of Sharp Law LLP, of Prairie Village,
for appellees.
PERRIGO COMPANY: Court Certifies Class in Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit re: PERRIGO COMPANY PLC SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No.1:19-cv-00070-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Denise L. Cote entered an order:
1. granting lead plaintiffs' motion for class certification
of:
"all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded common stock of Perrigo Company
plc in the United States, from November 8, 2018 to
December 20, 2018, inclusive, and who were damaged
thereby."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the officers and
directors of Perrigo at all relevant times, members of
their immediate families, and their legal representatives,
heirs, agents, affiliates, successors or assigns, the
Defendants' liability insurance carriers, and any
affiliates or subsidiaries thereof, and any entity in
which the Defendants or their immediate families have or
had a controlling interest.;
2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs City of Boca Raton General
Employees' Pension Plan and Palm Bay Police and
Firefighters' Pension Fund as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing Saxena White, P.A. as Class Counsel.
The City of Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan is a
single-employer defined benefit plan administered by an eight
member Board of Trustees which covers regular full-time City of
Boca Raton, Florida employees except police officers, firefighters,
and executive management employees.
Perrigo is an Irish-registered manufacturer of private label
over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, and while 70% of Perrigo's net
sales are from the U.S. healthcare system, Perrigo is legally
headquartered in Ireland for tax purposes, which accounts for 0.60%
of net sales.
A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3cSPENm at no extra charge.[CC]
POINT PARK UNIVERSITY: Figueroa Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against POINT PARK
UNIVERSITY. The case is styled as Raphael Figueroa, Kahlil Cabble,
Ty'Anthony Scott, Ryan Petty, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. POINT PARK UNIVERSITY, Case No.
2:20-cv-01484-AJS (W.D. Pa., Oct. 1, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Point Park University is a private university in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. Formerly known as Point Park College, the school name
was revised in 2004 to reflect the number of graduate programs
being offered.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
PORTLAND GENERAL: Cannataro Hits Share Drop Over Losses
-------------------------------------------------------
Pamela T. Cannataro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Portland General Electric
Company, Maria M. Pope and James F. Lobdell, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-01583, (D. Or., September 11, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Portland General Electric Company is a vertically-integrated
electric utility engaged in the generation, transmission,
distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of
Oregon. It participates in wholesale markets by purchasing and
selling electricity and natural gas.
Portland General Electric Company allegedly failed to disclose that
it downplayed risks with its trading activity in wholesale
electricity markets resulting in at least $127 million of realized
and unrealized losses, cutting its per-share guidance. It had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting, says the complaint.
As of August 24, 2020, Portland General experienced realized losses
of $104 million and unrealized, mark-to-market losses of $23
million. On this news, shares of Portland General Electric fell
$4.80, or 11%, over the next two trading days, to close at $37.16
per share on August 26, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume,
damaging investors. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10116
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
- and -
Britta E. Warren, Esq.
Matthew D. Colley, Esq.
Michael B. Merchant, Esq.
BLACK HELTERLINE LLP
805 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97205
Tel: (503) 224-5560
Fax: (503) 224-6148
Email: britta.warren@bhlaw.com
matthew.colley@bhlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Buffington Sues Over Vehicle Insurance Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BUFFINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION; and PROGRESSIVE
ADVANCED INSURANCE CO., Case No. 7:20-cv-07408-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Sept.
10, 2020), arises out of the Defendants' systematic underpayment of
certain mandatory taxes, costs and fees incurred by the Plaintiff
and putative Class members related to comprehensive and collision
automobile insurance coverage.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' comprehensive and
collision automobile coverage promises, upon the occurrence of a
total-loss of an insured's vehicle, the payment of "Actual Cash
Value" or "ACV." ACV is the cash amount to replace the vehicle, as
well as mandatory taxes, costs and fees. Such payments are required
by applicable New York law and Defendants' insurance policies
issued to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, defined herein.
The Defendants, however, refuse to pay full ACV mandatory taxes,
costs, and fees ("Replacement Costs") to first-party total-loss
insureds on physical-damage policies containing comprehensive and
collision coverages, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Progressive Corporation is an American insurance company, one
of the largest providers of car insurance in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
29 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10006-3205
Telephone: (212) 952-0014
E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
-and -
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com
- and -
Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
VOZZOLO LLC
345 Route 17 South
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
Telephone: (201) 630-8820
Facsimile: (201) 604-8400
E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com
QUISQUEYA RESTAURANT: Marine Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MARINE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. QUISQUEYA RESTAURANT I INC. (D/B/A QUISQUEYA
RESTAURANT), JOSE DANIEL GOMEZ, EDUARDO GOMEZ, MARIA GRIMALDI
RAMOS, and RAFAEL DOE, Case No, 1:20-cv-04671 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1,
2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York
Labor Law.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff the applicable minimum and overtime wages, failed to pay
one additional hour's pay at the basic minimum wage rate before
allowances for each day the Plaintiff's spread of hours exceeded
ten hours, failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours,
and failed to provide an accurate wage statement. The Defendants
also required the Plaintiff to pay, without reimbursement, the
costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and
"tools of the trade" required to perform his job, further reducing
his wages in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Quisqueya
Restaurant from July 6, 2016, until January 7, 2018, as a food
preparer, dishwasher, porter, and delivery worker.
Quisqueya Restaurant I Inc. owns, operates, or controls a Dominican
restaurant under the name "Quisqueya Restaurant" in New York
City.[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
RADIUS GLOBAL: Faces Rodriguez FDCPA Class Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Radius Global Solutions LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Shellee Rodriguez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions
LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 4:20-cv-03400 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 1,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Radius Global Solutions is a provider of account recovery and debt
collection, customer relationship management and healthcare revenue
cycle management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
RICHMOND UNIVERSITY: Rosiello Sues Over Employment Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Rosiello, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. RICHMOND UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, and KATHY
GIOVINAZZO, Individually and professionally, Case No. 1:20-cv-04746
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2020), is brought to redress the Defendants'
violation of the Plaintiff's workplace rights and to seek relief
for employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law,
and Administrative Code of City of New York.
According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of knowingly and willfully isolating the Plaintiff from
the essential training, benefits and opportunities afforded to her
colleagues, based on Ms. Rosiello sex, gender, and age, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New York
City and State Human Rights laws. The Defendants maintained a
policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff to endure a work
environment where she was subjected to a different set of rules,
and disciplinary practices than that of her younger male colleagues
on the basis of her sex, age and gender in violation of federal,
state and city laws and regulations.
Ms. Rosiello is a former employee of the Defendants, who was
employed as a CT and X-ray scan Technician.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a medical center, located
in Staten Island, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyrone A. Blackburn, Esq.
