/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201022.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 22, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 212 Headlines A&L HOME CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark et al. Claim AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Inc. Sues over Arbitrary Surcharges ALASKA NATIVE: Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling AMERICAN HONDA: MacDougall Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline ANNA MARIA COLLEGE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARBITERSPORTS LLC: Quezada Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ARCH INSURANCE: Staley Suit Goes to W.D. Missouri ASH SOUNDS: Settles Falls Festival Crowd Crush Class Action AUSTIN BRIDGE: Misclassifies Field Office Managers, Davis Alleges AUSTRALIA: Minister for Environment Faces Climate Change Lawsuit BANK OF AMERICA: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Blankenship Alleges Spoofing of Metals Futures BAY POWER: Faces Dahl FLSA Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT BETTER MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dominguez Says BIOLA UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Cohen Suit Over Alleged Data Breach BLINK CHARGING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline CALIFIA FARMS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAPIO PARTNERS: Scurlark Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas CHARTWELL RETIREMENT: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Failures CHICAGO CITY, IL: Cannon Files RICO Class Action CLARUS DIRECT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York COTY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline COTY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline CREDIBLE BEHAVIORAL: Starr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CULTURAL CARE: Improperly Paid Au Pairs, Morales Suit Alleges DAYTONA BR-GD: Faces Jones Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Hildebrandt Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ELNA SEFCOVIC: Gonzalez Seeks High Court Review of Judgment EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Faces Sholtz Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Door Panels FLORIDA: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Hep C Class Action FLUIDIGM CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline GENERALI GLOBAL: Cooper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOHEALTH INC: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action Filing GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline GOL LINHAS: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing GOOGLE: Decision to Remove Paytm from Play Store Raises Questions HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Files Civil Rights Suit IBM: Age Discrimination Class Action Ongoing IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Gilead Sale INFORMA BUSINESS: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ITRON, INC: Tomko Wage Suit Moved to E.D. Wash. KETTLE MORAINE SCHOOL: Crumble Files Civil Rights Suit in Wisconsin KIA MOTORS: Kondash Appeals Ruling in Class Suit to 6th Circuit LA FAMILIA: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Grocery Staff LAST RESORT: Mills Sues Over Sexual Discrimination, Retaliation LESSING'S INC: Vasquez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Suit Filing MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Dixon Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in California MARTINS POTATO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MEDIANEWS GROUP: Faces Tejada Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices MEDTRONIC INC: Le Sues Over Improper Background Check MO HOTTA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MONSANTO COMPANY: Lewis PI Suit Transferred to N.D. California MOVIN' IRON: Fails to Properly Pay Minimum Wages, Harlow Claims NANO-X IMAGING: Kaskela Law Alerts of Class Action Filing NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McClintock Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida NEBRASKA: Stanko Appeals Order in Prisoners Suit to 8th Circuit NIKOLA CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds Class Action Filing NORIEGA FURNITURE: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California OATLY INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Suit Filing OLD VIENNA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OVATION CREDIT: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message PANHANDLE GETAWAYS: Sanford Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Florida PINE CLUB: Church Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Servers Class REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Says Drug Trial Reports Misleading RECON360 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Suit Says SAINT FRANCIS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SAMFORD UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIMM ASSOCIATES: Fantacone FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. New York SOCIETY INSURANCE: RSV Enterprises Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois STATE FARM: Baker Suit Seeks to Certify Class SUNCOKE ENERGY: Cohn Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 3rd Cir. SUPPORT COLLECTORS: Irving Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida T & M GREENCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Correa et al. Claim TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Alerts of Class Action Filing TEXAS LAW: Appeals Opinion in Crowley Suit to State Supreme Court UC GLOBAL: Journalists Not Interested to Join Class Action ULTRA PETROLEUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline UNITED SPECIALTY: Mueller Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal. UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York USCC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Grantham et al Claim VANGUARD UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VARIAN MEDICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action VAXART INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline VIDHAN BHATT: Condo Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA WECOMPETE INC: Robinson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action ********* A&L HOME CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ BROOKE CLARK; LARRY HOLDER; CALVIN MARCUM; and JESSICA VANWINKLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A&L HOME CARE AND TRAINING CENTER, LLC; NILA IRBY; DAWNETTA ABBETT; and RUTHIE LUCAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00757-TSB (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 21, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages, overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as home health aides. A&L Home Care And Training Center, LLC provides home health care services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 610-4134 Facsimile: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com AIR PRODUCTS: Camcara Inc. Sues over Arbitrary Surcharges --------------------------------------------------------- CAMCARA, INC. D/B/A AST WATERJET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01271-UNA (D. Del., Sep. 22, 2020) alleges that the Defendant assessed surcharges arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and without regard to increases in its production or delivery costs, in breach of the agreements and its good-faith obligations to the Plaintiff and Class. According to the complaint, the Defendant sells its gases pursuant to standard-form Product Supply Agreements, Microbulk Product Supply Agreements, or similar standard-form documents, such as Air Products General Conditions of Sale. In the Agreements, the Defendant imposed Other Charges in addition to the Price for Product. These Other Charges include "Hazmat Charges," "Delivery Charges," and customer-specific fees and expenses unique to a particular purchaser. One of the Other Charges is identified as "Surcharges." The Defendant assessed the Surcharges not with reference to any particular Agreement, but often on an across-the-board basis without regard to when the Agreement may have been entered into, and without regard to whether its production and delivery costs related to a particular Agreement had increased. Rather, the Defendant arbitrarily assessed Surcharges on a routine basis simply to generate additional revenue. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. produces industrial atmospheric and specialty gases and performance materials and equipment. The Company's products include oxygen, nitrogen, argon, helium, specialty surfactants and amines, polyurethane, epoxy curatives, and resins. Air Products and Chemicals products are used in the beverage, health, and semiconductors fields. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3601 Facsimile: (302) 364-3610 E-mail: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com - and - William H. Narwold, Esq. Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1676 Facsimile: (860) 882-1682 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com ALASKA NATIVE: Morrison & Foerster Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Sigel, Esq. -- jsigel@mofo.com -- and Adam Sorensen, Esq. -- asorensen@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article for JDSupra, "examine one Ninth Circuit decision exploring the extent to which the deprivation of information and statutorily-conferred powers can satisfy Article III's injury-in-fact requirement, and a second declining to extend the Supreme Court's decision in Janus to former union-members asserting First Amendment right not to pay agreed-upon dues." SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION v. ANTHC The Court holds that a board of director's alleged delegation of decision-making authority to an executive committee, and a confidentiality policy that allegedly restricted the flow of information to board members, sufficed to confer Article III standing under a statute entitling plaintiff to a voting representative on the board of directors. Panel: Judges Gould, Bea, and Murguia, with Judge Murguia writing the opinion. Key highlight: "Because we conclude that Section 325 [of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998] conferred governance and participation rights to [plaintiff], which necessarily includes an entitlement to information necessary to effectively exercise those rights, we reverse the district court's dismissal of [plaintiff]'s complaint for lack of Article III standing." Background: Congress created the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium ("the Consortium") under Section 325 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1998 to provide health services at the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage, Alaska. Southcentral Foundation ("Southcentral") is a nonprofit regional tribal health organization that provides health care to some 65,000 Alaska Natives as a member of the Consortium. Section 325 provides in relevant part that the Consortium "shall be governed by a 15-member Board of Directors, which shall be composed of one representative of" each of 13 regional tribal health organizations, including Southcentral, and two tribal representatives. The statute also provides that "[e]ach member of the Board of Directors shall be entitled to cast one vote. Decisions of the Board of Directors shall be made by consensus whenever possible, and by majority vote in the event that no consensus can be reached." Southcentral alleged that the Consortium's board, over Southcentral's objection, created an executive committee authorized to take actions without ratification by the full board. The executive committee then allegedly approved lucrative employment contracts for Consortium executives without disclosing the terms of those contracts to the full board. A few years later, the board also adopted a strict confidentiality policy that allegedly gave unidentified Consortium personnel absolute discretion to restrict information from being shared even with the Board of Directors, with a rebuttable presumption against disclosure. Southcentral sought declaratory relief that the Consortium violated Section 325 when it: (1) formed the Executive Committee and delegated the authority of the full board, and (2) erected informational barriers to board member decision-making. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that Southcentral failed to allege an injury in fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. Result: The Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court began by laying out the now-familiar requirements for Article III injury-in-fact: to confer standing, an injury must be particularized ("affect[ing] the plaintiff in a personal and individual way") and concrete ("'de facto'; that is, it must actually exist."). Applying that standard, the Court first addressed Southcentral's executive committee claim. The statutory language conferring governance and participation rights on representatives of each member health organization made clear that Southcentral's alleged injury was particularized and concrete, the Court reasoned, because the creation of the executive committee deprived Southcentral of precisely those express statutory powers. The Court was not convinced by the Consortium's argument that Section 325's participation rights only applied to providing health care, not management decisions, or its argument that Section 325 grants governance rights only to individual directors, rather than the organizations they represent. Because Congress endowed each specified regional health entity with the right to have a "representative" on the Board that stands in the shoes of the designating entity by acting on its behalf, Southcentral had alleged sufficient injury to its statutory decision-making power. As for the confidentiality policy, the Court reached a similar conclusion. Because the Consortium's policy allegedly restricted information necessary to make decisions called for by the statute, the Court said Southcentral had adequately alleged Article III injury. In so holding, the Court rejected the Consortium's argument that to satisfy Article III, an alleged "informational injury" must stem from an express statutory right to receive such information. Making informed decisions requires having information, the Court reasoned. Because Southcentral's informational injury was "inextricably tied to its interest in exercising its governance and participation rights" under the statute, the Court concluded that Southcentral had alleged sufficient injury-in-fact. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. BELGAU v. INSLEE The Court holds that former union members who had agreed to allow their employer, the State of Washington, to deduct union dues even if they terminated their union membership had no First Amendment claim when that agreement was enforced. Panel: Judges McKeown, Christen, and Harpool (W.D. Mo.), with Judge McKeown writing the opinion. Key Highlight: "We join the swelling chorus of courts recognizing that Janus does not extend a First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues." Background: Plaintiffs were Washington state employees who had joined a union (WSFE) shortly after starting work. They had signed contracts allowing the state to deduct union dues from their paychecks. They subsequently agreed to revised contracts making their consent to the deduction of such dues irrevocable for one year. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Muni Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), the Supreme Court overturned longstanding precedent and held that public employers cannot automatically deduct union fees from the paycheck of nonunion employees because such deductions compel nonmembers to subsidize union speech. After Janus was issued, the plaintiffs notified their union that they no longer wanted to be members, and the union terminated their memberships. The state, however, continued to deduct their union dues until the irrevocable one-year terms for dues payment had expired. In response, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action against various state officials and the union, pressing First Amendment claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court began by holding that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims against the union failed for lack of state action. First, the Court reasoned, the plaintiffs could not establish that the "claimed constitutional deprivation resulted from the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person from whom the State is responsible"; rather, the source of their harm was their contract with the union, not any state statute or policy. Second, and in any event, the plaintiffs also could not establish that "the party charged with the deprivation could be described in all fairness as a state actor": the union was plainly a private entity, and it had not been coerced or overseen by the state in shaping or entering the challenged agreements, nor had it acted in concert with the state. As the Court declared, "Providing a machinery for implement the private agreement by performing an administrative task does not render Washington and the [union] joint actors." The Court next turned to the plaintiffs' claims against the state, holding that these likewise failed. The Court first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to consider this issue, given that the plaintiffs had sought only prospective relief and the state was no longer deducting fees from their paychecks. It determined that these claims satisfied the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, as the one-year period of fees-deductions was too short to allow full litigation, and other similarly situated employees might confront the same issue. On the merits, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the state had violated their First Amendment rights. As the Court explained, plaintiffs complained of obligations that were self-imposed rather than imposed by the State, and the "First Amendment provides [no] right to "disregard promises that would otherwise be enforced under state law." Although Janus had "condemned the practice of automatically deducting agency fees from nonmembers who were not asked and not required to consent before the fees are deducted," the plaintiffs here had "experienced no such compulsion." They had voluntarily joined the union and accepted the benefits of membership, and thus had "agreed to bear the financial burdens of membership." The First Amendment, the Court held, does not prevent the State from honoring that agreement. [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: MacDougall Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Dennis MacDougall, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DENNIS MACDOUGALL, et al. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01079-JGB-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying these Classes and naming indicated class representatives: 1. California Class: All persons or entities who purchased or leased a model year 2012 Touring and Touring Elite Honda Odysseys with VINs in the range 5FNRL5H . . . CB053446 through 5FNRL5H . . . CB148157, model year 2013 Touring and Touring Elite Honda Odysseys, and model year 2014-16 Honda Odysseys ("Class Vehicle") in California from American Honda Motor Company or through an American Honda Motor Company dealership ("California Class"). The California Class seeks class certification of claims for: (a) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (b) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (c) breach of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (d) breach of implied warranty under state law; (e) breach of express warranty under state law; (f) unjust enrichment under state law; and (g) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and state law. