/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201023.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, October 23, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 213
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Burger Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Finegan Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: High Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxins
3M COMPANY: Samsel Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxins
3M COMPANY: Schierloh Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
3M COMPANY: Slone Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Walden Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ALIERA COMPANIES: Jackson Granted Leave to File Amended Class Suit
ALLERGAN: Judge Tosses Class Action After Law Firms Defy Order
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: No Class Status for Revival Chiropractic Suit
ARDENT LEISURE: Shareholder Class Action Pending
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Class Certification Bid in Brown Suit Denied
AVON PRODUCTS: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Jan. 20
BAIDU INC: Nampally Hits Share Drop from Bloated Financials
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Probes Securities Fraud Claims
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Zielinski Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: COPD Inhaler Class Action Dismissed
BONNEVILLE BILLING: Chadwick Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Lee Suit Says
BRUNEL RESOURCES: Goff Seeks OT Pay for Construction Coordinators
CACH LLC: Faces Crandle Suit Over False Consumer Credit Reports
CANADA: Court Hears RCMP Class Action Certification Bid
CAPAY INCORPORATED: Ferrer Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Drivers
CASCADE PROCESS: Underpays Field Technicians, Dowda et al. Claim
CHRISTIAN ALCOHOLICS: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation
CNC OILFIELD: Conditional Certification of Employees Class Sought
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Court OKs Distribution Agent's Fees in SEC Case
COTY INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline
CREDIT SUISSE: Fairness Hrg. on $15MM Class Deal Set for Dec. 10
DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL: Claims in Lost Data Suit Due on Jan. 8
DENTISTS INSURANCE: Court Stays Proceedings in Germack Class Suit
DIAMOND TECHNICAL SERVICES: Gunter Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
DIVERSIFIED HEALTH: Durr Seeks OT Wages for Home Health Aides
DODGE DEMON: Paint Issues on Hood Scoop Prompt Class Action
DRIVE DEVELOPMENT: Delgado Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DUKE ENERGY: Johnson Files ERISA Class Action in N.C.
ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Broussard Suit Wins Conditional Class Status
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Multiple Class-Actions
EN ENGINEERING: Court Grants Bid for Conditional Certification
EQUIFAX INC: Court Dismisses Count II in Weiss FCRA Suit
ESSENTIAL APPAREL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hecht Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Instagram Spying
FACEBOOK INC: Illinois Residents Can File Claims in Class Deal
FAIRLIFE: Core Power Brand Faces Class Action Lawsuit
FCA US: Faces Anderson Suit Over Defective Dodge Rams' EGR Coolers
FED EX GROUND: Faces Martinez Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FLORIDA POWER: Class Action Over Water Main Break Can Proceed
FLUIDIGM CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 20 Bid Deadline
FLUIDIGM CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
GARRISON CAPITAL: Bachmeier Seeks to Halt Portman Ridge Merger Deal
GOCHUJANG LLC: Cua Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
GOHEALTH INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 20 Bid Deadline
GOHEALTH INC: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
GOHEALTH INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
GOHEALTH INC: Hudson Slams Share Price Drop Following IPO
GOHEALTH INC: Kirby McInerney Alerts of Class Action Filing
GOHEALTH INC: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
GOHEALTH INC: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
GOLAR LNG: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Claims
GOLAR LNG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of November 23 Deadline
GOOGLE CANADA: Hit With Another Class Action Lawsuit
GOOGLE LLC: Files Motion to Dismiss or Stay BIPA Class Action
GRANT CARDONE: Faces Lawsuit on Misleading Investors
HDFC BANK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
HILTON HOTELS: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in White Suit Denied
HOLYOKE SOLDIERS: Faces $175-Mil. Class Action
HOMELAND SECURITY: Class Status Sought in Case over FOIA Requests
HOUZZ INC: Graciano Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
ILLINOIS HIGH: Class Action Demands Fall Sports to Resume
ILLINOIS HIGH: Student-Athletes, Parents Hold Protest
INVESTORS BANCORP: Kirkman Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
JUUL INC: Pittsburgh Public Schools to Join Vaping Lawsuit
LA ABUNDANCIA BAKERY: Mogollan Suit Wins Class Certification
LAUMONT PHOTOGRAPHICS: Montenegro Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
LEATHERBACK GEAR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Says
LENDLEASE GROUP: Sued Over Camp Lejeune Housing Conditions
LENDLEASE: Faces Class Action Over Lejeune Housing Conditions
LG ELECTRONICS: Offers Reimbursement for Refrigerator Repairs
LIVONGO HEALTH: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
MIAMI UNIVERSITY: Parent Dismisses Covid-19 Tuition Class Action
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: Class Action Seeks Spring Tuition Refund
MLB RESTAURANT: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Miranda Suit Says
MOMENTA PHARMA: Nowak Slams J&J Merger Deal
MONSANTO COMPANY: Trinidad Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MUSKEGON FAMILY: Court Certifies Class in Melton Suit
NANO-X IMAGING: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
NANO-X IMAGING: Jakubowitz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
NESTLE: Faces Class Action Over Coffee Mate Vanilla Claims
NEW JERSEY: Class Action Over E-ZPass Fee Scam Still on Hold
NEXTCURE INC: Howard Smith Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
NEXTCURE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
NIKOLA CORP: Hagens Berman Alerts of Class Action Filing
NIKOLA CORP: Jakubowitz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
NIKOLA CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 16 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Kessler Topaz Alerts of Class Action Filing
NIKOLA CORP: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Motion Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
NIKOLA CORP: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action
NIKOLA CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Class Action Filing
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Foley & Lardner Discusses Ruling in Johnson Suit
NURTUR LOS ANGELES: Faces Class Action Over Poor Performance
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Timothy Miles Alerts of Class Action Filing
ON DECK: Halper Sadeh Alerts of Shareholder Class Suit Filing
PEABODY ENERGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 27 Motion Deadline
PEI WEI: Clarke Seeks Class Status for FLSA Suit
PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE: Lawson Suit Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Class of Disabled in Liberty ADA Suit Certified
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Howard Smith Alerts of Class Action Filing
PIONONOS HOLDINGS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Castro Claims
PIONONOS HOLDINGS: Ferrufino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
POWER SOLUTIONS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $8.5 Million
REALOGY BROKERAGE: Facility Inaccessible to Disabled, Laser Says
SAVE MART: Rooney Suit Remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Settles Lawsuit Over Dues-Deduction Practices
SEVEN GROUP: Faces Class Action After March Share Slump
SHAW UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET: Warren Files Suit in S.D. New York
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Bens BBQ Class Action
SUNWORKS INC: Directors Breached Fiduciary Duties, Vieyra Claims
SWR UNLIMITED: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Operators, Lopez Claims
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Alerts of Class Action
TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Court Approves Notice to Class Members
TBC CORP: 9th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Hamilton Suit
TESLA INC: Investors Seek Certification of Class Action
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Copaxone Kickbacks
TIETGENS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay OT to Managers, Sunder Claims
TITLEMAX OF GEORGIA: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Stein TILA Suit
TONY'S FINER FOODS: State Automobile Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
TRADEGLOBAL: Court Approves Settlement in Smith et al. Labor Case
TWITTER INC: Unlawfully Procured Telephone Records, Gray Says
TYSON FOODS: Colvin Sues Over Monopoly of Growers' Compensation
UBS FINANCIAL: Delkeskamp Sues Over Frozen Investment Accounts
UNITED STATES: AO Suit Seeks to Certify California Children Class
VAXART INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 23 Motion Deadline
VAXART INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 23 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
VAXART INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Oct. 23 Bid Deadline
W. ATLEE BURPEE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Says
WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses Buscema Suit Without Prejudice
WALLER ENTERPRISE: Approval of Notice to Drivers Class Sought
WALT DISNEY: Pay-Equity Class Action Lawsuit Takes Legal Turn
WARREN DISTRIBUTING: Denial of Vazquez Class Certification Reversed
WESTPAC: Settlement Agreement Good News for Claimants
WHITEFEATHER HOLDINGS: Class Status Sought for Dancers' Action
WHOLE FOODS: Mitchell Sues Over Deceptive 'Organic 365' Packaging
WM BOLTHOUSE: Settlement in Felix Suit Gets Final Approval
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
ZURICH AMERICAN: Refuses to Pay COVID-19 Claims, Lindenwood Says
[*] D&O Insurers Big Enough to Handle Pandemic Claims
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson to Pay $100MM in Powder Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Dockyard Victims to Receive Compensation
*********
3M COMPANY: Burger Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------
HENRY WILLIAM BURGER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03639-RMG (D.S.C., October
16, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and by those similarly situated resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Burger case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
3M COMPANY: Finegan Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS PATRICK FINEGAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03640-RMG (D.S.C., Oct 16,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Finegan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
3M COMPANY: High Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxins
-------------------------------------------------------
RUFUS WHITAKER HIGH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03641-RMG (D.S.C., October
16, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The High case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
3M COMPANY: Samsel Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxins
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RAY SAMSEL v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03645-RMG (D.S.C., Oct 16,
2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Samsel case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
3M COMPANY: Schierloh Alleges Injury From Exposure to PFAS
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ROBERT SCHIERLOH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03646-RMG (D.S.C., October
16, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Schierloh case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
3M COMPANY: Slone Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
WOODROW SLONE JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03647-RMG (D.S.C., October
16, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Slone case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
3M COMPANY: Walden Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARTY JOE WALDEN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-03648-RMG (D.S.C., October
16, 2020), seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the
Plaintiff and those similarly situated resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Walden case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com
ALIERA COMPANIES: Jackson Granted Leave to File Amended Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD JACKSON, ROSLYN JACKSON and DEAN MELLOM,
Individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
ALIERA HEALTHCARE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; TRINITY
HEALTHSHARE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01281-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
("FRCP").
Plaintiffs Gerald Jackson, Roslyn Jackson, and Mellom bring the
putative class action suit against Defendants Aliera, including its
now-defunct subsidiary Aliera Healthcare, and Trinity. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants sold them unauthorized health
insurance plans ("AlieraCare") in violation of Washington law; and
engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs enrolled in Trinity's AlieraCare plans in 2018 and
2019. They filed the suit, on behalf of themselves and the
putative class, alleging that Defendants Aliera and Trinity sold
them unauthorized health insurance plans in violation of Washington
law. These plans, sold and administered by Aliera, provided
members with benefits for medical coverage in exchange for their
monthly premiums. The Plaintiffs, all of whom paid their monthly
premiums and met their standard deductibles, expected that Trinity
would pay their medical claims covered by their plans as detailed
by the AlieraCare benefits booklet ("Member Guide"). However, the
Plaintiffs were each denied healthcare coverage under AlieraCare
after submitting their individual claims to Trinity.
Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint. With the instant motion, the Plaintiffs
seek to join Jon and Julie Perrin as named Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit. The Perrins were members of AlieraCare from January 2019
until December 2019. Throughout 2019, they submitted several
healthcare-related claims to the Defendants for coverage on various
medical services that they received in that year.
When the Perrins discovered that the Defendants had not paid their
healthcare claims, they contacted the Defendants several times to
resolve the claims through the alternative dispute resolution
procedures set forth in the Member Guide. Despite the Perrins'
attempts, the Defendants continued to further delay payment of
their claims, stating that the claims had to be reprocessed. On
Oct. 23, 2019, the Perrins finally appealed their claim
determinations using the appeals process listed in the Member
Guide. They did not receive a response to their October appeal
from the Defendants for over 90 days, finally receiving a response
on Feb. 4, 2020.
The Defendants jointly oppose the motion. They urge the Court to
deny the Plaintiffs' motion on several grounds. First, they point
out that the Court-imposed deadline to amend pleadings has expired.
Therefore, they argue, the Plaintiffs must seek relief from the
Court's scheduling order by bringing their motion pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 16. The Defendants claim
that this, alone, is a sufficient basis upon which the Court can
deny the motion. Next, the Defendants argue that even if the Court
interprets the Plaintiffs' motion as a FRCP 16 motion, the
Plaintiffs fail to meet the standard for relief under FRCP 16.
Lastly, they contend that if the Court concludes that FRCP 15 is
the applicable rule, the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the standard for
FRCP 15.
The Court heard arguments and orally granted the Plaintiffs' motion
in June 2020.
The first issue is whether Plaintiffs submitted their request to
amend their complaint and join additional parties under the correct
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Judge Rothstein concludes that
the Plaintiffs have good cause for missing the Court-imposed
deadlines. First, the Plaintiffs' counsel demonstrates that they
could not have requested to add the Perrins as named Plaintiffs any
earlier than they did because the Perrins did not contact the
Plaintiffs' counsel until Jan. 24, 2020, long after the Court's
deadlines for amending pleadings and joining additional Plaintiffs.
Next, the Plaintiffs' counsel demonstrates that the Defendants
delayed the Plaintiffs' ability to obtain information regarding the
Perrins, and said information was necessary to file the instant
motion. Lastly, the Defendants did not disclose to the Perrins
that they had exhausted only the first level administrative appeal
until March 19, 2020.
Therefore, Judge Rothstein finds that the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated "good cause" under Rule 16's standard for allowing
them to amend their complaint and add the Perrins outside of the
Court's original scheduling order.
The Judge then turns to the question of whether the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that amendment is proper under Rule 15. The Judge
finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments plead the same
claims and the same remedies as their First Amended Complaint.
Next, little discovery has been conducted to date -- largely due to
the Defendants' actions -- thus adding the Perrins will not require
that prior discovery efforts be repeated. Moreover, most if not
all of the limited discovery that has been to date is equally
relevant to the Perrins.
Thus, the Judge finds that the Defendants have failed to
demonstrate that allowing the amendment would unduly delay these
proceedings and be unfairly prejudicial to the Defendants. The
Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have shown "good cause" for
their amendment under Rule 16(b); and have demonstrated that their
amendment is proper under Rule 15.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rothstein granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to for leave to file a second amended complaint.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3mdOfok from Leagle.com.
ALLERGAN: Judge Tosses Class Action After Law Firms Defy Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher at Legal Newsline reports that federal judge
decertified a class action against Allergan after discovering
plaintiff lawyers had agreed to split fees even after she had
explicitly told them only one law firm should represent the class.
In a 26-page decision, U.S. District Judge Colleeen McMahon
expressed frustration not only with Pomerantz LLP and the Thornton
Law Firm but their client, the Boston Retirement System, for
violating the single condition she established before selecting the
pension fund as lead plaintiff: That Pomerantz alone would handle
the litigation.
The involvement of Thornton only deepened the judge's concern,
since the politically connected Boston firm is deeply enmeshed in a
scandal over the State Street securities class action, where a
special master found Thornton double-billed class members by using
lawyers borrowed from other firms and paid more than $200,000 to
the brother of managing partner Garrett Bradley, who normally
worked as a $53-an-hour public defender. Bradley, a former
Massachusetts legislator, has helped his firm earn millions of
dollars in contingency fees by representing state and local pension
funds in securities class actions.
Judge McMahon cited the State Street case in a footnote admonishing
the Boston pension fund for allowing Thornton to work on the
Allergan case. The firm had a secret fee-splitting agreement with
Pomerantz that would have given it nearly half the court-awarded
fees in the case had it proceeded to settlement.
"A class representative who starts by ignoring the terms of the
court's order appointing it as lead plaintiff cannot be trusted to
monitor a law firm that was found guilty of double billing in
another case," she wrote.
The judge deliberately selected a single law firm to avoid a
frequent pattern in class-action litigation, where plaintiff
lawyers share work both to diversify their own financial risk and
to dampen the incentive to compete with each other on fees. She
described the undisclosed fee-splitting agreement between Pomerantz
and Thornton as "the quintessential example of a 'lawyer driven'
arrangement," she wrote
"It is this court's experience (and I have quite a bit of it) that
the involvement of multiple firms tends to inflate legal fees to
the detriment of the other class members," the judge wrote. "This
is a result I am particularly anxious to avoid."
The law firms defended their agreement, saying Thornton was merely
"additional counsel" assisting with the litigation. In the State
Street case, Bradley said his firm had a similar fee-splitting
agreement with lead attorneys at Labaton Sucharow. Under grilling
from the judge, Bradley acknowledged he had little experience
litigating cases in federal court and only a vague familiarity with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff lawyers in that
case also paid $4.1 million to Damon Chargois, a Texas lawyer whose
only involvement was to arrange a meeting between Labaton Sucharow
and officials at the Arkansas teachers' pension fund that served as
lead plaintiff.
Judges can decertify a class for a number of reasons including
inadequacy of counsel or the lead plaintiff to represent other
class members. In her order, Judge McMahon said it was important
the public understand every aspect of fee arrangements among the
lawyers who claim to represent class members, many of whom are
unaware a lawsuit is even being prosecuted on their behalf. She
said she would unseal documents showing prior relationships between
Thornton, Pomerantz and the Boston pension fund.
"In a securities fraud class action, or any class action, the
public and class members have the right to know about fee
arrangements," she wrote. "Fee awards are matters of public record
and information relating to the fees of class counsel is supposed
to be transparent." [GN]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: No Class Status for Revival Chiropractic Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REVIVAL CHIROPRACTIC LLC,
v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:19-cv-00445-PGB-LRH (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on
behalf of:
"any and all Defendant's insureds, and health care
providers as assignees of Defendant’s insureds, who
submitted charges for less than the amount allowed under
Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(a)1 and received payment of
80% of the charge rather than the full amount of the
charge submitted or 80% of the Schedule of Maximum
Charges"; and
2. denying Appointment of Class Representative and Class
Counsel.
The Court said that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2).
The Plaintiff and the putative class are neither bound together by
a legal relationship nor a significant common trait. Therefore,
Plaintiff and the putative class "lack the class cohesiveness that
distinguishes (b)(2) from (b)(3) actions," which increases the
"need for and interest in individual representation." The
Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is equivalent to a
request for a declaration of liability, making class certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) inappropriate. Thus, the Court denies class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
On January 23, 2019, Revival initiated a putative class action
against Allstate in state court, seeking a judgment "[d]eclaring
that [Allstate] violated Florida law by paying only [80 percent] of
the charges submitted where the charges submitted were for less
than the amounts allowed under section 627.736(5)(a)(1). On March
7, 2019, Allstate timely removed Revival's action to this Court. On
April 8, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative and Class
Counsel, and Notice to Class Members.
In 2017, the Defendants Allstate issued separate automobile
insurance policies to Natalie Rivera and Jazmine Padin
(collectively, the "Insureds"). In the policies, Allstate provided
notice that it would limit reimbursement in accordance with the
Schedule set forth in section 627.736(5)(a)(1). While the policies
were in effect, the Insureds were involved in separate motor
vehicle accidents and sought medical treatment from Plaintiff
Revival, assigning any rights and benefits under their policies to
the same. Revival then billed Allstate for the medical treatment it
rendered to the Insureds. In some instances, the charges submitted
by Revival were less than the amounts allowed under the Schedule.
Allstate paid 80 percent of the Subject Charges, says the
complaint.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Sept. 30, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dacAb5 at no extra charge.[CC]
ARDENT LEISURE: Shareholder Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an Australian theme park owner
was fined 3.6 million Australian dollars ($2.5 million) on Sept. 28
for safety breaches that led to the deaths of four people on a
river rapids ride in 2016.
Two men and two women died when their raft flipped on the Thunder
River Rapids ride in Dreamworld park.
Ardent Leisure Group had pleaded guilty under workplace safety laws
of failing to comply with its health and safety duty and exposing
individuals to a risk of serious injury or death.
Magistrate Pam Dowse told a Gold Coast court that Ardent knew the
risks before the accident.
"Complete and blind trust (was) placed in the defendant by every
person who rode the Thunder River Rapids ride and those guests were
extremely vulnerable," Dowse said.
The Sydney-based company, which also owns assets in the United
States and New Zealand, had faced a potential maximum fine of
AU$4.5 million ($3.2 million).
Ardent chairman Gary Weiss said his board accepted the fine, which
he described as Queensland state's largest for a workplace
tragedy.
"Ardent apologises, unreservedly, for the past circumstances and
failures at Dreamworld that resulted in the tragic loss of four
lives and for the deep and ongoing impact on so many people," Weiss
said in a statement.
The majority of families, first responders and others impacted by
the tragedy had already received compensation, he said.
The Ardent board continued to press for the "expeditious
resolution" of remaining claims, Weiss said.
Ardent is also fighting a shareholder class action in the Federal
Court.
The victims -- Cindy Low, Kate Goodchild, her brother Luke Dorsett
and his partner Roozi Araghi -- were killed when a water pump on
the ride malfunctioned, causing water levels to fall dangerously
low.
Two children -- Ebony Turner, and Kieran Low, then 10 and 12
--escaped without physical injury.
Kim Dorsett, the mother of Dorsett and Goodchild, was in court for
the sentencing with her granddaughter who survived the tragedy,
Ebony.
Kim Dorsett told the court in a tearful witness impact statement
that she cried "for my lost children every day."
Dreamworld and its sister park WhiteWater World reopened their
gates two weeks ago for the first time since March when coronavirus
pandemic restrictions shut down operations.
The Queensland government in August gave Ardent a AU$70 million
($49 million) loan to help it reopen the two Gold Coast parks.
[GN]
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Class Certification Bid in Brown Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI BROWN v. ASSET
ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00795-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Janet T. Neff entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification on behalf of:
"(1) All persons, (2) who Canon Business Process Services on
behalf of Asset Acceptance sent a SCAO MC52 Form Request and
Writ for Garnishment in a glassine window envelope, (3) from
August 30, 2016, through August 30, 2017, (4) where the SCAO
MC52 Form was folded by a machine, (5) and stuffed by a
machine into a glassine window envelope."
According to Judge Neff, "having taken a 'close look' at whether
common questions predominate over individual ones, the Court
determines that the proposed class does not satisfy the
predominance and superiority requirements of [Fed.R.Civ.P.]
23(b)(3). Further, for the reasons previously stated, the proposed
class does not meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s "implied ascertainability
requirement." Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is not the
method best suited to adjudicate this controversy "fairly and
efficiently." Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, denied the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and Plaintiff's claim
will proceed solely on an individual basis.
On February 6, 2008, the 64-A District Court in Ionia, Michigan,
entered a default judgment against Brown in the amount of
$1,997.94. The underlying debt was on a Discover Card used for
personal, not business, use. Since 2008, several garnishments have
been issued to the Plaintiff, to which she did not object. The
Plaintiff was last garnished on May 31, 2012 in the amount of
$324.00. On September 8, 2013, the Deputy Court Clerk signed an MC
52 "Request and Writ for Garnishment (Income Tax Refund/Credit)"
form (the "MC 52 form" to be sent to the State of Michigan. As of
August 4, 2016, Plaintiff still owed $1,320.39.
The MC 52 form is a form document drafted and approved by the State
Court Administrative Office (SCAO). The MC 52 form has four copies
-- the first copy is sent to the court, and the second copy is sent
to the defendant.
The Plaintiff filed this action under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Asset Acceptance is a debt buyer. Its primary business is the
purchasing of defaulted debts from lenders and subsequent
collection of those debts through normal debt collection
activities. The corporation is headquartered in Warren, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30XlKDd at no extra charge.[CC]
AVON PRODUCTS: Fairness Hearing in Securities Suit Set for Jan. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re Avon Products Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 19-cv-01420-MKV
Hon. Mary Kay Vyskocil
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
AVON PRODUCTS INC. ("AVON") PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM JANUARY 21, 2016 THROUGH NOVEMBER 1, 2017, INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that a hearing will be held on January 20, 2021,
at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Mary Kay Vyskocil, United States
District Judge, at the Courthouse for the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, Courtroom 18C, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007,
for the purpose of determining, among other things, whether the
following matters should be approved by the Court: (1) the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the Action for the sum of $14,500,000
in cash as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the members of the
Settlement Class; (2) whether, thereafter, the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated August 21, 2020 ("Stipulation"); (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved;
(4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses incurred in connection with
the Action should be approved; and (5) whether the Lead Plaintiff
and additional Plaintiff should receive an award pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Court may
change the date of the Final Approval Hearing, or hold it remotely,
without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the
Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Avon's publicly traded
common stock from January 21, 2016 through November 1, 2017,
inclusive, your rights will be affected by the settlement of this
class action. If you have not received the detailed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and the Proof of Claim
and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting
the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Avon Products Inc. Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq Global, PO Box 5566,
Portland, OR 97228-5566, or online at
www.AvonSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim no later than December 19, 2020 establishing that
you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice,
you will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, regardless
of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Notice, no later than December 30, 2020. Any
objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or requests for
attorneys' fees and expenses must be served and filed, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than December 30, 2020.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class: Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq, Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP, 55 Broadway, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006,
gnespole@zlk.com.
INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact
Lead Counsel at the address listed above.
DATED: September 28, 2020
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
http://www.avonsecuritieslitigation.com[GN]
BAIDU INC: Nampally Hits Share Drop from Bloated Financials
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harinath Nampally, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Baidu, Inc., Robin Yanhong Li,
Herman Cheng-Chun Yu and Jennifer Xinzhe Li, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04430 (E.D. N.Y., September 21, 2020), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Baidu provides Internet search services in China and
internationally. It operates through two segments, one of which is
iQIYI that provides online entertainment services, including
original and licensed content, membership services, and online
advertising services. iQIYI, Inc. held its initial public offering
and was listed on the NASDAQ exchange in early 2018 with Baidu as
the majority owner.
Baidu disclosed that it misrepresented the financial and business
condition of iQIYI. iQIYI allegedly overstated its user numbers,
inflated its revenues expenses and prices of assets to conceal its
revenue inflation and used misleading financial reporting to create
the appearance of a cash generative company. On this news, Baidu's
American Depository Shares fell $4.46 per share, or 4.38%, to close
at $97.33 per share on the next full trading day, April 8, 2020.
Then, on August 13, 2020, after trading hours, iQIYI was
investigated by the SEC for allegations of manufactured orders and
inflated revenues and/or expenses. On this news, Baidu's ADSs fell
$7.83 per share, or 6.29%, to close at $116.74 per share on August
14, 2020.
Nampally purchased or otherwise acquired the Baidu securities at
artificially inflated prices and was damaged upon the revelation of
the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Email: 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
Email: 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
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Probes Securities Fraud Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, is investigating potential securities fraud claims on behalf
of shareholders of BioMarin Pharmaceutical ("BioMarin" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: BMRN) resulting from allegations that BioMarin
might have issued misleading information to the investing public.
If you purchased BioMarin securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit BMRN Shareholder
Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
On August 19, 2020, BioMarin announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA to the Company's BLA for
valoctocogene roxaparvovec. BioMarin advised investors that in the
CRL, "the FDA introduced a new recommendation for two years of data
from the Company's ongoing 270-301 study (Phase 3) to provide
substantial evidence of a durable effect using Annualized Bleeding
Rate (ABR) as the primary endpoint" and "recommended that the
Company complete the Phase 3 Study and submit two-year follow-up
safety and efficacy data on all study participants." In explaining
the new recommendation, the "FDA concluded that the differences
between Study 270-201 (Phase 1/2) and the Phase 3 study limited its
ability to rely on the Phase 1/2 study to support the durability of
effect."