1242 E. 80th Street, 3rd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11236
Phone: (347) 342-7432
RLI GROUP: Guzman Sues Over Personal Data Access on Web
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Guzman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RLI Corp., RLI Insurance Company and Does 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08318 (C.D. Cal., September
10, 2020), seeks injunctive relief resulting from invasion of
privacy and for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
Stored Communications Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act
and the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018.
Libre by Nexus assists immigrants located throughout the country to
obtain release from detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. RLI is one of the few insurance companies that is
qualified to serve as federal sureties and that agreed to accept
Libre's financial guarantees.
Guzman entered the United States from Honduras in 1996. He was
arrested in 2011 for a minor traffic infraction and placed in the
federal detention facility in Adelanto, California and was required
to secure a $40,000.00 release bond in order to be released from
detention. Guzman remained in custody from 2011 until 2014 when he
secured a release bond in 2014 with the assistance of Libre by
Nexus.
RLI allegedly gained access to Guzman's personal and confidential
information when it obtained the login credentials to Libre's
computer systems. The complaint asserts that RLI gave anyone with
Internet access the ability to access Program Participants'
personal and confidential information by disclosing on PACER the
login credentials to Libre's computer systems.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Max B. Roesch, Esq.
LINDSAY LAW FIRM, PC
110 E Diamond Street
Butler, PA 16001
Phone: (724) 282-6600
Email: max@lindsaylawfirm.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL: Webster Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Webster, Roy Todd, Albert A. Mendoza, Nadine Gruneich, and
David Martin, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals v. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Case No.
2:20-at-00973 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 2, 2020), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime
and other compensation, interest, liquidated damages, costs of
suit, and reasonable attorney fees.
The Defendant suffered or permitted the Plaintiffs to work hours
beyond statutory thresholds for overtime compensation required by
the FLSA, according to the complaint. The Defendant impermissibly
excluded certain remunerations or undervalued the "regular rate" of
pay, upon which all forms of Plaintiffs' overtime compensation are
based. The Defendant also failed to include monetary compensation
paid to the Plaintiffs in lieu of the Defendant-provided health
insurance in the "regular rate" used to calculate overtime
compensation.
The Plaintiffs are employed by the Defendant.
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is a
community-owned electric utility serving Sacramento County and
parts of Placer County, and employed the Plaintiffs.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Mastagni, Esq.
Tashayla D. Billington, Esq.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
A Professional Corporation
1912 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Phone: (916) 446-4692
Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
Email: davidm@mastagni.com
tbillington@mastagni.com
SAINT JOHN: WorksafeNB Decision May Impact Water Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connell Smith, writing for CBC News, reports that WorksafeNB has
made clear that lawyers from outside the Atlantic bubble cannot
enter courthouses in New Brunswick without first self-isolating for
14 days.
The decision could have an impact on how a class-action lawsuit
filed by west Saint John residents is conducted.
The defendant in the case, the City of Saint John, has enlisted
Toronto lawyers Glenn Zakaib and David Elman as counsel.
The case involves west side residents affected by pipe failures and
water quality issues allegedly caused by a new municipal water
supply.
Zakaib and Elman had hoped to attend an important three-day court
hearing in person.
The two sides have filed competing motions for summary judgment
that could lead to a decision the case will not be allowed to
proceed.
But Justice Thomas Christie adjourned the hearing after concerns
about attendance were raised by both sides.
Rod Gillis, who represents west side residents, told Christie he is
not comfortable being in the same courtroom with lawyers from
Toronto where a large number of COVID 19 cases are still active
there.
The city's lawyers felt they would be at a disadvantage presenting
from Ontario by video on such an important matter, while the other
side's lawyers were in the room with the judge.
"Both positions are, under the circumstances, reasonable," wrote
Christie in adjourning the matter.
But in a position outlined in a statement to CBC, WorksafeNB makes
clear the two men will have to arrive in the province two weeks
prior and self–isolate if they wish to attend a hearing, or
trial, in person.
While people in some jobs are allowed to come to New Brunswick to
work under specific conditions that permit isolation, lawyers,
"given the nature of their work and interaction with others" do not
fit into that category.
"In these instances, it is critical for out of bubble lawyers to
self-isolate for 14 days before physically appearing in a New
Brunswick justice facility," said the statement.
"It's the right decision," said Gillis. "If they had done that in
the first place we would have done our argument."
Gillis said he is now seeking new dates for the summary judgment
motions.
He said he is prepared to make his arguments by video if the
decision is made that both sides must do so.
Reached by CBC, Zakaib said he did not want to comment.
But Toronto-based employment lawyer and commentator Howard Leavitt
said it puts a lawyer at a substantial handicap not to be in
person, particularly in cases requiring the examination of
witnesses.
"There's a real disadvantage, and it's bad enough if both sides are
in that predicament, but if one side is and the other side isn't,
it's simply unfair."
Moncton employment lawyer Robert Basque agrees, saying it might
even be grounds for appeal if one side is placed at a disadvantage
by not being in the courtroom, while the other side is present.
On the other hand, said Basque, lawyers roam around a courtroom,
handle exhibits and documents and interact extensively with others.
"What they are trying to do right now is balance health and
justice," said Basque. "And so far health is winning."
The class action lawsuit was launched in September 2018. It
followed a move by the city to switch the west Saint John drinking
water source from the Spruce Lake Reservoir to a collection of
drilled wells in the South Bay area.
Shortly after the new water source came online, many residents
began to complain of leaking copper pipes and costly water damage.
There were also complaints of failed appliances and skin
irritation. [GN]
SECRET CABARET: Bell Seeks Damages for Improper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Frankeylia Bell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Secret Cabaret, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00829 (W.D. Pa., September 9, 2020), seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage & Hour Act.
Secret Cabaret operate as "Club Cabaret - Greensboro" an
adult-oriented entertainment facility located in in Greensboro,
North Carolina where Bell worked as an exotic dancer. The complaint
alleges that Plaintiff was compensated exclusively through tips
from customers and did not receive payment for any hours worked at
the Defendant's establishment. She also claims to pay fines, fees
and charges to Club Cabaret, including a mandatory "tip-in" and/or
"tip out." [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Krasner, Esq.
BARRETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC
5 West Hargett Street, Suite 910
Raleigh, NC 27601
Tel: (919) 999-2799
Email: jkrasner@barrettlawoffices.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
SHIPT INC: Young Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, known and unknown v. SHIPT, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05858
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
including failure to reimburse business-related expenses, to
compensate overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek, and to pay appropriate minimum wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a shopper from April
9, 2019, through August 18, 2019.