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Ray Seow and Bryan Lentz as the class representatives for the California Class; 2. Pennsylvania Class: All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Pennsylvania from American Honda Motor Company or through an American Honda Motor Company dealership ("Pennsylvania Class"). The Pennsylvania Class seeks class certification of claims for: (a) breach of implied warranty under state law; (b) breach of express warranty under state law; (c) unjust enrichment under state law; and (d) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and state law. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Dennis MacDougall as the class representative for the Pennsylvania Class; 3. New Jersey Class: All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in New Jersey from American Honda Motor Company or through an American Honda Motor Company dealership ("New Jersey Class"). The New Jersey Class seeks class certification of claims for: (a) violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20; (b) breach of implied warranty under state law; (c) breach of express warranty under state law; (d) unjust enrichment under state law; and (e) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and state law. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Prabhanjan Kavuri as the class representative for the New Jersey Class; and 4. Florida Class: All persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Florida from American Honda Motor Company or through an American Honda Motor Company dealership ("Florida Class"). The Florida Class seeks class certification of claims for: (a) violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act ("FDUPA"), Fla. Stat. Sections 501.201-501.23 (2016); (b) breach of implied warranty under state law; (c) breach of express warranty under state law; (d) unjust enrichment under state law; and (e) injunctive and declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act and state law. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Joseph Ryan Parker as the class representative for the Florida Class. The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of these firms as Class Counsel for all certified classes: Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP; Berger & Montague P.C.; and Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman. The appellate case is captioned as Dennis MacDougall, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 20-56060, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Prabhanjan Kavuri, Bryan Lentz, Dennis MacDougall, Joseph Ryan Parker and Ray Seow Mediation Questionnaire is due on October 22, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 9, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 7, 2020; -- Appellants Prabhanjan Kavuri, Bryan Lentz, Dennis MacDougall, Joseph Ryan Parker and Ray Seow opening brief is due on January 19, 2021; -- Appellee American Honda Motor Co., Inc. answering brief is due on February 18, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DENNIS MACDOUGALL, RAY SEOW, PRABHANJAN KAVURI, JOSEPH RYAN PARKER, and BRYAN LENTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Shimon Yiftach, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 322-0322 E-mail: shimony@bgandg.com Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. is represented by: Livia M. Kiser, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 353 N Clark Street, 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 995-6333 E-mail: lkiser@kslaw.com - and - Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4344 E-mail: mshortnacy@kslaw.com ANAPLAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Anaplan Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Anaplan Inc. (NYSE:PLAN) PLAN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 21, 2019 - February 26, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/anaplan-inc-information-request-form?prid=9532&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Anaplan Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial guidance for "calculated billings growth" was baseless and unattainable. Further, while in possession of this material non-public information, Anaplan insiders dumped approximately $30 million worth of Anaplan stock at artificially inflated prices. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] ANNA MARIA COLLEGE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anna Maria College. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Anna Maria College, Case No. 1:20-cv-08636 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Anna Maria College is a four-year, private, co-ed, Catholic institution accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.[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 ARBITERSPORTS LLC: Quezada Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARBITERSPORTS, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Rodriguez Quezada, Brendan Monaghan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ARBITERSPORTS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-05193 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Arbitersports, LLC provides game management solutions. The Company offers tools and technology that helps assigners, coordinators, athletic directors, and officials to manage all aspects of their responsibilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott H. Wolpert, Esq. Christine M. Gordon, Esq. TIMONEY KNOX LLP 400 Maryland Dr., PO Box 7544 Fort Washington, PA 19034-7544 Phone: (215) 540-2656 Email: swolpert@timoneyknox.com cgordon@timoneyknox.com ARCH INSURANCE: Staley Suit Goes to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHANCE STALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, and OUT OF TOWNE, LLC, d/b/a RED SKY TRAVEL INSURANCE, Case No. 1:20-cv-02223, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on October 15, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00833-BCW to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract by refusing to reimburse or refund the Plaintiff and Class members for the loss of use of their ski passes insured by the Defendant as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Arch Insurance Company offers property, casualty and specialty insurance. Its principal place of business is located at 300 Plaza Three, Jersey City, New Jersey. Red Sky Travel Insurance, d/b/a Out of Towne, LLC, is an insurance provider with its principal place of business located at 6 Juniper Trail, Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Lindstrom, Esq. POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 963-8881 Facsimile: (713) 583-5388 E-mail: clindstrom@potts-law.com ASH SOUNDS: Settles Falls Festival Crowd Crush Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kimberley Price, writing for The Standard, reports that a group of festival goers who were involved in a crowd crush at the Falls Music and Arts Festival in Lorne in 2016 will receive a share in almost $7 million. The Victorian Supreme Court approved the settlement reached between the group of 77 people, including a handful of Warrnambool residents and the defendant, Ash Sounds Pty Ltd. Maddens Lawyers principal lawyer Kathryn Emeny said the class action began in early 2017 and many of the group members suffered life-altering injuries. "The lead plaintiff Michela Burke and each of the participating group members have demonstrated great tenacity and persistence to achieve this outcome," she said. "Maddens Lawyers are proud to have secured this result which will see each participant compensated for the vast majority of the value of their claim. The settlement will provide certainty to group members and we hope that it will also assist them in moving forward with their ongoing recovery." Nineteen people were taken to hospital with broken bones and other serious injuries and dozens more were hurt when a stampede broke out between acts in the Grand Theatre at the music festival. Ms Burke suffered a significant brachial plexus injury in the stampede and she welcomed the settlement approval. "I am relieved that the matter is close to finalisation and we can finally begin to put the crowd crush behind us," she said. [GN] AUSTIN BRIDGE: Misclassifies Field Office Managers, Davis Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICKI DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD, LP, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01208 (W.D. Tex., October 12, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried employee from October 1988 to September 2020, as a Field Office Manager until February or March 2020, and as a Senior Field Office Manager from February or March 2020 until September 2020. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Field Office Managers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. As a result, despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other Field Office Managers were deprived by the Defendant of overtime compensation for all the hours they worked over 40 per week. Austin Bridge and Road, LP provides building and construction services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com AUSTRALIA: Minister for Environment Faces Climate Change Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bella Burgemeister, in a letter to the editor submitted to The Islander, states that summer to me used to mean fresh air while riding in the car and playing "I spy" with music in the background, on the way to the beach. "But last summer you couldn't go two songs without constant, scary interruptions of 'watch and act' bushfire warnings. The smell of smoke was overwhelming and, sometimes, it was hard to see through the smoke haze. "I live in Bunbury in regional Western Australia. It's a small coastal paradise with nearby bushland, but we always seem to be under constant threat of bushfires, rising sea levels and mining. "To combat climate change, our city has installed seawalls and the world's first inflatable reef to stop waves crashing on the sand and destroying our coastline. Every year there are devastating bushfires that, in the past, have destroyed whole towns and ended lives. "All of this is coupled with reduced rainfall and streamflow into our groundwater resources, due to hotter and longer summers. "We have also seen native animals only found in this region added to the critically endangered list, and mining companies come in to take people's land for fracking. "I remember being about 10 years old, standing with my community to defend our land from fracking companies. It's scary to think about how they're able to come onto people's land, right into their backyards, poison it and destroy our water sources - this same land where we play sport and go to school. "As a young person, I don't get a say in who becomes our leaders; I can't vote or stand for election, so I need to find other ways to make my voice heard. "That's why I'm bringing the class action Sharma v Minister for Environment in the Federal Court with seven other young people. "This case is about stopping the climate impacts of the Vickery coal mine extension project in northern NSW. "Our federal government is still approving coal mines knowing they are fuelling the climate crisis. It is time our federal government put our futures before fossil fuels. "This case argues the environment minister has a duty of care to protect young people from these impacts. "Anyone under 18, worldwide, can join this class action, so register now. "You can also join School Strikes 4 Climate, with hundreds of actions taking place around Australia on Friday, September 25." "Bella Burgemeister, 14, is organising Bunbury's School Strike 4 Climate event on September 25 and leading the class action Sharma v Minister for Environment." [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, a Delaware corporation; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 3:20-cv-02047-JM-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong Kong, Dallas, and Toronto.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Blankenship Alleges Spoofing of Metals Futures ------------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY BLANKENSHIP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA; SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC.; SCOTIA HOLDINGS (US) INC.; THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK; COREY FLAUM; and JANE/JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-12998 (D.N.J., Sept. 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their unlawful and intentional manipulation of precious metals futures contracts through unlawful spoofing. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants manipulated the prices of Precious Metals Futures by employing a classic manipulative device known as "spoofing," whereby the Defendants placed orders for Precious Metals Futures to send false and illegitimate supply and demand signals to these markets and then canceled those orders before execution. As a result, the Defendants caused Precious Metals Futures prices to be artificial throughout the Class Period in order to financially benefit their trading positions at the expense of other investors, like the Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendants repeated the scheme throughout the Class Period and successfully manipulated Precious Metals Futures prices to artificial levels throughout the Class Period. The Bank of Nova Scotia, operating as Scotiabank, is a Canadian multinational banking and financial services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen M. Lerner, Esq. David E. Kovel, Esq. Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com klerner@kmllp.com amaneiro@kmllp.com BAY POWER: Faces Dahl FLSA Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- DANA DAHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAY POWER, INC., a California Corporation, and DONNA BUTCHER, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-07062 (N.D. Cal., October 9, 2020) is a collective action complaint arising from the Defendants' failure of properly paying overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an Inside Sales Representative from January 2017 to June 2020. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week during her employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants inaccurately paid the Plaintiff's overtime because it failed to include the value of the commissions that the Defendants provided to the Plaintiff in determining the regular rate of pay for the computation of the overtime. Bay Power, Inc. provides electrical products and solutions for industrial, commercial, & residential applications. Donna Butcher is a principal, director, officer, and/or owner of Bay Power. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rory Quintana, Esq. Ramsey Hanafi, Esq. QHP LAW, LLP 870 Market St., Suite 819 San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 504-3121 Fax: (415) 233-8770 E-mail: rory@qhplaw.com ramsey@qhplaw.com - and – Josh Sanford, Esq. Tess Bradford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, LLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com tess@sanfordlawfirm.com BETTER MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Dominguez Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LORENZO DOMINGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case 8:20-cv-01784 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Dominguez was employed by the Defendant as mortgage underwriter. Better Mortgage Corporation operates as a online mortgage lender. The Company offers mortgage and re finance services. Better Mortgage serves customers in the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: Helland@nka.com dbrome@nka.com - and - Jason Christopher Marsili, Esq. ROSEN MARSILI RAPP LLP 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite I 800 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622 Telephone: (213) 389-6050 Facsimile: (213) 389-0663 E-mail: jmarsili@rmrllp.com BIOLA UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Biola University, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Biola University, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08637 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Biola University is a private evangelical Christian university in La Mirada, California. Founded in 1908 in Los Angeles, the university has over 150 programs of study in nine schools.[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 BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Cohen Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKBAUD, INC.; THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE; BANK STREET COLLEGE OF EDUCATION; and LOWER EAST SIDE TENEMENT MUSEUM, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01388-JCC (W.D. Wash., Sept. 21, 2020) is an action by the Plaintiff seeking to recover damages on behalf of a Class of persons whose personal information, confidential charitable activities, and other sensitive and confidential personal information ("Private Information") was accessed without authorization by criminals as a result of the Defendants' unreasonable and deficient data security practices (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that because of the Defendants' unreasonable lack of oversight and lax security measures, sometime prior to May 2020, hackers accessed the Plaintiff's and the other Class members' confidential Private Information without authorization, extracted and downloaded the information, and stored and maintained the information in unsecured, vulnerable, and untraceable locations for extended periods of time. The Defendants failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the Private Information; failed to implement appropriate policies; and failed to properly train employees regarding cyberattacks. Had the Defendants properly monitored their networks, security, and communications, they would have prevented the Data Breach or would have discovered it sooner. As a direct and foreseeable result of the Data Breach, the Defendants' inadequate security measures, and the Defendants' unjustified delay in notification, the Plaintiff and the other Class members have incurred injury in fact and sustained actual damages from the exposure and misuse of their Private Information, and reasonable attempts to safeguard their Private Information, mitigate their risk to identity theft and fraud, and remedy the effects of the Data Breach, the suit says. Blackbaud, Inc. provides software and related services designed specifically for non-profit organizations. The Company's products and services enable non-profit organizations to increase donations, reduce fundraising costs, improve communication with constituents, manage their finances, and optimize internal operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl J. Marquardt, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CARL J. MARQUARDT PLLC 1126 34th Avenue, Suite 311 Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (206) 388-4498 E-mail: carl@cjmlawoffice.com - and - Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 480 S. Ellsworth Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com BLINK CHARGING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ: BLNK). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ: BLNK) Class Period: March 6, 2020 to August 19, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020 On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research issued a report on Blink Charging, contending that "the Company has vastly exaggerated the size of its EV charging network in order to siphon money from the pockets of investors to insiders. Blink claims that ‘EV drivers can easily charge at any of its 15,000 charging stations' but we estimate the Company's functional public charging station network consists of just 2,192 stations, a mere 15% of this claim." Culper continued that its "investigators confirmed what Blink's financials already suggest: almost no one uses Blink's charging stations, many of which are in utterly decrepit condition." On this news, Blink's stock price fell from its August 18, 2020 closing price of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 closing price of $7.94. This represents a two day drop of approximately 22.4%. The complaint, filed on August 24, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, or non-accessible; (2) Blink's purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were overstated; (3) the purported growth of the Company's network has been overstated; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Blink class action go to: https://bespc.com/BLNK About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] BRASKEM SA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK) Class Period: May 6, 2016 to July 8, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2020 On April 2, 2019, media sources and, later, Braskem, disclosed that the Company had been sued by local authorities in connection with a geological event it had purportedly caused in the state of Alagoas, Brazil. Specifically, Braskem disclosed, in relevant part, that the Company "ha[d] become aware, through the media, of a lawsuit filed against it by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public Defender's Office, both of the State of Alagoas." The Company also disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion to guarantee any potential damages owed to the general public affected by the geological phenomenon which occurred in districts near the rock salt extraction area in Maceió." On this news, Braskem's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $1.60 per share over two trading days, or 5.98%, to close at $25.14 per share on April 3, 2020. On July 9, 2020, Braskem disclosed that authorities in northeastern Brazil had advised the Company that the geological damage from its salt mining operations was more widespread than initial estimates. Specifically, among other things, 1,918 properties needed to be evacuated because of the geological event associated with Braskem's mining operations, and Braskem estimated that moving the residents would cost the Company an additional R$850 million in possible payments to those residents, with another additional R$750 million in expenses to "definitively" shut down Braskem's salt mining operations. On this news, Braskem's ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%, to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020. The complaint, filed on August 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Braskem's salt mining operations were unsafe and presented a significant danger to surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand properties; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that Braskem would be subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but not limited to, increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement, significant monetary and reputational damage, and/or the permanent closure of one or more of its salt mining operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem's salt mining operations were unsustainable; (iv) Braskem downplayed the true scope and severity of the Company's liability with respect to its salt mining operations; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Braskem securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/BAK About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] CALIFIA FARMS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Califia Farms, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Califia Farms, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08662 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Califia Farms LP was founded in 2011. The company's line of business includes the canning of fruits, vegetables, and fruit and vegetable juices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com CAPIO PARTNERS: Scurlark Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners LLC. The case is styled as Eural Scurlark, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capio Partners LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-03153-S (N.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Capio Partners is a medium-sized debt collection agency that is located in Duluth, Georgia, and headquartered in Sherman, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com CHARTWELL RETIREMENT: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Failures --------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Carter, writing for The Star, reports that a retirement home operator wants to stop quarantining new residents. Chartwell, the company in question and the largest in the field, has a very bad COVID-19 record. A class-action suit against Chartwell Retirement Residences and Long Term Care Homes is being filed by Neinstein LLP for their alleged failures in outbreak planning, precaution and responses relating to COVID-19, which resulted in preventable resident deaths and unnecessary suffering for their family members. There was inadequate testing of residents, staff and visitors, insufficient staff levels, failure to transport patients to hospital, inadequate PPE. The list goes on. Profits and the bottom line obviously come before the lives of residents. Then we learn there is a new job classification, and only a minimum public school education will now be required to care for people in these homes. The day the Star article appeared, I received a glossy ad in the mail from Chartwell, with a picture of a laughing senior couple having a lovely time, presumably in a Chartwell home, and the slogan "Life is better, TOGETHER." I shall not be booking my virtual or on-site tour. I would rather die at home than become a human gold mine for profiteers. [GN] CHICAGO CITY, IL: Cannon Files RICO Class Action ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chicago City, et al. The case is styled as People of United States of America Republic and United States of America Republic President Christopher-Cannon; BEY on behalf of themselves and a class and subclass of similarly situated persons v. Chicago City; Lori Lightfoot, City of Chicago Mayor; David O Brown, Chicago Police Chief; Thomas Dart, Sheriff; J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Governor; Jesse White, Illinois Secretary of State; Toni Preckwinkle, Cook County Board President; Karen Yarbrough, Cook County Clerk; Brendan F Kelly, Director Illinois State Police; Guzman, Chicago Police Officer; Connie Lawson, Indiana Secretary of State; Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase Bank President; Tom Dart, Cook County Sheriff; Thomas Carroll, Judge, Markham Court Court Room 204; Thaddeus L Wilson, Cook County Court Room 404; Chicago, IL City of Police; C. McVey, Officer; J Curtain, Officer; A Flores, Office; Officer Sanchez; Chicago Police; Illinois State Police; Other Unknown; Georgia State Patrol; Ohio Police Department; Illinois Police Department; Merrillville IN Police Dept.; Gary IN City of; Other Unknown Police Officers; Calumet City, IL Police Dept.; Robert Dyckman; Supervisor Auto Pound 6, City of Chicago Dept of Streets and Sanitation; Case No. 2:20-cv-00373-JTM-JEM (N.D. Ind., Oct. 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Commerce ICC Rates, Etc. for the Racketeering (RICO) Act. The City of Chicago covers an area of 60,000 hectares and sits 176 meters (578 feet) above sea level on the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: People of United States of America Republic and United States of America Republic President Christopher-Cannon 1499 Martin Luther King Drive Gary, IN 46401 Phone: (202) 569-0506 PRO SE CLARUS DIRECT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarus Direct, LLC. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Clarus Direct, LLC doing business as: www.shopsmarter.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04996 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Clarus Direct is the parent company that owns ShopSmarter and FreeShipping.com which offer online shopping programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com COTY INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Coty, Inc. (COTY) Class Period: 10/3/2016 - 5/28/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 3, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-coty/ GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO) Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the July 2020 initial public stock offering Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 20, 2020 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goco/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] COTY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Coty Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Coty Inc. (NYSE:COTY) COTY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 3, 2016 - May 28, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 3, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/coty-inc-information-request-form?prid=9564&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Coty Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) as a result, Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4) as a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the acquisition; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Coty's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Coty's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] CREDIBLE BEHAVIORAL: Starr Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARC STARR, ANDREW ROSEN, KELLY LEWIS, and VU LEE, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Employees v. CREDIBLE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-02986-PJM (D. Md., Oct. 15, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant refused to pay them overtime wages for working over 40 hours a week, which constituted a willful violation of the FLSA and applicable state wage laws. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendant classified them as exempt salaried employees not entitled to overtime pay despite the fact that their duties were clerical in nature. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were employed by the Defendant as partner services coordinators. Based in Rockville, Maryland, Credible Behavioral Health Software, Inc. supplies behavioral health technology and practice management software to various healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. Kelly A. Burgy, Esq. Scott E. Nevin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com kburgy@nicholllaw.com snevin@nicholllaw.com CULTURAL CARE: Improperly Paid Au Pairs, Morales Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN MORALES POSADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CULTURAL CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-11862-IT (D. Mass., October 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated au pairs appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked, failure to provide accurate wage statements, unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code and deceptive trade practice pursuant to New York General Business Law. The Plaintiff worked for Cultural Care as an in-home childcare worker or an au pair in New York and California since January 2019. Cultural Care, Inc. is a provider of childcare services, with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Seligman, Esq. Alexander N. Hood, Esq. TOWARDS JUSTICE PO Box 371680 PMB 44465 Denver, CO 80237-5680 Telephone: (720) 441-2236 E-mail: David@TowardsJustice.org - and – Peter Rukin, Esq. RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290 Oakland, CA 94612 - and – Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 - and – H. Clara Coleman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 DAYTONA BR-GD: Faces Jones Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, NANCY JONES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAYTONA BR-GD, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01891 (M.D. Fla., October 13, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making multiple telemarketing calls that are registered on the National Do Not Call (DNC) registry. The Plaintiff claims that he received numerous solicitation phone calls from the Defendant to his phone number, which was registered on the DNC on September 14, 2019, in an attempt to solicit her to trade in her car and purchase a new car from the Defendant. Despite his request to the Defendant to stop the calls, the calls continued over a series of months. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's unauthorized solicitation telephone calls have harmed him in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone. Daytona BR-GD, LLC d/b/a Daytona Toyota Group is a car dealership that sells new and used vehicles and provides car servicing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: Hildebrandt Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert C. Hildebrandt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-06168 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. is a mortgage subservicing company in the United States specializing in servicing loans on behalf of commercial banks, credit unions, mortgage banking companies and state and local housing finance agencies nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203 Schaumburg, IL 60193 Phone: (630) 460-7655 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com ELNA SEFCOVIC: Gonzalez Seeks High Court Review of Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs-Petitioners Charles D. Gonzalez, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled CHARLES D. GONZALEZ; SUSANNAH GONZALEZ; TED. L. VAUGHAN; and HILDA VAUGHAN, Petitioners, vs. ELNA SEFCOVIC, LLC; WHITE RIVER ROYALTIES, LLC; JUHAN, LP; and ROY ROYALTY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and TEP ROCKY MOUNTAIN, LLC, Respondents, Case No. 20-492. Response is due on November 16, 2020. Petitioners Charles D. Gonzalez, et al., filed a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the case titled Charles D. Gonzalez, et al., Petitioners vs. Elna Sefcovic, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-1120. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's use of pro forma boilerplate language rather than conducting any rigorous analysis of the requirements for certification of the settlement class, including adequacy of representation, and then compounded that error by failing to address the core concerns of adequacy of representation and equitable treatment of subgroups in connection with the settlement itself, notwithstanding the express requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2)(A) and (D). The following questions are presented: 1. Did the district court and the court of appeals improperly apply obsolete standards for approval of settlement class actions under prior case law rather than the current standard set out in the 2018 amendments to Rule 23(e)(2)? 2. When the settlement class was certified in the same order approving the settlement, and objections and evidence of inadequate representation and intra-class conflict of interest were before the district court and court of appeals, did the court of appeals improperly fail to require rigorous analysis and adequate findings by the district court as required by Rule 23(a) and 23(e)(2)? 3. When the objectors repeatedly asserted that the interests of a subclass were wrongfully "sacrificed" by the Class Representatives, did the court of appeals improperly decline to reach the issue of adequate representation on the grounds that it had been waived? 4. When the district court failed to analyze or make fact findings evidencing the exercise of its discretion, did the court of appeals improperly affirm approval of the class settlement based on its own fact findings and conclusions regarding the release given by the Class Representatives on behalf of the class? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 23, 2020, Judge Carolyn B. McHugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of a class settlement agreement over the objections of four class members. Appellee-Defendant TEP operates wells that produce natural gas in Colorado. These wells are subject to various leases or royalty agreements under which the owners of such instruments receive a share of profits from the sale of natural gas. In 2006, a class of plaintiffs filed suit ("Lindauer litigation") in Colorado state court, alleging that TEP had underpaid royalties on various royalty instruments. In 2008, TEP and the Lindauer class entered into a settlement agreement ("Lindauer SA") purporting to resolve all class claims relating to past calculation of royalties and to establish certain rules to govern future royalty payments. The Lindauer SA categorized members of the class into 13 separate categories based on the specific terms of their royalty instruments, and set forth different royalty calculation methods for each category. Approximately eight years passed, seemingly free of incident. But on July 18, 2017, Elna Sefcovic, LLC, White River Royalties, LLC, Juhan, LP, and Roy Royalty, Inc., individually and on behalf of a subset of royalty owners who were party to the Lindauer SA ("Sefcovic class"), initiated the action against TEP in Colorado state court, alleging that TEP had calculated and paid royalties in a manner inconsistent with the Lindauer SA and contrary to the underlying royalty agreements. TEP removed the case to federal court on August 17, 2017, and subsequently asserted a counterclaim against the Sefcovic class for an offset of ad valorem taxes owing to any repayment of royalties by TEP. The parties engaged in discovery and ultimately reached a proposed class settlement ("Sefcovic SA"). The Sefcovic SA creates four subclasses composed of four of the 13 categories created by the Lindauer SA. These subclasses sort class members according to the rights their royalty instruments grant TEP with respect to deductions from royalty payments. The Lindauer categories that comprise the Sefcovic subclasses are categories two, three, five, and eleven. Category two agreements allow "deduction of transporting gas from the mouth of the well to the point of sale, or customary transportation costs, or all transportation charges." Category three agreements allow deduction of third party transportation costs from the mouth of the well to the point of sale. Category five agreements calculate royalty payments based on, for example, market value at the well, proceeds at the well, market value, or proceeds. And category eleven agreements calculate royalty payments based on gross proceeds. On Aug. 16, 2018, the district court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and permitting notice to be mailed to the Sefcovic class members. On Nov. 6, 2018, appellants Charles Gonzales, Susannah Gonzales, Ted Vaughn, and Hilda Vaughn ("Objectors") filed various objections to approval of the proposed Sefcovic SA, including that the proposed settlement sacrificed the interests of certain class members, that the notice to class members was insufficient, and that the settlement's release of claims was overly broad. The Objectors each own royalty instruments falling in category two of the Lindauer SA and are therefore members of Subclass 1, as defined by the Sefcovic SA. The Lindauer SA treated category two royalty instruments differently than other categories. Although the Lindauer SA provided compensation to category two and category three owners for disputed past deductions, it did not clarify which deductions would be permitted prospectively under category two and category three leases. Instead, the Lindauer SA left the issue unresolved. The Sefcovic SA resolves the dispute in TEP's favor, declaring that TEP is entitled to deduct from Subclass 1 members a proportionate share of those members' gathering and fuel costs. On Feb. 20, 2019, the court held a final fairness hearing on the proposed Sefcovic settlement. It heard extensive testimony from the class members, the potential class members who opted out of the settlement, accounting experts, and the Objectors' counsel. Relevant in the case, the court also heard testimony from Susan Jerman, the owner of Subclass 1 representative White River Royalties, LLC. Ms. Jerman, who has worked in the oil and gas industry for forty years, testified that the deduction allowance provision in her category two agreement was weak as compared to the instruments in other subclasses, and thus, she believed the Sefcovic SA was "a fair settlement." Having read and considered all submissions in connection with the Sefcovic SA, the district court approved the settlement and incorporated its terms into the court's final order. The Objectors assert on appeal that (1) the settlement is not fair; (2) Subclass 1 representatives did not adequately represent the rights of absent Subclass 1 members; (3) notice of the class settlement was inadequate; and (4) the settlement agreement's release of claims is too broad. The Tenth Circuit analyzes each matter in turn and concludes that (1) the district court did not exceed its discretion in deeming the settlement fair; (2) Objectors did not preserve their challenge to the adequacy of Subclass 1 representatives; (3) notice of the proposed settlement was adequate; and (4) the released claims share a factual predicate with the claims asserted in the complaint. On Oct. 15, 2020, the Petitioners petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Tenth Circuit to address the significant erosion of the due process rights of absent class members that frequently occurs when settlement class certification and settlement approval are addressed simultaneously in a truncated fashion that does not include any rigorous analysis of adequacy of representation, which should be mandatory for both class certification and settlement approval.