On this news, BioMarin's stock price fell $41.82 per share, or
35.28%, to close at $76.72 per share on August 19, 2020.
If you purchased BioMarin securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/biomarinpharmaceuticalsinc-bmrn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-316/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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contacts:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Biomarin Pharmaceuticals.
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.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ:BMRN)
BMRN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 28,
2020 - August 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 24, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biomarin-pharmaceutical-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9685&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, BioMarin
Pharmaceutical Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) differences between
the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 study of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, an
investigational adenoassociated virus gene therapy, limited the
reliability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene
roxaparvovec's durability of effect; (ii) as a result, it was
foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not
approve the Biologics License Application for valoctocogene
roxaparvovec without additional data; 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. [GN]
BLACKBAUD INC: Faces Zielinski Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN ZIELINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-07714 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18, 2020) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff after the occurrence of a ransomware attack and
data breach ("Data Breach") in May 2020 involving several schools,
healthcare, non-profit companies, and other organizations whose
data and servers were managed, maintained, and secured by
Blackbaud.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Data
Breach, the Plaintiff and thousands of other Class Member users
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of out-of-pocket expenses
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack. Additionally, the Plaintiff and
Class Members' sensitive personal information, which was entrusted
to the Defendant, its officials and agents, was compromised and
unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Information compromised
in the Data Breach include names, addresses, phone numbers, and
other personal information.
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 was represented by:
Alex Straus, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
Facsimile: (615) 921-6501
E-mail: astraus@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
Erin J. Ruben, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: harper@whitfieldbryson.com
matt@whitfieldbryson.com
erin@whitfieldbryson.com
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: COPD Inhaler Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. convinced a Connecticut federal
judge on Sept. 23 to throw out a purported class action alleging
the company's Combivent Respimat inhaler for chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease was falsely marketed as containing 120 doses when
it had about half that number.
COPD patients Carl Ignacuinos and Pamala Davis brought a 17-count
complaint against Boehringer, seeking damages and an injunction
prohibiting the company from marketing the Combivent inhaler with
the alleged defects and misrepresentations. Ignacuinos claimed his
inhalers averaged 61 metered doses, while Davis said she only got
about 70. [GN]
BONNEVILLE BILLING: Chadwick Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTOPHER CHADWICK, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BONNEVILLE BILLING AND COLLECTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00132-TS (D. Utah, October 9, 2020) is
a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged unlawful and abusive practice of collecting debts in
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Plaintiff has an alleged debt, which was incurred sometime
before October 23, 2019 primarily for personal, family or household
purposes, which was assigned, placed, or otherwise transferred to
the Defendant for collection.
According to the complaint, the Defendant mailed a letter to the
Plaintiff on or about October 23, 2019 to collect Plaintiff's debt.
However, the Defendant allegedly used false, deceptive, or
misleading representation to collect the debt by providing the
Plaintiff two choices to settle it and by threatening the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff claims that he has suffered emotional damages as a
result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct.
Bonneville Billing and Collections, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. McGlothliin, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E. Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
- and –
Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW GROUP
290 25th Street, Suite #102
Ogden, UT 84401
Tel: (801) 392-9324
Fax: (801) 337-2087
E-mail: theron@morlg.com
BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Lee Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone
Retail Operations, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01427 (W.D. Pa.,
September 21, 2020), seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law.
Lee has worked for Bridgestone as a Manager of Tire Sales since
September 2018, working in various stores owned and operated by
Bridgestone, including stores located in Pennsylvania. He claims to
have regularly worked more than 40 hours in workweeks and worked
through his meal breaks without the proper compensation. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC
First & Market Building, Suite 650
100 First Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 227-0763
Fax: (412) 774-1994
Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com
BRUNEL RESOURCES: Goff Seeks OT Pay for Construction Coordinators
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY GOFF, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. BRUNEL RESOURCES, INC. And RIO TINTO
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-03536 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime at the rate of
time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the Class
Members overtime pay at the rate required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that he worked a total of approximately 125
hours and was paid an hourly rate of $45.50 per hour for all hours
worked. He worked overtime hours during this time period but was
not paid any additional premium for those hours worked over 40 in a
week.
The Plaintiff Jeffery Goff is an individual residing in Herriman,
Utah. The Class Members are all current and former Construction
Coordinators who worked for Defendants and who were paid an hourly
rate of pay without overtime pay.
Brunel is a staffing company that places workers with its client
companies in the oil and gas, mining, engineering, manufacturing,
and IT industries across the U.S.
Rio Tinto is a client of Brunel that primarily operates in the
mining industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
Courtney B. Warren, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
cwarren@hftrialfirm.com
CACH LLC: Faces Crandle Suit Over False Consumer Credit Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARIUS CRANDLE and MINDO SILALAHI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CACH, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 5, Case No.
37-2020-00037274-CU-MC-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Oct. 15,
2020), is a class action complaint seeking for penalties and other
legal and equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendants in updating credit reports with the false
information that the accounts maintain an outstanding balance and
are still "in collections" after the accounts are actually closed
with a $0.00 balance owed in violation of the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' violations were willful
and that the Defendants acted with such a high degree of risk of
committing a legal violation that was higher than mere
carelessness, because the Defendants knowingly agreed to
waive/release any claim against the Plaintiffs that they owe any
further obligations to the Defendants upon the accounts at issue.
Any third party who reviews the reporting (such as a creditor,
potential creditor, potential employer, and potential
landlord/lessor) will now have the false impression that they still
owes a sum upon the accounts and is still subject to debt
collection efforts, whereas, if the Defendants were to update the
reporting to accurately reflect that the account has been closed
with a $0.00 balance owed, then potential creditors will have a
more accurate reflection of their creditworthiness and credit
standing, the Plaintiffs add.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' primary business model
is to purchase from other entities consumer debts that are alleged
to still be owed and are alleged to be in default, and then file
lawsuits against the consumers in state court collections lawsuits
en masse.
CACH LLC is a debt buyer for unpaid debts from large creditors such
as Avant or Citi. Resurgent Capital Services is a manager and
servicer of domestic and international consumer debt portfolios for
credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott M. Grace, Esq.
Grace Law, APC
1958 Sunset Cliffs Boulevard
San Diego, CA 92107
Telephone: (619) 346-4612
Facsimile: (619) 501-8106
E-mail: sgrace@gracelawapc.com
- and -
Babak Semnar, Esq.
Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92590
Telephone: (951) 293-4187
Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
E-mail: bob@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
- and -
Patric A. Lester, Esq.
CONSUMER ATTORNEY ADVOCATES, INC.
5694 Mission Center Road, #358
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 665-3888
Facsimile: (314) 241-5777
E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com
CANADA: Court Hears RCMP Class Action Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reports that during the third day of a hearing to
determine whether Diane Bigeagle's attempt to sue the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) will be certified as a class-action
lawsuit, lawyers for the Ministry of Justice stated why they
believe the case should not be certified.
Bruce Hughson, a defence lawyer with the Ministry, said the
Canadian government acknowledged the tragedies experienced by
Indigenous families, including Bigeagle, but says the choice to
oppose the certification is based strictly in law.
Hughson argued the claim is asking the RCMP to compensate the
families and extended families of those missing and said Canada
rejects the notion that a class action lawsuit is the best vehicle
for compensation.
During the first two days of the hearing, Tony Merchant, Bigeagle's
lawyer, argued the RCMP should have become more involved in the
investigation into her daughter's disappearance.
On Sept. 23, Hughson argued when a person goes missing it's
directed to the police of the jurisdiction and RCMP have no
involvement, unless asked by the local police to help. He added the
law does not require the families to be compensated.
Defence lawyer Christine Ashcroft said the RCMP clarified it was
acting in a liaison role initially in the Bigeagle case, and
highlighted an email where an RCMP officer contacted the Regina
Police Service, after being asked to conduct a review.
Ashcroft said RPS responded to the email the next day, asking the
RCMP to act as a liaison in Bigeagle's case, as they believed she
did not trust Regina police. Ashcroft said the service said the
Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN) had asked RPS
about the case and Bigeagle's trust levels, in an email, which is
what prompted the service to reach out to RCMP.
Ashcroft also argued courts across Canada find police do not owe a
private duty of care, meaning officers are not responsible for the
future safety of victims or their families or friends. Instead,
Ashcroft argued the duty of police is to carry out investigations
for the public.
She added that limited exceptions come to specific threats to the
victim or specific threats to a narrow and defined group of
people.
"Unfortunately Indigenous women are at risk of violence from many
different sources. There's not a specific source, and you need a
specific source to put a case within the exceptional group."
Ashcroft said
Ashcroft says she's not trying to minimize that there's no private
law for families who report a missing person, but argued just
because a family provides information to RCMP and asks for an
investigation, does not mean police owe a private duty of care to
the family.
She also argued that systemic negligence does not apply in this
case, saying the RCMP owe a duty of care to the public, but not
private situations.
Ashcroft also argued there is no fiduciary obligation in this case,
as the RCMP have no mandate to provide extra protection to
indigenous peoples specifically, but instead are in charge of
protecting the entire public.
Ashcroft argued there's not enough common issues between the
classes for a class action lawsuit to go forward.
"If there are common issues, they are so small that they would not
advance the litigation," Ashcroft said.
Hughson also argued despite the Prime Minister agreeing to genocide
in the enquiry, the basis of genocide does not apply in this case.
Saying there isn't evidence to legally determine genocide.
Ashcroft and the rest of the defence were expected to finish their
submissions on Sept. 24. [GN]
CAPAY INCORPORATED: Ferrer Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW FERRER, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly-situated individuals, v. CAPAY INCORPORATED (dba FARM
FRESH), a California corporation, and THE WOLF LOGISTICS LLC, and
DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-09361 (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 12, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum-wage
compensation owed to the Plaintiff and the other employees by
Defendants, as well as all applicable statutory penalties arising
from the Defendants' alleged repeated violations of the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants maintained a policy
and/or practice under which they systemically failed to provide
their former and current misclassified drivers, including him, with
all earned overtimes wages for work beyond hours in a day. The
Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants' policy and/or
practice of scheduling drivers with overtime coupled with excessive
workloads, resulted in a regular practice whereby the misclassified
drivers, including him, routinely worked between 12-20 hours per
shift.
From October 2019 through March 2020, Ferrer worked as a driver for
Farm Fresh at the Vernon, California delivery hub. Around March
2020, Ferrer was transferred to the Yorba Linda hub. He continued
to work at the Yorba Linda Hub until he was terminated on April 9,
2020.
Farm Fresh is a farm produce and product delivery service whose
workers deliver previously selected boxes of goods to the homes of
its customers. Wolf Logistics is a delivery company whose drivers
deliver previously selected boxes of goods to the homes of Farm
Fresh customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wilmer J. Harris, Esq.
Sarah L. Dawley, Esq.
Michael Seplow, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
715 Fremont Avenue, Suite A
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (626) 441-4129
Facsimile: (626) 283-5770
E-mail: wharris@sshhzlaw.com
sdawley@sshhzlaw.com
mseplow@sshhzlaw.com
CASCADE PROCESS: Underpays Field Technicians, Dowda et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TODD DOWDA and MEGAN GRIFFITHS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CASCADE PROCESS
CONTROLS, INC., CASCADE PROCESS CONTROLS, LTD, DOUG CORCORAN, PAT
BRACK, and KELLY MAXWELL, individually, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-01201 (W.D. Tex., October 9, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful policy or practice of paying their
field technicians overtime premiums in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly field
technicians.
The Plaintiffs allege that, despite regularly working more than 40
hours in a workweek, the Defendants regularly refused to pay them
and other similarly situated field technicians' overtime premiums
for any hours worked over 40 per workweek at a rate not less than
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay.
The Corporate Defendants provide turn-key construction and
electrical and instrumentation services to the oil and gas industry
throughout the State of Texas and Canada. The Individual Defendants
are directors of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas B. Welmar, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, PC
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberly, TX 78676
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
CHRISTIAN ALCOHOLICS: Faces Class Action Over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Karp, writing for Law360, reports that Brad McGahey had been
suctioning guts out of slaughtered chickens and arranging carcasses
on a moving conveyor belt for about three months when his hand got
stuck in that belt.
"The machine smashed his hand, breaking several bones and nearly
severing a tendon in his wrist," according to court documents.
"When he finally yanked his wrist free, his hand was bent
completely backward."
It may not seem unusual for someone with a job at a chicken
processing plant to suffer a gruesome injury like this. But working
at the plant wasn't McGahey's job - it was his sentence.
McGahey had been ordered by a judge to an addiction treatment
center called Christian Alcoholics & Addicts in Recovery, or CAAIR,
based in Jay, Oklahoma, as "his only alternative to serving prison
time" after he violated the terms of his probation for receiving
stolen property, according to a lawsuit he and others filed against
CAAIR.
But instead of receiving that treatment, McGahey and other
residents were forced to work in taxing and dangerous jobs for
private, for-profit companies, their complaint says. When they were
injured, they were threatened with incarceration if they didn't
keep working. And they were "never paid a dime," according to the
amended complaint filed in July.
McGahey's case is just one of a spate of recent lawsuits against
similar facilities, one of which has already resulted in a more
than $1 million judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in April, with
a federal judge saying the facilities are violating labor laws for
their own financial gain.
But the programs -- and the judges sending defendants to them --
insist that unpaid labor is an important part of the treatment they
provide, teaching residents discipline and work ethic in an effort
to keep them out of jail.
That treatment can be called something else, says Dan Smolen of
Smolen & Roytman, an attorney leading the class action against
CAAIR. It's "also known as human trafficking."
'Gray Area'
In recent years, many states have adopted a drug court model,
sending those accused of usually nonviolent or drug crimes to
treatment programs rather than jail, says Timothy A. Steadman of
Holleman & Associates PA, one of the lead attorneys in a different
class action against Drug and Alcohol Recovery Program, or DARP,
which operates two 60-bed facilities in Decatur, Arkansas.
Between 2009 and 2014, the number of drug courts increased in
three-quarters of U.S. states, while one-quarter added at least 20
new drug courts, according to a 2016 report from the National Drug
Court Institute.
And while the programs these drug courts sentence defendants to
often refer to themselves as nonprofit addiction treatment centers,
a spate of lawsuits like the ones against DARP and CAAIR insist
some of them offer little, if any, treatment.
Rather, they are labor camps, their former residents say, forcing
those who enroll to do grueling work for for-profit companies while
keeping the residents' pay for themselves. It's a practice Steadman
and other lawyers say is pervasive and increasing, particularly in
the South.
Steadman's clients, for instance, were sent to DARP by drug courts
in Arkansas and Oklahoma. But instead of receiving treatment, they
were made to work at a company called Hendren Plastics, where they
manufactured boat floats, he says.
"What the witnesses said in our case is that there was very little
outside of work," Steadman told Law360. "The focus of the program
was really that work was the main component."
His clients sued DARP and Hendren in Arkansas federal court in
2018, accusing them of wage and overtime violations under the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Those sent by drug courts to CAAIR, which has capacity for 200
residents in three dorms, were made to work 40 to 70 hours a week
hanging chickens and cleaning chicken guts for a company called
Simmons Foods, says Smolen, who filed a class action accusing CAAIR
and Simmons of human trafficking and violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act, among other claims.
Meanwhile, residents at Texas' Cenikor Foundation, which boasts 13
facilities throughout that state and Louisiana, worked at oil
companies and university dining services, says Zachary C. Flowerree
of Werman Salas PC, one of the attorneys involved in another class
action filed over wage claims in 2019 against Cenikor.
None of the residents at DARP, CAAIR or Cenikor were ever paid for
their work, according to their lawyers.
"If these folks were actually incarcerated, if they were in prison,
there's a federal law that would prevent them going to work for
for-profit companies manufacturing boat floats," Steadman says.
"But because these folks aren't really in prison, they just kind of
have what I would call a quasi-status, they're in this gray area,
and that's a situation that's rampant for abuse."
'Rehabilitation' vs. 'Recovery'
DARP insists it's not abusing its residents by making them work
without pay.
DARP is a court-approved, private recovery program that receives no
government funds or grant money and is "solely financed by the
labor of the people who participate," says William B. Putman, an
attorney who represents DARP. The residents' wages are assigned to
DARP to pay for overhead like staff, meals and transportation.
In return, residents are treated through a combination of
faith-based and 12-step addiction approaches with a concentration
on developing work ethic and responsibility that will help them
remain sober when they leave the program, Putman says.
That arrangement means those who participate in addiction treatment
programs like DARP are not employees, according to Putman, and do
not need to be paid. He adds that DARP residents sign a waiver of
employment relationship when they enter the program.
"There are a lot of very significant material differences between
employees as envisioned by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
participants in a court-ordered drug and alcohol recovery program,"
he says.
But the issue isn't so clear-cut, according to Noah Zatz, a
professor specializing in labor law at UCLA School of Law. As long
as the programs are farming out participants to businesses where
they perform tasks comparable to other employees and the facility
is getting paid in exchange, that creates an employment
relationship, he says.
In addition to potentially violating conventional wage and hour
statutes, these arrangements "raise serious questions about
involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment, he says.
"The only thing that muddies the water is the idea that the workers
are supposedly getting a therapeutic benefit from the work or any
associated programming," Zatz says. "That's questionable in many of
these programs."
What counseling the centers provide takes place only in occasional,
12-step group sessions led by the residents themselves, lawyers for
those residents say. DARP can't offer drug treatment because it is
not licensed to do so by the state of Arkansas, according to
Steadman.
CAAIR is also not certified by Oklahoma and has no certified
addiction counselors on its staff, Smolen says. And while Cenikor
does employ addiction counselors, those counselors are usually on
duty during the day, when the facility's residents are busy
working, Flowerree points out.
"Cenikor, of course, claims that, 'Well, you're getting addiction
treatment in exchange for your work.' But you know, they work so
much, the residents, they have very little time for any treatment,"
Flowerree says. So there isn't treatment, "unless you just think
working a lot of hours is addiction treatment."
It's not, according to William R. Miller, an emeritus distinguished
professor at the University of New Mexico who researches behavioral
treatments for substance use disorders. Requiring patients to work
is not an evidence-based component of addiction treatment, he says,
and there is no proof programs that require their residents to work
have any success.
"Imagine a similar requirement in treating other chronic
illnesses," he says.
Not all treatment centers defendants are sentenced to by drug
courts operate this way. In the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals' best practice standards, the organization says
participants should meet individually with clinical case managers,
facilities should use treatments that are documented in manuals,
and treatment providers should be "licensed or certified to deliver
substance use disorder treatment."
But DARP, CAAIR and Cenikor all seem to be falling far short of
those standards, lawyers say.
Cenikor declined to comment for this story, and its attorneys as
well as CAAIR and CAAIR's attorneys did not respond to requests for
comment.
But the work DARP residents are made to do is the treatment, Putman
insists.
By requiring its residents to work, DARP is helping them develop
self-discipline and allowing them to "learn basic life skills that
some of the people in the program may be a little deficient in," he
says. And some of them will have the opportunity to remain in those
jobs when they complete DARP's program, aiding their recovery.
"There may be a place for that, but it's certainly not what a lot
of my clients needed," says Flowerree of his clients who attended
Cenikor. "They needed some one-on-one counseling and they needed it
regularly."
Threatened With Incarceration
Residents sent to these programs may or may not be getting
treatment, but what many of them are getting is injured, their
attorneys say.
Michael Spears fractured his wrist and Corby Shumate was burned by
molten plastic while the two worked at Hendren Plastics, according
to the complaint against DARP. Arthur Copeland suffered a fall and
a metal door fell on Brandon Spurgin while they both worked at
Simmons Foods, according to the complaint against CAAIR.
Few of the injured residents received adequate medical treatment,
their lawyers say. And they were all threatened with incarceration
if they didn't continue working despite their injuries.
"If a resident was refusing to go and work their job because they
hurt their back or something, well, they could hang that over the
resident," says Flowerree about Cenikor. "'Well, then I'm going to
tell your probation officer you're not following the terms of this
program.' So they always felt kind of strong-armed into working
regardless of being sick or injured."
CAAIR, for instance, ordered McGahey to return to work -- against a
doctor's orders -- after his hand was smashed by the conveyor belt.
"'You can either work or you can go to prison,' a CAAIR
administrator told him," according to the complaint.
Threats like that give the programs "tremendous control" over the
residents, Zatz says.
In fact, several of Smolen's clients did get kicked out of CAAIR
and ended up going to jail because of their injuries, he says. And
at least one of Steadman's clients was similarly expelled from DARP
and wound up incarcerated as a result.
Other residents who were injured had extra days added to the length
of their stay at DARP, Steadman says. "If you're supposed to be
there for six months, they're getting six months of work out of
you. So if you get hurt and can't work for a week, they're just
gonna tack on another week."
A Lack of Oversight
The programs can control their residents like this because they
tightly oversee the residents' interactions with the court system,
Steadman and Flowerree say, taking residents back and forth to
court appearances and monitoring their communications with
probation officers.
The attorneys insist they've seen no evidence that the drug courts
are providing any oversight of the recovery programs.
"I don't think the courts have a lot of awareness about" what's
happening at DARP, Steadman says.
He adds that there needs to be more regulation of these programs,
but there seems to be little increased oversight on the horizon.
Licensing requirements vary from state to state, and, at least in
some states, only addiction "rehabilitation" or "treatment" centers
must be licensed. But DARP and facilities like it don't claim to be
"rehabilitation" or "treatment" programs, Putman points out. They
are "recovery" programs -- something both CAAIR and DARP
acknowledge in court documents -- and subject to minimal
oversight.
The Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Services told Law360 in a statement: "Only certified treatment
providers may deliver treatment services for department-funded drug
court participants." No department funds are spent on noncertified
providers, the statement added. "The courts are very aware of our
position on . . . what is and is not treatment."
But the department could not say if any drug courts in the state
are currently sending participants to noncertified providers.
The Arkansas Department of Corrections declined to comment.
But the drug courts do oversee these programs and understand how
they operate, Putman says, pointing out that a judge made it clear
in a deposition in his case that DARP is a valuable option for
certain people and he would like to see it continue.
"One of the drug court judges described them this way," Putman
says. "They're kind of at the end of the line. By the time they get
to the point where DARP . . . is an option, they're basically
facing either DARP or prison. They don't have a lot of
alternatives."
A transcript of McGahey's sentencing does seem to show that judges
are aware of the type of programs to which they're sentencing
defendants. The judge in McGahey's case warned McGahey that CAAIR
"is a lot of work. They work six days a week and they go to AA
meetings and things like that at night ... they'll treat you fair
and work you hard, but it will give you an opportunity to make some
changes in your life."
And everyone who comes to DARP knows in advance what they're
signing up for, Putman insists. Each resident must fill out a
packet of forms that explains that they have to work as a condition
of admission and that their wages will be paid to DARP.
"Nobody comes into DARP and shows up the first day for work and
thinks, 'Hey, at the end of the week, I'm gonna get a paycheck.'
And that's made abundantly clear that that's not how the program
works," Putman says.
At least one federal judge disagrees with that assessment,
however.
In April, U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks ordered DARP and
Hendren Plastics to pay the former DARP residents more than $1.1
million in damages, plus fees and costs, after writing that DARP
and Hendren "were not operating as charities. They were businesses
that manipulated the labor market and skirted compliance with the
labor laws for their own private ends."
That ruling is currently on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. The cases
against Cenikor and CAAIR are still in earlier stages, lawyers
say.
As a result, DARP will now have to pay the residents it puts to
work, according to Steadman.
"These programs need to have more to them than simply generating
profits for for-profit companies and reducing labor costs," he
says. [GN]
CNC OILFIELD: Conditional Certification of Employees Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned NORBERTO PAREDES and DANIEL
PERALES, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CNC OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
5:20-cv-00600-FB-RBF (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court for an
order granting conditional certification of the following class:
"Current and former employees of CNC Oilfield Services, LLC,
who worked as vacuum truck drivers and were based out of its
South Texas facilities, at any point from "3 years prior to
date of certification" to the present."
The Parties have agreed to and propose the following schedule:
-- 14 days from the Order approving notice to Potential Class
Members
The Defendant to provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel in
Excel (.xlsx) format the following information
regarding all Putative Class Members: full name; last
known addresses with city, state, and zip Code; last
known personal e-mail addresses (non-company address
if applicable); last known contact phone number;
beginning dates of employment; and ending dates of
employment (if applicable).
-- 28 days from the Order approving notice to Potential Class
Members
The Plaintiffs' counsel shall send a copy of the
Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative
Class Members by first class U.S. Mail and email. The
Plaintiffs' counsel may follow-up the mailed Notice
and Consent Forms with contact by text message of
those Putative Class Members whose mailed or emailed
contact information is not valid.
-- 60 days from the mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
Potential Class Members:
The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to
return to their signed Consent forms to the
Plaintiffs' counsel for filing with the Court.
-- 20 days from the mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to
Potential Class Members:
The Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to mail and
email a second, identical copy of the Notice and
Consent Form to the Putative Class Members reminding
them of the deadline for the submission of the Consent
forms.
The Defendant offers customizable services including customized
containment berms, vacuum truck hauling, frac tanks, wash crews and
equipment rentals.
A copy of the joint motion for conditional certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/371T3Zl at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone 713 999 5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
Attorneys for Defendants are:
Adam D. Boland, Esq.
Sona Ramirez, Esq.
Charlie Hayes, Esq.
CLARK HILL STRASBURGER
2301 Broadway St.
San Antonio, TX 78215-1157
Telephone: (210) 250-6000
Facsimile: (210) 250-6100
E-mail: aboland@clarkhill.com
sramirez@clarkhill.com
chayes@clarkhill.com
- and -
Julianna P. Parks, Esq.
LANGLEY & PARKS, LLC
401 Market St., Ste. 1100
Shreveport, LA 71101
Telephone: (318) 383-6422
Telefax: (318) 383-6405
COLLINS & AIKMAN: Court OKs Distribution Agent's Fees in SEC Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v.
COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION, DAVID A. STOCKMAN, J. MICHAEL STEPP,
GERALD E. JONES, DAVID R. COSGROVE, ELKIN B. McCALLUM, PAUL C.
BARNABA, JOHN G. GALANTE, CHRISTOPHER M. WILLIAMS, AND THOMAS V.
GOUGHERTY, Defendants, Case No. 1:07-cv-02419 (JMF) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to
Disburse Funds to Pay Fees and Expenses of the Distribution Agent.