Shipt, Inc., is a provider of online grocery shopping and delivery
service, with its principal place of business in Birmingham,
Alabama.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and –
Brian D. Chase, Esq.
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
Ian Silvers, Esq.
BISNAR|CHASE LLP
1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 752-2999
Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
jbeligan@bisnarchase.com
isilvers@bisnarchase.com
STERIGENICS US: Vallejo Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to S.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case titled ALEXANDER VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. STERIGENICS U.S., LLC; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2020-00027438-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on September 11, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:20-cv-01788-AJB-AHG to the proceeding.
Sterigenics U.S., LLC, provides bio-technological services. The
Company offers medical and pharmaceutical sterilization, laboratory
testing, food safety, gamma irradiation, contract sterilization,
and consultancy services. Sterigenics U.S. serves pharmaceutical,
food and commercial product, packaging, and medical device
industries worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lindsay Ryan, Esq.
Alex Polishuk, Esq.
POLSINELLI LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-1801
Facsimile: (310) 556-1802
E-mail: lryan@polsinelli.com
apolishuk@polsinelli.com
STORM SMART: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Lay Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMY D. LAY, II, on behalf of himself and all employees similarly
situated v. STORM SMART BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
2:20-cv-00746-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
but the Defendant did not compensate them for the overtime hours
they worked. Additionally, the Defendant failed to keep accurate
time records of all the hours worked by the Plaintiff and those
similarly situated employees.
Allegedly, the Defendant intentionally and willfully concocted a
pay scheme to evade their obligation to pay overtime by falsely and
deliberately listing on their employees' paycheck that they had
worked 40 hours only in a work week regardless of the numbers of
hours they worked in excess of 40.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from prior to September 1,
2017, until May 6, 2020, as an installer of storm shutters, storm
windows and screens.
Storm Smart Building Systems, Inc., provides custom designed,
manufactured, and installed hurricane protection products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean Culliton, Esq.
SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
285 Pinewood Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Tel: (850) 385-9455
Fax: (813) 441-1999
E-mail: sean@seancullitonlw.com
SWAGS GALORE: Calcano Sues in S.D. New York Over Violation of ADA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swags Galore, Inc.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Swags Galore, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-08184-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Swags Galore is an online purveyor of curtains and curtain rods.
The Company started in 1999 by a husband and wife team.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
nyjg@aol.com
TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Yang Seeks FLSA Collective Status
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as BAO YU YANG, on his own behalf
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TASTE OF NORTH CHINA,
LTD d/b/a Taste of North China; NEW TASTE OF NORTH CHINA INC d/b/a
Taste of North China; and NORTH CHINA RESTAURANT, INC d/b/a Taste
of North China; YONGBIN SUN, QIMIN CAI, JIANGUO ZHAO, and "JOHN"
WANG, Case No. 2:19-cv-09392-KM-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:
1. granting collective action status under the Fair Labor
Standards Act;
2. directing Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
containing first and last name, last known address with
apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work
location, dates of employment and position of ALL current
and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees
employed any time from April 8, 2016, (three years prior
to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court
so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to
Join Form or the date when the Defendants provide the name
list, whichever is later;
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is
complete and from existing employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker
community;
7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by
publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish
a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be
returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be
published in English, and Chinese; and
9. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of
limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the
expiration of the Opt-in Period.
Taste of North China is a Chinese restaurant with many specialty
dishes, including dumplings.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/33oNToc at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class, are:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
TEH REALTY: Ordered to Pay $52MM as Part of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Matt Flener, writing for KMBC News, reports that one of the most
notorious landlords in the Kansas City area, and the subject of a
year-long investigation by KMBC 9 Investigates, has been ordered to
pay millions of dollars back to frustrated tenants.
On Sept. 15, a Jackson County, Missouri, judge ordered Michael Fein
and an affiliate of T.E.H. Realty to pay at least $52 million as
part of a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of tenants at Ruskin
Place Apartments, stating Fein his company, T.E.H. ran a
bait-and-switch operation.
The company showed tenants nice apartments, then moved them into
dangerous and filthy units, the judge found. One tenant said in the
suit that she and her children had to sleep with the lights on to
prevent roaches from crawling on their bodies.
Others said that when they complained about inhabitable conditions
in the complex, they were retaliated against with eviction
proceedings and baseless legal actions.
The judge found Fein specifically targeted lower-middle class
housing units to attract cash flow.
Estimating a net worth of $120 million for T.E.H., the judge
ordered Fein and his associates to pay up.
"They're cowards," said attorney Greg Leyh, who represented the
tenants in the suit. "And just like the cockroaches in their
apartments, they run and hide. So, we're going to go hunting, and
we're probably going to have to look in some crevices."
Fein is now a federal fugitive. A St. Louis grand jury indicted him
in August 2020 for wire and bank fraud.
He's most likely in Israel, and did not pick up a phone call from
KMBC 9 News.
Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been tasked
with finding him and bringing him back to Missouri.
Leyh said Fein and T.E.H. Realty used associate circuit courts to
pursue eviction cases for back rent - all while avoiding
accountability in circuit courts.
Since 2015 KM-TEH Realty 8, which owned Ruskin Place, filed 91
eviction cases in Jackson County Court. KMBC has previously
reported how T.E.H. Realty is one of the biggest evictors in Kansas
City.
This suit was filed on behalf of all Missouri residents who signed
a lease with T.E.H. and rented units at Ruskin Place Apartments
between July 2015 and now. In the judgment the court found the
apartment units had a $0 market value and were not fit for human
habitation.
Included in the judgment were damages for the tenants, including
$10,000 to each member of the suit for emotional distress, plus
compensatory and punitive damages
The property was foreclosed on in March 2020 and was taken over by
new owners.