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Charles D. Gonzalez; Susannah Gonzalez; Ted. L. Vaughan; and Hilda Vaughan are represented by: Nathan Allen Keever, Esq. DUFFORD WALDECK LAW 744 Horizon Court, Suite 300 Grand Junction, CO 81506 Telephone: (970) 241-5500 E-mail: keever@dwmk.com EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Faces Sholtz Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CELIA SHOLTZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC., LIFETIME EMS, INC., and KENNETH JOSEPH, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02328 (N.D. Ohio, October 13, 2020) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the statutes and law of the State of Ohio. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately June 2018 to August 2020 as a medic. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours each workweek. However, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff straight time hourly rates and regularly split payments for hours worked between the company entities. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at least the lawful minimum wage rate for all hours worked each workweek, and failed to pay the him his lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep accurate records of hours and overtime worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. Emergency Medical Transport, Inc. and Lifetime EMS, Inc. provide pe-hospital medical emergency care and patient transport. Kenneth Joseph had an operational control over significant aspects of both Corporate Defendants' day-to-day functions, including the compensation of employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: (216) 916-2221 Fax: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowageslawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Defective Door Panels ------------------------------------------------------------ David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger door panels are coming off and warping to the point a class action lawsuit alleges the automaker should pay the damages. The lawsuit includes all consumers who currently own or lease, or formerly owned or leased, 2014-2021 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger or Dodge Daytona cars. The owner or lessee must have either paid out-of-pocket to repair the panels, or they must have surrendered the vehicle. Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) allegedly sold the cars while knowing since 2015 the door trim panels would warp or come off. The automaker also allegedly knew owners and lessees would be stuck paying hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars for repairs. Even if repairs are performed under warranty, the class action alleges Chrysler uses the same defective door panels for replacement parts. According to the door panel lawsuit, the warped panels cause problems with the side airbags, door locks, anti-theft mechanisms and heating and cooling systems. Chrysler 300s, Dodge Chargers and Dodge Daytonas lose their values due to the door panels coming off, and owners claim cosmetically the warped panels make the cars look terrible. The plaintiffs who filed the door panel lawsuit allege the front interior door panels separate and rise next to the windows. However, even the rear door panels can be affected by warping. Smaller panels also allegedly come off from the center console areas between the front seats, and the dashboards allegedly pull away from the windshields. Chrysler has allegedly done nothing to fix the door panel problems which are caused during manufacturing. The automaker allegedly continues to conceal defects with the door panels to continue marketing and selling the vehicles. The door panel class action alleges customers are forced to wait months for replacement panels and repairs, and the plaintiffs claim this is an intentional act by Chrysler. "Defendant's goal in refusing to make repairs in a reasonably prompt fashion is obvious: some customers will forgo the repairs, have the repair completed elsewhere, or neglect the repair until their warranties expire, thus saving Defendant the cost of making the in-warranty repairs." - Chrysler door panel lawsuit According to one of the plaintiffs, she bought a 2016 Chrysler 300C in April 2019, but in February 2020 the front interior door panel lifted up. She initially thought this problem was the result of vandalism and even filed a police report. When she took the car to Enterprise Car Sales where she purchased the Chrysler 300, she was allegedly told that the door panel problem was common in her model. She was told the car was outside its warranty, but she says she was able to convince Enterprise to replace the door panel as a one-time courtesy. Two weeks later all four of her door panels allegedly starting coming off and separating from the frame, even the panel that was just repaired. She called her insurance company for help, but a Chrysler dealer told the insurance company it would cost thousands of dollars to repair the car and the insurance company denied the plaintiff coverage. The Chrysler 300 owner says she called Chrysler and was told the automaker wouldn't pay anything, and since then the door panels are still coming off. According to the plaintiff, the door panels coming off have allowed hot streams of air to come from the interior door cavity and directly into the car. This allegedly makes the interior car temperatures a pain to regulate, and the plaintiff isn't able to transport her daughter to medical appointments. The plaintiff says the warped Chrysler 300 door panels have caused her to drive as little as possible. The Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Daytona warped door panel lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Johnson, et al., v. FCA US, LLC. The plaintiffs are represented by Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, and Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC. [GN] FLORIDA: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Hep C Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Elliot Mincberg, writing for People for the American Way, reports that Trump Eleventh Sixth Circuit judge Kevin Newsom wrote a 2-1 decision reversing a district court order that required the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) to provide antiviral medication to all incarcerated people suffering from Hepatitis C - a progressive disease that impairs liver function and can cause other disease and death. The August 2020 case is Hoffer v. Secretary, Florida Dept of Corrections. Although there is no vaccine for the deadly disease of Hepatitis C, a class of drugs called direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) has recently proven to be an effective treatment, although its cost is high. As of 2017, the Florida DOC was not providing DAA treatment to any of the thousands of incarcerated people with Hepatitis C in the state. In May 2017, Carl Hoffer (who has since died of the disease) and three other individuals filed a class action contending that DOC was violating the Eighth Amendment by being "deliberately indifferent" to the "serious medical needs" of those with Hepatitis C because it declined to provide effective DAA treatment. In response to the suit, the DOC adopted a plan that provided DAAs to people with advanced Hepatitis C with liver scarring but continued to deny it to most such infected individuals. The district court proceeded to hold a five-day evidentiary hearing. After granting a preliminary injunction to require DAA treatment for some additional Hepatitis C victims, the court later granted summary judgment mandating such treatment for all. As the court explained, DOC had "not put forth any medical reason" to withhold DAA treatment from those with currently less severe but progressing Hepatitis C, and the "only reason why" was cost, which reflects "deliberate indifference." DOC appealed. In a 2-1 decision written by Trump judge Newsom, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court. Newsom extensively discussed the expert testimony at the hearing. He concluded that there was "good-faith disagreement" between the experts as to whether the care that was being provided to individuals with less severe Hepatitis C was adequate, especially since the DOC plan called for monitoring all those with the disease in case it progressed. Newsom maintained that this showed that DOC's refusal to provide DAAs to all those with Hepatitis C was not "reckless and conscience-shocking", as he claimed must be shown to prove deliberate indifference. Nothing in previous precedent, Newsom asserted, "precludes prison authorities" from considering "the cost of treatment in making medical decisions." Judge Beverly Martin strongly dissented. She began by stating that even though the Supreme Court has long recognized that "prison officials must ensure" that incarcerated people, who have "no access to outside aid," "receive adequate . . . . medical care," this and other recent 11th Circuit rulings "undermine the rights of our incarcerated citizens to maintain their health and safety while they serve their sentence." Specifically, she explained that the majority had improperly re-interpreted the experts' testimony, which actually showed that they agreed that "all" people with Hepatitis C should be treated with DAAs. The record demonstrated, she continued, that delaying or denying such treatment for those currently with less advanced Hepatitis C risks liver damage and other types of debilitating disease, as well as death as shown in the case of plaintiff Carl Hoffer. Newsom was wrong in suggesting that cost could justify not providing DAAs, Martin went on, because case law was clear that cost cannot justify the failure to provide "constitutionally adequate medical care," and that authorities should be considered "deliberately indifferent" when "non-medical reasons" like cost are the reason it is not provided. As in another recent case in which a Trump judge provided the deciding vote to deny DAA treatment to incarcerated people in Tennessee with Hepatitis C, Newsom's opinion will harm many such individuals in Florida. In addition, as Judge Martin pointed out, it is part of a pattern of recent Eleventh Circuit decisions, in which Trump judges have also been involved, that improperly threaten the health and safety of incarcerated people. [GN] FLUIDIGM CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased Fluidigm Corporation ("Fluidigm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FLDM) securities between February 7, 2019 and November 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares of Fluidigm Corporation and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of Fluidigm Corporation, you may, no later than November 20 , 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Fluidigm Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: * that Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles; * that, as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and * that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects was materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 1, 2019, Fluidigm reported second quarter 2019 revenue of $28.2 million, well below analysts' expectations of $32 million, citing weakness in its microfluidics segment. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.10, or 34%, to close at $8.05. Then, on November 5, 2019, after the market closed, Fluidigm reported that third quarter 2019 revenue declined 8.5% year-over-year primarily due to mass cytometry instrument sales. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.60, or 51%, to close at $2.51 per share on November 6, 2019. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] GENERALI GLOBAL: Cooper Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC., (A.K.A CSA TRAVEL SERVICES), et al. The case is styled as Martha Cooper and Daniel Cooper, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC., (A.K.A CSA TRAVEL SERVICES); GENERALI U.S. BRANCH, (A.K.A GENERALI ASSICRAZIONI GENERALI S.P.A (U.S. BRANCH)); Case No. CGC20587185 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 16, 2020). The case type is stated as "BUSINESS TORT". Generali Global Assistance, Inc. provides insurance services. The Company offers travel insurance, identity theft protection, beneficiary companion, travel assistance, and risk management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by Gordon Wayne Renneisen, Esq. GOHEALTH INC: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Sept. 23 disclosed that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired GoHealth Inc. ("GoHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you purchased GoHealth Class A common stock, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit GOCO Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The registration statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation. Specifically the registration statement failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO: (i) the Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn, which had begun in the first half of 2020; (ii) GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer churn as a result of its unique business model and limited carrier base; (iii) GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer persistency and retention as a result of elevated industry churn, vulnerabilities that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier business model, and GoHealth's efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier partnerships and worsening product mix; (iv) GoHealth had entered into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with its external sales agents; and (v) these adverse financial and operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to continue and worsen following the IPO. Shortly after the IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock suffered significant price declines and by September 15, 2020, GoHealth Class A common stock closed at just $12.35 per share - over 40% below the $21 per share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two months previously. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 20, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased GoHealth Class A Common Stock, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/gohealthinc-goco-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-310/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contacts: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] GOHEALTH INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Coty, Inc. (COTY) Class Period: 10/3/2016 - 5/28/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 3, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-coty/ GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO) Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the July 2020 initial public stock offering Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: November 20, 2020 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goco/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] GOL LINHAS: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. (NYSE: GOL). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. (NYSE: GOL) Class Period: March 14, 2019 to July 22, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 10, 2020 In mid-June 2020, Gol's auditor, KPMG, raised significant concerns about Gol during the accounting firm's first annual audit of the Company after being hired in 2019, stating that it had an "adverse opinion" on the strength of Gol's internal controls regarding the preparation of financial statements, adding that there was "substantial doubt" about the airline's ability to exist a year from now. KPMG's adverse opinion prompted Gol to carry out a review of its financial reporting procedures. On July 23, 2020, GOL announced that it had dismissed KPMG as the Company's registered auditing firm. On this news, shares of GOL fell $.055 per share, or 7%, to close at $7.25 per share on July 23, 2020 The complaint, filed on September 11, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GOL had material weaknesses in its internal controls; (2) there was substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue to exist as a going concern because of negative net working capital and net capital deficiency; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the Gol class action go to: https://bespc.com/GOL About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN] GOOGLE: Decision to Remove Paytm from Play Store Raises Questions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Venkatesh Ganesh, writing for The Hindu Business Line, reports that Google's decision to remove Paytm from the Play Store has raised questions around the search giant's neutrality, considering its dominant position. "To say that big tech platforms are also gatekeepers for apps and hold a responsibility to ensure legal compliance as well is a tricky balance," said Akriti Gaur, technology lawyer and independent policy advisor. Both Paytm and Google compete in the digital banking segment. Google operates Google Pay in India, similar to Paytm. So, in effect Google could be abusing its position of power, which impacts competition, opine legal experts. 