The Clerk of the Court will issue a check on the Court Registry
Investment System (CRIS Account Number 1:07-cv-02419 under the case
name designation SEC v. Collins & Aikman, et al., for the amount of
$61,225.15 payable to Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, for the
payment of fees and expenses incurred by the distribution agent
between Dec. 3, 2019 and May 31, 2020.
The Clerk will send the check by U.S. mail to: Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions Dept. 0286 P.O. Box 120286 Dallas, TX 75312-0286.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3dQ41CE from Leagle.com.
COTY INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Nov. 3 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
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.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-coty-inc-securities-litigation-2
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
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit 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 ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
CREDIT SUISSE: Fairness Hrg. on $15MM Class Deal Set for Dec. 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 1:17-cv-10014-LGS
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION; (II)
SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who, during the period from March 20,
2015, through February 3, 2016, inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Suisse Group AG
("Credit Suisse") American Depositary Receipts, and were allegedly
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class as
set forth in the full printed Notice Of (I) Pendency Of Class
Action, Certification Of Settlement Class, And Proposed Settlement
of Class Action; (II) Settlement Hearing; And (III) Motion For An
Award Of Attorneys' Fees And Reimbursement Of Litigation Expenses
(the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $15,500,000.00 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims
in the Action.
A hearing will be held on December 10, 2020 at 11:30 a.m., at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1106, 40
Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, or by telephonic, video
conferencing or other electronic means, as posted on the website of
the Claims Administrator. The hearing will determine (i) whether
the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Amended Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement
(and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Credit Suisse
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, PO Box 4129, Portland,
OR 97208-4129, (855) 907-2119. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form
can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.CreditSuisseSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form online at the Settlement
website or by mail. The Claim Form must be submitted or postmarked
no later than January 20, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class
Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than November 19, 2020,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to representatives of Lead Counsel and Defendants'
Counsel such that they are received no later than November 19,
2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Credit Suisse,
or Defendants' counsel regarding this notice. All questions about
this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or
the Claims Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Credit Suisse Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator
PO Box 4129,
Portland, OR 97208-4129
(855) 907-2119
www.CreditSuisseSecuritiesLitigation.com
Info@CreditSuisseSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Adam Warden
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
awarden@saxenawhite.com
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
Molly J. Bowen
1100 New York Ave., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
mbowen@cohenmilstein.com
Dated: September 28, 2020
By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
www.CreditSuisseSecuritiesLitigation.com [GN]
DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL: Claims in Lost Data Suit Due on Jan. 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement Approval Notice to Class Members has been issued in
the class action commenced by Plaintiff Belley against
DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc.
PROCEEDINGS
On January 19, 2015, the Honourable Louis Lacoursiere of the
Superior Court of Quebec authorized a class action brought by the
Plaintiff Belley on behalf of "all persons in Canada whose personal
information was stored or saved on a DaimlerChrysler Financial
Services Canada Inc. Data Tape which was lost while in transit on
or about March 12, 2008".
A Settlement Agreement has been reached and was approved by the
Superior Court of Quebec on March 4, 2020.
Settlement Agreement
The Settlement provides that DaimlerChrysler Financial Services
Canada Inc., now known as TD Auto Finance Services ("TD Auto"),
without admission of liability, will pay a maximum capped amount of
$175,000.00 CAD which will be used to pay those Class Members who
suffered an actual and direct loss caused by the loss of the Data
Tape. The Settlement further provides for the payment of an
indemnity to Class Members for time spent dealing with any type of
Substantiated Loss and who submit a verified and approved
Substantiated Claim up to a maximum of two hours of Lost Time,
calculated at a rate of $20.00 CAD per hour, for each category of
approved Substantiated Claim.
In addition, TD Auto will pay: (1) the fees of the Claims
Administrator up to a maximum total cap of $75,000.00 CAD; (2) the
cost related to the notices sent to Class Members up to a maximum
cap of $75,000.00 CAD; (3) Class Counsel's fees, costs and
expenses, in the amount of $150,000.00 CAD plus taxes, as well as
(4) the Class Plaintiff's claim in the amount of $5,000.00 CAD.
None of these amounts will affect or reduce the amount payable to
Class Members for Substantiated Claims.
A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Approval Order,
the Claim Form, and other related documentation is available online
at www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca.
Am I a Class Member?
You are a Class Member if you are a resident of Canada whose
personal information was stored or saved on the Data Tape that was
lost while in transit on or about March 12, 2008. You may have
been notified of this incident in writing on or about March 27,
2008, or in February of 2016.
How Do I Submit a Claim?
To submit a claim, you must, no later than January 8, 2021:
Complete a Claim Form online at
www.ChryslerFinancialLostDataTape.ca; or
Obtain a Claim Form in paper format from the website, the Claims
Administrator or Class Counsel, complete it and send it by email or
by mail to the Claims Administrator.
HOW DO I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION?
Please note that in case of any discrepancy between the terms of
this Notice and the Settlement Agreement, the terms of the
Settlement Agreement shall prevail. Any term not defined in this
Settlement Approval Notice shall have the meaning ascribed in the
Settlement Agreement.
The publication of this Notice has been ordered by the Superior
Court of Quebec. [GN]
DENTISTS INSURANCE: Court Stays Proceedings in Germack Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK GERMACK DDS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE DENTISTS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C20-0661-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John
C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's motion for stay of
proceedings.
The Plaintiff owns and operates a dentistry practice in Seattle,
Washington. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and government-ordered
mandates, the Plaintiff was one of many dentistry practices forced
to shut down. The Plaintiff turned to the Defendant, his insurer,
for recovery of business interruption losses and was denied
coverage. On April 30, 2020, he filed a class action complaint
seeking a declaratory judgment and damages for breach of contract
against the Defendant.
A similarly situated group of Plaintiffs nationwide have filed
pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 in the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), seeking to consolidate and
coordinate litigation in over 30 districts nationwide against
insurers. On May 1, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a notice of related
action relating the action to the JPML matter, and the Plaintiff
and the Defendant filed notices of appearance with the JPML action
on May 5 and 18, respectively.
There are over 140 similar cases nationwide, with more than 20 in
the Western District of Washington. The Plaintiff has filed a
brief in support of transfer and consolidation before the JPML, and
the JPML is expected to consider his brief at a hearing on July 30,
2020.
The Plaintiff now requests that the Court stay the proceedings in
the matter pending a ruling by the JPML regarding consolidation and
transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. He requests that the
stay include all discovery and motion practice until seven days
after the JPML makes a decision regarding transfer and
consolidation.
Judge Coughenour finds that the factors set forth above favor
granting a stay of proceedings. A stay will only cause a delay of
a matter of weeks because the JPML is due to make a ruling
regarding transfer and consolidation by mid-August. The Defendant
has not shown it will suffer any hardship if the stay is granted.
Should the JPML decline to transfer and consolidate the case, the
Defendant's motion to strike will be immediately ready for the
Court's consideration upon the expiration of the stay.
Furthermore, the Judge holds that denying the Plaintiff's motion
will likely cause hardship to the Plaintiff. Absent a stay, the
Plaintiff will not have the opportunity for the JPML to decide
whether the case ought to be transferred and consolidated. His
counsel represents about 20 other claimants in similar COVID-19
related cases in the Western District of Washington, several of
which have already been granted stays pending the JMPL's decision.
Finally, the Judge holds that a stay will promote the interests of
judicial economy. The JPML is expected to make a ruling by
mid-August, and the duration of the stay would be approximately six
weeks. It would be wasteful for the parties to engage in discovery
or further motions practice pending the JPML's decision, as
transfer and consolidation of this, the action would mean those
efforts would need to be repeated in a coordinated manner with
other actions in a separate forum. The July 30 JPML hearing is
only 30 days after the noting date of the Defendant's motion to
strike. In the interests of conserving judicial resources pending
the JPML decision, it is prudent to grant the Plaintiff's motion.
In sum, Judge Coughenour granted the Plaintiff's motion for a stay
of proceedings, and stayed the case until further order of the
Court. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report
apprising the Court of the JPML's decision and the necessity for
continuing the stay no later than seven days from the date the
JMPL's decision is issued.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3mc4bqX from Leagle.com.
DIAMOND TECHNICAL SERVICES: Gunter Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gunter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Diamond Technical Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01428 (W.D. Pa., September 22, 2020),
seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act of 1968.
Diamond Technical Services is a technical services and engineering
consulting company catering to the utility, oil, gas, chemical,
refining, food processing, pharmaceutical, manufacturing,
agricultural and power industries. Gunter worked for Diamond as a
technician from approximately February 2020 until August 2020. He
claims to be denied overtime compensation at one and one-half times
his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a
workweek. [BN]
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 E. Huron Road, Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel. (216) 912-2221
Fax: (216) 350-6313
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
DIVERSIFIED HEALTH: Durr Seeks OT Wages for Home Health Aides
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARIEL DURR, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v.
DIVERSIFIED HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05429-MHW-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, Oct. 15, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to
pay employees overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.
As a result of the Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated home health employees for their travel time
between the Defendant's patients' homes, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated home health employees were not paid one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over
40, says the complaint.
Ms. Durr was employed by the Defendant beginning August 2019 until
October 2020. She primarily worked as an hourly, non-exempt Home
Health Aide (HHA) primarily performing HHA responsibilities for the
Defendant's clients. During her employment with Defendant, Durr
traveled to and from the Defendant's clients' residences in and
around Central Ohio.
Diversified Health Management Inc. was founded in 1986. The
Company's line of business includes providing management consulting
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: 614-949-1181
Facsimile: 614-386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
DODGE DEMON: Paint Issues on Hood Scoop Prompt Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Oliva at motor1.com reports that when the Dodge Challenger
SRT Demon, or just Demon, was introduced in 2017, it was touted as
the "fastest production car in the world" - of course, not counting
the hybrids and the EVs. It boasts a factory-controlled top speed
of 168 miles per hour (270 kilometers per hour) and a quarter-mile
sprint of just 9.65 seconds.
All that glory comes from the Demon's 6.2-liter supercharged V8 - a
huge power plant that of course needs proper cooling. With that,
Dodge employed a trademarked 45-square-inch "functional AirGrabber
hood scoop."
But the massive hood intake seems to do more harm than good,
according to a class-action lawsuit filed by Dodge Demon owners in
California and reported by CarComplaints.com. According to the
complaint, the factory paint on the hood scoop cracks, chips, and
peels away due to a "flimsy insert that expands and contracts when
the Class Vehicle is used, which results in a sagging, buckling,
bulging, and vibrating insert." This, in turn, "stripped, cracked,
and chipped the paint on each Class Vehicle's hood."
Of note, the class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of lessees
and owners of the 2018 Dodge Challenger SRT Demon in California.
FCA has issued service bulletin 23-033-19 for the said complaints
even before the lawsuit was filed. The service calls for a
"smaller, non-original hood scoop bezel, which is the only part of
the Demon AirGrabber that is visible from the outside."
But this service bulletin is said to be inadequate, according to
the complainants. Moreover, FCA allegedly denies the hood defects
and fails to honor warranties. Owners, on the other hand, are
forced to shed money for costly repairs – repairs that shouldn't
have happened in the first place. [GN]
DRIVE DEVELOPMENT: Delgado Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN DELGADO and all others similarly-situated under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), v. DRIVE DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC, a Florida limited
liability corporation, DRIVE DEVELOPMENT LLC, a Florida limited
liability corporation, a/k/a "BIRD JACKSON", DRIVE CONSTRUCTION
LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, DOUGLAS COX,
individually, and NICOLE PEARL, individually, Case No.
1:20-cv-24263-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 16, 2020), seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonably attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants required him and all
other similarly-situated individuals to perform work, with the
promise of payment every two weeks, every other Friday, but the
Defendants intermittently did not pay them. The Defendants failed
to pay them for all hours, days, and weeks worked, he adds.
The Defendants provide real estate development services including
investment, government projects, architecture, design, and building
of commercial and residential properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara E. Faenza, Esq.
NAVARRO MCKOWN
66 West Flagler Street, Sixth Floor
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 424-2620
E-mail: tara@nmbesq.com
civil@nbmesq.com
DUKE ENERGY: Johnson Files ERISA Class Action in N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Johnson, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Duke Energy
Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation,
Duke Energy Benefits Committee, and John and Jane Does 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-00528 (W.D. N.C., September 23, 2020),
seeks to recover all losses to the employee pension benefit plan
managed by Duke, equitable and injunctive relief for breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, and for violation of
Sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA).
Duke Energy is an energy holding company, serving customers in
Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina and South
Carolina. Through its subsidiaries, Duke Energy provides regulated
utility services such as gas and electricity service and related
infrastructure, as well as nonregulated utility services, such as
wind and solar power. Duke Energy Corporation manages its employee
pension benefit plan, a defined contribution plan covering all
eligible current and former employees of Duke Energy and of its
affiliated companies. It is administered by the Duke Energy
Benefits Committee with Fidelity Management Trust Company as the
trustee.
Johnson alleges that Defendants, acting as "fiduciaries" of their
Plan, caused the plans' participants to pay excessive recordkeeping
expenses and unreasonably maintained investment advisors and
consultants for the plan despite the known availability of similar
service providers with lower costs and/or better performance
histories. [BN]
Johnson is a former participant in the plan and was enrolled in its
managed account service.
Johnson is represented by:
F. Hill Allen, Esq.
THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
P.O. Box 1151
Raleigh, NC 27602-1151
Telephone: (919) 821-4711
Facsimile: (919) 829-1583
E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com
- and -
Doron Levin, Esq.
LEVIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
2000 West Loop South, Suite 2200
Houston, TX 77027
Phone: (800) 932-2694
Email: levin@law29.com
ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE: Broussard Suit Wins Conditional Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned DAVID JOHN BROUSSARD, on his
own behalf, and for all those similarly situated pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), v. ELDOR AUTOMOTIVE POWERTRAIN USA, Case No.
7:19-cv-00841-MFU-RSB (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael F.
Urbanski entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action under
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
on behalf of:
"all individuals who worked for Defendant as a Process
Engineer at any time from December 13, 2016 to the present
who believe they were misclassified as exempt";
2. authorizing and approving judicial notice as agreed to by
the parties to inform potential collective members of the
action and to give them an opportunity to join this action
as party plaintiffs by opting in;
3. directing the Plaintiffs counsel to administer the notice
through first class mail using a Notice substantially
similar to the Notice proposed by the parties within 20
calendar days of the entry of this Order;
4. directing the Defendant's counsel to provide a list to the
Plaintiff's counsel in an electronically manipulable
format, e.g. excel, of all putative class members,
including their names, last known addresses, personal
email addresses (if known), telephone numbers, and
employment dates; and
5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to disburse the Notice
within 7 calendar days of receipt of such list from the
Defendant.
Eldor provides auto parts.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 8, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3754n7e at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
- and -
Thomas E. Strelka, Esq.
L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq.
N. Winston West, IV, Esq.
Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC
Warehouse Row
119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
Roanoke, VA 24011
E-mail: thomas@strelkalaw.com
leigh@strelkalaw.com
winston@strelkalaw.com
brittany@strelkalaw.com
monica@strelkalaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Eldor are:
Thomas M. Winn, Esq.
Leah M. Stiegler, Esq.
WOODS ROGERS PLC
10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400
Roanoke, VA 24011
Telephone: (540) 983-7600
Facsimile: (540) 983-7711
E-mail: winn(@woodsrogers.com
Istiegler@woodsrogers.com
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Multiple Class-Actions
---------------------------------------------
Rishabh B., writing for sportskeea, reports that Electronic Arts is
one of the largest gaming companies in the world. It owns some of
the most popular gaming franchises, including FIFA, Madden, Sims,
and Need for Speed. Furthermore, EA earns more than $5 billion a
year.
However, all this success hasn't stopped it from getting quite a
bad reputation in the gaming industry.
Electronic Arts was founded by Trip Hawkins, a former Apple
employee who wanted to start his own video game publishing company,
back in 1982. Originally, the organization was called Amazin'
Software, and initially survived due to considerable private
investment from outside. Regardless, the early games were not a
huge success.
What gives EA such a bad rep in the gaming industry?
The game that can be considered to have given the company its
identity is One on One: Dr. J vs. Larry Bird. It was simple enough,
and involved the two basketball players going head to head (Julius
Erving and Larry Bird). The title began a long tradition of using
sports players as gaming characters, something consolidated with
the Madden series, first released in 1988.
However, it is somewhere here that Electronic Arts began to get
hate from people. The company has a long history of acquiring and
killing smaller developers, including Origin Systems, which they
bought in 1992.
This company was shut down in 2004 after years of EA setting
unrealistic deadlines for its games. Mainly, the Ultima game series
suffered, and as sales dropped, Electronic Arts decided to shut
down Origin Systems.
Other games such as Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3 saw a rather
forced 'multiplayer system,' as EA wanted to attract a 'broader
appeal,' but failed to do so. Other franchises like Need for Speed
saw incessant iterations and sequels that did not have enough
features to warrant new games.
Like Origin Systems, multiple studios like Westwood Studios were
purchased by EA and shut down subsequently. Further issues such as
'overblown marketing' and microtransactions have also been on the
industry's mind.
Most gamers who pay money to buy a game do not want to be paying
more to unlock specific parts of the same. While EA did not pioneer
'microtransactions' in gaming, they pulled it off well enough to
draw the ire of gamers.
This eventually led to a plethora of titles following the same
model. However, unlike EA's offerings, most of these new games,
like Fortnite, are free-to-play, with purchasable content.
There are also multiple class-action lawsuits that the company has
had to fight through the years. These include former employees who
filed suits against Electronic Arts for exploitation and overtime
pay. All the above reasons have led to EA being considered an
'evil' company. [GN]
EN ENGINEERING: Court Grants Bid for Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SCOTT MCCONNELL and MICHAEL
BENNETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff,
v. EN ENGINEERING, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00153-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification on behalf of:
"all ENE hourly employees who were paid the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
in a workweek (or, "straight time for overtime") at any
time in the past 3 years ("Putative Class Members");
2. deferring a decision regarding Authorization for Notice to
the Putative Class Members;
3. directing the Counsel to meet and confer regarding
proposed Notice and Consent forms and to file a joint
status report in the next 10 days regarding any remaining
disputes.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs seek collective treatment for a
specific type of worker (ENE's hourly employees) who were all
subjected to the same pay policy (ENE's uniform straight time for
overtime pay scheme). While there are alleged dissimilarities that
the Court will scrutinize at later stages of this case, this Court
is not tasked to parse that analysis now. And while questions
remain as to whether the policy implemented by ENE was legal under
the FLSA, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently asserted a common policy
that affected a putative collective. Therefore, the Plaintiffs
present sufficient evidence to meet a modest factual showing that
they and other Straight Time Workers are similarly situated for the
alleged FLSA violations. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification will be granted."
The Plaintiffs bring the within collective action against ENE for
overtime payment as required by the Fair Labors Standards Act
(FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), and the Kentucky
Wage and Hour Act (KWHA).
ENE provides comprehensive and dependable engineering, consulting,
and automation services to pipeline companies, utilities, and
industrial customers.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 8, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SSL1tJ at no
extra charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX INC: Court Dismisses Count II in Weiss FCRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW WEISS, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC. and EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-1460 (BMC)
(E.D. N.Y.), Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).
The Plaintiff brings the action for alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"); the New York FCRA, N.Y. Gen. Bus.
Law Section 380 et seq.; and N.Y. G.B.L. Section 349. He alleges
that the Defendants failed to correct inaccurate information in his
credit report and falsely led him to believe they would safeguard
his personal data from hackers.
In 2017, foreign hackers invaded the Defendants' computer systems
and stole the sensitive personal data of over 145 million
consumers. The Plaintiff was one such identity theft victim, and
multiple fraudulent credit and checking accounts were later opened
in his name. Based on the hack and resulting data breach, hundreds
of cases were filed nationwide and consolidated as a multidistrict
litigation proceeding ("MDL") in the Northern District of Georgia.
The Defendants and the named Plaintiffs in that case eventually
entered into a class action settlement agreement. Excluded from
the settlement class were individuals who executed timely and valid
requests to opt out. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff
opted out of the nationwide class action concerning the hack.
The Plaintiff's complaint contains four remaining claims for
relief: (1) the Defendants willfully or negligently violated 15
U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) and 1681i by failing to follow reasonable
procedures to assure the accuracy of his credit report and by
failing to conduct a reasonable investigation, respectively (Count
I); (2) the Defendants prepared an erroneous credit report in
violation of the New York FCRA and failed to assure maximum
accuracy of the credit report when they failed to conduct a
reasonable investigation as to the Plaintiff's disputes (Count IV);
(3) by failing to prevent the data breach, the Defendants willfully
or recklessly violated their legal obligations under the FCRA
(Count II); and (4) the Defendants violated N.Y. G.B.L. Section 349
when they, among others things, failed to implement security and
privacy measures to safeguard the Plaintiff's sensitive information
and misrepresented to him that his personal data would be protected
from outside threats (Count VI).
Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
on three grounds: (1) Counts I and IV fail to state a claim because
the complaint is devoid of facts concerning defendants'
investigation or procedures; (2) the data breach claim in Counts II
and VI are not actionable under the FCRA and N.Y. G.B.L. Section
349, respectively; and (3) alternatively, these latter claims are
barred because the Plaintiff failed to timely opt out of a class
action settlement resolving all claims arising from the data
breach.
Judge Hurd rejects the Defendants' argument that, because the
Plaintiff failed to allege facts as to the Defendants' procedures,
the complaint fails to state claim. The Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) and 1681i. The complaint
alleges that the Plaintiff repeatedly notified the Defendants that
he was the victim of a hack targeting their computer systems; sent
them reports corroborating his status as an identity theft victim;
and that the Defendants removed perfectly accurate account
information instead of the inaccurate information about which the
Plaintiff was complaining. If the Defendants want to contend that
this was the result of reasonable procedures, they are going to
have to prove it. Accordingly, Counts I and IV may proceed.
Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's contention that FCRA
liability flows from the data breach (Count II) is deficient. The
complaint vaguely asserts that the Defendants recklessly breached
their own legal obligations concerning data security under the
FCRA" and intentionally deprived the Plaintiff of his rights under
the FCRA. These are conclusory allegations, and the Defendants
have no way to discern which particluar "legal obligations" were
breached or what "rights" under the FCRA they are accused of
violating. Even under the liberal notice pleading requirements,
these allegations are inadequate. Accordingly, the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Count II is granted.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff has stated a claim under N.Y.
G.B.L. Section 349 (Count VI) in relation to the data breach.
Unlike the FCRA allegation arising from the data breach, which
stems from the Defendants' inability to shield the Plaintiff's
information from hackers, this claim for relief alleges that the
Defendants' actions and representations caused the Plaintiff to
think the Defendants were taking steps to protect his personal
information, when in reality, they were not. This resulted in
actual and pecuniary harm after the Plaintiff's identity was stolen
and numerous unauthorized accounts were opened under his name. The
Defendants' motion to dismiss Count VI is denied.
Finally, the Defendants cannot prevail on their final argument --
that the Plaintiff failed to opt out of the MDL settlement. The
Defendants have annexed documents to their reply purporting to show
that the Plaintiff submitted three claims to the MDL settlement
administrator for compensation related to the data breach. If the
Plaintiff in fact failed to execute a timely and valid request to
opt out of the settlement, then he is precluded from filing a new
claim in any subsequent litigation, unless it is based on new facts
that give rise to a new claim.
In any event, the Plaintiff vehemently insists that he opted out of
the data breach settlement and contends he is therefore not bound
by the terms of the agreement. Even after the Defendants accused
the Plaintiff of submitting claims to the MDL settlement
administrator in their motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff doubled
down in his opposition, reiterating that the complaint states that
he opted out of the data breach settlement and arguing the
Defendants are "bound" by his factual assertion in the complaint.
The Plaintiff and his counsel are on notice. If it turns out that
they are wrong and that the Plaintiff failed to execute a timely
and valid request to be excluded from the class action settlement
or otherwise received compensation from the MDL settlement, this
likely would demonstrate bad faith on the Plaintiff's part and the
lack of an adequate prefiling investigation by the Plaintiff's
counsel. The consequences for such a fundamental failure are well
established.
In sum, Judge Hurd granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
Count II and denied otherwise.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Memorandum
Decision & Order is available at https://bit.ly/35jjwiI from
Leagle.com.
ESSENTIAL APPAREL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hecht Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
IRENE HECHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESSENTIAL APPAREL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08482 (S.D.N.Y., October 12, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Plaintiff is a blind and visually-impaired handicapped, who is
dependent to a popular screen reading software called Non-Visual
Desktop Access, and a member of a protected class of individuals
under the ADA.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied access similar
to that of a sighted individual when she visited the Defendant's
Website, www.essentialapparel.com, on or around March 2020 with the
intent of browsing and potentially making a purchase. The Website
allegedly lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the
privileges and benefits of the Defendant's Website.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which could help the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated blind persons to
independently navigate the Website and complete a desired
transaction as sighted individuals do.
Essential Apparel is a clothing company that owns and operates the
Website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Instagram Spying
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamey Tucker, writing for WPSD Local, reports that "Facebook is
listening to me all the time." How many times have you heard
someone say that? They're completely convinced that Facebook and
its other apps turn on the microphone when we're not using the app.
"I was talking about cowboy boots the other day and later, I'm
seeing ads for cowboy boots!" I hear people say something similar
very often.
A new lawsuit takes that conspiracy theory to a new level, claiming
Facebook through its Instagram app, was secretly turning on the
smartphone camera to watch users. The lawsuit, Conditi v.
Instagram, claims an Instagram user noticed the iPhone camera was
turned on while she was browsing photos on Instagram even the
"create" tab was not selected.
The class-action lawsuit asks for a $5 million judgment and a jury
trial.
According to the complaint, an Instagram user from New Jersey
noticed in July that the app opened the camera during "intimate
moments in private places." Facebook acknowledged a bug in its iOS
14 version and reported the bug to Apple and released an update to
fix it.
The user became aware of the open camera after upgrading her phone
to an early beta release of iOS 14 which includes the feature of
displaying a green dot icon at the top of the screen whenever an
app is using the phone's camera. The public release of iOS 14,
which became available also includes this feature.
The lawsuit alleges Facebook and Instagram secretly recorded video
and audio in an effort to gather more data on its users in order to
increase revenue by targeting users with more personalized
advertisements.
To see if your phone will now display the green icon when the
camera is activated, open the camera app, and look for the green
dot in the upper right corner of the screen. If you do not see a
green dot you should update your iPhone operating system to iOS 14
for this and other new features. [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Illinois Residents Can File Claims in Class Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
WJOL reports that Facebook users in Illinois can now apply to
collect money from a settlement as a result of a class-action
lawsuit. The suit was filed over the social media platform's
collection and storing of biometric data of users in the state
without their consent. As part of the 650-million-dollar
settlement, claimants could be eligible for payments of between
200-to-400 dollars, depending on the number of valid claims filed.