The court said in all, Fein and his associates once owned 26
properties in Kansas City, and another 24 in St. Louis. [GN]
TROPICANA ST. LOUIS: FLSA & Rule 23 Classes Certification Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as TRACI L. MACMANN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TROPICANA ST. LOUIS, LLC D/B/A LUMIERE PLACE CASINO & HOTELS, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00404-RWS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
1. granting conditional collective action certification of
the following Fair Labor Standards Act Collectives:
a. FLSA Tip Credit Notice Collective:
"All hourly, non-exempt employees at Lumiere who were
paid a direct hourly wage that was less than $7.25 per
hour and for whom a tip credit was claimed at any time
from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint
to the present";
b. FLSA Gaming License Deduction Collective:
"all hourly, non-exempt employees at Lumiere who were
paid a direct hourly wage equal to or less than $7.25
per hour and had a gaming license fee deducted from
their wages (or that they paid directly to the Missouri
Gaming Commission) at any time from three years prior
to the filing of the Complaint to the present";
c. FLSA Miscalculated Regular Rate Collective:
"all hourly, non-exempt employees at Lumiere who were
paid a direct hourly wage that was less than $7.25 per
hour and worked more than 40 hours in any workweek from
three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the
present"; and
d. FLSA Timeclock Rounding Collective:
"all hourly, non-exempt employees at Lumiere who
clocked in and clocked out using the Kronos or ADP
Timesaver timekeeping software at any time from three
years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the
present";
2. certifying the Rule 23 Classes:
a. MMWL Gaming License Deduction Class:
"All hourly employees at Lumiere who were paid a direct
hourly wage equal to or less than the then-applicable
minimum wage in Missouri ($9.45 per hour during 2020,
$8.60 per hour during 2019, $7.85 per hour during 2018,
or $7.70 per hour during 2017) and had a gaming license
fee deducted from their wages (or that they paid
directly to the Missouri Gaming Commission) at any time
from two years prior to the filing of the Complaint to
the present";
b. MMWL Miscalculated Regular Rate Class:
"all hourly, non-exempt employees at Lumiere who were
paid a direct hourly wage that was less than the then-
applicable minimum wage in Missouri ($9.45 per hour
during 2020, $8.60 per hour during 2019, $7.85 per hour
during 2018, or $7.70 per hour during 2017) and worked
more than 40 hours in any workweek from two years prior
to the filing of the Complaint to the
present"; and
c. MMWL Timeclock Rounding Class:
"all hourly, non-exempt employees at Lumiere who
clocked in and clocked out using the Kronos or ADP
Timesaver timekeeping software at any time from two
years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the
present."
3. appointing herself as class representative for the FLSA
Tip Credit Notice Collective, FLSA Gaming License
Deduction Collective, and FLSA Miscalculated Regular Rate
Collective, and the FLSA Timeclock Rounding Collective;
4. appointing herself as class representative for the MMWL
Gaming License Deduction Class, MMWL Miscalculated Regular
Rate Class, and the MMWL Timeclock Rounding Class;
5. appointing Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and McClelland Law
Firm, P.C. as class counsel for each class and collective;
6. directing the Defendant to produce the following
information for each member of each class and collective
in an excel document within 10 days of the Court's Order
on this motion: (a) full name; (b) last known address; (c)
last known phone number; (d) last known e-mail address;
(e) dates of employment; (f) last four digits of their
social security number; (g) whether and when Defendant
claimed a tip credit for the person; and (h) if Defendant
claimed a tip credit for the person, the sub-minimum
wage rate for each person and the date the person earned
that base sub-minimum wage;
7. directing the parties to file a joint motion within 10
days of the Court's Order on this motion to approve a Rule
23 Class Notice to the Rule 23 Classes and/or FLSA
Collective Action Notice to the FLSA Collectives as well
as plans for notice distribution (including U.S. Mail,
email, text message, and posting at Lumiere); and
8. granting such further relief as the Court deems
appropriate.
The Plaintiff filed suit against Tropicana St. Louis alleging that
the Defendant had a policy and practice of failing to properly her
and similarly situated employees, for all hours worked, including
overtime and/or minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Missouri law.
The Defendant is doing business in hotel and restaurant industry .
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3cVAzuq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com
TRSC INC: Fails to Pay All Wages Earned, Reed-Lewis Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GERALDINE REED-LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TRSC, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV37590 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Oct. 1, 2020), is brought against the Defendants due to their
unlawful labor practices resulting to violations of the California
Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to pay all
wages earned for all hours worked, failed to pay proper overtime
and/or double-time wages, failed to provide accurate, itemized wage
statements, and failed to provide meal and rest periods, as
required by the Labor Code.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in March 2019, when
she was hired at the Marathon Carson Refinery as a foreman. Within
two weeks of her new assignment, the Plaintiff was transferred to
the position of safety attendant.
TRSC, Inc., provides maintenance, turnaround, and construction
services to oil and gas, industrial, and utility customers in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dominic J. Messiha, Esq.
Ariel D. Weindling, Esq.
EMPOWER LAW, PC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 650-8580
E-mail: dominic@empower.law
ariel@empower.law
TRUGREEN INC: Spence Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Marria Spence and Rebecca Barth, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. TruGreen, Inc. and TruGreen Limited
Partnership, Case No. 2:20-cv-05214-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 4,
2020), is brought to recover unpaid wages as a result of the
Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt
employees, including the Plaintiffs, for all hours worked, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.
As a result of the Plaintiffs not being paid for all hours worked,
the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime compensation for all of the
hours they worked over 40 each workweek, according to the
complaint. The Defendant also failed to make, keep and preserve
records of the unpaid work performed by the Plaintiffs before
clocking in and after clocking out each day. The Defendant also
maintained an illegal policy of not paying its call center/customer
service representatives when they were working but, due
technological problems, unable to complete certain tasks which
resulted in its call center/customer service representatives not
receiving overtime pay that was otherwise due and owing to them.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as customer service
representatives or performed similar tasks as call center/customer
care representatives at the Defendants' Columbus South customer
service center in Groveport, Ohio.
The Defendants operate customer service centers throughout the
United States that employ account representatives and compliance
representatives and other customer service representatives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Fradin, Esq.
8 N. Court St., Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: 847-986-5889
Fax: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
4580 Stephen Circle, NW, Suite 201
Canton, OH 44718
Phone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 824-5770
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
UNIFIMONEY INC: Romero Sues Over Discrimination on Website Access
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UNIFIMONEY, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-08142 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 1, 2020), is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
http://www.unifimoney.com/,to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by him and other blind or visually-impaired
people. The Defendant's website allegedly contains access barriers,
which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to have full access to
the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include: (1) lack of
alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents
screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the
graphics; (2) empty links that contain no text causing the function
or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; (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 these
access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired
persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the
website, and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered
to the public through it.
Unifimoney, Inc., is a banking and retail company based in San
Francisco, California.[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
UNITED STATES: Sacked and Demoted Staff Sue for Unfair Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Alvarez and Sadiqa Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alexander Azar, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-02626 (D. Md., September 11, 2020), seeks equitable and
injunctive relief for denied or delayed post-deprivation hearings
and for being denied the property interests in their employment
without due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. Plaintiffs seeks reinstatement to the status quo
ante, including rescission of the appealed adverse actions and
payment of back pay, inclusive of interest.
Richard Alvarez and Sadiqa Brown are employees of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration.