'Conflict of interest' Android enjoys a 90 per cent share in India. "Such a conflict of interest is not healthy and requires constant attention from the Competition regulator," said Santosh Pai, Honorary Fellow at the Institute of Chinese Studies. Udai Singh Mehta, Deputy Executive Director, CUTS International, a think tank, is of the view that it raises questions about platform neutrality in the payments ecosystem. On September 18, Google removed Paytm for a few hours, citing that the latter, with its Paytm First Games, had violated its policies pertaining to gambling. Google said in a blog post that it did not allow online casinos or support any unregulated gambling apps that facilitate sports betting. Subsequently, Paytm removed an offer that gave its users stickers, for payments and money transfers, which could then be used to redeem cashbacks, and was reinstated. This, however, raises broader questions such as the one raised by Paytm founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma who has pointed out that the search giant is the 'judge, jury and executioner.' These issues resurfaced in August when Google was hit with a class-action antitrust lawsuit in the US for alleged abuse of its market power, including the exclusion of competition, the stifling of innovation, the inhibition of consumer choice, and Google's imposition of a 30 per cent transaction fee on Play Store transactions on app developers. Owner's right? So, as a platform owner, does Google not have the rights to impose certain policies? "Every platform owner is free to impose policies for the use of its platform. Google Play policies for real money gambling, games and contests (which include fantasy sports) require such apps to be in compliance with local laws. Google is well aware that, having a dominant position in India, if it arbitrarily restricts applications providing competing services from the Play Store, without a compelling reason, then such action could be challenged as anti-competitive," stated Anupam Shukla, Counsel, Pioneer Legal. In India, fantasy sports are considered "games-of-skill" and not "games-of-chance" and are therefore not prohibited as per Centre's gambling laws. Also, gambling is a State subject. This also raises questions on consumer rights, and will more apps get removed? Buzz in the industry is that some other high profile apps, in the ongoing IPL, are under Google's scanner. "Such issues will continue to play up, considering that every business forays into each other's terrains," said Lloyd Mathias, an angel investor and former head of marketing of HP. [GN] HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN: Berry Files Civil Rights Suit -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hennepin County, et al. The case is styled as Patrick Berry, Henrietta Brown, Nadine Little, Dennis Barrow, Virginia Roy, Joel Westvig, Emmett Williams, ZACAH, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly-situated individuals v. Hennepin County; City of Minneapolis; Jacob Frey, Minneapolis Mayor; Medaria Arradondo, Minneapolis Chief of Police; Al Bangoura, Superintendent of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; Jason Ohotto, Park Police Chief at the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; John Does; Jane Does; David Hutchinson, Hennepin County Sheriff; in their individual and official capacity; Case No. 0:20-cv-02189-WMW-LIB (D. Minn., Oct. 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Hennepin County is a county in the U.S. state of Minnesota. As of the 2010 census, the population was 1,152,425. It is the most populous county in Minnesota and the 32nd-most populous county in the United States; more than one in five Minnesotans live in Hennepin County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clare A. Diegel, Esq. Isabella Salomao Nascimento, Esq. Teresa J Nelson, Esq. ACLU of MINNESOTA P.O. Box 14720 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Phone: (612) 670-5030 Email: cdiegel@aclu-mn.org inascimento@aclu-mn.org tnelson@aclu-mn.org - and - Dorinda L Wider, Esq. LGEAL AID SOCIETY OF MINNEAPOLID 430 1st Ave N Ste 300 Mpls, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 746-3762 Fax: (612) 334-5755 - and - Justin H Perl, Esq. Rebecca Stillman, Esq. MID-MINNESOTA LEGAL AID 111 North Fifth Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: (612) 746-3727 Email: jperl@mylegalaid.org rstillman@mylegalaid.org The Defendants are represented by: Christiana Martenson, Esq. Kelly K. Pierce, Esq. HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 300 South 6th Street, Ste. A2000 Minneapolis, MN 55487 Phone: (612) 348-5518 Fax: (612) 348-8299 Email: christiana.martenson@hennepin.us kelly.pierce@hennepin.us - and - Sarah C S McLaren, Esq. OFFICE OF THE MINNEAPOLIS CITY ATTORNEY 350 South Fifth Street, Room 210 Mpls, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 673-2183 Fax: (612) 673-3362 Email: sarah.mclaren@minneapolismn.gov IBM: Age Discrimination Class Action Ongoing -------------------------------------------- Sheila Callaham, writing for Forbes, reports that after a lengthy investigation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has confirmed what was already known by many: IBM leaders directed managers to replace older workers with early career hires. In the determination letter sent to the charging parties, the EEOC reported resource actions analyzed between 2013 and 2018 showed more than 85 percent of redundancies impacted older employees. "Other than the Texas Roadhouse case in 2017, this is the first age discrimination case the EEOC has gone the distance on in a long time," said Peter Gosselin, who, with Ariana Tobin, broke the story of the tech giant's flagrant disregard for age protections in March 2018. "The EEOC is a small agency, and investigations are expensive and lengthy. There are few cases of any kind it pursues, but they took on IBM and confirmed what we already knew -- there was a deliberate pattern of systemic age discrimination." While workers age 40 and over have been a protected category since the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in 1967, age has not generally been at the forefront of U.S. diversity and inclusion strategy. Instead, ageism has become the most acceptable "ism" in the workplace. Now older workers are increasingly calling attention to ageism in hiring, promotions, development opportunities and redundancy. Company leaders have a responsibility to set expectations for inclusion and equity -- and it doesn't stop at race and gender. "During 50 years of increasing sensitivity when it comes to race, gender and sexual orientation, it has made little impact on changing biased attitudes toward age," said Gosselin. "We've got a long fight ahead before we see real change. It takes people earlier in their careers to see the writing on the wall." Two months after the 2018 ProPublica report, the EEOC's New York district office began consolidating complaints from across the country. By September, Boston-based labor attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of three former IBM employees who say the tech giant discriminated against them based on their age when the company fired them. The suit now represents more than 150 former IBM employees, and Liss-Riodan continues to invite former employees to come forward. According to the lawsuit, IBM allegedly laid off at least 20,000 employees over the age of 40 between 2012 and the present. Rooting Out Age Bias Twenty years ago, IBM was considered a best practice benchmark for diversity and inclusion. Now the company is a case study for what not to do - ignore legal protections put in place to prevent workplace discrimination. While it's hard to pinpoint when the slow decay of leadership accountability for employee protections began, the class action lawsuit is turning up clues. ProPublica reported in January 2019 that Catherine A. Rodgers, a senior executive with IBM, claimed she was fired in 2017 after warning her superiors "the company was leaving itself open to allegations of age discrimination. In sworn testimony as part of a class-action lawsuit against IBM, the former executive says she was ordered not to comply with a federal agency's request that the company disclose the names of employees over 50 who'd been laid off from her business unit." In February 2018, IBM slammed a restraining order and sued its chief diversity officer and vice president of human resources, Lindsay-Rae McIntyre, after she accepted the same role at Microsoft. In the lawsuit, the company claimed McIntyre, who had been in the chief diversity officer's position since 2015, possessed highly confidential and sensitive information about IBM's diversity strategies, hiring targets, technologies and innovations." Gosselin argues there was little evidence of IBM executives having any sense of business strategy. "If you look at the early strategy documents we talk about in the investigation, there was little discussion as to what the strategy would be in the coming period," he said. "Instead, there was discussion about getting young people in and getting rid of the older ones, as if that might provide some secret sauce for finding their place in an increasingly competitive business environment." Although IBM and McIntyre settled within a few weeks, she was delayed from stepping into Microsoft's chief diversity role for several months, where she remains today. The EEOC investigation of documents between 2013 and 2018 determined "top-down messaging from IBM's highest ranks directing managers to engage in an aggressive approach to significantly reduce the headcount of older workers to make room for early professional hires." Seven years of documented, prescribed age bias and discrimination from company leaders create a work culture insidiously rooted in bad behavior directed at older employees. "Age bias is so deeply seeded in IBM and American corporate culture, that it's questionable whether the EEOC determination and eventual payout, will change things," said Gosselin. In a recent conversation with an IBM senior executive responsible for talent acquisition and development for North America, Helen Hirsh Spence got the impression that age wasn't even on the radar. When Hirsh Spence, Founder and CEO of Top Sixty Over Sixty, inquired what IBM was doing in the inclusion space around aging, the executive told her age wasn't an issue since IBM had older people in senior roles. "I remember feeling very disheartened and disappointed in the lack of recognition of age bias and its complexity," said Hirsh Spence. When leaders don't see a reason to consider age inclusion, no one does. For IBM, this is the beginning of a long journey to reset a cultural mindset. Why Age Equity Is An Imperative Talent management strategy needs to make age an imperative. Aside from being an overlooked protected category, age is a factor in all diversity categories, creating double- and triple-bias threats when left unchecked. For example, women of color over 50 have the highest unemployment rates. The notion of retirement is passe. The majority of people need to work for financial reasons or emotional and mental health. "We would like the idea of retirement to evaporate, and people just to do myriad things at all stages of their life," said Jonathan Collie at The Age of No Retirement. Fueling an initiative that challenges aging narratives in the workplace and beyond, Collie wants to highlight the social and economic value of all-age thinking. "Why should we just invest in the future of those embarking on their first career when people at the age of 55 have another 20 to 30 years of healthy life expectancy? Why can't we invest at least a portion of that effort in their future too?" Change begins with an acknowledgment of the issues. Only then can people sit down at the table to implement change. "You could make up for a world of sins if only the hiring market offered people like me an opportunity to work," said Gosselin. "You have older people who work hard, have a good record and can perform the required tasks, but once they're laid off, forced into retirement or take a leave of absence, it's the death knell." Now that the EEOC has thrown down the gauntlet on age discrimination against employees, Gosselin hopes it will also focus on discriminatory hiring practices. "Hiring is terribly distorted by age. If older workers can't get hired, we're screwed. I hope the EEOC pursues this vigorously." [GN] IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Gilead Sale --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP has launched an investigation into whether the board members of Immunomedics Inc. (NASDAQ: IMMU) ("Immunomedics" or the "Company") breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Gilead Sciences, Inc. On September 13, 2020, Immunomedics announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Gilead. Under the terms of the acquisition agreement, the Company's shareholders will receive $88 per share in cash. The investigation concerns whether the Immunomedics board failed to satisfy its duties to the Company shareholders, including whether the board adequately pursued alternatives to the acquisition and whether the board obtained the best price possible for Immunomedics shares of common stock. If you are a shareholder of Immunomedics and believe the proposed buyout price is too low or you're interested in learning more about the investigation, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. About Johnson Fistel, LLP Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit https://www.johnsonfistel.com. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] INFORMA BUSINESS: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Informa Business Media, Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Informa Business Media, Inc. doing business as: www.restaurant-food.informaconnect.com, Case No. 1:20-cv-04997 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Informa Business Media, Inc. provides publishing services. The Company provides listings of charter companies, fuel suppliers, ground transportation, maintenance, and catering services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com ITRON, INC: Tomko Wage Suit Moved to E.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------- The case styled SHAWN TOMKO, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. ITRON, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01170, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on October 15, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00375-SMJ to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated implementation managers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to maintain accurate time records. Itron, Inc. is an American technology company that offers products and services related to the delivery of infrastructure services, with its headquarters located at 2111 N. Molter Road, Liberty Lake, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 Facsimile: (412) 774-1994 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com KETTLE MORAINE SCHOOL: Crumble Files Civil Rights Suit in Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kettle Moraine School District, et al. The case is styled as Ebony Crumble, Individually and on behalf of SQ and other similarly situated individuals v. Kettle Moraine School District, Kettle Moraine High School, Kettle Moraine Middle School, Case No. 2:20-cv-01585 (E.D. Wis., Oct. 16, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights. Kettle Moraine School District is a highly rated, public school district located in Wales, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B'Ivory LaMarr, Esq. THE LAMARR FIRM PLLC 5100 W Heimer Rd-Ste 200 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (800) 679-4600 Fax: (800) 679-4600 Email: blamarr@lamarrfirm.com KIA MOTORS: Kondash Appeals Ruling in Class Suit to 6th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tom Kondash filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TOM KONDASH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00506-MWM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As reported in the Class Action Reporter Oct. 12, 2020, the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an order: 1. denying Kondash's Motion to Certify Class consisting of: "all persons and entities who purchased or leased a "Class Vehicle" in Ohio. "Class Vehicles" include the following Kia models equipped with PSRs: 2011-2015 Sorento, 2011- 2015 Sportage, 2011-2015 Optima (including hybrid), and the 2014-2015 Cadenza"; 2. granting Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert Hannemann; 3. granting Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert Read; 4. denying as moot Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert Gaskin; 5. denying as moot Kia's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert Weir; and 6. denying as moot Kondash's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Expert Strombom. The Court said, "Kondash has failed to demonstrate that the most important factual question in this case -- whether the Class Vehicles have a common defect -- is capable of class-wide resolution. As courts across the country have routinely found when faced with similar circumstances, this Court finds that Kondash has failed to meet his burden of 'affirmatively demonstrating' that common questions predominate over individual issues. In sum, without the expert testimony of Hannemann and Read, there is no evidence of a class-wide defect. And without evidence of a class-wide defect, there is nothing that ties the class together in order to satisfy predominance." Kondash seeks to certify this class action based on an alleged common design defect of certain Kia vehicles' panoramic sunroofs (PSRs). He alleges this "systematic" design defect causes Kia PSRs to spontaneously shatter. Kondash contends that certifying this class action is appropriate because "classwide proof can speak to the main issues in this case: that there's a defect, that it's dangerous, and that Kia continued to manufacture and sell the vehicles while concealing the danger from drivers." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices, the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Florida Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Louisiana Redhibition Law, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. In July 2015, while driving his 2012 Kia Optima on the highway with his wife, the Kondash suddenly heard a loud noise as his panoramic sunroof burst, causing glass to rain into his car. The wind whipped the sunshade awning around and dumped broken glass over Kondash and his wife, causing small cuts and glass splinters to their arms and legs. As it turns out, Kondash was not the only Kia owner who experienced their panoramic sunroof to spontaneously shatter. Shortly thereafter, Kondash filed this prospective class action lawsuit against Kia. The appellate case is captioned as TOM KONDASH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 20-304, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner TOM KONDASH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq. Urja Mittal, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER PLLC 1900 L Street, NW, Suite 312 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com - and - Greg Coleman, Esq. Adam A. Edwards, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com adam@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Eric Gibbs, Esq. David Stein, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (800) 254-9493 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com - and - Kim Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Cecily C. Shiel, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101-4416 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com cshiel@tousley.com LA FAMILIA: Mejia Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Grocery Staff ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL MEJIA ROSARIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA FAMILIA DELI MARKET CORP. (D/B/A LA FAMILIA DELI MARKET), RAFAEL SOTO, EDWARD PIMENTEL, and SOCRATES DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-08617 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to provide a written wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook and deli man at La Familia Deli Market located at 281 E. 170th Street, Bronx, New York, from approximately June 9, 2019 until on or about October 11, 2020. La Familia Deli Market Corp. owns and operates a deli grocery under the name La Familia Deli Market located at 281 E. 170th Street, Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 LAST RESORT: Mills Sues Over Sexual Discrimination, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL MILLS, KEELA SINGLETON, ALLISON BARROW, ALLYSSA PEACE, ALEXA ARMSTRONG, ALMA KAEMPF, BRIANNA HEAD, KENNETH MARTINEZ, and MADISON McDEARIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAST RESORT GRILL, INC. and STANLEY WALKER, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00115-CDL (M.D. Ga., October 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants under Title VII for quid pro quo discrimination, hostile work environment discrimination and/or retaliation; and under Georgia law for the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, battery and negligent hiring/retention. According to the complaint, Defendant Walker constantly, severely, and explicitly harassed, propositioned and, if rebuffed, punished female employees based upon their gender. The Plaintiffs allege Defendant Walker sexually harassed them at work by making comments about their bodies, touching them, and constantly asking them to meet him after work hours and/or go home with him. If they rebuffed him, he would punish them by giving them less valuable shifts, reducing or altering their work shifts, belittling their concerns, telling them that they were weak, unequally disciplining them, and sabotaging their work justifying his termination of their employment. As a result of Defendant Walker's misconduct, the Plaintiffs have suffered lost compensation, emotional distress, inconvenience, humiliation, and other indignities. The Plaintiffs are all former employees of the Defendants employed, at various times, from November 2017 through June 2020. They are all female who worked as hosts/server assistants, servers, and bartenders at the Last Resort Grill restaurant in Athens, Georgia, except for Kenneth Martinez, a male, who worked as a cook. Last Resort Grill, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator based in Athens, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter H. Steckel, Esq. STECKEL LAW, L.L.C. 54 South Main Street Watkinsville, GA 30677 Telephone: (404) 717-6220 E-mail: peter@SteckelWorkLaw.com LESSING'S INC: Vasquez Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LESSING'S INC. The case is styled as Jose Vasquez, Olivin Reyes, and Benigno Reyes Canales, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LESSING'S INC., AND ALL RELATED ENTITIES, Case No. 619324/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 16, 2020). The case type is stated as "E-FILED CONTRACT CASE". Lessings, Inc. owns and operates restaurants. The Company offers prepared foods, snacks, and drinks for on-premises and off-premises consumption.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 VETERANS HWY, STE B HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 The Defendant is represented by: JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 58 SOUTH SERVICE RD, STE 250 MELVILLE, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 247-0404 LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Class Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of those who acquired LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. ("LexinFintech" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LX) securities during the period from December 18, 2017 through August 24, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 9, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. 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. If you acquired LexinFintech securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600 investigations@kmllp.com www.kmllp.com [GN] MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Dixon Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENISE DIXON, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees, Plaintiff v. MAPLEBEAR INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS INSTACART, JOHN DOE, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV39633 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys General Act of California Labor Code including willful misclassification of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees as independent contractors, failure to pay legally required overtime and minimum wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to keep and provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay split shift premiums, failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon termination, failure to provide basic information upon hiring, failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and costs, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an Instacart personal shopper on or about March 20, 2020 until the termination of her employment on March 30, 2020. Maplebear Inc., d/b/a Instacart, is an American company that operates a grocery delivery and pick-up service in the United States and Canada, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin Crough, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJ1AN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com MARTINS POTATO: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martins Potato Chips Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Martins Potato Chips Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08657 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Martin's Potato Chips is a manufacturer of potato chips, popcorn, and other salted snack foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com MEDIANEWS GROUP: Faces Tejada Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA TEJADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC., and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-07222 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of the California law by maintaining policies and practices that systematically fail to provide employees with the protections of California's Labor Code. The complaint alleges that due to the Defendants' policies and practices, the Defendants had violated numerous provisions of the California Labor Code, including but not limited to, failing to compensate class members for all hours worked, failing to compensate piece rate employees for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time, failure to provide class members with meal periods and rest periods, failure to provide class members with minimum and overtime wages, failing to maintain accurate and complete employment records, failure to provide class members with accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse class members for business expenses, and failure to timely pay all wage earned. The Plaintiff also contends that these acts, which violate the California Labor Code, constitute unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Laws. The Plaintiff was employed by MNG as a newspaper carrier from approximately 2015 to December 2016 around San Mateo, California. MediaNews Group, Inc. is a media company distributing online and print media, including The Mercury News, throughout the San Francisco Bay Area in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ottinger, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 262-0096 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Le Sues Over Improper Background Check ----------------------------------------------------- LAN LE, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDTRONIC, INC.; COVIDIEN, L.P.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02040-BEN-BLM (C.D. Cal., October 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to make proper disclosures and obtain proper authorization in connection with their employment background check requirement. Specifically, as part of the employment application, the Defendants required the Plaintiff and Class members to sign a "Disclosure Regarding Background Reports" and "Authorization to Obtain Background Check Reports" form for the Defendants to perform a background check and obtain consumer credit reports. This form is embedded with extraneous information and surplusage pertaining to several state law requirements, fails to provide all the requisite information and contains a liability waiver. This document fails to meet the "clear and conspicuous" requirement under California and federal law in the United States. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to translate and provide the requisite disclosures and authorizations in a language understandable to employees or applicants with limited English reading proficiency. Medtronic, Inc. is a medical device company with its headquarters located at 710 Medtronic Parkway, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Covidien LP is a manufacturer of surgical appliances and supplies, with its headquarters located at 15 Hampshire St., Mansfield, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com MO HOTTA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mo Hotta - Mo Betta, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mo Hotta - Mo Betta, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08654 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mo Hotta Mo Betta is the Original Hot & Spicy Food Company since 1989. For 25 YEARS, Mo Hotta Mo Betta has been providing the hot and spicy foods in kitchens across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Lewis PI Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stevenson Lewis v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00378-REP, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 19, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-07323-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Thomas Anderson, Esq. KETTERER BROWNE & ANDERSON, LLC 336 S. Main Street Bel Air, MD 21014 Phone: (855) 522-5297 Fax: (855) 572-4637 Email: pete@kbaattorneys.com - and - J. Robert Bell, III, Esq. Joseph A. Osborne, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS 433 Plaza Real, Suite 271 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 293-2600 Fax: (561) 923-8100 Email: rbell@realtoughlawyers.com josborne@realtoughlawyers.com MOVIN' IRON: Fails to Properly Pay Minimum Wages, Harlow Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- TOBY HARLOW, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOVIN' IRON, INC., a domestic corporation, JOHN M. HOLT, an individual, and TIM E. BRAGWELL, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01597-HNJ (N.D. Ala., October 13, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate him and other similarly situated drivers at the federal minimum wages for all hours worked for non-driving, and/or non-productive time, and failed to reimburse them for the business expenses they incurred performing job duties for the Defendants. Movin' Iron, Inc. operates an inter-state transportation and trucking business. John M. Holt and Tim E. Bragwell are officers and/or directors of Movin' Iron. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward I. Zwilling, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD I. ZWILLING, LLC 4000 Eagle Park Corporate Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 Tel: (205) 822-2701 E-mail: edwardzwilling@zwillinglaw.com NANO-X IMAGING: Kaskela Law Alerts of Class Action Filing --------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC on Sept. 23 disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) on behalf of investors who purchased Nano-X's securities between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased Nano-X's securities during the Class Period and suffered an investment loss in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 – 1585, or by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss this action and their legal rights and options. Additional information about this action may also be found at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/nano-x-imaging-ltd/. As detailed in the complaint, on September 15, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published a report entitled "Nano-X Imaging (NNOX) A Complete Farce on the Market – Theranos 2.0" (the "Citron Report"). The Citron Report summarized Nano-X as "this $3 billion company is nothing more than a science project with a simple rendering, minimal R&D, fake customers, no FDA approval, and fraudulent claims that are beyond the realm of possibility." The Citron Report also alleged that the Company's claims about its customers with commercial agreements were false, that the Company has not published any data comparing images from its machines with other x-ray machines, and that Nano-X's statements that it was creating a novel solution to medical imaging were false. Following this news, shares of Nano-X's securities fell $12.41 per share over two trading days, or over 25% in value, to close at $36.80 per share on September 16, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants made a series of false and misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nanox System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images with images from competitors' machines; (3) Nano-X's submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") admitted the Nanox System was not original; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Nano-X's securities during the Class Period may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action. Nano-X investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this opportunity to participate in the action. Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. CONTACT: D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 (484) 258 – 1585 (888) 715 – 1740 www.kaskelalaw.com skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN] NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McClintock Injury Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Scott McClintock. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:20-cv-02501, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 16, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-06144 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit organization, which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 554-9099 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amir Preisler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:20-cv-62130-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationwide Credit, Inc. provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services. The Company offers outsourcing, including contingency collections, first and third party, customer relationship management, attorney network, and skip program services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com NEBRASKA: Stanko Appeals Order in Prisoners Suit to 8th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rudy Butch Stanko filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated October 8, 2020, and Judgment dated October 8, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Rudy Stanko v. Jeff Brewer, Case No. 8:20-cv-00302-RGK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha. Jeff Brewer is sued in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Sheridan County, Nebraska. The complaint against Brewer alleges the Sheridan County Jail does not provide adequate legal resources for self-represented litigants in violation of Stanko's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. On June 24, 2020, Plaintiff Rudy Stanko filed a complaint against the Defendant in the District Court of Sheridan County, Nebraska. He amended his complaint on or about June 29, 2020. The amended complaint alleges Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's access to counsel and the courts and subjected Plaintiff to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The Defendant was served, and prior to filing any responsive pleadings, he timely filed a notice to remove this action to federal court. In his removal notice, the Defendant argued Plaintiff's complaint raised a federal question and that this court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. The Plaintiff objected and claimed that removal to federal court is inconvenient because there are no federal courthouses in the area of western Nebraska where he resides (or claims to reside). He additionally argued that the Nebraska state court had jurisdiction over his claims and removal was therefore inappropriate. The Magistrate Judge evaluated the jurisdictional issue, found the court has subject matter jurisdiction, and overruled Plaintiff's objections to the assigned trial location. The Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were adopted in their entirety, and Plaintiff's motion to remand was denied. During the course of the parties' jurisdictional and trial location dispute, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The parties briefed the motion, and it was fully submitted on August 24, 2020. Thereafter, on September 4, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint without leave of the court or the Defendant's consent. Defendant moved to strike the second amended complaint. On October 8, 2020, the Court ordered that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion Strike are granted. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Rudy Stanko v. Jeff Brewer, Case No. 20-3150, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Brief of Appellant Rudy Butch Stanko is due November 24, 2020; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Rudy Butch Stanko, individually and on behalf of similarly situated prisoners, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees Jeff Brewer, individually, is represented by: Robert S. Keith, II, Esq. Alexis M. Wright, Esq. ENGLES & KETCHAM 1350 Woodmen Tower 1700 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-0000 Telephone: (402) 348-0900 E-mail: rkeith@ekoklaw.com awright@ekoklaw.com NIKOLA CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds Class Action Filing -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who acquired Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) securities during the period from March 3, 2020 through September 20, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially 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. If you acquired NKLA securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600 investigations@kmllp.com www.kmllp.com [GN] NORIEGA FURNITURE: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noriega Furniture, et al. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Noriega Furniture, a California corporation; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 3:20-cv-02045-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Noriega Furniture began as a neighborhood furniture store in 1948 and has grown into the Bay Area's premier purveyor of high-end home furnishings and design and offers design expertise and interior design services in San Francisco and throughout the Bay Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com OATLY INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oatly Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Oatly Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08665 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oatly is a vegan food brand from Sweden that produces alternatives to dairy products from oats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Odonate Therapeutics. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT) ODT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 7, 2017 - April 21, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/odonate-therapeutics-inc-information-request-form?prid=9532&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's orally administered chemotherapy agent, tesetaxel, was not as safe or well-tolerated as the Company had led investors to believe; (ii) consequently, tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] OLD VIENNA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old Vienna, L.L.C. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Old Vienna, L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-08655 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Old Vienna LLC is a food & beverages company based out of Fenton, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com OVATION CREDIT: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Text Message ------------------------------------------------------------------ TERRY FABRICANT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OVATION CREDIT SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-09400 (C.D. Cal., October 13, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an unsolicited text message to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 in or about November 24, 2018 in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in transmitting the text message without obtaining prior express consent from the Plaintiff to receive unsolicited text message via ATDS. Ovation Credit Services, Inc. provides financial services. [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 PANHANDLE GETAWAYS: Sanford Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PANHANDLE GETAWAYS LLC, et al. The case is styled as Angela Sanford, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. PANHANDLE GETAWAYS LLC, A GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; ANN SHANK, INDIVIDUALLY; Case No. 5:20-cv-00282-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla., Oct. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Panhandle Getaways has specialized in beach and gulf front vacation rentals since 1992.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA - ORLANDO FL 20 N Orange Ave., Ste. 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 425-8171 Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com PINE CLUB: Church Suit Seeks to Certify Tipped Servers Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRI CHURCH, et al. , for herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE PINE CLUB, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00135-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act class (FLSA) consisting of; "all individuals currently or formerly employed by the Defendant in a tipped server position for which a tip credit was applied at any time between April 9, 2017 and the date the Court order conditionally certifying the class"; and 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claim can be promptly sent to all potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiff says she is similarly situated to the other Tipped Servers who currently or formerly work for the Defendant since April 9, 2017. The Plaintiff is similarly situated to the other Tipped Servers because they were all subject to the Defendant's same unlawful policy of the Defendant taking a tip credit without Defendant notifying the Tipped Servers of the Tipped Notice Requirements as required under 29 U.S.C. section 203(m), says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working as a server for the Defendant in a tipped position in July 2011. Founded in 1947, the Pine Club operates a steakhouse in Dayton, Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification dated Oct. 19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35i0V6L at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley L. Gibson, Esq. Angela J. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON LAW, LLC 9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: 513-834-8254 Facsimile: 513-834-8253 E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com angela@gibsonemploymentlaw.com REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Says Drug Trial Reports Misleading --------------------------------------------------------------- TOSHIF PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REATA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., J. WARREN HUFF, and MANMEET S. SONI, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00796 (E.D. Tex., October 15, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Reata Pharmaceuticals' business, operational, and compliance policies in order to attract investors and artificially inflate prices of Reata securities between October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were insufficient to support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of Friedreich's ataxia (FA) in the U.S. without additional evidence; (ii) as a result, it was foreseeable that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would not accept marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. based on the MOXIe Part 2 study results; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 10, 2020, during pre-market hours, Reata issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2020 financial results, wherein it disclosed that the FDA is not convinced that the MOXIe Part 2 results of the Company's study assessing omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA will support a single study approval without additional evidence that lends persuasiveness to the results. On this news, Reata's stock price fell $51.79 per share, or 33.16%, to close at $104.41 per share on August 10, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, with principal executive offices located at 5320 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520 Dallas, TX 75251 Telephone: (972) 521-6868 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.co - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com RECON360 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS HUMBERTO CARRILLO DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECON360, LLC; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV370603 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Sept. 22, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Carrillo was employed by the Defendants staff. Recon360, LLC provides in-house design with reconstruction, roofing, painting and maintenance divisions dedicated exclusively for homeowner association communities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura B1vd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com davidk@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com SAINT FRANCIS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Francis University. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Saint Francis University, Case No. 1:20-cv-08664 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Saint Francis University is a private Catholic liberal arts university in Loretto, Pennsylvania.[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 SAMFORD UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samford University. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Samford University, Case No. 1:20-cv-08715 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Samford University is a private Christian university in Homewood, Alabama. In 1841, the university was founded as Howard College.[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 SIMM ASSOCIATES: Fantacone FDCPA Suit Removed to N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Fantacone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Simm Associates, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 005262/2020, was removed from the NYS Supreme Court - County of Onondaga, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on Oct. 16, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01277-DNH-ML to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. SIMM Associates is a family owned and operated financial services business assisting clients as accounts receivable management specialists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Goldenberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC 818 East 16 Street, Ste. Ground Floor Brooklyn, NY 11230 Phone: (347) 640-4357 Email: simon@goldenbergfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam Marshall, Esq. Brett A. Scher, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK, LLP 135 Crossways Park Dr., Ste. 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Phone: (516) 283-8731 Fax: (516) 681-1101 Email: amarshall@kdvlaw.com bscher@kdvlaw.com SOCIETY INSURANCE: RSV Enterprises Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as RSV Enterprises, Inc. doing business as: Drake Diner; MJPD Ventures, LLC doing business as: Winestyles of Ankeny; On behalf of theselves and others similarly situated v. Society Insurance, Case No. 4:20-cv-00256, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 16, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-06154 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract. Society Insurance is a business insurance carrier headquartered in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian P Galligan, Esq. GALLIGAN & REID PC 300 Walnut Street, Suite Five Des Moines, IA 50309-2239 Phone: (515) 282-3333 Email: bgalligan@galliganlaw.com - and - Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Phone: (937) 435-7500 Email: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com The Defendant is represented by: Guy R. Cook, Esq. Laura Nicole Martino, Esq. GREFE & SIDNEY PLC 500 E. Court Avenue, Suite 200 Des Moines, IA 50309 Phone: (515) 245-4300 Status: (515) 245-4452 Email: gcook@grefesidney.com lmartino@grefesidney.com STATE FARM: Baker Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RASHAD BAKER, RACHAEL LEONARD, and ZELMA STOVALL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00014-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class consisting of: "all persons issued a Georgia vehicle insurance policy by State Farm who -- based on loss dates between December 7, 2017 and the date of certification -- made physical damage claims under their policies that were assigned comprehensive or collision cause of loss codes 312, 332, 334, 390, 392, 394-397, 400, or 403"; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Baker and Stovall as class representatives; and 3. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Oct. 19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2FN9Fcj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerry A. Buchanan BUCHANAN LAW FIRM, PC Post Office Box 2848 Columbus, GA 31902 Telephone: (706) 323-2848 E-mail: jab@thebuchananlawfirm.com- and - - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Matt@WebbLLC.com SUNCOKE ENERGY: Cohn Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michael Cohn filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., Case No. 1-19-cv-00693, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 15, 2020, Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The case is a consolidation of three related actions: Marks v. Suncoke Energy Partners, L.P., 19-cv-00693-CFC; Zolotarev v. Suncoke Energy Partners, L.P., 19-cv-01055-CFC; and Cohn v. Suncoke Energy Partners, L.P., 19-cv-01107-CFC. Lead Plaintiff Michael Cohn was a unitholder of SunCoke Energy Partners, L.P. ("SXCP"), a Delaware limited partnership. The sole general partner of SXCP was SunCoke Energy Partners, G.P. LLC (SXCP GP), a Delaware limited liability company. Section 7.9(c) of the partnership agreement that governs SXCP contains the "safe harbor" provision. The partnership agreement requires that the Conflicts Committee be comprised of two or more directors who have no affiliation with or ownership interest in SXCP GP or SXCP GP's affiliates. On Feb. 5, 2019, SunCoke Energy, Inc. and SXCP announced an agreement for SunCoke to acquire all outstanding common units of SXCP not already owned by SunCoke in a stock-for-unit merger transaction. The merger was approved by SXCP's Board of Directors and a majority of the members of the Conflicts Committee. It was also approved by holders of a majority of the outstanding SunCoke common shares and SXCP common units. SunCoke indirectly owned a sufficient percentage of the SXCP common units to approve the transaction on behalf of the holders of SXCP common units. The merger closed on June 28, 2019. The Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that the Defendants' actions taken in connection with the merger violated federal securities laws, the Defendants' obligations under the SXCP partnership agreement, and Delaware state laws. The appellate case is captioned as Michael Cohn v. SunCoke Energy Partners LP, et al., Case No. 20-3069, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL COHN, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com Defendants-Appellees SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS LP, SUNCOKE ENERGY INC., MICHAEL G. RIPPEY, ALVIN BLEDSOE, P. MICHAEL HARDESTY, JOHN W. SOMERHALDER, II, FAY WEST, KATHERINE T. GATES, MARTHA CARNES, JOHN W. ROWE, PETER B. HAMILTON, JAMES E. SWEETNAM, SUSAN R. LANDAHL, ROBERT A. PEISER, and SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS GP LLC are represented by: Paul R. Elliott, Esq. BAKER BOTTS 910 Louisiana, One Shell Plaza, 37th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 229-1226 E-mail: paul.elliott@bakerbotts.com - and - Alan R. Silverstein, Esq. Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON 1313 North Market Street Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor, P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-6096 E-mail: asilverstein@potteranderson.com pwalsh@potteranderson.com - and - S. Mark Hurd, Esq. Thomas P. Will, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 351-9354 E-mail: shurd@mnat.com twill@mnat.com SUPPORT COLLECTORS: Irving Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Support Collectors Inc. a.k.a. Summit Account Resolution, et al. The case is styled as Jermia Irving, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Support Collectors Inc a.k.a. Summit Account Resolution, John Does 1-25, Case No. 8:20-cv-02431 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 17, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Summit Account Resolution is a collection service located in Champlin, MN.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33024 Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com T & M GREENCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Correa et al. Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN CORREA; RONY ALBERTO SANCHEZ; OSMAN SOTO; JOSE FLORES; JESUS ARTURITO MALDONADO; and FRANKLIN SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T & M GREENCARE INCORPORATED; and MARLON REYES, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-04457 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laborers. T & M Greencare Incorporated provides landscaping, tree service, tree pruning, tree removal, stump grinding, and land clearing services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz LLP Alerts of Class Action Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited ("Teva" or the "Company") (NYSE: TEVA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 20-cv-04660, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and August 18, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Teva securities during the class period, you have until November 23, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Teva, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines, specialty medicines, and biopharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and internationally. Among Teva's products is Copaxone (glatiramer acetate), a prescription drug that is used to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis ("MS"). Throughout the Class Period, Teva consistently described Copaxone as the Company's "leading specialty medicine," reporting Copaxone sales and revenues that consistently dwarfed the same metrics for other Teva specialty products. Teva attributed Copaxone's commercial success to "having the right mix" of, among other things, "a fantastic underlying demand," "patients hav[ing] access to it," and an "unparalleled . . . track record of both efficacy and safety." The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Teva had made substantial illegal kickback payments to charitable foundations to cover Medicare co-payment obligations of patients taking Copaxone; (ii) accordingly, Teva's revenues derived from Copaxone were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (iii) the foregoing misconduct subjected Teva to a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, as well as reputational harm when the truth became known; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 18, 2020, the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued a press release announcing that it had filed a complaint against Teva under the False Claims Act. Specifically, "[t]he government alleges that, from 2007 through 2015, Teva paid The Assistance Fund (TAF) and Chronic Disease Fund (CDF) with the intent and understanding that the foundations would use Teva's money to cover the Medicare co-pays of patients taking Copaxone. During the same period, Teva raised the price of Copaxone from approximately $17,000 per year to over $73,000 per year." On this news, Teva's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell $1.11 per ADR from its previous close on August 17, 2020, or 9.6%, to close at $10.48 per ADR on August 18, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] TEXAS LAW: Appeals Opinion in Crowley Suit to State Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Texas Law Shield, LLP, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TEXAS LAW SHIELD, LLP, WALKER & RICE, P.C., T. EDWIN WALKER AND DARREN R. RICE, Appellants v. BRAD CROWLEY AND TERRILYN CROWLEY, Appellees, Case No. 14-18-00986-CV, in the Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeals. The issues presented are: 1. Should the scope of Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof. Conduct R. 7.03 be informed by the elements in Disciplinary Rule 7.03(a), which include the requirement of a particular occurrence or event? 2. The presentation was made by an employee of Texas Law Shield, a "legal service contract company" expressly permitted by chapter 953 of the Texas Occupations Code to solicit customers. Are nonlawyers subject to the attorney Disciplinary Rules about improper solicitation? 3. Should the Court resolve the ambiguity in Disciplinary Rule 7.03(a) regarding whether a lawyer may permissibly solicit a family member of an existing client? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that most concealed handgun license ("CHL") classes in Texas include a pitch by a salesperson for Texas Law Shield. The salesperson promotes Texas Law Shield as providing "peace of mind" and encourages class attendees to become clients of Texas Law Shield to the tune of approximately $130 per year. The Plaintiffs bring this class action to recover damages for themselves and those similarly situated regarding the Defendants' barratry and wrongful solicitation for professional employment. On August 20, 2020, the Court of Appeals inspected the record and find the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of appellee Brad Crowley and awarded him statutory damages of $151.35 based on that summary judgment. The Court also finds that the trial court erred when it awarded attorneys' fees to appellees Brad Crowley and Terrilyn Crowley. The Court therefore order that the portions of the judgment that (1) awarded appellee Brad Crowley statutory damages of $151.35 based on the granting of Appellee Brad Crowley's motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) awarded appellees Brad Crowley and Terrilyn Crowley attorneys' fees, are reversed and ordered severed, and remanded for proceedings in accordance with the court's opinion. The appellate case is captioned as TEXAS LAW SHIELD, LLP, WALKER & RICE, P.C., T. EDWIN WALKER, AND DARREN R. RICE, Petitioners, v. BRAD CROWLEY AND TERRILYN CROWLEY, Respondents, Case No. 20-0786, in the Supreme Court of Texas. Appellants-Petitioners TEXAS LAW SHIELD, LLP, WALKER & RICE, P.C., T. EDWIN WALKER, AND DARREN R. RICE are represented by: Roger D. Townsend, Esq. COKINOS YOUNG, P.C. Four Houston Center 1221 Lamar Street, 16th Floor Houston, TX 77010 E-mail: rtownsend@cokinoslaw.com - and - P. Kevin Leyendecker, Esq. Kelsi Stayart White, Esq. AHMAD ZAVITSANOS ANAIPAKOS ALAVI & MENSING P.C. 1221 McKinney, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 E-mail: kleyendecker@azalaw.com kwhite@azalaw.com Appellees-Respondents BRAD CROWLEY AND TERRILYN CROWLEY are represented by: David E. Wynne, Esq. Scott G. Burdine, Esq. Kenneth R. Wynne, Esq. BURDINE WYNNE LLP 1415 Louisiana St., Suite 3900 Wedge International Tower Houston, TX 77002 E-mail: dwynne@burdinewynne.com sburdine@burdinewynne.com kwynne@burdinewynne.com UC GLOBAL: Journalists Not Interested to Join Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Grenfell, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that the response of the corporate media over the eleven months since El Pais first revealed details of a vast spying operation against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, while he was a United Nations-recognised political refugee in Ecuador's London embassy, has been decidedly muted. The initial El Pais article in October last year has been followed by a raft of damning information. This has established that the surveillance, conducted by the UC Global security company in charge of managing security at the embassy, included the illegal interception of Assange's conversations with his lawyers, in a flagrant breach of attorney-client privilege, menacing probes into his partner and infant child, and discussions about the possibility of kidnapping or even poisoning the WikiLeaks founder. The mechanisms of the surveillance, which likely involved the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), have also become clearer. UC Global chief David Morales, it is alleged, entered into a secret agreement with emissaries of US intelligence to surveill Assange in 2015, and pass on all of the material gathered, in an operation that extended until March, 2018. The statements of former UC Global employees, and documentary evidence, have indicated that the security company of Las Vegas casino mogul and leading Trump donor Sheldon Adelson served as the middle-man between Morales and US intelligence. The former Spanish navy marine turned mercenary was raided and arrested by Spanish police late last year, and faces the prospect of substantial criminal charges. In other words, the apparent lack of media interest is not for want of information, or because the unprecedented surveillance of the world's most famous persecuted journalist is not newsworthy. Rather, it is a continuation of the alignment of the corporate media with the US-led vendetta against Assange, bound up with their close ties to the intelligence agencies and the official political parties that have spearheaded his persecution, as well as their broader support for an agenda of militarism and authoritarianism. This was given striking confirmation in an article published by investigative journalist Max Blumenthal on the Grayzone website. Blumenthal's detailed report was based on the statements of an anonymous WikiLeaks source, along with extensive comments from Stefania Maurizi, an Italian journalist who has partnered with the media organisation for the past decade. Hitherto unpublished communications from Morales were also featured, further establishing his and UC Global's secret collaboration with US authorities. Blumenthal noted the fact, already well-established, that the UC Global spying eventually came to encompass all of Assange's visitors. Among those targeted were Washington Post national security reporter Ellen Nakashima, who visited the embassy in December, 2017 to interview Assange, and Lowell Bergman, who has worked for the New York Times and PBS. Nakashima was subjected to the "standard" UC Global protocol for Assange's visitors. She was compelled to leave her possessions at the front desk, and they were then rifled through and photographed by its staff. This included taking details of her phone, which would enable it to be hacked, and an unsuccessful attempt by a UC Global employee to steal her voice recorder. What was new in Blumenthal's article, but not surprising, is that the Washington Post and other leading publications have rebuffed requests that they publish information of the espionage, which clearly constituted an attack on press freedom and their own reporters, and have refused to join a legal action that Maurizi is seeking to launch in October. Blumenthal wrote: Correspondents from a major US newspaper were presented with detailed evidence of UC Global spying on Assange and his associates, and documentation of the firm's relationship with the CIA and Sheldon Adelson, a WikiLeaks source told The Grayzone. Not only were the reporters initially uninterested in the spying scandal, the WikiLeaks source said one correspondent justified the CIA's surveillance on national security grounds. "He said, well, that's what an intelligence service is supposed to [do]," the source recalled, describing the experience as "crazy." Nakashima herself has never mentioned the spying publicly or responded to multiple requests for comment about it from Blumenthal and others. Maurizi, who was also extensively spied on, explained that she had not received a positive reply from a single corporate US reporter, who she has asked to join a class action to be filed in Spain's National Court on behalf of journalists who were caught in the dragnet. Nakashima ignored her correspondence. Bergman said he was not interested. Randy Credico, a US comedian, activist and WikiLeaks supporter, recounted a similar response, telling Blumenthal that he "went to everybody," with information about the surveillance, which he was also subjected to. "I went to MSNBC, to the Wall Street Journal, CNN, to journalists I knew, and I couldn't get anyone interested. I mean, all these reporters hate Trump, and here you had [US Secretary of State] Pompeo and Sheldon Adelson, the guy who finances Trump, breaking the law. You would think this would be a big deal to these lean forward progressives. And they haven't said shit. It's appalling that they haven't come forward and said something about this." The Grayzone report points to some of the obvious reasons for the hostility of corporate publications to any exposure of the CIA's activities. The Washington Post, for instance, is owned by Amazon, which has multi-billion dollar contracts with the Pentagon. Nakashima, when she visited Assange, listed her employer, not as the Washington Post, but as "Amazon." The major publications, moreover, including the New York Times, function as the public mouthpieces of the intelligence agencies. Press releases from the CIA are published almost verbatim, while the word of "unnamed intelligence officials," whose unsubstantiated assertions fill so much column space, is treated as the gospel truth. These publications, moreover, have for over a decade repeated the lies and slanders concocted by the intelligence agencies to undermine support for Assange and WikiLeaks. This has included the endless promotion of the bogus Swedish investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Assange, the "preliminary" stage of which was discontinued for the third and final time last year because of the absence of any evidence, without Assange ever having been charged with a crime. Also notable has been the immense coverage devoted to the discredited conspiracy theory that WikiLeaks' 2016 exposure of gross corruption on the part of the Democratic National Committee was the product of some sort of "Russian plot." In every instance, the aim has been to poison public opinion against Assange, and divert attention away from the war crimes, diplomatic conspiracies and political abuses that WikiLeaks has exposed. The fact that Assange was the victim of a massive US government spying operation, which violated innumerable international laws and domestic legislation across multiple jurisdictions, simply does not suit the official narrative. There may be additional reasons for the reticence of the corporate publications, however. Many of them featured material from surveillance inside the embassy, before UC Global's operations became public knowledge last year. Footage of what appeared to be the sole occasion that Assange momentarily stood on a skateboard was aired ad nauseum after his expulsion from the Ecuadorian embassy and brutal arrest by the British police. This served to justify the absurd claim that the Ecuadorian government had illegally revoked Assange's asylum because he was a "bad house guest," and not because it was one of the conditions for massive international loans and closer ties with the US. The skateboard footage, and other films aimed at degrading Assange, were probably shot with UC Global cameras. While it is likely the material was leaked by the new Ecuadorian regime of President Lenin Moreno, to justify its attack on Assange, it is doubtful that the CIA would have objected. The question inevitably arises: is it plausible that all of the major corporate publications, and their staff, who enjoy the closest relations with the US intelligence agencies and have participated with glee in the campaign against Assange, did not know of the UC Global spying as it was occurring? And if they did, but chose not to report it at the time, does that not make them complicit in major attacks on press freedom and the institution of political asylum, which is protected by international law? Meanwhile, Blumenthal's article put paid to UC Global head Morales' lame denials that he was working for US intelligence. For instance it cites messages from Morales to his employees, informing them in May 2017, that he was travelling to Miami to provide "the agency of the stars and stripes" with a budget for the installation of more sophisticated surveillance equipment to spy on Assange. Morales, apparently in reference to his ultimate employer, posted cartoons of US President Donald Trump in response to further inquiries from UC Global staff. [GN] ULTRA PETROLEUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 2 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ultra Petroleum Corp. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC PINK:UPLCQ) UPLCQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 3, 2017 - August 8, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ultra-petroleum-corp-information-request-form?prid=9564&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ultra Petroleum Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Ultra's proved reserves were materially overstated and, therefore, worth hundreds of millions of dollars less than represented; (b) Ultra's proved undeveloped reserves were of de minimis value because they contained low quality deposits that lacked a commercially viable path to development; (c) Ultra was unable to meet the production and development estimates provided to investors and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis; (d) Ultra was unable to withstand even a modest downturn in the price of natural gas because, inter alia, Ultra's business had less financial and production flexibility than claimed; and (e) Ultra did not have the technical or financial capabilities or available asset base to sustainably grow its oil and natural gas production by any meaningful amount. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] UNITED SPECIALTY: Mueller Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LUKE MUELLER, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03407, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 15, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-07241-YGR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract by refusing to reimburse or refund the Plaintiff and Class members for the loss of use of their ski passes insured by the Defendant as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. United Specialty Insurance Company is a property casualty insurance company, with its principal place of business located at 1900 L. Don Dodson Drive, Bedford, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam P. Slater Esq. SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 481-7400 UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of La Verne. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. University of La Verne, Case No. 1:20-cv-08716 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University of La Verne is a private not-for-profit university located in La Verne, California.[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 USCC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Grantham et al Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- GRACE GRANTHAM and BRAD HALLOWELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USCC SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a US CELLULAR, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06079 (N.D. Ill., October 13, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged widespread, repeated, and consistent unlawful pay practice in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Store Managers, claim they were required by the Defendant to regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, they were not compensated by the Defendant for overtime hours they worked at one and one-half times their regular rat of pay. Additionally, the Defendant failed to keep accurate records of hours worked by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Store Managers. USCC Services, LLC operates over 200 US Cellular retail store locations in over 10 states, including Oklahoma, Illinois, Maine, and West Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff are represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Megan Shannon, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 233-1550 Fax: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com mshannon@stephanzouras.com - and – Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tel: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com VANGUARD UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vanguard University of Southern California. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Vanguard University Of Southern California, Case No. 1:20-cv-08671 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vanguard University of Southern California is a private Christian university in Costa Mesa, California. It was the first-four year college in Orange County and offers over 30 undergraduate degrees and emphases in 15 different departments.[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 VARIAN MEDICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4:20-cv-06266-YGR on behalf of shareholders of Varian Medical Systems, Inc. ("Varian" or the "Company") (NYSE:VAR) who have been harmed by Varian's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger of the Company with Siemens Healthineers AG (the "Proposed Transaction"). On August 2, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger under which Varian shareholders stand to receive $177.50 in cash for each share of Varian stock they own. The complaint alleges that the Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, including information concerning the Company's financial projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend the Proposed Transaction as fair to Varian shareholders. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/VAR. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com [GN] VAXART INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ: VXRT) between June 25, 2020 to July 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 23, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Vaxart investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Vaxart class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1910.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. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information pertaining to the Company's business and operations, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Vaxart exaggerated the prospects of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, including its purported role or involvement in Operation Warp Speed ("OWS"). Contrary to defendants' statements, Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate had no reasonable prospect for mass production and marketing and was not among the companies selected to receive significant financial support from OWS to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses. Instead, Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate was merely selected to participate in preliminary U.S. government studies to determine potential areas for possible OWS partnership and support. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1910.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. 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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VIDHAN BHATT: Condo Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PEDRO CONDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIDHAN BHATT INC. (D/B/A AAHAR INDIAN CUISINE); BOMBAY'S INDIAN CUISINE INC. (D/B/A BOMBAY'S INDIAN CUISINE); PRASHANT BHATT; and SONAL VYAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-07793 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 22, 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 Condo was employed by the Defendants as delivery worker. Vidhan Bhatt Inc. owns, operates, and controls Indian Restaurants, located at New York, NY, Aahar Indian Cuisine, and Bombay's Indian Cuisine. [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 WECOMPETE INC: Robinson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WeCompete, Inc. The case is styled as Hugh Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WeCompete, Inc. doing business as: WeCompete Lenders, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08691 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. WeCompete Lenders is the premiere company in the alternative finance industry providing quick loans that empower merchants and businesses.[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 WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRTC) between July 31, 2020 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wrap investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Wrap class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1953.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. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had concealed the results of the LAPD BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap was ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and (2) 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 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1953.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. 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. 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ********* 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 ***