Those covered by the settlement include Facebook users in Illinois
who Facebook created and stored a face template after June 7th of
2011. Claimants must be a resident of the state for at least 183
days to be eligible and claims must be filed by November 23rd.
[GN]
FAIRLIFE: Core Power Brand Faces Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal News Line reports that Fairlife's vanilla
protein drink uses artificial vanilla, a class action lawsuit
alleges.
Filed Sept. 21 by Sheehan & Associates, the case is one of many
regarding claims of "natural flavor" and vanilla flavor. It targets
Fairlife's Core Power brand.
"The representations are misleading because the Product contains
artificial, non-vanilla flavors not disclosed to consumers and less
vanilla than consumers expect," the suit says.
In vanilla products, the listing of an ingredient "natural
flavors," means a combination of vanilla and non-vanilla flavor
known as Vanilla With Other Natural Flavors, the suit says. But
that should be classified as an artificial flavor because it
modifies a vanilla ingredient, the suit says. [GN]
FCA US: Faces Anderson Suit Over Defective Dodge Rams' EGR Coolers
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS ANDERSON and KWATERSKI CONSTRUCTION, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, F/K/A
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00959
(W.D. Wis., Oct. 15, 2020), alleges that FCA US designed,
manufactured, distributed, and sold hundreds of thousands of Dodge
Ram 1500 and 1500 Classic vehicles equipped with 3.0L EcoDiesel
engines (the "Class Vehicles") between June 12, 2013 to October 23,
2019 (the suspect class period) which contain grossly defective EGR
coolers.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all
other current and former owners or lessees of the Class Vehicles.
The Plaintiffs and the Class seek monetary damages, business
reforms, and injunctive and other equitable relief for the
Defendant's misconduct related to the design, manufacture,
marketing, sale, and lease of the Class Vehicles. The Plaintiffs
and Class members are also entitled to a significant award of
punitive or exemplary damages given that the Defendant deliberately
deceived the Plaintiffs and Class members, disregarded their rights
to make free and informed consumer choices, damaged them
economically, and put them at real risk of physical harm or death,
says the complaint.
In October 2019, FCA announced a voluntary safety recall of
vehicles equipped with these EGR coolers. In that recall, FCA
admitted that the defect places vehicle owners and occupants, as
well as those outside the vehicle, at risk of injury, and listed
the percentage of affected vehicles as 100%. Despite this recall,
FCA has made a number of misrepresentations that has left owners
and lessees with no meaningful recourse aside from parking their
trucks permanently.
The EGR coolers are susceptible to thermal fatigue that may cause
the cooler to crack internally over time. An EGR cooler with an
internal crack will introduce pre-heated, vaporized coolant to the
EGR system while the engine is running.
Kwaterski Construction is a custom homebuilder located in Green
Bay, Wisconsin. On August 28, 2019, the Plaintiff Kwaterski
purchased a used 2016 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel for approximately $35,000
from Chrysler World in Abrams, Wisconsin. Mr. Dennis Anderson is a
citizen of the State of Wisconsin, and resides in Stoughton,
Wisconsin. On March 2018, he purchased a new 2017 Ram 1500
EcoDiesel truck for approximately $38,000 from the Van Horn
Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram dealership in Stoughton, Wisconsin.
Chrysler is one of the "Big Three" automobile manufacturers in the
United States, headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. The company
will be renamed Stellantis once the merger of Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles and Peugeot S.A. is completed in the first quarter of
2021.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237 1775
Facsimile: (608) 509 4423
E-mail: Sam@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
J. Austin Hurt, Esq.
Michael J. Pacelli, Esq.
Aaron Sheanin, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 349 8500
Facsimile: (612) 339 4181
E-mail: Sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
Ahurt@robinskaplan.com
Mpacelli@robinskaplan.com
Asheanin@robinskaplan.com
FED EX GROUND: Faces Martinez Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FED EX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01052
(D.N.M., October 12, 2020) brings this class action complaint
against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the New Mexico
Minimum Wage Act (MWA) by failing to pay its employees overtime
premium wages.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a delivery
driver, contends that he worked approximately 12-18 hours per day
and/or six days per week without being paid overtime wages by the
Defendant at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all those hours worked over 40 in each workweek.
Fed Ex Ground Package System operates package pickup and delivery
services for customers throughout New Mexico and the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
2400 Broadway, Suite B
Boulder, CO 80304
Tel: (303) 440-8780
E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com
- and –
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Tel: 970-214-0562
E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com
- and –
Dustin T. Lujan, Esq.
LUJAN LAW OFFICE
1603 Capitol Avenue, Suite 310, #A559
Cheyenne, WY 82001
Tel: 970-999-4225
E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com
- and –
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Tel: 215-884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
- and –
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
LIGHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: 617-994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
mcassorla@llrlaw.com
FLORIDA POWER: Class Action Over Water Main Break Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Weinsier, writing for Local10.com, reports that very few
people and business owners take on a powerful giant and monopoly
such as Florida Power & Light, but a judge recently cleared the way
for a class action lawsuit.
Attorney Adam Moskowitz said this allows up to 9,300 businesses to
seek damages for the losses incurred during last year's water main
break in Broward County.
"It's very extraordinary," Moskowitz said, adding there haven't
been "many cases that have ever gotten this far at all."
Moskowitz, of Coral Gables, said about 500 businesses have already
called to join the lawsuit.
The trouble began on July 17, 2019 when Florida Communication
Concepts, a subcontractor of FPL, damaged a 42-inch water main with
an underground drill near Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport,
according to city officials.
Water was cut to downtown Fort Lauderdale including at Galleria
Mall. The fire department ordered downtown offices closed because
there wasn't water for fire suppression systems in the buildings.
Attorney David Dipietro is among the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit. He said he had to close his downtown Fort Lauderdale law
office that day, and it would be too costly for him to file a
lawsuit against FPL on his own.
"The whole day was wiped out. We are about 15 employees; seven
lawyers," Dipietro said. "I think it is between $7,000 to $10,000
we lost that day in workable billable hours."
FPL did not release a statement on the pending litigation. Dipietro
and Moskowitz are expecting FPL to appeal Broward Circuit Judge
William Haury's decision to grant the class certification.
"So many people have thought, 'OK. It's just over. What am I gonna
do against FPL? ... How will I ever see my day in court?' And that
is the wonderful thing about class actions," Moskowitz said.
A hearing was scheduled for Oct. 2. [GN]
FLUIDIGM CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 20 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Fluidigm
Corporation ("Fluidigm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FLDM) between
February 7, 2019, and November 5, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Fluidigm securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit FLDM Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) that Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles; (2)
that, as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
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.
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 Fluidigm securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fluidigmcorporation-fldm-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-312/apply/
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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Tel No: (877) 779-1414
E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
FLUIDIGM CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 27 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Fluidigm 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.
Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ:FLDM)
FLDM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 7, 2019
- November 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fluidigm-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9632&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fluidigm
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fluidigm was experiencing
longer sales cycles; (2) as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was
reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
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
https://www.zlk.com [GN]
GARRISON CAPITAL: Bachmeier Seeks to Halt Portman Ridge Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Bachmeier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Joseph Tansey, Brian Chase, Cecil Martin,
Joseph Morea and Matthew Westwood, Defendants, Case No. 2020-0812
(D. Del., September 22, 2020), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the merger between Garrison Capital and
Portman Ridge Finance Corporation, rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Under the transaction, Garrison Capital stockholders will receive
$19,100,000 in aggregate cash consideration, a number of shares of
Portman Ridge common stock equal to the quotient of the Garrison
Capital per share divided by the Portman Ridge per share and an
aggregate amount in cash equal to $5,000,000 with the Aggregate
Cash Consideration and the Exchange Ratio paid by Portman Ridge's
external investment adviser Sierra Crest Investment Management LLC.
Based on the number of shares of Portman Ridge common stock issued
and outstanding and the NAV of each of Portman Ridge and Garrison
Capital as of June 30, 2020, it is expected that, following
consummation of the Proposed Merger, current Portman Ridge
stockholders will own approximately 60% of the post-merger combined
company and former Garrison Capital stockholders will own
approximately 40% of the post-merger combined company.
The complaint alleges that the registration statement for the
merger failed to include financial reports prepared by the
company's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. in order
for stockholders to make a fully informed decision whether to vote
in favor of the proposed transaction or seek appraisal needed by
the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal.
Joseph Tansey, Brian Chase, Cecil Martin, Joseph Morea and Matthew
Westwood serve on the board of Garrison Capital, an externally
managed, non-diversified, closed-end management investment company.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (646) 300-8921
Fax: (212) 202-7880
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street, Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 984-3889
Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
GOCHUJANG LLC: Cua Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS CHITIC CUA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOCHUJANG LLC (D/B/A THE
GOCHUJANG); JUMBUM CHO; MINKYOUNG AN; MINSU JIM A/K/A PABLO; and
ROMEO DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-07735 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 18,
2020), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Cua was employed by the Defendants as cook.
Gochujang LLC owns, operates, or controls a Korean restaurant,
located at New York, New York under the name The Gochujang.
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
GOHEALTH INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Nov. 20 Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that 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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Tel No: (877) 779-1414
E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
GOHEALTH INC: 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 GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:
GOCO). 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.
GoHealth, Inc. (NADSAQ: GOCO)
Class Period: Class A common stock purchased pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with
GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering ("IPO").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020
GoHealth provides an end-to-end health insurance marketplace that
purportedly specializes in matching consumers with Medicare
Advantage plans. On June 19, 2020 GoHealth filed with the SEC a
registration statement for the IPO on Form S-1, which, after two
amendments, was declared effective on July 14, 2020 (the
"Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was used to
sell to the investing public 43.5 million shares of GoHealth Class
A common stock at $21 per share, for total gross proceeds of $913.5
million.
The complaint, filed on September 21, 2020, alleges that the
Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and, as
a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make 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.
For more information on the GoHealth class action go to:
https://bespc.com/GOCO
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]
GOHEALTH INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ:
NKLA), Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX), GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:
GOCO), and Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRTC). 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.
GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOCO)
Class Period: Class A common stock purchased pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with
GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering ("IPO").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020
GoHealth provides an end-to-end health insurance marketplace that
purportedly specializes in matching consumers with Medicare
Advantage plans. On June 19, 2020 GoHealth filed with the SEC a
registration statement for the IPO on Form S-1, which, after two
amendments, was declared effective on July 14, 2020 (the
"Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was used to
sell to the investing public 43.5 million shares of GoHealth Class
A common stock at $21 per share, for total gross proceeds of $913.5
million.
The complaint, filed on September 21, 2020, alleges that the
Registration Statement for the IPO was negligently prepared and, as
a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make 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.
For more information on the GoHealth class action go to:
https://bespc.com/GOCO
About Bragar Eagel
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. [GN]
GOHEALTH INC: Hudson Slams Share Price Drop Following IPO
---------------------------------------------------------
Helen Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gohealth, Inc., Clinton P. Jones, Brandon
M. Cruz, Travis J. Matthiesen, Nvx Holdings, Inc., Centerbridge
Partners, L.P., CCP III AIV VII Holdings, L.P., CB Blizzard
Co-Invest Holdings, L.P., Blizzard Aggregator, LLC, Centerbridge
Associates III, L.P., CCP III Cayman GP LTD., Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC, BOFA Securities, Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05593, (N.D. Ill., September 21, 2020),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of
federal securities laws.
GoHealth provides an end-to-end health insurance marketplace that
specializes in matching consumers with Medicare Advantage plans.
Based in Chicago, Illinois, GoHealth is organized as a holding
company, with GoHealth Holdings, LLC as its principal asset, which
houses its operations.
On July 14, 2020, GoHealth, Inc. announced the pricing of its
initial public offering (IPO) of 43,500,000 shares of its Class A
common stock at a public offering price of $21.00 per share.
According to the complaint, the Registration Statement for the IPO
for GoHealth failed to disclose that, at the time of the IPO, the
Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated
agitation, which had begun in the first half of 2020, that GoHealth
suffered from a higher risk of customer issues as a result of its
unique business model and limited carrier base, GoHealth suffered
from degradations in customer persistency and retention as a result
of elevated industry conditions, vulnerabilities that arose from
the company's business model, GoHealth's efforts to expand into new
geographies, develop new carrier partnerships and GoHealth's
worsening product mix and that GoHealth had entered into materially
less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with its external sales
agents.
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 $12.53 per share, over
40% below the $21 per share price investors paid for the stock in
the IPO less than two months previously. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 674-4674
Fax: (312) 674-4676
Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 367-7100
Fax: (631) 367-1173
Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, GA 30064
Tel: (470) 632-6000
Fax: (770) 200-3101
Email: MichaelF@johnsonfistel.com
GOHEALTH INC: Kirby McInerney Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Sept. 23 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who acquired
GoHealth, Inc. ("GoHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's July 2020
initial public offering (the "IPO"). Investors have until November
20, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. At the time of GoHealth's IPO, the
Medicare insurance market was suffering from elevated churn, which
began in the first half of 2020. The Company itself suffered from a
higher risk of customer churn based on its unique business model.
The Company experienced eroding customer persistency and poor
retention due to the market and its own business model. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements throughout the IPO
period were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about GoHealth, investors suffered damages.
If you acquired GoHealth 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]
GOHEALTH INC: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 27
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOCO)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement issued in
connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GoHealth investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the GoHealth class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1939.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, the registration statement was
negligently prepared and failed to disclose that at the time of the
IPO: (1) the Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a period of
elevated churn, which had begun in the first half of 2020; (2)
GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer churn as a result
of its unique business model and limited carrier base; (3) 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; (4) GoHealth had
entered into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements
with its external sales agents; and (5) these adverse financial and
operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to
continue and worsen following the IPO. 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
20, 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-1939.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]
GOHEALTH INC: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Sept. 23 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
GoHealth, Inc. ("GoHealth" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO)
violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's July 2020 initial public offering (the
"IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 20,
2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. At the time of GoHealth's IPO, the
Medicare insurance market was suffering from elevated churn, which
began in the first half of 2020. The Company itself suffered from a
higher risk of customer churn based on its unique business model.
The Company experienced eroding customer persistency and poor
retention due to the market and its own business model. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements throughout the IPO
period were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about GoHealth, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
GOLAR LNG: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, is investigating potential securities fraud claims on behalf
of shareholders of Golar LNG Limited ("Golar" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: GLNG) resulting from allegations that Golar might have
issued misleading information to the investing public.
If you purchased Golar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit GLNG Shareholder
Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
On September 24, 2020, media reported that Hygo's CEO Eduardo
Navarro Antonello was involved in a bribery network investigated in
Brazil's Operation Car Wash.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.28.
If you purchased Golar securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/golarlnglimited-glng-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-315/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]
GOLAR LNG: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of November 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the Golar LNG Limited.
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.
Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ:GLNG)
GLNG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 30, 2020 -
September 24, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/golar-lng-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=9685&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Golar
LNG Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain employees, including
the Chief Executive Officer of Hygo Energy Transition Ltd. f/k/a
Golar Power Limited ("Hygo"), had bribed third parties, thereby
violating anti-bribery policies; (2) as a result, the Company was
likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties; (3) as a
result of the foregoing reputational harm, Hygo's valuation ahead
of its initial public offering would be significantly impaired; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
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. [GN]
GOOGLE CANADA: Hit With Another Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Google Canada is facing a new class-action lawsuit claiming privacy
violations of Android users in British Columbia, Ontario and
Quebec.
A notice posted Sept. 29 in the Toronto Star, the Vancouver firm of
Klein Lawyers, which represented those in the class action, said
hearings to consider approval of the settlement and claimed counsel
fees are scheduled for Dec. 10, at the B.C. court in Vancouver,the
Ontario court in Toronto and the Quebec court in Montreal on
January 12, 2021.
The class members, in this case, are the Canadian residents who
used a smartphone with the Android operating system in the country
between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017.
The allegation is part of a class-action lawsuit that claimed
Google collected identification numbers of cellular towers (Cell
IDs) from nearby Android users. However, because the data was
collected inadvertently, the money will go to specified charities
rather than individuals, as is usual in class actions.
It was discovered that during this process, the individual Cell IDs
were also accidentally transmitted to Google by those devices.
Although the Cell IDs associated with specific devices were not
obtained, it turns out that the error logs may have collected the
IDs for a minimal number of those devices. These IDs were not used
by Google to determine the location of any user, sell advertising,
not sold to third parties, and were automatically deleted after 14
days, the class action litigation server providers Klein Lawyers
noted in the article.
Since it's not possible to determine on a person by person basis if
the error logs had collected their Cell IDs, Klein Lawyers says
that the settlement is structured as is, providing funding for
specified charities and not individual distribution to potential
class members. A national full and final settlement has been
reached to resolve all of the Canadian class actions regarding the
Cell ID transmission to Google, subject to the approval of the
three courts, wherein the company will pay $1 million. Hearings to
consider approval of the settlement and claimed counsel fees are
scheduled to be heard by the B.C. court in Vancouver on December
10, 2020, the Ontario court in Toronto and the Quebec court in
Montreal on January 12, 2021.
The class members who wish to opt-out of settlement must complete
and submit an opt-out form to Class Counsel, available on the
settlement website, by November 15, 2020. Those who opt-out cannot
object to the settlement and may be eligible to pursue an
individual claim, according to the class action notice.
The ones who choose not to opt-out and wish to object to the
proposed settlement can submit a written objection by prepaid mail
at one of the below addresses or email to class counsel
info@callkleinlawyers.com or channouche@kleinavocats.com, no later
than Nov. 24 this year.
This is one of several lawsuits that have hit Google in the past
few months.
The company was previously hit with a class-action lawsuit in July
2020 alleging that it mislead Android users with false impressions
of control over their data. The lawsuit claimed that the privacy
controls of the company are fake and it is illegally intercepting
and selling private information.
Google faced a class-action lawsuitearlier this month, filed on
behalf of the millions of Canadians whose personal information was
allegedly collected without consent by the company.
The global internet giant has some further bad luck in Canada when
Google affiliate Sidewalk Labs shut down Toronto smart city
project, dubbed Quayside, that had been delayed several times and
received strong criticism by many, citing the "unprecedented
economic uncertainty" from the coronavirus pandemic as the primary
reason behind the exit. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Files Motion to Dismiss or Stay BIPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Potomac Law Group disclosed that litigation continues in multiple
jurisdictions over what class action plaintiffs call the "facial
recognition arms race." Two Chicago residents are leading the
charge against the likes of IBM, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and
Facefirst, claiming that their facial recognition products violate
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. One of the latest
complaints is Vance v. Google LLC, filed in the Northern District
of California. Google filed a motion to dismiss or to stay this
case pending the outcome of Vance v. International Business
Machines, Inc., filed in the Northern District of Illinois. A key
issue is whether the plaintiffs' Illinois residency and their acts
of uploading photos from devices in Illinois are sufficient to
invoke the Illinois privacy law. For more information, please
contact Susan Metcalfe. [GN]
GRANT CARDONE: Faces Lawsuit on Misleading Investors
----------------------------------------------------
therealdeal.com reports that real estate crowdfunding guru Grant
Cardone is facing allegations that he's misled thousands of
investors across the country by falsely promising them annual
returns of at least 15 percent and other incentives that never
materialized.
Fresh off their acquisition of a waterfront Fort Lauderdale
apartment complex, Cardone and his Aventura, Florida-based firm
Cardone Capital were accused of violating federal securities laws
in a suit filed in federal court in Los Angeles earlier this month.
The lawsuit alleges they made false and misleading statements and
omitted material facts in connection with public offerings for two
Cardone Capital funds totalling $100 million.
The funds raised money from investors through crowdfunding,
including $50 million between 2018 and 2019 that was used to
purchase an interest in a 346-unit apartment complex in Delray
Beach, the lawsuit states. Between last year and June 25, Cardone
Capital raised another $50 million, and some of the proceeds were
used to purchase the Port Royale Apartments, a 22-acre waterfront
complex with a private marina along the Intracoastal Waterway in
Fort Lauderdale.
Luis Pino, an Inglewood, California resident who invested $10,000
into both funds in September of last year, is the lead plaintiff in
the complaint, which seeks class action status. Pino's attorney
Marc Seltzer declined comment.
Cardone, whose Instagram account boasts more than 3 million
followers, is a real estate entrepreneur who has leveraged his
large social media presence into recruiting small-time investors
hungry to put their money into commercial real estate deals, mostly
involving multifamily properties. Cardone is also set to star in
the upcoming season of Discovery's reality television show,
"Undercover Billionaire."
During his keynote appearance at The Real Deal's annual Miami
Showcase & Forum last year, Cardone said celebrity appeal was a key
ingredient to his success. At the time, he boasted his firm bought
more than $400 million worth of real estate in Florida, mostly
apartment buildings between Miami and Fort Lauderdale. "Money
follows glitter and noise and lights," Cardone said. "You build a
brand and you get attention…How do you sell anything? You get
attention."
In an emailed statement, Cardone Capital said it attempted to
return Pino his $10,000 investment upon learning of his lawsuit.
"He declined so clearly the investor and his counsel have a
different agenda," the statement reads, adding that Cardone created
Cardone Capital to "level the playing field."
"We have raised over $425 million and have one investor who
presented himself to be a non-accredited investor, who invested the
minimum five thousand dollars into two different funds and is now
attempting to assert a class action lawsuit against us," according
to the statement.
The lawsuit alleges that a Securities and Exchange Commission
enforcement lawyer sent a letter to Cardone Capital on July 30,
2018, warning the firm to remove claims in one of its public
offerings that investors would receive a monthly distribution that
represented an approximately 15 percent annual return on
investment. The SEC lawyer wrote that Cardone Capital did not
appear to have a basis for promising such a return, the complaint
alleges.
The lawsuit claims Cardone Capital ignored the warnings and
continued to peddle misleading information to investors.
Cardone uses his Instagram account to post photos and videos of
himself living a luxurious, wealthy lifestyle, as well as pitching
his crowdfunding business. The content is accompanied by captions
proclaiming others can be just as rich as him by investing with
Cardone Capital. For instance, the lawsuit cites an Instagram video
post on Sept. 17, 2019 in which Cardone claimed a $220,000
investment would result in a $660,000 position in one of the funds
and would allow investors to earn about $12,000 to $15,000 a year
in distributions.
"In fact, this statement was materially false and misleading
because there was no reasonable basis for this representation and
investors' distributions have, in fact, been much lower than these
amounts," the lawsuit alleges.
Cardone also acquired some of the properties with his own money and
then subsequently flipped the real estate to the Cardone Capital
funds. In some cases, Cardone provided mortgages to the funds for
the purchases, charging a 6 percent interest rate. Those were paid
with investor monies, the lawsuit alleges. [GN]
HDFC BANK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Nov. 2 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investor that purchased or acquired the securities of HDFC Bank
Limited ("HDFC" or the "Company") (NYSE: HDB) between July 31,
2019, and July 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased HDFC securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit HDFC Shareholder Lawsuit or
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
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) HDFC Bank had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank maintained
improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations;
(iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank's
vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Bank's financial condition and reputation;
and (v) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 13, 2020, during pre-market hours, The Economic Times
published an article titled "HDFC Bank probes lending practices at
vehicle unit." That article reported that HDFC Bank had "conducted
a probe into allegations of improper lending practices and
conflicts of interests in its vehicle-financing operations
involving the unit's former head."
On this news, HDFC Bank's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on
July 13, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 2, 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 HDFC securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/hdfcbanklimited-hdfc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-309/apply/
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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
HILTON HOTELS: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in White Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Valerie R. White, et al., v.
HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00856-CKK
(D.C.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered an order
denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify
a class consisting of:
"any and all persons who: (a) Are former or current employees
of Hilton Worldwide, Inc. or Hilton Hotels Corp., or the
surviving spouses or beneficiaries of former Hilton
employees; (b) Submitted a claim for vested retirement
benefits from Hilton under the claim procedures ordered by
the District Court and the Court of Appeals in Kifafi, et
al., v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, et al., C.A. 98-1517;
and (c) Have vested rights to retirement benefits that have
been denied by the Hilton Defendants':
(1) Use of "fractional" years of vesting service under
an "elapsed time" method to count periods of
employment before 1976 with no resolution of whether
the fractions constitute a "year of service" under
ERISA;
(2) Refusal to count "non-participating" service for
vesting purposes notwithstanding that the service
was with the "employer" under ERISA section 3(5),
that the Hilton Defendants counted service at the
same "Hilton Properties" in Kifafi and represented
to this Court and the D.C. Circuit in Kifafi that
Hilton had counted "non-participating" service with
Hilton for vesting, and that the "records requested
and received from Defendants do not identify any
non-participating property that is also not a
Related Company"; and
(3) Denial of retroactive/back retirement benefit
payments to heirs and estates on the sole basis that
the claimants are "not the surviving spouse" of
deceased vested participants."
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is
impermissibly "fail-safe." This threshold defect renders
certification of the proposed class improper. Yet, because this
deficiency may be susceptible to remedy, the Court will permit
Plaintiffs a final opportunity to renew their motion for class
certification."
The Plaintiffs Valerie R. White, Eva Juneau, and Peter Betancourt
bring this putative class action under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to certain vesting
determinations made by the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan.
A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3lEouwW at no extra charge.[CC]
HOLYOKE SOLDIERS: Faces $175-Mil. Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Danielle Brown, writing for McKnight's Long-Term Care News, reports
that coronavirus-based criminal charges against two leaders of a
Massachusetts veterans nursing home where 76 patients died will
likely be the first of many cases across the country regarding
nursing home care during the pandemic, one legal expert predicted.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey on Sept. 25 announced
what's believed to be the first COVID-19 criminal charges in the
United States against nursing home officials.
A grand jury indicted former Holyoke Soldiers' Home Superintendent
Bennett Walsh, 50, and former Medical Director Dr. David Clinton,
71, on the charges of causing or permitting serious bodily injury
or neglect of an elder.
The charges stem from the decision to merge two dementia care
units, combining COVID-19 positive residents with others who were
asymptomatic. More than 160 residents and staff members contracted
the disease after an initial outbreak in the early months of the
pandemic.
The Department of Justice also is conducting an investigation into
the Holyoke events.
Accused alleges ‘scapegoating'
William Bennet, Walsh's attorney, in a statement to local media
said his client "relied on the medical professionals to do what was
best for the veterans given the tragic circumstances of a virus in
a home with veterans in close quarters, severe staffing shortages
and the lack of outside help from state officials." It's not clear
what representation Clinton might have.
"The Attorney General should not be scapegoating Mr. Walsh, who was
on the front lines trying his best to do whatever he could to help
the Veterans of the Holyoke Soldiers Home, including asking for
help from state officials and the National Guard, which arrived
much too late," Bennett said.
An independent government report released in June claimed that
Walsh was not qualified to operate a long-term care facility and
alleged that "substantial errors and failures" led to the deaths.