Alvarez worked as a Program Analyst, GS-0343-14, Office of
Management, Center for Tobacco Products, FDA. On October 28, 2018,
he was demoted to the position of Budget Analyst, GS-560-12,
resulting in a reduction in job duties, grade and compensation.
Brown's last position held with the FDA was as a Human Resources
Specialist, GS-201-11, Office of Talent Solutions, Office of
Operations. She was removed from federal service, effective July
19, 2019, claiming that her removal was because of discrimination
based on her disability and in retaliation for complaint filed with
the Equal Employment Opportunity office. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Gilbert, Esq.
GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 900
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 608-0880
Fax: (301) 608-0881
Email: Gary@GELawyer.com
- and -
Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: JSellers@CohenMilstein.com
- and -
Kevin L. Owen, Esq.
GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 900
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 608-0880
Fax: (301) 608-0881
Email: KOwen@GELawyer.com
- and -
Brian Corman, Esq.
COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
Email: BCorman@CohenMilstein.com
- and -
Christopher H. Bonk, Esq.
GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 900
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 608-0880
Fax: (301) 608-0881
Email: CBonk@GELawyer.com
- and -
David A. Norken, Esq.
GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 900
Tel: (301) 608-0880
Fax: (301) 608-0881
Email: DNorken@GELawyer.com
- and -
Alexis N. Tsotakos, Esq.
GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
1100 Wayne Ave., Suite 900
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 608-0880
Fax: (301) 608-0881
Email: ATsotakos@GELawyer.com
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: Carstairs Seeks Refund of School Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CARSTAIRS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, Case No.
6:20-cv-06690 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020), seeks return of a
prorated portion of the tuition, fees and other related costs,
proportionate to the diminished value of online classes and the
amount of time in the Spring 2020 and following semesters when the
Defendant ceased in-person classes, campus services and access to
campus facilities, continuing through to such time as the Defendant
reinstates in-person classes.
According to the complaint, for the Spring 2020 semester, students
like the Plaintiff paid the Defendant over $1,720 in tuition for
each "credit hour" of education. By the Defendant's published
policy, a "credit hour" is fifteen hours of "classroom or direct
faculty instruction" plus thirty additional "hours of out-of-class
student work." Undergraduate students like the Plaintiff pay more
than $27,000 in tuition alone for a fifteen-week semester.
Prior to its March 11, 2020 announcement that it would cancel two
days of classes and cease in-person instruction, the Defendant
permitted online education for only some courses in only some
schools, and typically charged far less in tuition. For each credit
hour in the Spring 2020 semester, students like Plaintiff received
only seven hours--less than half--of the promised fifteen hours of
"classroom or direct faculty instruction." Though the Defendant
could no longer provide the remaining eight hours of
classroom/direct faculty instruction per credit hour, the Defendant
demanded that students pay the full tuition price, the Plaintiff
asserts.
While the effects of the COVID-19 crisis are shared by all
individuals and institutions across the country, the Defendant has
failed to apportion the burden in an equitable manner or consistent
with its obligations as an educational institution, according to
the complaint.
University of Rochester operates as an educational institution. The
University offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in arts and
sciences, business, dentistry, education, engineering, law,
medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth J. Andrews, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PLLC.
6000 North Bailey Ave., Suite 1A
Amherst, NY 14226
Telephone: (716) 564-3288
Facsimile: (877) 891-1189
E-mail: sandrews@kennethhiller.com
- and -
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN FIRM
2000 M Street, NW, Suite #750-A
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (866) 298-4150
Facsimile: (928) 441-8250
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
David A. Searles, Esq.
Edward H. Skipton, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
eskipton@consumerlawfirm.com
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Faces Martinez Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the University of San
Diego. The case is styled as Haley Martinez, Matthew Sheridan, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
University of San Diego, Case No. 3:20-cv-01946-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.,
Oct. 1, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
The University of San Diego is a private Roman Catholic research
university in San Diego, California. Founded in July 1949 as the
San Diego College for Women and San Diego University, the academic
institutions merged from the California school system into
University of San Diego in 1972.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tammy Gruder Hussin Esq.
HUSSIN LAW
1596 N. Coast Highway 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Phone: (877) 677-5397
Fax: (877) 667-1547
Email: tammy@hussinlaw.com
VICTORIA: Faces Class Action Over Coronavirus Restrictions
----------------------------------------------------------
SBS News reports that a class action is the second lawsuit filed
over Victoria's coronavirus restrictions, joining a challenge
against Melbourne's lockdown curfew by an aspiring Liberal MP.
Mornington Peninsula cafe owner Michelle Loielo filed a suit in
Victoria's Supreme Court on Sept. 15, saying she has lost 99 per
cent of her business under the state's stage four restrictions.
Second wave restrictions have been in place since July 2, but an 8
p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew was introduced on August 2 and eased back to
9 p.m. on Sept. 14.
A class action, led by 21-year-old Jordan Roberts, was also filed
in the Supreme Court on Sept. 15, seeking damages for lost income,
nervous shock, depression and anxiety.
"I understand my boss is also struggling and he's also finding it
difficult to make ends meet. I've been looking for other work but
there's just nothing out there," Mr Roberts told The Age.
Ms Loielo's case was set to have a first hearing in the Supreme
Court on Sept. 16.
The widowed mother of three -- who last month flagged plans to seek
pre-selection for the Liberal Party -- says the curfew violates her
human rights.
She says her Capel Sound cafe used to bring in up to $20,000 a week
but she made just $400, leaving her fearful of losing her house.
In a post on her restaurant website last month, Ms Loielo said the
"absolute beating" taken by the industry through the pandemic had
pushed her further into politics and prompted her plans to run for
Liberal Party pre-selection for the Nepean electorate.
While the Liberal Party isn't funding the lawsuit -- lawyers are
acting pro bono -- opposition leader Michael O'Brien said in a
joint press conference with Ms Loielo that they had put her in
touch with lawyers.
"I think there is every chance Daniel Andrews has acted illegally
in locking down five million Victorians and that's why it's so
important this case goes to court and is tested," Mr O'Brien, a
former barrister, said.
Ms Loielo denied the lawsuit was politically motivated, saying the
curfew had "infringed on my life and my lifestyle".
"The ultimate goal is to be able to stop at BP on the way home and
grab my milk and bread like I used to," she said.
Court documents, filed by Marcus Clarke QC, argue the curfew
direction is invalid on grounds of irrationality and illogicality.
Mr Roberts is seeking damages in his suit, alleging defendants
including ministers Jenny Mikakos and Martin Pakula breached a duty
of care owed to the community through failures in the hotel
quarantine program.
It was filed by Melbourne lawyer Tony Carbone who told AAP more
than 20 people are officially signed on but he expects the number
to "swell enormously".
"A lot of employers speaking to me are keeping employees on
artificially because of JobKeeper and the reality is when JobKeeper
kicks out, I just think the number of people made redundant or
retrenched will be horrendous," he said.
Mr Carbone is running separate class actions over coronavirus
outbreaks at the St Basils and Epping Gardens aged care homes.
[GN]
WALMART INC: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime Wages, Johannes Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN JOHANNES, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. WALMART, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No.
6:20-cv-01772-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought
against the Defendant for its alleged failure to properly and
timely pay overtime compensation in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
Assistant Manager from 2008 to July 20, 2020, alleges that the
Defendant did not compensate him for the hours he worked in excess
of 40 hours per week at the rate of not less than one-and-one-half
times his regular rate of pay. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
keep records as required by the FLSA.
Walmart, Inc., is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
David V. Barszcz, Esq.
LYTLE & BARSZCZ
533 Versailles Dr., 2nd Floor
Maitland, FL 32751
Tel: (407) 622-6544
Fax: (407) 622-6545
E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
WEGMANS FOOD: Romero Seeks Blind's Full, Equal Access to Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08134 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020), is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human
Rights Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, http://www.wegmans.com,to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's website
allegedly contains access barriers which denied the Plaintiff and
Class members full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and
services offered to the general public by the Defendant through the
website. These access barriers include: (1) lack of alternative
text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen
readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics;
(2) empty links that contain no text causing the function or
purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; (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 these
access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired
persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the
website, and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered
to the public through it, according to the complaint.
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., is a grocery and meal delivery service
and retail company based in Rochester, New York.[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
WELLS ENTERPRISES: Romero Sues in New York Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Wells Enterprises, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-08137 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wells Enterprises, Inc., is an American food company and is the
largest family-owned and managed ice cream manufacturer in the
United States. The Company is based in LeMars, Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
WISE INNOVATIONS: Romero Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wise Innovations,
Inc. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Wise Innovations, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-08147 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wise Innovations is a team of product developers. The Company's
products are designed according to basic requirements of safety and
quality.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
[*] Blank Rome Discusses Class Suits on Facial Recognition Software
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Oberly, Esq., of Blank Rome, in an article for Biometric
Update, reports that swift, rapid advances have fueled a
proliferation of facial recognition technology -- which continues
to expand into new areas of public and private life. In particular,
facial recognition is being increasingly relied on today by
retailers and similar commercial entities for security/surveillance
purposes.
At the same time, however, facial recognition has become an
increasingly-popular target for class action litigation pursued
under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). To
further complicate matters, numerous states and Congress are
attempting to enact additional, stringent laws regulating the use
of facial recognition technology by commercial businesses.
Taken together, all entities that use facial recognition technology
today -- especially those that utilize this technology for security
and surveillance purposes -- must ensure they have the appropriate
biometric privacy compliance practices in place to avoid becoming
the next target of a potentially game-changing biometric privacy
class action lawsuit.
Facial recognition technology explained
Facial recognition technology involves the use of "biometrics"
(i.e., individual physical characteristics) to digitally map an
individual's facial "geometry." These measurements are then used to
create a mathematical formula known as a "facial template" or
"facial signature." This stored template or signature is then used
to compare the physical structure of an individual's face to
confirm their identity or uniquely identify that individual.
Legal landscape
At this time, only three states have targeted biometric privacy
laws on the books that directly regulate the use of facial
recognition technology.
Of those laws, Illinois' BIPA is considered the most stringent.
Under BIPA, a private entity cannot collect or store facial
template data without first providing notice, obtaining written
consent, and making certain disclosures. BIPA has created
substantial liability exposure for companies that utilize facial
recognition in their operations. This risk arises primarily because
of the statutory damages made available under BIPA—ranging
between $1,000 and $5,000 per violation - which can be pursued even
where no actual harm or damage is sustained.
As just one example of the tremendous liability posed by BIPA,
Facebook just recently settled a major BIPA class lawsuit involving
the use of facial recognition technology for a staggering $650
million - but only after a judge rejected Facebook's original $550
million offer.
Beyond Illinois, Texas and Washington have also enacted biometric
privacy laws covering facial recognition technology, which impose
similar requirements relating to notice, consent, and mandatory
security measures.
In addition, at this time, many states are currently attempting to
enact biometric privacy legislation of their own, which would
expand BIPA-like notice, consent, and security requirements to
additional parts of the country.
Importantly, the scope of many of these bills go well beyond that
of BIPA and would impose additional requirements, such as mandated
pre-deployment testing and periodic employee training, as well as
permitting the testing of this technology by third parties.
At the same time, federal lawmakers have also targeted facial
recognition as a primary focus for nationwide regulation, which
would put in place uniform requirements nationwide over the use of
technology.
Most recently, in August 2020, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the National Biometric Information
Privacy Act of 2020 (S.4400), which would impose requirements over
the use of facial recognition technology (and other forms of
biometrics) similar to BIPA from coast to coast.
Additional Challenges & Risks
With that said, the current (and future) challenges associated with
facial recognition technology are not limited to significant legal
liability exposure.
Facial recognition has recently received a significant amount of
negative media coverage over potential accuracy and bias problems
associated with this technology. Of particular concern is the fact
that today's technology is much less accurate in identifying people
of color and women, thereby creating an enhanced risk of
misidentification of minorities.
Facial recognition has also garnered a significant amount of
negative publicity stemming from controversial uses of this
technology. At the start of 2020, news broke regarding the
practices of facial recognition startup Clearview AI, which built a
massive database of facial templates of millions of individuals
across the world and then sold access to its database to both law
enforcement and private entities.
More recently, Rite Aid made national headlines as a result of its
practice of deploying facial recognition technology for
security/surveillance purposes in over 200 stores nationwide, the
majority of which were found in lower income neighborhoods.
Taken together, it is clear that companies utilizing facial
recognition software for security/surveillance purposes will remain
under significant scrutiny for the foreseeable future.
New major biometric privacy class action litigation target
To date, the primary focus of BIPA class action litigation has been
employers that utilize biometric fingerprint readers for time and
attendance purposes. More recently, however, a new BIPA target has
appeared on the radar of plaintiff's attorneys: companies using
facial recognition for security and surveillance purposes.
For example, Lowe's and Home Depot have been targeted with BIPA
class action lawsuits stemming from their use of facial recognition
technology as part of their in-store, loss prevention surveillance
systems.
Not surprisingly, Clearview AI has been named in a string of BIPA
complaints stemming from the development and sale of its
surveillance database. National retailer Macy's was also named in
BIPA class action lawsuit stemming from its use of Clearview AI's
database, also for surveillance and security purposes.