Operators of the Holyoke Soldiers' Home also were hit with a
proposed class-action lawsuit in mid-July, seeking more than $175
million in damages.
More criminal cases expected
The announcement of charges isn't surprising given clear statements
by state and federal regulators that there would be criminal
investigations with a focus on nursing homes as a result of
COVID-19, according to Brandon K. Essig, a former assistant U.S.
attorney and partner at Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC.
"It will be interesting to see how this case evolves, as much of
the conduct at issue occurred in April of 2020 when the pandemic
was peaking and the medical science about how to handle the risk
was evolving, sometimes day to day," Essig told McKnight's
Long-Term Care News on Friday.
"I do think it is likely the first of what will be multiple
criminal charges across the county related to nursing home care
during the pandemic," he added.
Essig explained that the case appears to have arisen from a
parallel administrative investigation and then a civil class-action
lawsuit -- that resulted in a public spotlight on the facility and
the defendants.
"Those are occurring around the country as we speak, so more
charges will come," he said.
"Most nursing home operators that face this risk are already under
investigation, but all should be doing a self-analysis of how they
handled the pandemic to both assess the risk that they might become
subject to such an enforcement action and to develop compliance
protocols from lessons learned," he explained.
Essig recommended that nursing homes be both proactive and
transparent with regulators.
"Showing that you have identified shortcomings but have taken steps
to resolve issues going forward can go a long way and can mitigate
regulatory enforcement actions. Such mitigation can, in turn, help
with civil lawsuits," he said. [GN]
HOMELAND SECURITY: Class Status Sought in Case over FOIA Requests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMARA EMUWA, ET AL, v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No.
1:20-cv-01756-TNM (D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order
certifying the case as a class action on behalf of:
"all persons who, since June 30, 2016, have made, or will
make during the pendency of this lawsuit, a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request for the entire Assessment of
their asylum office, but were rebuffed.
According to the complaint, DHS has treated a large number of FOIA
requesters in exactly the same way: DHS has wrongfully withheld the
entire asylum office assessment from all requesters, from June 30,
2016 to the present.
FOIA was enacted over 50 years ago. It was amended, effective June
30, 2016, to add a new sub-section: 552(a)(8)(A). A person from a
foreign country who arrives in the United States may be granted
asylum if he can show he has suffered harm on account of a
protected ground, such as expressing his political opinion about a
dictator.
The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36RmCNt at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David L. Cleveland, Esq.
1220 L Street NW No. 100
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202 812 8684
E-mail: 1949.david@gmail.com
HOUZZ INC: Graciano Claims Website Inaccessible to the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Graciano, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Houzz Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07808 (S.D. N.Y., September 22, 2020),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further
relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State
Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Houzz Inc. operates an online retail store across the United
States. Its website, https://www.houzz.com/, provides home decor
items such as furniture, lighting fixtures, rugs, cookware,
pillows, storage and services such as finding interior designers
and decorators, painters, plumbers, electricians, contractors and
other products and services available online for purchase, and to
ascertain information relating to pricing, shipping, creating an
online account, ordering merchandise and return and privacy
policies. Graciano is legally blind and claims that said website
cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003-2461
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
ILLINOIS HIGH: Class Action Demands Fall Sports to Resume
---------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Today reports that a group of student-athletes and parents
plan to file a class action lawsuit against the Illinois High
School Association as they aim to allow fall sports to resume amid
the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
The suit will be filed in DuPage County, according to a press
release, and will list the IHSA as the primary defendant.
A total of 20 students are expected to be listed as plaintiffs in
the suit, which will seek a temporary restraining order ordering
the state to allow fall sports to get underway.
The suit alleges that prohibitions on some fall sports, including
football and volleyball, violates the IHSA's constitution and
bylaws, and has "caused mental health issues and financial
hardships" for athletes and their families, according to the press
release.
Specifically, the suit alleges that the decision to postpone fall
sports will have negative financial impacts on both students and
parents, as they will fall behind in their ability to compete for
athletic scholarships to make college more affordable.
The IHSA, along with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, have remained
adamant that contact sports like football and volleyball will be
pushed to spring as a result of the pandemic.
Other states around Illinois have begun playing football, leaving
the state as the only one in the Midwest not currently allowing
high school football to take place.
Pritzker has said that he has remained in close contact with
infectious disease experts, and says that the decision to push
those sports back to the spring is based on their recommendations.
[GN]
ILLINOIS HIGH: Student-Athletes, Parents Hold Protest
-----------------------------------------------------
Trina Orlando, writing for Chicago Today, reports that one day
after plans were announced for a class action lawsuit against the
Illinois High School Association, seeking for fall sports to
resume, several student-athletes and their parents took their fight
to outside Gov. J.B. Pritzker's Gold Coast on Sept. 27.
"We're trying to get his attention," said Dave Ruggles, a parent
who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We're trying to send a
message... he's the guy who's stopping this from happening."
Ruggles said he believes the IHSA did not follow bylaws, and hopes
the court will force the association to do so.
The IHSA, along with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, have remained
adamant that contact sports like football and volleyball will be
pushed to spring as a result of the pandemic.
In a statement to NBC 5, Jeffrey Widman, an attorney with Fox
Rothschild LLP, said the law firm "intends to file a class-action
lawsuit that will be on behalf of all IHSA student-athletes in
Illinois within the next 72 hours."
"We understand health and safety, but somebody needs to stand up
for these kids, and that's why you've seen these rallies and why
you've seen kids try to tell you these stories," said Joe Trost, an
advocate for student-athletes.
Outside Pritzker's home on Sept. 27, student-athletes renewed their
calls to return to the field.
Johnathan Rodriguez, who plays soccer at Thornton Township High
School, worries that missing his senior season could prevent him
from playing soccer in college.
"We're willing to do anything," he said. "We all know this requires
effort, and we're willing to put that forth."
Other states around Illinois have begun playing football, leaving
the state as the only one in the Midwest not currently allowing
high school football to take place.
Pritzker has said that he has remained in close contact with
infectious disease experts, and says that the decision to push
those sports back to the spring is based on their recommendations.
[GN]
INVESTORS BANCORP: Kirkman Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
M. KIRKMAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. INVESTORS BANCORP, INC. d/b/a INVESTORS BANK, Case No.
3:20-cv-14574 (D.N.J., Oct. 16, 2020), asserts that the Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely
required/requires Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs (collectively the
Plaintiffs) to assist in opening the bank branches where they
were/are employed. The Plaintiffs were/are required to turn on
their computer, wait for the computer to boot-up, open the internet
homepage, wait for the timekeeping webpage to load, log into the
timekeeping webpage, which enabled/enables them to clock-in, and
then clock-in. None of the time the Plaintiffs spent/spend engaging
in the Opening Procedures prior to clocking-in was/is paid by
Defendant; all such work was performed "off-the-clock." The
Defendant paid/pays the Plaintiffs only for the time they were/are
clocked into the Defendant's timekeeping system. Much of this
uncompensated time consists of time worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek, the complaint says.
Investors Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company for Investors
Savings Bank. The Bank attracts deposits from the general public
and originates a variety of loans and also invests in securities.
Investors Savings Bank operates through a network of offices
throughout New Jersey..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
JUUL INC: Pittsburgh Public Schools to Join Vaping Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Goldstein, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
the Pittsburgh Public Schools will join dozens of school districts
across the country in filing a federal lawsuit against the
manufacturer and marketers of Juul vaping products.
The school board gave approval for the district to enter into a
contract with the Frantz Law Group of San Diego, which is filing
the lawsuits in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
California, where Juul Inc. is located.
"It's very similar in concept to the tobacco litigation of some 20
years ago except this is not a class action," district solicitor
Ira Weiss said during a school board meeting on Sept. 23.
The lawsuit seeks damages for the cost of installing vaping
detection devices in school restrooms as well as funding for
educational programs for students and families about the health
risks of vaping.
Mr. Weiss said about 70 school districts nationwide have filed
similar lawsuits, including North Hills, Butler Area, McKeesport
Area and Mars.
Juul is a brand of e-cigarette, a device used for vaping, that
contains high levels of nicotine, according to the federal Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nicotine can harm parts of the adolescent brain that control
attention, learning and mood, and it can damage the lungs over a
long period.
Austin Finan, a Juul spokesman, said in a statement that the
corporation would respond to the allegations in the complaint
through the appropriate legal channels. In the meantime, he said,
the company would "seek to earn the trust of society by working
cooperatively with attorneys general, legislators, regulators,
public health officials and other stakeholders to combat underage
use and transition adult smokers from combustible cigarettes."
"As part of that process, the company reduced its product
portfolio, halted television, print and digital product advertising
and submitted a Premarket Tobacco Product Application to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration including comprehensive scientific
evidence to support the harm reduction potential of its products
and data-driven measures to address underage use," he said.
In addition to Juul Inc., other defendants named in the lawsuit
include Altria Group Inc. Altria Client Services, Altria Group
Distribution Co., Nu Mark LLC and Phillip Morris USA Inc.
The lawsuit is a contingent fee case, meaning it will cost the
district nothing if the district does not win. The Frantz Law Group
would receive 20% of any settlement if the case is decided in 2020,
or 25% if the case is settled in 2021 or later.
Board member Terry Kennedy said it was a "wise" decision for the
district to file the lawsuit.
"We don't have any upfront expenses, and there's no risk to the
taxpayers," Ms. Kennedy said. "There's a lot of benefit to our
students if they understand what's going on related to Juul and the
others." [GN]
LA ABUNDANCIA BAKERY: Mogollan Suit Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Angel Mogollan, et al., v.
La Abundancia Bakery & Restaurant Inc. et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03202-GBD-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron
entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff Mejia and the
Tipped Class be granted partial summary judgment as to
liability regarding their minimum wage claims under the
New York Labor Law.;
2. denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment;
3. denying the Defendants' motion for decertification;
4. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
5. dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiff Ibarra's
claims;
6. certifying a putative class of:
"all non-exempt employees (including, but not limited to,
cooks, food preparers, dishwashers, porters, bussers, food
runners, delivery persons, counterpersons, helpers and
wait staff) employed by the Defendants at all restaurants
operating under the trade name "La Abundancia" in New York
City during the period April 12, 2012 to April 12, 2018";
and
7. certifying a subclass of:
"all tipped employees, including, but not limited to,
waiters, servers, and counterpersons."
On April 12, 2018, Mogollan filed this action against Defendants
alleging claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law. On October 16, 2018, Mogollan filed an Amended
Complaint. On April 8, 2019, the Court granted in part Mogollan's
motion, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for conditional
collective certification and conditionally certified a class of all
non-exempt employees (including, but not limited to, cooks, food
preparers, dishwashers, porters, bussers, food runners,
counterpersons, cashiers and waiters) employed by 75-02 Corp. on or
after April 12, 2012.
On June 28, 2019, Mejia filed a consent to sue under the FLSA. On
September 10, 2019, Mogollan and Mejia filed a Second Amended
Complaint. On September 17, 2019, Villares filed a consent to sue
under the FLSA. On November 4, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs'
renewed motion, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for
conditional collective certification and conditionally certified a
class of all non-exempt employees (including, but not limited to,
cooks, food preparers, dishwashers, porters, bussers, food runners,
delivery persons, counterpersons, helpers and wait staff) employed
by each of the La Abundancia locations on or after April 12, 2012.
On February 26, 2020, Ibarra filed a consent to become a party
plaintiff under the FLSA.
Mogollan was employed as a baker and a dishwasher at the La
Abundancia restaurant.
La Abundancia operates a bakery and restaurant located at 63-10
Broadway, Woodside, New York.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation and order is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nrxGqk at no
extra charge.[CC]
LAUMONT PHOTOGRAPHICS: Montenegro Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Milton Montenegro, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Laumont Photographics, Inc., Willi Vera,
and Jaime Pelaez, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04443 (E.D. N.Y.,
September 21, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Laumont Photographics, Inc., is in the business of scanning,
digitally retouching, custom fine art and photographic printing
where Montenegro was employed as a carpenter. He claims to have
generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied
spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
277 Broadway, Suite 206
Tel: (212) 766-9870
Email: fz@fzapatalaw.com
LEATHERBACK GEAR: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. LEATHERBACK GEAR, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08660
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020), is a civil rights action against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendant's Web site,
www.leatherbackgear.com, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2016 report, approximately 420,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments, who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
The Defendant is a bullet-proof backpack manufacturing company that
owns and operates the website, www.leatherbackgear.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
LENDLEASE GROUP: Sued Over Camp Lejeune Housing Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------
WECT reports that four law firms are working together on a
class-action lawsuit over the housing conditions at Camp Lejeune.
Attorneys filed suit on Sept. 18 on behalf of Marine Corps service
members and their families in the Federal Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
Joel Rhine of Wilmington-based Rhine Law Firm is serving as lead
attorney for the plaintiffs, seeking damages and reforms to leasing
practices. The lawsuit alleges that military families have had to
live with disgusting and unacceptable conditions in housing units
they lease at Camp Lejeune. The foul conditions range from water
dripping out of electrical sockets, to black mold, to live
cockroaches in their cupboards and failing air conditioning. A
common complaint is the lack of effective customer service, repair,
and maintenance by the property managers.
The lawsuit describes that back in 2005, the government turned over
management for thousands of homes to large private companies. Most
homes at Lejeune are managed by Australian multinational Lendlease
Group, along with Boston-based WinnCompanies. A survey of 315 Camp
Lejeune residents released in May 2019 reported that over 60% of
them had negative to very negative satisfaction rates with their
housing and how it was managed. Their main complaints were poor
maintenance and repair service, mold, and weather damage.
The housing is leased to servicemembers stationed at Lejeune. Rent
gets deducted from their military paycheck. In 2019, Reuters
published an award-winning series of investigative reports on the
problems across the privatized housing at many bases. The U.S.
House Armed Services Committee held a hearing in December 2019 at
which executives from the largest companies responsible for the
housing acknowledged intolerable conditions.
"These three brave servicemember families are not just suing for
themselves. They are trying to get relief for their friends and
neighbors too," Rhine said. "Military families deserve security and
dignity in their homes. These soldiers are heroes protecting us and
placing themselves in harm's way. When a military servicemember is
deployed far from home, the last thing he or she needs to worry
about is that the spouse and children are having to deal with toxic
mold, broken air conditioning or other foul conditions."
Virginia-based co-counsel David Wise added, "Our firm represented
families with similar problems in Virginia. They experienced mold,
water intrusion, and other problems. Slumlord conditions like this
are unacceptable, but unfortunately occur far too often."
Camp Lejeune declined to comment specifically on the lawsuit as
they are not a party to it but did express concern for the
well-being of their service members.
"[T]he Marine Corps is committed to ensuring our families have safe
and adequate housing. We thoroughly investigate any life, health,
or safety concerns raised by our residents, and work through our
housing partners to ensure any underlying issues are properly
addressed," Camp Lejeune Communications Director Nat Fahy told
WECT. [GN]
LENDLEASE: Faces Class Action Over Lejeune Housing Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Shomaker, writing for The Daily News, reports that
unconscionable and horrific are two words Joel Rhine of
Wilmington-based Rhine Law Firm used to describe U.S. service
members having to deploy and leave their families to live in what
he calls "a bunch of squalor" in privatized base housing.
"It just goes against everything our entire country should be
about," Rhine said, who is the lead attorney representing one of
four law firms teaming up to sue eight limited liability companies,
including Lendlease, Atlantic Marine Corps Communities (AMCC) and
Winn Management Group, involved in owning and managing housing on
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.
A 70-page class action complaint was filed on Sept. 18 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf
of three Marine families seeking damages and non-monetary housing
reform for themselves and other members of the class.
Subject to the court's approval, the case could bring relief to
"servicemember tenants based at MCB Camp Lejeune who have entered
into lease agreements with Atlantic Marine Corps Communities LLC
for residential housing units from September 18, 2016 to present,
and all authorized adult family member spouses or other occupants."
"If the court certifies it as class action, then our families will
be representing all the other persons in that class," Rhine
explained.
A three-year subclass is defined to include AMCC tenants on Camp
Lejeune with leases from Sept. 18, 2017 to present. An injunctive
relief subclass is requesting court certification for all tenants
on Camp Lejeune "who currently have ongoing lease agreements" with
AMCC, which would require certain business commitments from the
landlords to prevent the issues from reoccurring, Rhine said.
Issues with customer service, maintenance and repair, mold
contamination and water intrusion are all prevalent in the
complaint.
"We put together the best team of lawyers we could to be able to
fulfill our obligations to the class," Rhine said. "This is going
to be a long, expensive, laborious battle and we are ready to do
it."
One of six claims for relief listed is a breach of the North
Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act (RRAA) requiring
landlords to "make all repairs and do whatever necessary to put and
keep the tenants' premises in a fit and habitable condition."
The complaint claims that as a result of the defendants' breach of
the RRAA, "Plaintiffs and class members were injured and are
entitled to damages and declaratory, injunctive or equitable
relief."
Alleged damages include out-of-pocket costs, "labor value" spent
attempting self-repair and rent payments "exceeding the reasonable
rental value" in addition to noted health deterioration due to mold
exposure.
"We are reviewing the complaint," said an AMCC spokesperson. "As is
true in any instance, we have strict protocols in place to ensure
any concerns are assessed and remediated appropriately and
expeditiously. Our residents' safety, health, and wellbeing are our
top priority."
The complaint also alleges violations of the North Carolina Unfair
& Deceptive Trade Practices Act, citing units leased "that had
defects and deficiencies far in excess of what was acceptable and
reasonable," among other claims, such as false and misleading
tenant surveys and maintenance data.
"Anybody that's a witness that might have information, we encourage
them to contact one of our offices and provide that information,"
Rhine said.
Camp Lejeune is not involved in the lawsuit, nor is Lincoln
Military Housing, which operates the Heroes Manor community on
base.
According to the complaint, the Navy and Marine Corps selected
Lendlease to privatize housing on Camp Lejeune in 2005. The
defendants own and manage over 4,000 housing units on Camp Lejeune
under a 50-year lease with the Navy. It also states that "the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000."
Assisting Rhine are Wise Law Firm (Fairfax, VA), Morgan and Morgan
Law Firm (Tampa, FL) and Wallace and Graham (Salisbury, NC). There
are at least eight lawsuits ongoing in courts around the country
filed by residents of military family housing, according to Rose L.
Thayer of Stars and Stripes. [GN]
LG ELECTRONICS: Offers Reimbursement for Refrigerator Repairs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Bob and Nicholas Kjeldgaard, writing for NBC San Diego,
report that feeding a large family can be hard, especially when
your fridge breaks down. That's what kept happening to Zulfar
Shaker and the fridge her family bought back in 2013.
"Well, we had a total of seven to eight services -- appointments on
it -- and five of them, they had to replace parts and components,"
Shaker told NBC 7 Responds.
Shaker had an extended warranty and, with our help back in 2018,
the hardware store she bought it from gave her a refund. But now,
it turns out hundreds of thousands of people may have had similar
issues.
"We've been hearing from consumers that this seemed like a
significant problem," attorney Amey Park said. "So we put a lot of
work into it, and we are very pleased we were able to come to a
favorable settlement."
Park helped represent a class action suit against LG Electronics
over certain refrigerator models built between 2013 and 2017.
"It could include more than 1.5 million fridge owners," Park said.
"They could get anywhere from a few hundred dollars, from
reimbursing for parts and labor, all the way up to thousands of
dollars if you had a particularly bad experience like multiple
failures and you had an extremely long time to get your
refrigerator repaired."
More than 60 models of LG refrigerators are covered by the
settlement, which can cover the cost of repairs, replacements and
even spoiled food. Consumers need to apply by Jan. 11, 2021, to be
considered.
Unfortunately for Zulfar case, her fridge would not qualify because
it was built a year before the models included in the suit. To see
if your refrigerator is included, visit LGsettlement.com.
"We negotiated hard for this agreement and emphasized that we
wanted to get . . . money in the pockets of people that they could
use," Park said, "not some nominal amount, but recognizing that
they had real difficulties."
LG maintains that the refrigerators are not defective and denies
any wrongdoing. The company is also extending the warranty for all
settlement-class members to five years from the purchase date and
is providing them with its Enhanced Customer Care Program.
"They're certainly not inexpensive refrigerators, and those are
refrigerators that when people buy and plunk that kind of money
down," said Park, "they expect to have that refrigerator running
for more than a couple years." [GN]
LIVONGO HEALTH: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Livongo Health, Inc. (NASDAQ GS:
LVGO) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Livongo by Teladoc Health, Inc. ("Teladoc") and Tempranillo Merger
Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") announced on August 5, 2020 (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Livongo, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), Teladoc, and Merger Sub, is captioned Kent
v. Livongo Health, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01213 (D. Del.).
To learn more about this investigation and your rights, visit:
https://www.rigrodskylong.com/cases-livongo-health-inc,join.
You may also contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at (888)
969-4242 or info@rl-legal.com.
On August 5, 2020, Livongo entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Teladoc and Merger Sub.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Livongo's
shareholders will receive 0.5920 of a share of Teladoc common stock
and $4.24 in cash per share (the "Proposed Transaction").
Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4 Registration
Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, the Company's and Teladoc's
financial projections and the analyses performed by Livongo's
financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable
relief and damages on behalf of holders of Livongo common stock.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed 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.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware and New York, has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors
and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in securities
fraud and corporate class actions nationwide.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
MIAMI UNIVERSITY: Parent Dismisses Covid-19 Tuition Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Brownfield, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reports
that a parent of a Miami University student who filed a class
action lawsuit against the school for charging full tuition during
the coronavirus pandemic has dismissed that lawsuit, but that
doesn't mean the legal fight is over. [GN]
MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE: Class Action Seeks Spring Tuition Refund
------------------------------------------------------------
middleburycampus reports that a class-action lawsuit filed in
Vermont's U.S. District Court accuses Middlebury College of not
adequately reimbursing students for tuition and fees paid for an
in-person spring semester that became largely remote due to
Covid-19.
Plaintiff Henry Mooers '21, a senior from Norwell, Massachusetts,
filed the suit on September 24. Although the college refunded
students a prorated portion of fees for spring room and board, the
plaintiff seeks an additional refund for the "failure to provide
services" that are ordinarily covered by tuition and mandatory
fees. Mooers declined to comment on the case at this time.
The college transitioned to remote learning on March 13 due to the
health crisis posed by Covid-19. In the process, the administration
also extended spring break, eliminating a week of classes from the
ordinarily 13-week long academic session. A few of the facilities
and services cited in the lawsuit that students were deprived of
last semester include the library, sports facilities, in-person
labs and health services.
As part of the intended class-action lawsuit, the plaintiff seeks a
prorated return on tuition for himself and all other Middlebury
students, proportionate to the time that the spring semester was
remote. With a tuition of $28,940 per semester and nearly 2,800
undergraduate and graduate students, the maximum sum of this
pay-out could amount to tens of millions of dollars. Tristan
Larson, a Vermont attorney representing the plaintiff, did not
provide comment on the case. Jeff Brown, the lead attorney, also
did not reply to inquiries.
The college responded to the lawsuit in a statement that reiterated
its commitment to providing "high-quality academic programs and
services" to students throughout the pandemic. But the statement
also mentions the balancing act of simultaneously "supporting the
well-being of our students, faculty, and staff." Last spring, the
college continued to pay staff salaries despite the majority of
students being remote.
The lawsuit cites an online petition as reason to believe that
Mooers's peers might support the class-action suit. The petition,
penned by Spanish Master's student Tamar Freeland, emphasizes the
college's financial options for repaying students, including its
$1.15 billion endowment. The change.org petition has around 135
signatures but has gained only a few dozen more since it was
originally posted in early May.
If a federal judge certifies the suit's class-action status, the
case will be tried by jury. The case was originally assigned to
Judge William K. Sessions III '69, but he recused himself from the
case. Although not confirmed by his office, Judge Sessions attended
Middlebury College, and may have recused himself based on a
conflict of interest. The case has since been reassigned to Judge
Christina Reiss.
There are currently no other known class-action lawsuits in U.S.
District Courts against fellow NESCAC colleges or peer
institutions, but they may be in the works. According to its
website, one New York law firm is currently investigating
complaints against Vassar, Hamilton, Skidmore and Colgate for not
fulfilling expected in-person services during the spring semester.
[GN]
MLB RESTAURANT: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Miranda Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Miranda, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MLB Restaurant Group, Inc., Michael Simone,
Luciano Fiori and Robert Ciprietti, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-04424 (E.D. N.Y., September 21, 2020), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian Restaurant, located
in Brooklyn under the name "Luciano's" where Miranda was employed
as a pizza maker. He claims to have generally worked in excess of
40 hours a week without overtime pay for hours in excess of 40
hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays
exceeding 10 hours. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
MOMENTA PHARMA: Nowak Slams J&J Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------
David Nowak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jane F.
Barlow, Bruce Downey, Georges Gemayel, Steven C. Gilman, Donna Roy
Grogan, Jose-Carlos Gutierrez-Ramos, Elizabeth Stoner and Craig A.
Wheeler, Defendants, Case No. 654613/2020 (N.Y. Sup. September 22,
2020), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by Johnson & Johnson
and Vigor Sub, Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Vigor Sub will
purchase all of Momenta's outstanding common stock for $52.50 per
share in cash.
However, the solicitation statement with respect to the proposed
transaction fails to disclose all line items used to calculate EBIT
and unlevered free cash flow and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP
to GAAP metrics and omitted the analyses performed by Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC and Centerview Partners LLC, asserts the complaint.
Momenta is a biotechnology company focusing on discovering and
developing novel biologic therapeutics to treat rare
immune-mediated diseases and advancing its late stage biosimilars.
Post owns Momenta common units. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
240 Mineola Boulevard
Mineola, NY 11501
Phone: (516) 741-4977
Facsimile (561)741-0626
MONSANTO COMPANY: Trinidad Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Damaris Trinidad, Individually and as
Representative of the Estate of GLADYS TRINIDAD, Deceased v.
Monsanto Company, Case No. 7:20-cv-08056, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 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-07325-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:
Randi Alyson Kassan, Esq.
SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Email: rkassan@thesandersfirm.com
MUSKEGON FAMILY: Court Certifies Class in Melton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARISHA MELTON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MUSKEGON FAMILY
CARE, Case No. 1:20-cv-00141-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
Robert J. Jonker entered an order:
1. granting plaintiff's class certification motion and
certifying a class consisting of:
"the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated former
employees (i) who worked at or reported to Defendant's
Facility who were terminated without cause within 90 days
of February 14, 2020, or were terminated without cause as
the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff
and/or plant closing ordered by the Defendant on or about
February 14, 2020, (ii) who were not provided advance
written notice of their terminations, (iii) who are
"affected employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
section 2101(a)(5), and (iv) who have not filed a timely
request to opt-out of the class";
2. appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP as Class Counsel;
3. appointing Plaintiff Karisha Melton as Class
Representative; and
4. approving proposed form of Notice to the Class;
5. directing the Defendant to provide Class Counsel
within 10 days after the entry of this Order, the names
and addresses of the class members as noted in the
Defendant's records; and
6. directing the Class Counsel on or before 10 days after
receipt of the names and addresses of the Class members
from Defendant, to provide notice of the pendency of the
class action lawsuit by mailing the Notice, First Class
postage prepaid, to all class members to their last known
address as noted in the records of the Defendant.
Muskegon Family is a medical group practice located in Muskegon,
Michigan that specializes in Family Medicine and Nursing.
A copy of the Court's Class Certification Order is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33EOfqZ at no extra charge.[CC]
NANO-X IMAGING: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:
NNOX). 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.
Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX)
Class Period: August 21, 2020 to September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020
On September 15, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published the
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."
On this news, Nano-X's stock price fell $12.41 per share, or more
than 25%, over the next two trading days to close at $36.80 per
share on September 16, 2020.
The complaint, filed on September 16, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or 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 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. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
For more information on the Nano-X securities class action case go
to: https://bespc.com/NNOX
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]
NANO-X IMAGING: Jakubowitz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Sept. 27 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nano-X
Imaging Ltd who purchased shares within the class periods listed
below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.
Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT NNOX:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=9637&from=1
Class Period : August 21, 2020 - September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 16, 2020
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or 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 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.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
NESTLE: Faces Class Action Over Coffee Mate Vanilla Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Nestle's
Coffee Mate isn't as vanilla as it claims, a class action filed
Sept. 13 says.
Sheehan & Associates, which has filed dozens of similar lawsuits,
says the company's vanilla flavor is artificial and not the product
of real vanilla. Calling it "all natural" is misleading too, the
suit says.
"In a product with a characterizing flavor of vanilla, the
designation of an ingredient as 'natural flavor' means it is a
combination of vanilla and non-vanilla flavor, known as 'Vanilla
With Other Natural Flavors,'" the lawsuit says.
"The purpose of not providing for the designation of 'Vanilla WONF'
was to prevent consumers from being misled by a small amount of
vanilla, boosted by artificial vanilla flavors, including vanillin,
maltol and piperonal."
Regina Carter is the named plaintiff. [GN]
NEW JERSEY: Class Action Over E-ZPass Fee Scam Still on Hold
------------------------------------------------------------
David Matthau, writing for New Jersey 101.5, reports that one thing
that hasn't changed during the pandemic is the controversial $50
penalty that E-ZPass continues to levy against drivers on New
Jersey Turnpike Authority roads.
With a federal class-action lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of the violation still on hold, New Jersey
motorists are continuing to receive the steep fines for allegedly
going through toll booths without being part of the program, not
having the needed transponders, or not paying their E-ZPass bills.
New Jersey law is clear: fines for violations cannot cost any more
than the cost it takes for the agency to collect an unpaid toll.
What's not clear, however, is how much that legwork costs.
In New Brunswick, a Superior Court judge appointed by the Appellate
Division has been working for more than a year to gather
information that will determine what the actual cost is for the
Authority to issue a violation notice.
Matthew Faranda-Diedrich, a partner at Royer Cooper Cohen
Braunfeld, the Philadelphia law firm heading up the class-action
suit, said the $50 fine, which was suddenly doubled nine years ago,
also violates the 8th Amendment against excessive fines.
The Turnpike Authority continues to insist the violation process,
which involves getting a driver's name and address from the Motor
Vehicle Commission, costs more than $50 per violation.
But Faranda-Diedrich said that claim is belied by what we've seen
during the pandemic, when the Turnpike Authority removed cash tolls
and charged drivers who did not have E-ZPass using a toll-by-plate
system. That's a procedure where the Turnpike Authority takes a
photo of a license plate going through a toll, then contacts the
Motor Vehicle Commission to get a driver's name and address so the
driver can be sent a bill for the toll.
Faranda-Diedrich said that no additional fee was charged when the
toll-by-plate system was in effect.
"And yet for these so-called violation notices, doing the exact
same thing — pulling the license plate, matching it up to DMV
records and mailing an invoice — suddenly it costs $50," he
said.
"If they can do all those things in the case of toll-by-plate and
not charge $50 or maybe just a couple of dollars, whatever the
charge ends up being, it would suggest that's the actual cost of
collecting a toll," he said.
Faranda-Diedrich said once the information is collected and
reviewed by the judge in Middlesex County, there will be an
evidentiary hearing and the judge will decide whether the $50
charge is warranted.
The case will then go back to an appellate panel that will rule "as
to whether or not the regulation that authorizes the $50 charge
should be declared illegal and thrown out or not," he explained.
He said because the pandemic has slowed the process, it's difficult
to say when the case will move forward.
"This is a case that needs to be tried in person with several
expert witnesses, factual witnesses. It really needs to be tried in
the courtroom, not over Zoom," he said.
He understands that people may be frustrated by the delay but it's
important to keep in mind, he said, that "justice is not often
swift but it is meaningful."
"We are putting our head down and doing everything we can to
hopefully bring justice to the millions of motorists that we feel
like have been unfairly taken advantage of," he said.
Motorists who want to put their names on the list to join the
class-action lawsuit can contact intake specialist Randi Fair at
rfair@rccblaw.com or call 215-839-1000.
A spokesman for the Turnpike Authority declined to comment on the
case. [GN]
NEXTCURE INC: Howard Smith Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
November 20, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who acquired NextCure,
Inc. ("NextCure" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NXTC) (a) securities
between November 5, 2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (b) common stock pursuant or traceable to
NextCure's November 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO" or the
"Offering").
On January 13, 2020, NextCure disclosed that Eli Lilly and Company
had ended its collaboration agreement for the research and
development of the Company's leading product candidate, NC318, a
first-in-class immunomedicine targeting the Siglec-15
immunomodulatory receptor particularly for patients with advanced
or metastatic solid tumors.
On this news, NextCure's share price fell $4.70, or 8%, to close at
$52.00 per share on January 13, 2020, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on July 13, 2020, before the market opened, NextCure
announced that it was no longer planning to "advance the non-small
cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ovarian cancer cohorts in the stage 2
portion of the Simon 2-stage trial." The same day, the Company
announced that its Chief Medical Officer resigned.
On this news, NextCure's share price fell $9.73, or 54%, to close
at $8.15 per share on July 13, 2020, thereby injuring investors
further.
The complaint filed alleges that 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: (1) NextCure possessed NC318 data that showed a
lack of efficacy and objective responses; (2) as a result, NC318
was not, in fact, effective in treating most tumor types; (3) as a
result, the NC318 application was proving to be limited (if even
useful at all); (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a
significant realizable risk that NC318 would not be nearly as
popular as then-existing blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda.
If you purchased NextCure securities or common stock, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G.
Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
NEXTCURE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 27 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nextcure 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.
Nextcure, Inc. (NASDAQ:NXTC)
The Nextcure lawsuit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Nextcure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC) securities: (1) between November 5,
2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive; and/or (2) pursuant or traceable
to the company's secondary public offering declared effective on
November 14, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 20, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nextcure-inc-information-request-form?prid=9632&wire=1
Throughout the class period defendants' statements were materially
misleading because the data Defendants possessed on its principle
product candidate, NC318, showed a lack of efficacy and objective
responses. Had the truth been revealed, the market would have seen
that NC318 was not, in fact, effective in treating most tumor
types, that the NC318 application was proving to be limited (if
even useful at all), and, as a result, there was a significant
realizable risk that NC318 would not be nearly as popular as
then-existing blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda.
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
https://www.zlk.com [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: 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 Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ:
NKLA). 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.
Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA)
Class Period: March 3, 2020 to September 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020
On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a
Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg
Report"). The Hindenburg Report suggested that the firm had
gathered extensive evidence on false statements made by Nikola's
founder Trevor Milton, including that Milton misrepresented, the
Company's battery and fuel cell technology and the size of the
Company's order book. Moreover, the Hindenburg Report claimed that
Milton used these Misrepresentations to substantially grow the
Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies.
On this news, Nikola's stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.3%,
to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020.
The complaint, filed on September 16, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in
proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola
overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing
capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production
capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to
lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive
Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the
Company's Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background
of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated
and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed;
and (8) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the
suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm.
For more information on the Nikola class action go to:
https://bespc.com/NKLA
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]
NIKOLA CORP: Hagens Berman Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA) investors to
contact the firm now.
Class Period: Mar. 3, 2020 - Sept. 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 16, 2020
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/NKLA
Contact An Attorney Now: NKLA@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Nikola Corporation (NKLA) Securities Class Action:
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
falsely stated or omitted, among other things, that: (1) Nikola
overstated its in-house design, manufacturing, and testing
capabilities; (2) exaggerated its hydrogen production capabilities;
(3) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of
hydrogen fuel; (4) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor
Milton, tweeted a misleading test video of the Company's Nikola Two
truck; (5) the work experience and background of key Nikola
employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and
obfuscated; and (6) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed.
Investors learned the truth through a series of partial
disclosures, beginning on Sept. 10, 2020, when Hindenburg Research
published a scathing report accusing Nikola of lying about its
truck's capabilities, partnerships and products, and ending on
Sept. 20, 2020, when Milton abruptly resigned.
These events have driven the price of Nikola shares sharply lower.
Significantly, less than a month before these disclosures, on Aug.
11, 2020, In-Cap, an entity indirectly controlled by Nikola
director Jeffrey Ubben, sold 1.4 million Nikola shares at
$42.69/share for a total of over $59 million. While Ubben
reportedly contends the suspiciously timed sale was forced on him
by "investor redemptions," Hagens Berman is actively investigating
the validity of this claim.
Most recently, on Sept. 29, 2020 CNBC reported a second sexual
abuse allegation against Milton and that the widely-touted
partnership with GM announced earlier in the month is not a "done
deal."
"We're focused on (i) investors' losses, (ii) proving Nikola
misrepresented its truck's functionality, its technology and
partnerships, and (iii) whether Nikola stakeholders like Ubben
engaged in unlawful insider trading," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are a Nikola investor or may assist the firm's
investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens
Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Nikola should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email NKLA@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Jakubowitz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Sept. 27 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nikola
Corp. who purchased shares within the class periods listed below.
Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.
Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:NKLA)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT NKLA:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=9637&from=1
Class Period: March 3, 2020 - September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020
The filed complaint alleges that 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.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 16 Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 16, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in securities class action lawsuits against Nikola
Corporation (NasdaqGS: NKLA, NKLAW) f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.
(NasdaqCM: VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU), if they purchased the Company's
securities between March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). These actions are pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona.
What You May Do
If you purchased securities of Nikola and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how these cases might affect you 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 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-nkla/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in these class actions, you
must petition the Court by November 16, 2020.
About the Lawsuits
Nikola and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging that evidence showed the Company was "an intricate fraud
built on dozens of lies." Subsequently, it was reported that the
Company was the subject of probes by both the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Justice Department. Then, on September
21, 2020, the Company announced the sudden resignation of Founder
and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton.
On this news, the price of Nikola's shares plummeted.
The first-filed case is Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation et al.,
20-cv-01797.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
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]
NIKOLA CORP: Kessler Topaz Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Nikola Corporation ("Nikola") on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Nikola securities between March 3, 2020 and
September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities
during the Class Period may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
For additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/nikola-corporation-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nikola.
According to the complaint, Nikola operates as an integrated zero
emissions transportation systems provider, which designs and
manufactures battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The merger
of VectoIQ and Nikola closed on June 3, 2020.
The Class Period commences on March 3, 2020 when Nikola issued a
press release entitled, "Nikola Corporation, a Global Leader in
Zero Emissions Transportation Solutions, to Be Listed on NASDAQ
Through a Merger with VectoIQ." In connection with the merger
announcement, Nikola released an investor presentation on March 3,
2020, which touted Nikola founder and Executive Chairman Trevor R.
Milton's ("Milton") experience in the clean energy and technology
field and Nikola's hydrogen production capabilities.
The complaint alleges that, on September 10, 2020, before market
hours, Hindenburg Research published a report describing, among
other things, how: (i) Nikola claims to design key components in
house, but they appear to simply be buying or licensing them from
third parties; (ii) Nikola has not produced hydrogen; (iii) a
spokesman for Powercell AB, a hydrogen fuel cell technology company
that formerly partnered with Nikola, called Nikola's battery and
hydrogen fuel cell claims "hot air"; (iv) Nikola staged a "test"
video for its Nikola Two (a prototype truck); (v) some of Nikola's
team, including Milton, are not experts and do not have relevant
experience; and (vi) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed.
Following this news, shares of Nikola fell $10.24, or 24%, over
the next two trading days, to close at $32.13 per share on
September 11, 2020.
Then, on September 15, 2020, before trading hours, Hindenburg
Research published another report, focused on Nikola's responses
and nonresponses to its initial report, entitled "We View Nikola's
Response As a Tacit Admission of Securities Fraud." Following this
news, shares of Nikola fell $2.96, or 8%, to close at $32.83 per
share on September 15, 2020.
Finally, on September 20, 2020, Nikola issued a press release
entitled "Nikola Board of Directors Announces Leadership
Transition: Trevor Milton Steps Down as Executive Chairman; Stephen
Girsky Appointed Chairman of the Board." Following this news, the
price of Nikola's shares fell in pre-market trading on September
21, 2020, further damaging investors.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence
regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its
"in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3)
Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a
result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen
fuel; (5) Milton tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Nikola
Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola
employees, including Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated;
(7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a
result, the defendants' public statements were false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
Nikola investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class
action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or at [email
protected].
Nikola investors may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 877-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
http://www.ktmc.com[GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Oct. 4 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Nikola Corp.
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:NKLA)
Class Period: March 3, 2020 - September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020
According to the complaint, Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ
Acquisition Corp. allegedly 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in NKLA:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=9789&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Nikola Corporation.
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.
Nikola Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:NKLA)
NKLA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 3, 2020 -
September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : November 16, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/nikola-corporation-f-k-a-vectoiq-acquisition-corp-information-request-form?prid=9685&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Nikola
Corporation, f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. 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.
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. [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Robbins Geller Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the District of Arizona on behalf of
purchasers of Nikola Corporation f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp.
(NASDAQ:NKLA; VTIQ) securities between March 3, 2020 and September
15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Borteanu v.
Nikola Corporation, No. 20-cv-1797, and is assigned to Magistrate
Judge John Boyle. The Nikola class action lawsuit charges Nikola
and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Nikola securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Nikola class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Nikola class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Nikola class
action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery of the Nikola class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Nikola class action lawsuit or have questions
concerning your rights regarding the Nikola class action lawsuit,
please visit our website by clicking here or contact Brian Cochran
of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Nikola class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November
14, 2020.
Nikola operates as an integrated zero emissions transportation
systems provider that designs and manufactures battery-electric and
hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle
components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling station
infrastructure.
The Nikola class action lawsuit alleges that on September 10, 2020,
before market hours, Hindenburg Research published a report (the
"Report") describing, among other things, how: (i) the Company had
falsely claimed to design key components in house, but the
components were actually procured from third parties; (ii) the
Company had vastly overstated its hydrogen production capabilities;
(iii) Nikola had staged a "test" video which appeared to show one
of its prototype electric vehicles driving, when it was simply
rolling downhill; (iv) senior Nikola executives and employees had
exaggerated their qualifications and experience; and (v) Nikola had
misrepresented the number of vehicles manufactured to date.
Following this news, the price of Nikola shares fell $10.24 per
share, or 24%, over two trading days, to close at $32.13 per share
on September 11, 2020.
Subsequently, on September 14, 2020, Bloomberg published an
article, entitled "SEC Examining Nikola Over Short Seller's Fraud
Allegations," which announced an SEC investigation of Nikola
stemming from the Report. On this news, the price of Nikola shares
declined in after-hours trading, further damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.
Brian E. Cochran
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Tel No: 800-449-4900
E-mail:bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased the securities
of Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: NKLA)
between June 4, 2020 and September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares 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 Nikola
Corporation., you may, no later than November 16 , 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 Nikola Corporation.
According to the filed Complaint, the Company made false and
misleading statements to the market. Nikola's founder, Trevor
Milton, materially misrepresented the Company's technology and
business. The Company's profitability and business prospects were
massively overstated. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period.
On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report titled:
"Nikola: How to parlay an Ocean of Lies into a Partnership with the
Largest Auto OEM in America." In that report, Hindenburg claimed
that it "gathered extensive evidence-including recorded phone
calls, text messages, private emails, and
behind-the-scenes photographs detailing dozens of false statements
by the Company's founder Trevor Milton."
On this news the Company's stock price fell on September 10, 2020,
closing at $37.57, down $4.80 per share.
Subsequently, on September 15, 2020, dropped further after a report
by The Wall Street Journal said the Justice Department has joined
the Securities and Exchange Commission in looking into allegations
that the electric-truck maker has misled investors. The report,
which cited people familiar with the matter, said the probe was
being handled by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office, working in
conjunction with the securities regulators, which has reportedly
initiated its own probe. The stock closed at $32.83, down $2.96 per
share.
Today, Trevor Milton stepped down as executive chairman effective
immediately and was replaced by Stephen Girsky, the former General
Motors vice chairman who oversaw Nikola's stock listing and
helped broker their partnership. Nikola's shares, which were
already reeling from all the prior negative news, traded as low as
$24.97 per share in intraday trading.
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.
[GN]
NPAS SOLUTIONS: Foley & Lardner Discusses Ruling in Johnson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Davis, Esq. -- rdavis@foley.com -- Christina Kennedy, Esq.
-- ckennedy@foley.com -- and Aaron Wegrzyn, Esq. --
awegrzyn@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, report that while not authorized by Rule 23, incentive
awards to class representatives are a common feature of class
action settlements. Nevertheless, a divided Eleventh Circuit panel
ruled that such payments are strictly prohibited by "on-point
Supreme Court precedent" from the 1880s. The decision in Johnson v.
NPAS Solutions, LLC, No. 18-12344, 2020 WL 5553312 (11th Cir. Sept.
17, 2020), reversed and vacated a district court order that
approved a settlement after the Eleventh Circuit concluded that
"the district court repeated several errors that . . . have become
commonplace in everyday class-action practice."
The Court of Appeals' first-in-the-nation bar on incentive awards
is the most notable aspect of the court's decision. As other courts
have stated, incentive awards are routinely negotiated and approved
to compensate class representatives for their work on behalf of a
class; to make up for financial or reputational risk in bringing a
class action; and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act
as a private attorney general. A 2006 study cited in the dissent
reported that of the incentive awards then sampled, the average
award per class representative was $15,992, and the median award
was $4,357. More recent commentary suggests that incentive awards
usually range between $5,000 and $50,000. The incentive award
vacated by the Eleventh Circuit was for $6,000.
With this blockbuster decision, the court made clear that
commonplace class action practices (like incentive awards)
"require[] more than a rubber-stamp signoff." The court further
emphasized that settlement approval orders must contain detailed
findings and conclusions that "facilitate appellate review," rather
than "rote, boilerplate pronouncements ('approved,' 'overruled,'
etc.)." This decision is the latest example of the federal
appellate courts' increasing interest in monitoring class action
settlements.
Background
The named plaintiff in Johnson alleged that the defendant debt
collector used an automatic telephone dialing system to call his
cell phone without his prior express consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Eight months after the suit was
filed, the parties filed a notice of settlement. A month later, the
district court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. Under the district court's schedule,
objections to the settlement from absent class members were due
about three weeks before class counsel was required to file its fee
petition. The notice then sent to class members stated that the
named plaintiff would request a $6,000 incentive award, and that
class counsel would seek fees of 30% of the $1,432,000 settlement
fund.
One absent class member, Jenna Dickenson, objected to the amount of
the settlement, the incentive award, and class counsel's requested
fees. After holding a Rule 23(e)(2) fairness hearing, the district
court approved the settlement over Dickenson's objections. The
district court's seven-page order contained a one-sentence
evaluation of the settlement's fairness. Dickenson appealed.
The Majority Decision
A two-judge majority of the Eleventh Circuit panel agreed with
Dickenson on all three of her objections, vacated the district
court's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
First, the court held that Rule 23(h)'s "plain language" requires a
district court to require that class counsel submit its final
attorneys' fees motion before any objections to fees are due. The
Eleventh Circuit rejected an argument that the discussion of
counsel's anticipated fee request in the class notice was
sufficient, reasoning that Rule 23(h) requires that absent class
members must be allowed the opportunity to object to the fee motion
itself. The court explained that this rule made "good practical
sense" by ensuring that absent class members have full information
when considering a settlement proposal, and by allowing a district
court to fulfill its "fiduciary role" under Rule 23(e) with the
benefit of a settlement proposal that "has been fully and fairly
vetted."
Second, Judge Kevin Newsom -- writing for himself and Judge Bobby
Baldock (a Tenth Circuit judge sitting by designation) -- held that
the $6,000 incentive award to the class representative violated two
19th-century Supreme Court decisions, Trustees v. Greenough, 105
U.S. 527 (1882) and Central R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S.
116 (1885). The majority interpreted these decisions -- which
allowed payment of attorneys' fees from a common fund -- as
consistent with permitting a class representative to recover
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses in a class action. However,
the two 19th-century decisions held that a plaintiff's requests for
"the allowance of a salary" or for reimbursement of "private
expenses" incurred in carrying on litigation, from a common fund,
are unsupported by "reason or authority." Based on that holding,
the Eleventh Circuit held that class representatives may not
recover compensation for "personal services" or "private expenses,"
further characterizing the $6,000 incentive award as "part salary
and part bounty." The court then criticized Johnson's appeal to the
widespread "ubiquity" of incentive awards, observing that while
incentive awards have become "fairly typical . . . the state of
affairs is a product of inertia and inattention, not adherence to
law." The court said that it considered itself bound by the 1882
and 1885 Supreme Court precedents, which it said "seem to have been
largely overlooked in modern class-action practice." The majority
was not dissuaded by the fact that Greenough and Pettus predate the
adoption of Rule 23, stating: "Needless to say, we are not at
liberty to sanction a device or practice, however widespread, that
is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent."
Finally, the court concluded that the district court failed to
sufficiently explain its decision to approve the settlement. The
court highlighted Rule 23(h)(3)'s requirement that a court "must
find the facts and state its legal conclusions under Rule 52(a)."
The Eleventh Circuit stated: "[T]he district court failed to
adequately explain its award of attorneys' fees, its denial of
Dickenson's objections, or its approval of the settlement.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand so
that the court can make the required on-the-record findings and
conclusions."
The Dissent
Judge Beverly Martin filed a partial dissent, disagreeing with the
majority's conclusion that the incentive award violated Supreme
Court precedent. She reasoned that the majority's rule "will have
the practical effect of requiring named plaintiffs to incur costs
well beyond any benefits they receive from their role in leading
the class." The dissent pointed out that, in Frank v. Gaos, 139 S.
Ct. 1041 (2019), the Supreme Court acknowledged the inclusion of
incentive awards for named plaintiffs in a proposed class action
settlement and "did not question the viability of those incentive
awards." Collecting cases from across the federal circuits, Judge
Martin noted that courts routinely uphold such awards when they are
"fair" and do not "compromise[] the interest of the class for the
class representative's personal gain."
Takeaways
The majority's 36-page opinion is a stern warning to both lawyers
and district courts that they can no longer rely on "the way things
have always been done," at least not in the Eleventh Circuit. The
majority's decision in Johnson will reverberate in class actions
throughout the federal courts. As acknowledged by the Eleventh
Circuit, incentive awards to class representatives are a common
feature of modern class action settlements. And, as highlighted in
Judge Martin's dissent, the bar on such awards may chill individual
plaintiffs' willingness to serve as fiduciaries for absent class
members and to pursue class action litigation. This issue is likely
to be picked up by future objectors to class action settlements
around the country, and should be monitored by both sides of the
bar. The opinion further highlights the increasing scrutiny of
class action settlements, and is another reminder that district
courts must undertake a thorough analysis of any proposed
settlement and make findings sufficient to allow appellate review
for compliance with the requirements of Rule 23.
Stay tuned. There is a possibility that this decision could be
taken up by the full Eleventh Circuit, or garner the attention of
the Supreme Court in its coming terms. [GN]
NURTUR LOS ANGELES: Faces Class Action Over Poor Performance
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Los
Angeles cosmetology school is facing a class action lawsuit from a
student unhappy with her results.
Ashley Mays sued Nurtur Los Angeles on July 10 in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, and the defendant recently removed the case
to L.A. federal court.
The suit says Nurtur promised an "industry-leading education" in
esthetics and cosmetology but didn't deliver on its job-placement
promises.
"In hindsight, Nurtur's efforts to hide its poor performance are
unsurprising, for the school failed to deliver on even basic
statutory requirements," the suit says.
The school falsely certifies the completion of its course to state
authorities, the suit says. Students received little to no
instruction, it adds.
"In effect, Nurtur's 'students' functioned as an unpaid workforce
who ran the school and serviced Nurtur's paying customers while
receiving no compensation in return," the suit says. [GN]
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 27 disclosed that a class action
complaint has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Odonate
Therapeutics 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.
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=9632&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
https://www.zlk.com [GN]
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Timothy Miles Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight
to protect shareholder rights for over 19 years, on Oct. 4
disclosed that a purchaser of securities of Odonate Therapeutics,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ODT) has filed a class action complaint against the
Company for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 between December 7, 2017 and August 21, 2020. The case is
captioned Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics Inc., No. 20-cv-01828
(S.D. Ca.), and is assigned to Judge Marilyn Huff. Based in San
Diego, California, Odonate is a pharmaceutical company that
develops therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. The Company is
developing tesetaxel, an oral chemotherapy.
Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (ODT) Accused of Misrepresenting
Potential of New Cancer Drug
According to the complaint, during the relevant period, Odonate
Therapeutics, Inc. touted the extent of its clinical trials of
tesetaxel and the efficacy of the drug. Unbeknownst to
shareholders, Odonate Therapeutics failed to disclose the serious
safety and tolerance issues surrounding tesetaxel, which has
compromised the drug's potential commercial viability as a cancer
treatment. Before market hours on August 24, 2020, Odonate released
its CONTESSA trial results, shocking investors with the
announcement that tesetaxel substantially increased neutropenia
(low white blood cell counts), neuropathy, and other adverse
events. The trial results demonstrated a discontinuation rate of
just 11.9% in the control group versus 23.1% in the tesetaxel
treatment group. On this news, Odonate stock price fell 43.35% to
close at $18.33 per share on August 24, 2020.
If you purchased Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (ODT) securities
between December 7, 2017 and August 21, 2020, you have until
November 16, 2020, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff
for the class.
Odonate Shareholders Urged to Contact the Firm
If you purchased Odonate securities, have information, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Timothy L. Miles,
Esquire, at 615-587-7384, Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to
tmiles@timmileslaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and the number shares owned.