Most recently, Kroger found itself on the receiving end of a BIPA
class action lawsuit over its collection of patrons' and employees'
facial template data through the use of surveillance cameras
located in its Illinois Mariano's locations.
Compliance tips
Due to the rapidly increasing liability exposure associated with
the use of facial recognition technology, companies using this
technology or are considering doing so in the future—even if they
are not subject to any regulation at this time—should not wait
until new laws are passed; instead, they should take affirmative
action now to put in place flexible, adaptable compliance programs
that can ensure ongoing compliance with facial recognition
regulation.
Fortunately, there are several actionable steps companies can take
to effectively leverage facial recognition technology in a manner
that satisfies their legal obligations. In particular, companies
should consider the following:
* Accuracy and bias testing: Because facial recognition software
can produce results that are biased in ways that harm particular
ethnic and racial groups, pre-deployment testing of facial
recognition technology should be completed to ensure its
effectiveness and accuracy before it is used in real-time
situations.
* Privacy policy: Develop a publicly-available, detailed facial
recognition-specific privacy policy that includes, at a minimum,
clear notice that facial template data is being collected, as well
as additional information regarding the purposes for which facial
template data is used and the company's schedule and guidelines for
the retention and destruction of this data.
* Written notice: Provide written notice -- prior to the time any
facial template data is collected -- which clearly informs
individuals that facial template data is being collected, used,
and/or stored by the company; how that data will be used and/or
shared; and the length of time over which the company will retain
the data until it is destroyed.
* Written release: Obtain a signed written release/consent form
from all individuals prior to the time any facial template data is
collected that permits the company to collect/use the individual's
biometric data and disclose the data to third parties for business
purposes.
* Opt-out: Permit individuals to opt out of the collection of
their facial template data.
* Data security: Maintain data security measures to safeguard
facial template data that satisfies the reasonable standard of care
applicable to the company's given industry and which protects
facial template data in a manner that is the same or more
protective than the manner in which the company protects other
forms of sensitive personal information.
* Explicit prohibitions on using technology for discriminatory
purposes: Maintain an explicit policy strictly barring the use of
facial recognition technology by employees, contractors, or vendors
to unlawfully discriminate against individuals or groups of
individuals.
Conclusion
Facial recognition technology has significantly enhanced the
operations of businesses across all industries in a myriad of
different ways -- including with respect to security/identity fraud
prevention; access and authentication; and accessibility to
accounts and services.
At the same time, this technology has become an
increasingly-frequent target of biometric privacy class action
lawsuits, exposing businesses to tremendous potential legal
liability. Moving forward, the scope of liability exposure will
only increase as additional states and Washington D.C. look to
impose greater regulation over the use of facial biometrics.
Consequently, companies that incorporate facial recognition
technology into their operations for security/surveillance purposes
or intend to do so in the future -- even those located in
jurisdictions where no applicable regulation currently exists --
should take proactive measures to develop and implement facial
recognition biometrics compliance programs that encompass the
principles and practices described above. [GN]
[*] LongTerm Care Facilities Become Target for COVID-19 Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin G. McCarthy, Esq. -- gmccarthy@pierceatwood.com -- and Kyle
M. Noonan, Esq. -- knoonan@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce Atwood
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
long-term care facilities have seen some of the worst of the
COVID-19 pandemic since it erupted in March. In Maine, residents of
nursing homes and other long-term care facilities make up a large
portion of the state's total cases of COVID-19. Unsurprisingly,
given the large number of cases at some of these facilities, they
have become a target for class action lawsuits filed on behalf of
residents against owners and operators.
For example, a long-term care facility in New Jersey is defending a
class action asserting claims of negligence, medical malpractice,
wrongful death, and punitive damages. [1] The lawsuit claims that
the Andover Subacute Rehabilitation Center had a COVID-19 outbreak
beginning in late March and, as a result, dozens of its residents
died from the coronavirus. According to the plaintiffs, the
facility provided masks only to registered nurses, but not to
others who interacted with residents, and failed to screen visitors
and employees for symptoms of the coronavirus. The suit was filed
in state court, removed by defendants to federal court, and last
month, remanded back to New Jersey state court. [2]
A very different lawsuit was filed in federal court against a large
long-term care facility in New York, the Queens Adult Care Center.
[3] The lawsuit asserts that the facility violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the lesser-known federal
Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of
disability by those receiving federal financial assistance (for
example, Medicaid-funded nursing care). The core allegations are
that the facility failed to provide appropriate staffing and take
other necessary precautions such that residents were unable to
access its services and accommodations without fear of contracting
the coronavirus. Among other relief, the lawsuit seeks the
appointment of a "special master" to oversee the facility's health
and safety compliance.
The ADA is a somewhat unusual, and likely challenging, vehicle to
assert class claims of this type. Plaintiffs' counsel likely
asserted claims under the ADA because traditional tort claims (for
example, those asserted in the New Jersey lawsuit described above)
are blocked by New York legislation, enacted in April, that grants
qualified immunity from COVID-19-related liability for state-law
claims. [4] In any event, we are closely monitoring this
litigation.
To date, we are not aware of any class actions related to the
pandemic filed in Maine against long-term care facilities. Though
New York and a number of other states have enacted some form of
liability protection for businesses impacted by the pandemic, Maine
has not done so. Because Maine has the oldest population of the 50
states, and its long-term care facilities employ nearly 10,000
people, Maine's long-term care facilities may well become a target
for class actions.
A looming question is whether some form of liability protection
will be enacted as part of the next round of federal pandemic
relief. The pandemic relief legislation advanced by Senate
Republicans, the "SAFE TO WORK" Act [5] (S. 4317), would allow
businesses that are sued in connection with the pandemic to remove
their cases from state court to federal court, and would block
recovery unless plaintiffs can show gross negligence or intentional
misconduct. For personal injury and medical liability cases related
to the pandemic, the legislation would cap damages and would raise
the standard of proof to clear and convincing evidence. For now, in
the absence of either state or federal legislation limiting
pandemic-related liability, Maine's long-term care facilities
should be aware that the pandemic presents real class action
litigation risks. [GN]
[*] McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Indemnity for Class Reps in Quebec
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andree-Anne Labbe, Esq. -- aalabbe@mccarthy.ca -- and Michel Gagne,
Esq. -- mgagne@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, report that in its recent decision in Attar v.
Fonds d'aide aux actions collectives et al, 2020 QCCA 1121, the
Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court judge's refusal
when approving settlement of the class proceeding to grant an
indemnity of $5,000 to the representative plaintiff to compensate
him for his participation in the class action.