About Timothy L. Miles
Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Miles was recentely
awarded the recognition of American's Most Honored Lawyers 2020 –
Top 1% by the American Registry. Mr. Miles was also recently
selected by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and ALM as a 2020 Top Ranked
Lawyer and a 2020 Top Rated Litigator. Mr. Miles also maintains the
AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell(R), their highest rating
for both legal ability and ethics. Mr. Miles is a member of the
prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National
Trial Lawyers Association, a superb rated attorney by Avvo, a
recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of
America (2019) and recognized as a Distinguished Lawyer,
Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, by Lawyers of Distinction
(2019). Awards: Top Rated Litigator by Martindale-Hubbell(R) and
ALM (2019); 2019 Elite Lawyer of The South by Martindale-Hubbell(R)
and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial
Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association (2017-2019); AV(R)
Preeminent™ Rating by Martindale-Hubble(R) (2014-2020); PRR AV
Preeminent Rating on Lawyers.com (2018-2020); The Top-Rated Lawyer
in Litigation™ for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability
(Martindale-Hubble(R) 2015); Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier
Lawyers of America (2019); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top
Rated Lawyer for (Avvo 2017-2020). Mr. Miles has authored numerous
publications advocating for shareholdings including most recently:
Free Portfolio Monitoring Services Offered by Plaintiff Securities
Firms Provides Significant Benefits To Investors (Timothy L. Miles,
Dec. 3, 2019).
Contact:
Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles
124 Shiloh Ridge
Hendersonville, TN 37075
Telephone: (855-846-6529)
Email: tmiles@timmileslaw.com Website: www.timmileslaw.com [GN]
ON DECK: Halper Sadeh Alerts of Shareholder Class Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halper Sadeh LLP, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 24
announced the filing of a shareholder class action lawsuit against
On Deck Capital, Inc. (NYSE: ONDK) in connection with its sale to
Enova International, Inc for $0.12 per share in cash and 0.092
shares of Enova common stock for each share of On Deck held. The
lawsuit seeks damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of On Deck
shareholders under the federal securities laws.
If you are an On Deck shareholder and would like to join the action
or discuss your legal rights and options, please visit On Deck
Class Action or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of
charge, at (212) 763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or
zhalper@halpersadeh.com.
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued a materially incomplete
and misleading registration statement recommending that On Deck
shareholders vote in favor of the proposed sale of On Deck to
Enova. According to the complaint, the registration statement
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning, among other things, On Deck's and Enova's financial
projections and the analyses performed by On Deck's financial
advisor.
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. If you would like to join the action or discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://halpersadeh.com/actions/on-deck-capital-inc-ondk-stock-merger-enova-international/
or contact Daniel Sadeh or Zachary Halper, free of charge, at
(212) 763-0060 or sadeh@halpersadeh.com or
zhalper@halpersadeh.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 OR YOU MAY REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT.
Halper Sadeh LLP represents investors all over the world who have
fallen victim to securities fraud and corporate misconduct. Our
attorneys have been instrumental in implementing corporate reforms
and recovering millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Halper Sadeh LLP
Daniel Sadeh, Esq.
Zachary Halper, Esq.
(212) 763-0060
sadeh@halpersadeh.com
zhalper@halpersadeh.com
https://www.halpersadeh.com [GN]
PEABODY ENERGY: Kahn Swick Reminds of Nov. 27 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until November 27, 2020 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Peabody
Energy Corp. (NYSE: BTU), if they purchased the Company's shares
between April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Peabody and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you 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 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-btu/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by November 27, 2020.
About the Lawsuit
Peabody and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On September 28, 2018, a fire erupted at the Company's North
Goonyella mine, resulting in operations being suspended
indefinitely. Following a series of negative disclosures relating
to delays in resuming operations at the mine, on October 29, 2019,
the Company disclosed that regulators were placing strict
restrictions on restarting operations resulting in drastic
adjustments to its reentry plan, ultimately announcing a minimum
three year delay.
On this news, the price of Peabody's shares plummeted.
The case is Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v.
Peabody Energy Corp., 20-cv-08024.
About Kahn Swick & Foti
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, 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. [GN]
PEI WEI: Clarke Seeks Class Status for FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SHARON CLARKE, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. PEI WEI ASIAN DINER,
LLC., dba PEI WEI ASIAN KITCHEN, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-00800-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. conditionally certifying a class under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of:
"all General Managers who were classified as exempt by the
Defendant, who did not execute arbitration agreements, and
who worked for Defendant at any time from three years
prior to Order granting Notice to the present."
2. directing the Defendant to produce to undersigned counsel
within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list,
in readable Excel format, containing the names, the last
known addresses, telephone numbers, last four digits of
their social security numbers, e-mail addresses, and dates
of work of each putative class member;
3. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send the Class
Notice, within 14 days of receiving the class list, to all
individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
Defendant by first-class mail and e-mail;
4. authorizing the Plaintiff's to send the Class Notice a
second time as a reminder to putative class members who
did not respond to the first Class Notice after 45 days
passed since the initial Notice was mailed/e-mailed; and
5. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
produced by Defendant with 90 days from the date the Class
Notices are initially mailed and e-mailed to file a
Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff
Pei Wei Asian is an American restaurant chain serving Pan Asian
fare, operating in more than 200 locations in the U.S. and six
international locations.
A copy of the Plaintiff's expedited motion for conditional
certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/312su2k at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
rmorgan@forthepeople.com
- and -
Ashley M. Landers, Esq.
Andrew H. Stuart, Esq.
STUART & JOHNSTON, LLC
3343 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 530
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 662-2620
Facsimile: (404) 935-6194
E-mail: ashley@stuartandjohnston.com
PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE: Lawson Suit Seeks COVID-19 Tuition Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL JAMES LAWSON, JR. AND TARA LAWSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PENNSYLVANIA COLLEGE OF
TECHNOLOGY, Case No. (Pa. Comm. Pleas, Oct. 12, 2020), is a class
action complaint arising as a result of the Defendant's decision
not to issue appropriate refunds for the Spring 2020 semester after
canceling in-person classes and changing all classes to an
online/remote format, closing most campus buildings, and requiring
all students, who were able to, to leave campus as a result of the
Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
The Plaintiffs contend that the decision deprived them and the
other members of the Classes from recognizing the benefits of
on-campus enrollment, access to campus facilities, student
activities, and other benefits and services in exchange for which
they had already paid fees and tuition.
The Plaintiffs further alleges that the Defendant has either
refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other
costs that the Defendant failed to provide during the Spring 2020
semester, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement
that do not fully compensate Plaintiffs and members of the Classes
for their loss.
This action seeks refunds of the amount the Plaintiffs and other
members of the Classes are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with
other damages as pled.
Pennsylvania College of Technology is an institution of higher
learning located in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The Defendant's
institution enrolls 5,500 students, nearly 90% of which are
residents of Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, P.C.
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Telephone: (610) 834-6030
E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Class of Disabled in Liberty ADA Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIBERTY RESOURCES, INC., et al. v. THE CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, et al, Civil Action No. 19-3846 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Plaintiffs Tony Brooks, Liam Dougherty, Louis Olivo, Fran Fulton,
Liberty Resources, Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania, Inc.
("DIA-PA"), and Philadelphia ADAPT have commenced the putative
class action against Defendant the City of Philadelphia for
violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
All of the named Plaintiff individuals live in Philadelphia and
have a disability which affects their mobility. Plaintiffs Brooks,
Dougherty, and Olivio use a wheelchair for mobility because of a
disability. Fulton is blind and uses a white cane to navigate
throughout the City. All of these named Plaintiffs have
encountered difficulty due to missing, uneven, overly steep, or
deteriorating curb ramps. They have also suffered inconvenience
and even injury as a result of these obstacles. Plaintiffs Liberty
Resources, DIA-PA, and Philly ADAPT are nonprofit organizations
that serve and/or advocate on behalf of individuals with
disabilities that affect mobility in Philadelphia.
In support of their motion, the Plaintiffs have also submitted
declarations from putative class members Orlando Acosta, Kenneth
Brown, Caitlin Chasar, Latoya Maddox, and Germán Parodi. Each of
these individuals has a disability affecting mobility and has
suffered injury due to curb cuts that are missing altogether, or
are too steep, cross-sloped, lack truncated domes, or pool with
water.
According to the Plaintiffs, the City has failed to install
accessible curb ramps when resurfacing streets. In 1993, the Court
issued a class-wide injunction in a related action ordering that
the City will install curb ramps or slopes on every City street, at
any intersection having curbs or other barriers to access, where
bids for resurfacing were let after Jan. 26, 1992. It supplemented
its Feb. 2, 1993 Order shortly thereafter, ordering that, as the
City resurfaces streets in the future, it will install said curb
ramps or slopes at the time the street is resurfaced.
Despite the order, the Plaintiffs allege that in 2014m the City
discontinued ramp upgrades during repaving and transitioned to a
fully request-based system called the "Curb Ramp Partnership
Program." At that time, the City estimated that nearly 72,000 curb
ramps needed to be upgraded at a cost of $7,500 per ramp but
planned to dedicate only $3.2 million for ramp upgrades each year.
Thus, it would take the City almost 170 years to upgrade the local
network of curb ramps to ADA compliance under the program.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: a class of all
persons with disabilities or impairments that affect their mobility
-- including, for example, people who use wheelchairs or other
mobility devices, as well as those who are blind or have low vision
-- and who use or will use pedestrian rights of way in the City of
Philadelphia.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
the class. Specifically, they seek a declaratory judgment that the
City has violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. They also
seek an injunction requiring that all future new construction and
alterations to sidewalks and streets by the City ensure that the
pedestrian rights of way are fully compliant with federal
accessibility standards, including ADA-compliant curb ramps, and
that the City maintain its pedestrian facilities pursuant to
federal regulations. They do not seek monetary damages. They also
seek appointment of the David Ferleger Law Office and Disability
Rights Advocates as the class counsel. The City does not oppose
the motion for class certification.
Judge Bartle concludes that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
(b)(2) have been met and that class certification is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Judge Bartle finds that (i) the putative class members are
sufficiently numerous to render joinder impracticable and to
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1); (ii) the Plaintiffs'
claims give rise to numerous questions of law and fact that will be
common to the class as a whole; (iii) the Plaintiffs' claims arise
from the same policies and practices of the City and are based on
the same legal theory, thus the typicality requirement is
satisfied; and (iv) there is no conflict between the interests of
the named Plaintiffs and those of the other class members because
they all seek the same declaratory and injunctive relief. He
appointed Plaintiffs Liberty Resources, DIA-PA, Philly ADAPT, Tony
Brooks, Liam Dougherty, Fran Fulton, and Louis Olivo as the class
representatives pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4).
In addition, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs are represented by
the counsel with significant experience in class action and
disability-rights litigation and knowledge of those areas of the
law. The counsel has done extensive work investigating the claims
in this action and represent that they have sufficient resources to
litigate the action. Accordingly, the Judge appointed the David
Ferleger Law Office and Disability Rights Advocates as the class
counsel.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/34mKaaY from Leagle.com.
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Howard Smith Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Pintec
Technology Holdings Limited ("Pintec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
PT) securities pursuant and/or traceable to Pintec's October 2018
initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"). Pintec investors
have until November 30, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Pintec investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
In October 2018, Pintec completed its IPO in which it sold more
than 3.7 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") at
$11.88 per share.
On July 30, 2019, after the market closed, Pintec filed its fiscal
2018 annual report, in which it restated previously disclosed
financial results. Among other things, Pintec reported net income
of $315,000 for fiscal 2018, compared to its prior disclosure of
$1.068 million net income. The Company also disclosed that there
were material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting related to cash advances outside the normal course of
business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan
financing transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs.
On this news, Pintec's share price fell $0.53, or more than 13%,
over the next several trading sessions, to close at $3.40 per share
on August 5, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
On June 15, 2020, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that it could not timely file its fiscal 2019 annual report and
that it anticipated reporting a significant change in results of
operations. Specifically, Pintec disclosed that it "erroneously
recorded revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net
basis" for fiscal 2017 and 2018. Moreover, the Company "announced a
net loss of RMB906.5 million in the full year of 2019 due to
RMB890.7 million of provision for credit loss in amounts due from a
related party, Jimu Group, and RMB200 million of impairment in
prepayment for long-term investment."
By the initiation of this action, Pintec shares were trading as low
as $0.92 per share, a nearly 92% decline from the $11.88 per share
IPO price.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false and
misleading and omitted to state material facts. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Pintec
erroneously recorded revenue earned from certain technical service
fee on a net basis, rather than a gross basis; (2) that there were
material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting related to cash advances outside the normal
course of business to Jimu Group, a related party, and to a
non-routine loan financing transaction with a third-party entity,
Plutux Labs; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Pintec's
financial results for fiscal 2017 and 2018 had been misstated; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Pintec's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Pintec securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]
PIONONOS HOLDINGS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Castro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA VANNESSA CASTRO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. PIONONOS HOLDINGS INC. d/b/a Piononos Homemade Bakery
and CESAR UBILLUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24142-CMA (S.D.
Fla., October 9, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants
for their alleged willful and intentional violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from August 2014
through March 2019 as a non-exempt production employee, initially
as a baker and then as a manager.
The Plaintiff claims that she was not being properly compensated by
the Defendant at the rate of not less than one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay, despite working approximately an average
of 60-74 hours per week. Instead, the Defendant paid her only at
her regular rate of $13.50 per hour when the Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff seeks the accumulated
unpaid overtime wages since the date of hire.
Piononos Holdings Inc. d/b/a Piononos Homemade Bakery operates as a
bakery that produces and sells goods and dessert items. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
PIONONOS HOLDINGS: Ferrufino Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY C. FERRUFINO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. PIONONOS HOLDINGS INC., d/b/a Piononos Homemade Bakery
and CESAR UBILLUS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24147-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., October 9, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants
for their alleged willful and intentional violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to properly pay overtime.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants as a baker from
approximately August 30, 2014 to October 10, 2019, contends that
the Defendants failed to compensate her at one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay for all the hours she worked in excess of
40 in a workweek. The Defendants, instead, paid her on average
approximately $13.50 per hour.
Piononos Holdings Inc. d/b/a Piononos Homemade Bakery operates as a
bakery that produces and sells goods and dessert items. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
POWER SOLUTIONS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $8.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sun-Times Media Wire reports that a suburban manufacturing company
in Wood Dale has been fined $1.7 million by the Securities and
Exchange Commission for allegedly inflating its stock value by $25
million.
The fine against Power Solutions International Inc. comes after the
company already agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle class action
lawsuits brought by shareholders related to the matter, according
to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago.
The company allegedly recorded sales to its ledgers that never
actually happened, federal prosecutors said when they charged the
company's CEO Gary Winemaster in 2019 with several financial
crimes.
Power Solutions International Inc. has entered into a
non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office in
Chicago. [GN]
REALOGY BROKERAGE: Facility Inaccessible to Disabled, Laser Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA LASER and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
REALOGY BROKERAGE GROUP LLC D/B/A THE CORCORAN GROUP and SAG HARBOR
POOH, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04994 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020), seeks
declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as monetary
damages and attorney's fees, costs and expenses to redress the
Defendants' unlawful disability discrimination against the
plaintiff, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated
against the Plaintiff by designing and/or constructing a building,
facility and place of public accommodation that is not readily
accessible to and usable by the disabled Plaintiff and not fully
compliant with the Accessibility Standards. The Defendants' place
of public accommodation is not fully accessible and fails to
provide an integrated and equal setting for the disabled in
violation of 42 U.S.C. section 12182 and 28 C.F.R. section 36.203,
the complaint says.
The Plaintiff is an adult female confined to a wheelchair. She is
required to use a wheelchair as a result of being diagnosed with
Multiple Sclerosis.
Realogy brokerage provides residential real estate brokerage
services. The Company offers mortgage, home warranty, title,
insurance, escrow, relocation, and concierge.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM, P.C.
175 Varick Street, 3rd Fl
New York, NY 10014
Telephone: (646) 770 3775
Facsimile: (646) 867 2639
E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com
SAVE MART: Rooney Suit Remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California remanded the case, SHAUN ROONEY, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS; DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00671-JAM-FEB (E.D. Cal.), to
Sacramento County Superior Court.
On Feb. 6, 2020, Plaintiff Shaun Rooney filed a proposed wage and
hour class action complaint in Sacramento Superior Court against
his former employer, Save Mart Supermarkets. The Plaintiff worked
at Save Mart Supermarkets as an Order Selector for about seven and
a half years.
Plaintiff asserts six causes of action under state law against
Defendant for: (1) failure to provide wage statements, (2) failure
to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to keep requisite payroll
records, (4) waiting time penalties, (5) violating California
Unfair Competition Law, and (6) derivative California Private
Attorneys General Act claims based on the first four causes of
action.
On March 30, 2020, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff's suit to
the Court, invoking the Court's federal jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1441 and 1446. Although all of the
Plaintiff's claims arise under state law, the Defendant removed on
the grounds that the Plaintiff's overtime claim is preempted by
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA").
The Defendant argues the Court has federal jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's suit because his claim for overtime pay is preempted by
section 301 of the LMRA since he worked pursuant to a collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA"). The Plaintiff, on the other hand,
argues removal is not proper because the CBA at issue does not meet
the requirements for preemption.
Courts use a two-part test to determine whether Section 301
preemption is proper. First, courts must determine whether the
cause of action is grounded in state law or in a CBA. If the claim
seeks to "purely vindicate a right or duty created by the CBA
itself, then the claim is preempted, and the inquiry ends there.
Otherwise, the Court proceeds to the second step and asks whether
the state law claim is substantially dependent on the analysis of
the CBA. If the claim requires "interpreting" the CBA, rather than
simply "looking to" it, the state law claim is preempted.
As for the first test, Judge Mendez does not find the authority the
Defendant relies on to be persuasive, because those cases did not
involve the same issue and did not interpret the statute as to the
specific inquiry. Accordingly, the Judge finds the Plaintiff's
asserted cause of action involves a right conferred upon an
employee by virtue of state law, not by a CBA.
Turning to the second test, the Judge finds that the Ninth Circuit
made clear in Burnside that looking to the CBA merely to discern
that none of its terms is reasonably in dispute, or to compute a
penalty, is not enough to warrant preemption. Moreover, the
Defendant already admitted that the wage structure in the CBA does
not meet the state minimum wage pay rate requirement. Thus, the
resolution of the Plaintiff's claim does not require more than just
a mere reference to the CBA. The Plaintiffs claims are therefore
not preempted, because the overtime claim is not substantially
dependent on analysis of the CBA.
Because the Plaintiff's second cause of action is not preempted by
Section 301, Judge Mendez holds that the District Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this claim. The District Court
therefore does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's other causes of action.
Accordingly, Judge Mendez granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand
the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3jk3B8L from Leagle.com.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Settles Lawsuit Over Dues-Deduction Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Connor, writing for McKnight's Senior Living, reports that
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has agreed to
settle a class-action lawsuit over dues deduction practices that
affect home care workers.
The union initially refused to let a home care worker leave because
she would not provide a copy of her driver's license. Hydie Nance
then sued in federal court, alleging that SEIU "impedes and burdens
personal assistants' First Amendment right to stop subsidizing
SEIU-HCII and its speech." The photo identification requirement
also exposes workers to the threat of identity theft, according to
court documents. The Right to Work Foundation -- an anti-union
organization -- aided Nance's efforts.
The agreement calls on the union to:
* Refund Nance $245 in dues deducted from her subsidies after
she requested the union stop deducting dues.
* Accept requests to end dues deductions without requiring
photo identification.
* Identify earlier union-defection requests that were denied
due to a photo identification requirement.
* Accept dues deduction requests made on forms provided by
third-party organizations. [GN]
SEVEN GROUP: Faces Class Action After March Share Slump
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Seven Group has secured two seats on the board of Boral with
its top executives, Ryan Stokes and Richard Richards, joining the
building materials group as part of a corporate shake-up.
The addition of Mr Stokes, Seven's chief executive, and Mr
Richards, the chief financial officer, comes after the group raised
its holding in Boral to just under 20 per cent and as it pushes for
a sale of Boral's ailing US business.
Former CSR chief executive Rob Sindel and former Aurizon CFO
Deborah O'Toole will also join Boral's board as non-executive
directors.
Investors appeared to approve of the additions, with Boral's share
price climbing 6 per cent, or 26¢, in afternoon trading to $4.54
-- its highest since February.
The rise in the stock price will boost the value of the stake held
by Seven, which bought into Boral this year. Boral's share price
slumped in March, dropping under $2 after it scrapped its annual
earnings guidance and said it had been hit with a class action
lawsuit.
Boral is rebuilding its board and management team after it took
$1.35 billion in write-downs in August, with existing directors
John Marlay and Eileen Doyle to leave after the October 27 annual
general meeting.
The new appointments on Boral's seven-person board are effective
immediately, but they will stand for formal election at the AGM.
Another current director, Paul Rayner, will also stand for
re-election but is expected to retire within the next three years.
Boral said Seven had nominated Mr Stokes and Mr Richards and both
men had acknowledged the importance of "acting in the interests of
all Boral shareholders and managing any conflicts of interest
carefully".
Boral's AGM notice said it had signed agreements with Seven to
protect confidential information, and that one of Seven's two
nominated directors must resign if the conglomerate's stake drops
below 15 per cent.
Chairman Kathryn Fagg, who has helmed Boral's board the past two
years, said she would also stand for re-election at the AGM to
provide "leadership stability".
"We are looking forward to completing the portfolio review that is
currently under way, and then resetting the business to deliver
stronger performance and value for our shareholders," Ms Fagg
said.
Boral brought in former Brambles chief financial officer Zlatko
Todorcevski to replace Mike Kane as chief executive in July.
Mr Todorcevski plans to reveal the outcome of his review of Boral's
corporate structure later in October about the time of the AGM,
including whether the group's underperforming North American
business should be sold.
The North American operations have been the source of problems,
including the emergence of an accounting scandal in the US windows
business late last year that undermined investor confidence, and a
lacklustre financial performance after the $3.5 billion Headwaters
fly-ash acquisition in 2017, when Mr Kane made a huge bet on the US
economy.
Seven wants Boral to concentrate on its home market of Australia to
rebuild value with the hope the company will benefit from increased
government spending on infrastructure projects. [GN]
SHAW UNIVERSITY: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Shaw University.
The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. The Shaw University, Case No.
1:20-cv-08714 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shaw University, is the first historically black university in the
Southern United States. Shaw is a private liberal arts institution
affiliated with the Baptist Church and among the oldest HBCUs in
the nation.[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
STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET: Warren Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Stop & Shop
Supermarket Company LLC. The case is styled as Kari Warren,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-08718
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company, known as Stop & Shop, is a
chain of supermarkets located in the northeastern United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11024
Phone: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Bens BBQ Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENS BBQ, INC. d/b/a BOBBIQUE, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK,
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-3584 (SJF) (ARL) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Sandra J. Feuerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Bens commenced the putative class action against
Defendant County of Suffolk asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Sections 1983 and 1985, and state law. The Defendant has moved to
dismiss the complaint.
Pending before the Court are objections to the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay, dated May 7,
2020, recommending, inter alia, that (1) the motion to dismiss be
denied as to (a) the second cause of action alleging that excessive
fines were imposed in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and (b)
the fifth cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment on the
basis of violations of the Eighth Amendment only; (2) the Plaintiff
be barred from asserting any claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985;
and (3) the motion to dismiss be granted as to the remaining
claims.
The Plaintiffs object to the Report arguing, inter alia, that
Magistrate Judge Lindsay erred in (1) recommending dismissal of the
due process claim because (a) procedural due process requires a
hearing prior to imposition of a fine, (b) the Report's reliance on
the availability of an Article 78 proceeding was erroneous, (c) the
statute is unconstitutionally vague as it fails to define
"emergency," and (d) the regulatory scheme has the illegitimate
interest of raising revenue; (2) recommending dismissal of the
cause of action for violation of the takings clause of the Fifth
Amendment because (a) it is too early in the case to make the
necessary factual and credibility determinations, (b) the Report
failed to cite authority for its determination; (3) ignoring the
County's failure to provide evidence or argument regarding the
state law claim and finding that the claim should have been brought
in an Article 78 proceeding; (4) dismissing the declaratory
judgment claim to the extent it was brought based upon violations
of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Defendant has responded to all of the Plaintiff's objections.
Despite the argument advanced by the Plaintiff in its papers, Judge
Feuerstein finds no relevant allegations in the actual complaint,
which alleges only that the false alarm act has had a negative
impact on the Plaintiffs and drastically altered the reasonable
investment backed expectations they had when purchasing their alarm
systems. Even if the complaint did include the generalized
statement regarding alarm owners' fearfulness, such an allegation
is both speculative and conclusory and does not plausibly allege a
claim. The Plaintiff's objection is overruled as to this claim.
As to the Plaintiff's fourth cause of action, the Magistrate Judge,
noting the case law relied upon by both parties, determined that
the fee structure was a quasi-legislative act and thus the
Plaintiff's claim should have been brought as an Article 78
proceeding in state court and not as a pendent claim for money had
and received. The Plaintiff objects only on the basis that the
Magistrate Judge's determination that the claim should have been
brought in state court is, in itself, not a sufficient basis to
dismiss the Plaintiff's pendent state claim, and urges the Court to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it.
The Judge declines to do so. The Judge finds that the overwhelming
majority of district courts confronted with the question of whether
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Article 78 claims have
found that they are without power to do so or have declined to do
so. Distinct from the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, most
district courts decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
Article 78 proceedings in an exercise of discretion. Despite the
fact that the Plaintiff has a federal cause of action remaining in
the case, the Judge declines to exercise the Court's supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's fourth cause of action.
The Judge has conducted a de novo review of the Report and
considered the Plaintiff's remaining objections and the Defendant's
responses thereto. Upon completion of that review, te Plaintiff's
objections are overruled and the Report is adopted.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Feuerstein adopted the Report in
its entirety. The Judge granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/35rH9FE from Leagle.com.
SUNWORKS INC: Directors Breached Fiduciary Duties, Vieyra Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO VIEYRA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. CHARLES F. CARGILE, DANIEL GROSS, JUDITH HALL, RHONE
RESCH and STANLEY SPEER, Case No. 2020-0882 (Del. Ch., Oct. 12,
2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the holders of
Sunworks common stock against the members of the Company's Board of
Directors for breaching their fiduciary duties and/or other
violations of state law arising out of their efforts to effectuate
a proposed transaction.
On October 1, 2020, in order to convince stockholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Defendants authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
in violation of their fiduciary duties.
In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the Company's financial
projections used by its financial advisor, Holthouse Carlin & Van
Trigt LLP, in support of its fairness opinion; and (ii) details
concerning the relationship and compensation received by the
Company's financial advisor.