In support of this claim, the representative alleged that he had
invested time and effort in order to play his role as
representative, and that in our digital age, his name would
henceforth and forever be associated with the "Red Bull class
action". He also alleged that the amount claimed was modest and had
not been contested by any member of the group.
The trial judge had determined that Article 593 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) did not permit any remuneration of the
representative, other than disbursements, legal fees and attorney's
fees, in order to avoid any conflict of interest, and that this
principle applied both when a judgment is rendered on the merits
and when a settlement is approved by the Court.
The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, noting in passing that
the Minister of Justice's comments on article 593 C.C.P.
specifically mention that the article does not provide for
compensation for the time and energy devoted to litigation, and
rejecting the representative's contention that article 593 C.C.P.
did not apply in the context of a class action settlement
approval.
This decision closes the door to the inclusion in a settlement of
any form of remuneration for the representative in a class action
in Quebec, whereas such remuneration is permitted in other Canadian
provinces and in the United States. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $72.5MM Class Settlement Inked in Williams v. BASF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, has preliminarily approved a
class action settlement in Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al.,
C.A. No. 2:11-cv-01754 reached between Defendants BASF Catalysts,
LLC ("BASF") and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP ("Cahill") and
Plaintiffs to resolve claims relating to prior Emtal Talc
litigation by creating a non-reversionary fund of US$72.5 million
to pay up to 19,000 potential claimants and agreeing to pay fees
and other expenses as described in the Settlement Agreement.
Emtal Talc was used in the manufacturing of industrial products.
This settlement does not involve any kind of personal cosmetic
product such as baby, body, or talcum powder. The settlement
resolves a class action lawsuit in which Plaintiffs claim that from
1984 until 2009 Engelhard (BASF acquired Engelhard in 2006), its
former national law firm Cahill, and employees of the two
companies, made misstatements or concealed evidence about the
existence of alleged asbestos in Emtal Talc and failed to disclose
related information to plaintiffs, their lawyers, and courts in the
Underlying Lawsuits. Plaintiffs claim that due to these
misstatements and omissions, Plaintiffs in the Underlying Lawsuits
either (1) voluntarily agreed to dismiss or settle their cases for
less than they otherwise would have accepted or (2) had their cases
involuntarily dismissed by court order upon motions filed by the
Defendants. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and dispute
that any statements about Emtal Talc affected the outcome of the
Underlying Lawsuits because Defendants contend that (1) the claims
in the Underlying Lawsuits were without merit, (2) the amount of
asbestos in Emtal Talc, as reported in historical documents, could
not have caused harm to human health and (3) many of the Underlying
Lawsuits were resolved for fixed amounts irrespective of the
alleged asbestos content of the talc or the number of talc
defendants. Defendants further contend that many of the complaints
merely named Engelhard without any specific allegations regarding
product identification, exposure, or damages. Plaintiffs dispute
these arguments.
BASF also claims that it was not aware of the facts alleged by the
Plaintiffs in this case when it bought Engelhard in 2006 and that
BASF did not learn of the circumstances giving rise to Plaintiffs'
allegations in this case until 2009.
BASF and Cahill have nevertheless agreed to settle this lawsuit in
the interest of avoiding further costs and the uncertainty of
litigation.
If the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
approves the settlement, then BASF and Cahill will pay US$72.5
million into a Settlement Fund to pay Class Members as follows: (a)
US$6.25 million to those who prove they are Class Members; (b)
US$59.75 million to those who sustained an asbestos-related injury;
and (c) US$6.5 million to those who experienced an extraordinary
physical injury and/or economic loss allegedly as a result of
exposure to Emtal Talc, as well as an incentive award of US$300,000
to six plaintiffs who helped bring the case. BASF and Cahill have
also agreed to pay court-approved attorneys' fees up to US$22.5
million, court-approved attorneys' expenses up to US$1.2 million,
and up to US$3.5 million in notice and settlement administration
costs.
Class Members may, beginning September 17, 2020 submit claims
online at www.EmtalTalcSettlement.com. The website also provides
instructions for how to file a claim in hard copy through the mail.
The website also provides instructions for how to file a claim in
hard copy through the mail. All claim forms must be filed by
January 15, 2021.
The Court will hold a hearing on July 29, 2021 to consider whether
to approve the settlement. Class Members have until December 16,
2020 to exclude themselves from, or object to, the settlement.
For more information, visit www.EmtalTalcSettlement.com or call
1-888-401-1929.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: HB Fuller Settled Three Suits for US$80,000
------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 29, 2020, that it has settled three asbestos-related
lawsuits and claims for US$80,000 in the nine months ended August
29, 2020.
The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits
in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing
asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs
generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek
damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the
result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are
typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment.
If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable
injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case
is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.
"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.
"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage
for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically,
insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and
settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of
our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing
agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of
defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related
lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we
fund a share of defense costs, settlements and judgments allocable
to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent.
"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff.
To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our
probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.
"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/pVvyYY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: National Stone Blocks Bill to Ban Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Formuzis at Environmental Working Group reports that
legislation to ban the future use and importation of the notorious
and deadly carcinogen asbestos was blocked from passing the House
after lobbyists representing a powerful sector of the building and
construction industry objected.
The National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, or NSSGA, stopped
the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act, or ARBAN (H.R.1603,) from
coming up for a vote over complaints that the definition of
asbestos in the legislation was too broad, arguing it "deviates
from the longstanding, mineralogically accurate definition."
However, contrary to NSSGA's claims, there is no widely accepted
definition of asbestos, and the way it is defined in the ARBAN bill
draws from established and health-protective approaches from
federal government agencies, including the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH has publicly stated concerns
about the scientific challenges posed by an overly narrow
definition of the carcinogen that continues to kill up to 15,000
Americans a year.
"Some may think the risk of exposure to asbestos is low and the
deadly diseases it causes are rare, but that is the furthest thing
from the truth," said EWG Senior Vice President for Government
Affairs Scott Faber, EWG notes. "Asbestos-related diseases
continue to kill thousands of people each year in this country, and
time and again, asbestos has contaminated talc-based products,
including baby powder, makeup and children's toys. It's ridiculous
that companies are throwing sand in the gears of the legislative
process."
Geologically, talc and asbestos can naturally occur alongside each
other in rock. Talc deposits in many regions are contaminated with
asbestos fibers.
Asbestos-triggered diseases kill up to 15,000 Americans each year,
and since its introduction in the 1930s, it has devastated hundreds
of thousands of American families. Fifty-eight nations have banned
asbestos, but in 1991, a federal court overturned the Environmental
Protection Agency's ban.
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan
organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a
healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique
education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
*********
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 ***