On August 10, 2020, Sunworks announced that it had entered into a
merger agreement, pursuant to which Peck Mercury, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Peck, will merge with and into Sunworks,
with Sunworks surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Peck. The Merger Agreement provides that each share of Sunworks
common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the
effective time of the Merger (the "Effective Time"), except for
certain specified shares, will be converted into the right to
receive 0.185171 (the "Exchange Ratio") fully paid and
nonassessable shares of Peck common stock.
Based on the Exchange Ratio, it is estimated that, immediately
following completion of the Merger, former holders of Sunworks
common stock will own approximately 36.54% of the outstanding
common stock of the post-Merger Peck and pre-Merger holders of Peck
common stock will own approximately 63.46% of the outstanding
common stock of the post-Merger Peck. The implied range of per
share consideration to be received by Sunworks' shareholders is
$0.69 to $0.79 per share (the "Implied Merger Consideration"), and
represents an approximate 42.4% to 49.9% discount to Sunworks'
closing price of $1.38 per share on August 5, 2020, and a
significant discount to the Company's 180-day average ($0.80 per
share), 52-week average ($2.43 per share), and 52-week high ($3.62
per share). The Proposed Transaction plainly fails to maximize
stockholder value, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy omits material information
that must be disclosed to enable Sunworks stockholders to make an
information decision whether to tender their shares.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, in the
event the Merger is consummated, recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiff is/was a continuous stockholder of Sunworks.
The Defendants are officers and directors of Sunworks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (646) 300-8921
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
Cell: (646) 522-4840
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Michael Palestina, Esq.
Brian Mears, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: 504.455.1400
Facsimile: 504.455-1498
E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
- and -
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3889
SWR UNLIMITED: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Operators, Lopez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS CRUZ LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SWR UNLIMITED INC. and DEBORAH ROBERTS, Case No.
1:20-cv-04961 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2020), seeks equitable and legal
relief for the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Laws.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have intentionally,
willfully, and repeatedly harmed him and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs by engaging in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of
violating the FLSA. This policy and pattern or practice includes
failing to compensate its employees with overtime wages for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a machine operator
from 1999 until December 19, 2019.
SWR is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business
located at 292 Duffy Ave, Hicksville, New York. SWR provides
demolition and excavation services, including gutting interiors of
houses, demolition of entire houses, dormer prep, job site
clean-up, digging foundations, and other contractor services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Morales, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Alerts of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on September 29, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota against Tactile Systems Technology, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TCMD). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is May 7, 2018 through June 8,
2020.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-tactile-systems-technology-inc/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Tactile Systems
Technology, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than November 30, 2020 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]
TASTE OF NORTH CHINA: Court Approves Notice to Class Members
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned BAO YU YANG, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TASTE OF
NORTH CHINA, LTD d/b/a Taste of North China; NEW TASTE OF NORTH
CHINA INC d/b/a Taste of North China; and NORTH CHINA RESTAURANT,
INC d/b/a Taste of North China; YONGBIN SUN, QIMIN CAI, JIANGUO
ZHAO, and "JOHN" WANG, Case No. 2:19-cv-09392-KM-MAH (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty entered an order:
1. directing the Defendants within 15 days after entry of
this Order, to furnish to the Plaintiff's counsel a
Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing for each current
and former non-exempt and non-managerial employee employed
at any time from April 8, 2016 (three years prior to the
filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-
orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or
the date when the Defendants provide the name list,
whichever is later, with that individual's Unique
Numerical Identifier; First Name; Last Name; Sex (Male,
Female); Nickname; Name in Native Language (if
applicable); Position Title Last Known Address with
apartment number (if applicable); City and Zip Code; Last
Known Telephone Number; Pay/ Day/ Week/ Semi-month/ Month;
Start Date; End Date; Last Known Email Address’ Social
Media Handles -- WhatsApp Username, WeChat ID and/or
FaceBook usernames; and Work location, if there are more
than one location.
2. directing that the mailing list be accompanied by an
Affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the name
list is complete from employment records. No Defendants
or Named Plaintiff shall be included in this list. This
mailing list shall be treated by the Parties as
confidential.;
3. directing that the Notice of Pendency and Consent to
Joinder be disseminated, in any relevant language, via
mail and email, to all members of the collective; and
4. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to disseminate the
notice, and directing the Defendants to post a copy of the
notice, in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, specifically
at:
(1) TASTE OF NORTH CHINA, LTD d/b/a Taste of North
China, located at 75 Montgomery St, Jersey City,
NJ 07302;
(2) NEW TASTE OF NORTH CHINA INC d/b/a Taste of North
China, located at 75 Montgomery St, Jersey City,
NJ 07302; and
(3) NORTH CHINA RESTAURANT, INC d/b/a Taste of North
China, located at 75 Montgomery St, Jersey City,
NJ 07302.
The Defendants operate Chinese restaurant with specialty dishes,
including dumplings.
A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/375RbPt at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class, are:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
TBC CORP: 9th Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Hamilton Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's grant of summary judgment in the case, JULIE
HAMILTON; LYLE McLEAN; NESTOR DIAZ; SAM FLOWERS, individually and
as a representative of the class Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TBC
CORPORATION; DYNAMIC TIRE CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 19-55223 (9th Cir.).
The Defendants-Appellees import and sell the Power King Towmax STR
tire -- a specialty tire marketed for use on medium to heavy duty
trailers. In 2017, the Plaintiffs-Appellants sued the Defendants
after each Plaintiff had a STR tire fail during use because of a
"tread separation." The First Amended Complaint (FAC)'s 23 claims
sound principally in fraud, breach of express and implied
warranties, and violation of the consumer protection laws of
California, Arizona, Colorado, and Florida. The Plaintiffs also
allege that Defendants violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The Plaintiffs subsequently sought to certify a nationwide class
action, but the district court denied their request and instead
certified a Florida-only class for a single claim brought under the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Soon after, the
district court granted summary judgment on the entirety of the FAC
after concluding the Plaintiffs failed to introduce evidence that
the STR tires were defective. The Plaintiffs now appeal both
decisions.
At summary judgment, the Plaintiffs presented a declaration from
their tire expert, Kenneth Pearl. Pearl opined that the STR tires
must have been defective because of their high warranty return
rate, which he noted exceeded that of a Firestone passenger vehicle
tire recalled in the early 2000s. The district court rejected this
opinion as unreliable because Pearl failed to explain sufficiently
why a comparison between the two return rates supported his
conclusion that the STR tires were defective.
The Ninth Circuit agrees that Pearl's declaration and expert report
were deficient. The Pearl's failure to articulate the basis for
his opinion is particularly significant because uncontroverted
evidence in the record established that (1) a defect is not the
sole potential cause of a tread separation, and (2) performance
trends for one type of tire may not apply to another tire that
differs in design or application. And although the Plaintiffs
argue that Pearl opined that the STR tires contained a defective
tread compound, the record does not support the factual basis for
Pearl's opinion. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by excluding Pearl's opinion that the STR tires were
defective.
The Plaintiffs' remaining argument also fails. The Plaintiffs
contend that, pursuant to United States v. General Motors Corp.,
the high return rate for STR tires creates the presumption of a
defect. But the D.C. Circuit's opinion in General Motors does not
apply to the instant case. In General Motors, the court addressed
the government's burden to establish a violation of the recall
provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1966 ("NTMVSA"). Its reasoning turned on the text and legislative
history of that particular statute. Thus, because the NTMVSA was
designed as a preventative measure 'supplementary of and in
addition to the common law of negligence and product liability, the
Ninth Circuit declines to extend General Motor's rationale to the
Plaintiffs' claims.
Without evidence of a defect in the STR tires, the district court
concluded that each of the Plaintiffs' claims failed. On appeal,
the Plaintiffs do not assert that their state law claims do not
require proof of a defect. Thus, they waive any challenge to the
district court's grant of summary judgment on these claims.
However, the Plaintiffs do maintain that their Magnuson-Moss
breach-of-express-warranty claims survive without evidence of a
defect in the STR tires. The Ninth Circuit holds that the argument
fails. It reasons that although the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
creates a federal cause of action for a warrantor's failure to
comply with the terms of a written warranty, the Act incorporates
state substantive law except where the statute provides otherwise.
The Plaintiffs fail to point to any provision of the statute
absolving them of the need to prove that the STR tires were
defective when evidence in the record establishes that the
Defendants offered only a limited written warranty for defects in
workmanship and materials. Accordingly, the district court did not
err by granting summary judgment.
Because summary judgment was appropriate on the entirety of the
First Amended Complaint, the Appellate Court does not reach the
Plaintiffs' argument regarding the class certification order. It
denied as moot the Defendants' pending motion for reconsideration,
and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 21, 2020 Memorandum is
available at https://bit.ly/3jpjECa from Leagle.com.
TESLA INC: Investors Seek Certification of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Tesla Inc. investors asked a California federal
judge on Sept. 22 to certify a consolidated securities class action
alleging co-founder and CEO Elon musk misled investors in 2018 with
tweets about taking the electric-auto maker private. [GN]
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Copaxone Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. was hit with a proposed securities
class action on Sept. 23 alleging the company touted the sales of
its drug Copaxone while concealing a kickback scheme to increase
its revenue from the drug.
The complaint alleges that Teva made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that it "made substantial illegal
kickback payments to charitable foundations to cover Medicare
co-payment obligations of patients taking Copaxone."
As a result, the plaintiffs allege, Teva's revenues from Copaxone
"were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable."
TIETGENS ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay OT to Managers, Sunder Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CLYDE SUNDER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIETGENS ENTERPRISES, INC., and
MARK TIETGENS, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00067 (M.D. Tenn.,
October 12, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
practice of failing to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff has been working for the Defendants from July 2004
through the present as a meat manager at their Cash Saver grocery
store located at 818 North Locust Ave., Larenceburg, Tennessee,
38464.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants required him to work 45
hours each week, throughout his employment as a meat manager, in
exchange for a salary intended to compensate him for 45 hours of
work. However, the Defendant never paid him any overtime pay at one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all the hours he
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Tietgens Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates grocery stores. Mark
Tietgens is the owner. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Autumn L. Gentry, Esq.
Joshua L. Burgener, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: 615-244-6538
Fax: 844-670-6009
E-mail: agentry@dickinsonwright.com
jburgener@dickinsonwright.com
- and –
Trevor Howell, Esq.
HOWELL LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 15811
Nashville, TN 37216
Tel: 615-406-1417
Fax: 615-373-8206
E-mail: Trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com
TITLEMAX OF GEORGIA: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Stein TILA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN STEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TITLEMAX OF
GEORGIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-13669, Non-Argument
Calendar (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing Stein's
complaint for failure to state a plausible claim to relief.
In the case, Stein alleges that TitleMax violated the Truth in
Lending Act ("TILA") by providing inaccurate disclosures of the
terms of a car-title loan.
On Dec. 26, 2018, Stein borrowed $100 from TitleMax, using his car
as collateral. According to the loan agreement, TitleMax also
charged Stein a "lien filing fee" of $18 to record its security
interest, which would "only be charged if Pawnbroker actually
registers such lien," and a "pawnshop charge" of $16.51, which was
based on a percentage of the principal amount advanced. He
promised to repay the total amount of $134.51 within 30 days.
In the loan agreement, TitleMax disclosed the "total amount
financed" ($118), the "finance charge" ($16.51), and the "annual
percentage rate" (170.23%). The total amount financed was itemized
to show $100 as the amount given to you directly and $18 as the
amount paid to public official for Lien Filing Fee. The agreement
also advised that the truth-in-lending disclosures provided assume
that you will pay all amounts owing hereunder on the Maturity
Date.
Five days later, Stein repaid the total amount of $134.51,
including the $18 lien filing fee. At that time, TitleMax had not
recorded its lien.
In February 2019, Stein filed the purported class-action lawsuit
alleging that TitleMax violated the TILA by failing to accurately
disclose the terms of the loan and pocketing the $18 lien filing
fee. Stein claimed that, because TitleMax did not register the
lien, the fee should have been included as part of the finance
charge. And failing to include the fee as part of the finance
charge, in Stein's view, led to two inaccuracies in the
disclosures: (1) TitleMax wrote that the finance charge was $16.51,
when it was really $34.51; (2) TitleMax wrote that the APR was
170.23%, when it was actually more than double that rate. The
complaint further alleged, without factual support, Stein's belief
that discovery would reveal "thousands" of similarly situated
TitleMax customers.
Based on a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the
district court granted TitleMax's motion to dismiss the complaint
under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. The court concluded that the
disclosures were accurate when made and that TitleMax's subsequent
failure to pay the lien filing fee did not establish a TILA
violation. Stein now appeals.
The Eleventh Circuit finds that the district court properly granted
TitleMax's motion to dismiss. Accepting the complaint's
allegations as true and construing them in the light most favorable
to Stein, the complaint does not state a plausible TILA claim. To
be clear, the conclusion that Stein did not state a TILA claim does
not mean that TitleMax acted lawfully in all respects. The purpose
of the TILA is to provide a full disclosure of credit charges to
consumers, not to comprehensively regulate the credit industry.
And as the magistrate judge noted, the TILA grants rights ancillary
to, not in place of, other state-law remedies. Stein may or may
not have other claims against TitleMax under state law arising out
of these same facts. The Court holds only that the allegations in
Stein's complaint, accepted as true, do not state a plausible claim
to relief under the TILA.
Stein argues that the district court should have granted his
request for leave to amend. He did not file a motion seeking leave
to amend, however, and instead embedded that request in his brief
in opposition to the motion to dismiss. That is not sufficient to
raise the issue under the Court's precedent. Under its case law,
the Eleventh Circuit holds that Stein's request for leave to amend
was insufficient as a matter of law, and the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying it.
Although it has ruled against Stein on his TILA claim, the Eleventh
Circuit cannot say that the appeal was "clearly frivolous" or
"utterly devoid of merit." Stein's complaint established a
possibility of misconduct under the TILA, though it ultimately was
not sufficient to state a plausible claim. The record also does
not support a finding that Stein's counsel engaged in unreasonable
and vexatious conduct. While TitleMax questions Stein and his
counsel's motivations in bringing the action, Stein's conduct was
permitted under the loan agreement, and the Eleventh Circuit
cannot, on the record, infer bad faith on their part. For these
reasons, the Eleventh Circuit denies TitleMax's motion for
sanctions.
In sum, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment
dismissing Stein's complaint alleging violations of the TILA.
A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's July 7, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/3orEhSa from Leagle.com.
TONY'S FINER FOODS: State Automobile Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tony's Finer Foods
Enterprises, Inc., et al. The case is styled as State Automobile
Mutual Insurance Company v. Tony's Finer Foods Enterprises, Inc.,
an Illinois corporation; Tony's Finer Foods No. 6, Inc., an
Illinois corporation; Tony's Finer Foods No. 9, Inc., an Illinois
corporation; Charlene Figueroa, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Case No. 1:20-cv-06199 (N.D. Ill., Oct.
19, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated Insurance Contract.
Tony's Finer Foods Inc. operates a general line of grocery stores.
The Company offers bakery, meat, seafood, vegetables, and floral
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Marc Chemers, Esq.
PRETZEL & STOUFFER, CHTD.
One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, IL 60606-4673
Phone: (312) 346-1973
Email: rchemers@pretzel-stouffer.com
TRADEGLOBAL: Court Approves Settlement in Smith et al. Labor Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy S. Black issued an order granting Plaintiffs
Tina Smith and Kimberley Baas and TradeGlobal LLC's joint motion to
approve settlement of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claim
and dismissed the case captioned TINA SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
TRADEGLOBAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-192 (S.D.
Ohio) with prejudice.
On March 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Tina Smith and Kimberley Baas, former
employees of Defendant TradeGlobal LLC, filed the action alleging
that TradeGlobal violated the FLSA by not paying additional sums or
any overtime for time worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs
alleged that they were misclassified as FLSA exempt and were not
paid mandatory overtime for hours worked over 40 per week. The
Plaintiffs also named Dawn Adams, their immediate supervisor, as a
codefendant in this matter.
On Sept. 16, 2019, TradeGlobal filed voluntary petitions commencing
a Chapter 11 action in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Nevada. On Jan. 13, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed claims
asserting a general unsecured claim against TradeGlobal. On May 26,
2020, TradeGlobal and its jointly administered debtors filed a
disclosure statement in support of Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Liquidation. On August 25, the plan of reorganization for
TradeGlobal and other debtors became effective and TradeGlobal's
trust went into effect.
The parties have resolved the issues in this case and executed a
settlement agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, inter alia,
TradeGlobal agreed to make payments to the Plaintiffs for
attorneys' fees, wage-based damages, and liquidated damages, and
the Plaintiffs agreed to release their claims against TradeGlobal
and all other Defendants.
As a general rule, employees' claims under the FLSA are
non-waivable and may not be settled without supervision of either
the Secretary of Labor or a district court. The proper procedure
for obtaining court approval is for the parties to present to the
court a proposed settlement, upon which the district court may
enter a stipulated judgment only after scrutinizing the settlement
for fairness. If a settlement in an employee FLSA suit reflects "a
reasonable compromise over issues," such as FLSA coverage or
computation of back wages that are "actually in dispute," the court
may approve the settlement "in order to promote the policy of
encouraging settlement of litigation."
The Sixth Circuit has counseled that a district court should
consider the following factors in determining whether the
settlement of an FLSA claim is fair and reasonable: (1) the risk of
fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration
of the litigation; (3) the amount of discovery completed; (4) the
likelihood of success on the merits; (5) the opinion of counsel and
representatives; and (6) public interest in the settlement.
The Court may choose to consider only factors that are relevant to
the settlement at hand and may weigh particular factors according
to the demands of the case. In certain cases, a court may consider
each factor individually. "More often, however, inquiry into one
factor necessarily overlaps with inquiry into another."
The Court found the parties' motion for approval of the settlement
to be well-taken. The parties represented there are bona fide
disputes as to the number of hours Plaintiffs worked, whether they
were entitled to overtime under the FLSA for those hours, whether
Defendants' actions were willful, and whether Defendants acted in
good faith. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion. It is
evident from the parties' work both before the Court and the Nevada
Bankruptcy Court that the parties have expended significant effort
in resolving this matter. Counsel for both parties represented that
the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable.
Continued litigation would involve considerable expenditures of
time and resources of the parties and the Court. If this case were
to continue, the parties would expend significant time and money
prosecuting the litigation through dispositive motions, trial, and
possible appeals.
The ultimate question is whether the Plaintiffs are better served
if the litigation is resolved by the settlement rather than
pursued. Here, the risks posed by the Defendants' denial of the
Plaintiffs' claims justifies a compromise which provides an
immediate settlement payment to the Plaintiffs. As the parties
recognized, the Settlement Agreement does not represent a
compromise of guaranteed rights but of contested rights.
After reviewing the parties' Settlement Agreement, and all the
filings in this matter, the Court agreed with the parties'
representations and found that the Settlement Agreement is fair and
reasonable.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://bit.ly/2FKu15N
from Leagle.com.
Jagged Peak Inc. and its subsidiaries are software companies based
in Tampa, Florida. TradeGlobal is an end-to-end eCommerce
provider, offering a full range of services, solutions and systems
tailored to meet clients' specific needs.
Jagged Peak, Inc., and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. D. Nev. Lead Case No. 19-15959) on Sept. 16, 2019.
TWITTER INC: Unlawfully Procured Telephone Records, Gray Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARLIN GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01389 (Sept. 21, 2020) seeks statutory damages together
with attorneys' fees, other costs of litigation, and prejudgment
interest, resulting from the engagement of the Defendant in the
unauthorized procurement of telephone records of the Plaintiff and
the Class.
According to the complaint, the Defendant employed deceptive means
in procuring telephone record of the Plaintiff. The Defendant made
assurances to the Plaintiff that she could designate the uses to
which the telephone number was put, thereby maintaining control
over the use of the telephone number by the Defendant, through
functions made available on Twitter's user-facing systems.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not honor the
privacy choices exercised by users, as evidenced to the Defendant
app "Twitter" through the account settings selections made on those
screens.
On October 8, 2019, the Defendant publicly acknowledged that "when
[users] provided an email address or phone number for safety or
security purposes, for example, two-factor authentication, this
data may have inadvertently been used for advertising purposes,
specifically in our Tailored Audiences and Partner Audiences
advertising system."
Twitter, Inc. provides online social networking and microblogging
service. The Company offers users the ability to follow other users
activity, read, and post tweets. Twitter serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel B. Ard, Esq.
ARD LAW GROUP PLLC
P.O. Box 11633
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Telephone: (206) 701-9243
TYSON FOODS: Colvin Sues Over Monopoly of Growers' Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY RANDALL COLVIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON CHICKEN,
INC.; TYSON BREEDERS, INC.; PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION; PERDUE
FOODS, LLC; KOCH FOODS, INC.; KOCH MEAT CO, INC., d/b/a KOCH
POULTRY CO.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOOD
DIVISION); SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING DIVISION); and
SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PRODUCTION DIVISION), Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02464-HLT-JPO (D. Kan., Sept. 18, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, as part of the scheme, the Defendants
illegally agreed to share detailed data on compensation of poultry
growers ("Grower") with one another, with the purpose and effect of
artificially depressing Grower compensation below competitive
levels. By disclosing their highly sensitive and confidential
compensation rates to each other, they suppressed competition for
Broiler Grow-Out Services and drove down compensation to all
Growers. By sharing this information on a frequent and
contemporaneous basis, the Defendants have been able to keep Grower
compensation lower than it would have been in a competitive market,
and to keep the increased profits for themselves.
This illegal information exchange, combined with other
anticompetitive conduct alleged herein, drove down Grower
compensation nationwide. The Defendants recognized the benefits of
sharing this highly sensitive, proprietary and otherwise
confidential Grower compensation information with each other, but
not with the Growers themselves, the suit says.
Tyson Foods, Inc. produces, distributes, and markets chicken, beef,
pork, prepared foods, and related allied products. The Company's
products are marketed and sold to national and regional grocery
retailers, regional grocery wholesalers, meat distributors,
warehouse club stores, military commissaries, and industrial food
processing companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Grant L. Davis, Esq.
Thomas C. Jones, Esq.
Timothy C. Gaarder, Esq.
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, LLC
1100 Main St., Suite 2930
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 421-1600
Facsimile: (816) 472-5972
E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net
tjones@dbjlaw.net.
tgaarder@dbjlaw.net
UBS FINANCIAL: Delkeskamp Sues Over Frozen Investment Accounts
--------------------------------------------------------------
KELLIE DELKESKAMP, on her own behalf, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-08643 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020), is brought on behalf of
Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States living abroad that
had investment accounts managed by UBS Financial Services, Inc.
that were frozen, converted to cash, or closed without timely
notification. The lawsuit asserts breach of fiduciary duty, breach
of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and
violation of N.Y. General Business Law section 349.
The Plaintiff contends that UBS breached its contracts and its
fiduciary duty to the Class by converting certain investment
accounts for account holders who resided outside of the United
States into cash-only accounts with no investment value and
declining to provide ongoing investment advice with respect to
these accounts. The Defendant failed, however, to meaningfully
advise her and the Class that it was closing their accounts, and
retained funds without providing any benefit to the Class in the
form of interest, investment opportunities, advice, or otherwise,
she adds.
As a direct and proximate result of UBS's breach of contract and
its fiduciary duties and unjust retention of the Class' funds, the
Plaintiff and the Class have been denied interest and investment
opportunities, and have otherwise sustained damages, says the
complaint.
Ms. Delkeskamp is a citizen of the United States. She opened
several investment accounts with UBS while residing in the Unites
States. She was a resident of California and had several investment
accounts with UBS, including individual retirement accounts (IRAs),
education funds, and other investment vehicles. Ms. Delkeskamp
thereafter moved to Nice, France, where she currently resides.
UBS AG is a Swiss global financial services company with its
principal places of business in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland. The
Defendant UBS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UBS AG that is
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a
broker-dealer and an investment adviser. UBS provides investment
and wealth management services to high net-worth individuals and
corporate entities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 683-3516
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
tjm@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY, DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
Saint Louis, MO 63105-1643
Telephone: (314) 725-7700
Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com
UNITED STATES: AO Suit Seeks to Certify California Children Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned A.O., A.S.R., L.C., R.M., and
I.Z.M., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, ROBERT COWAN, Director, National
Benefits Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and UNITED STATES
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Case No. 5:19-cv-06151-SVK
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying Proposed Class defined as:
"California children who have been declared dependent on a
juvenile court under Section 300 of the California Welfare
and Institutions Code and who have received or will
receive denials of their SIJS petitions -- either
explicitly or by a failure to adjudicate as required by
law -- on the grounds that the state court cannot reunify
them with their parents."
2. appointing the Plaintiffs to serve as representatives of
the class; and
3. appointing Milbank LLP and Professor Andrea Ramos as Class
Counsel.
The central issue in this case is whether the "reunification
authority requirement" imposed and then withdrawn by the Defendants
was lawful, or rather whether it was unlawfully arbitrary and
capricious or inconsistent with due process requirements. As such,
this is precisely the type of case contemplated by Rule 23(b)(2) as
appropriate for class resolution: "the party opposing the class has
acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the
class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole."
According to the complaint, the Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Injunction confirms the intuitive
proposition that this case is appropriate for class certification.
There, in finding that the Plaintiffs could likely prove that the
Defendants' imposition of the reunification authority requirement
was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is an agency of the
United States Department of Homeland Security that administers the
country's naturalization and immigration system. The United States
Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive
department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to
the interior or home ministries of other countries.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nQc472 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas R. Kreller, Esq.
Linda Dakin-Grimm, Esq.
Andrew B. Lichtenberg, Esq.
Katherine Kelly Fell, Esq.
Ashley A. Satterlee, Esq.
MILBANK LLP
2029 Century Park East, 33rd Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 424-386-4000
Facsimile: 213-892-4704
E-mail: TKreller@milbank.com
LDakin-grimm@milbank.com
ALichtenberg@milbank.com
KFell@milbank.com
ASatterlee@milbank.com
- and -
Andrea Ramos, Esq.
CLINICAL PROFESSOR OF LAW
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION LAW CLINIC
Southwestern Law School
3050 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: 213 738-7922
Facsimile: 213 738-5751
E-mail: aramos@swlaw.edu
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]
VAXART INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 23 Plaintiff 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]
VAXART INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Oct. 23 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, on Sept. 23
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit against Vaxart, Inc.
(NASDAQ: VXRT) ("Vaxart" or the "Company"), certain directors and
officers of the Company, and Armistice Capital LLP. The case was
filed in the Central District of California and brings claims under
Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Lead plaintiff motions are due October 23, 2020.
If you purchased Vaxart stock between June 25, 2020 and July 25,
2020, and have over $100,000 in realized or unrealized losses, you
are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott attorney for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
Vaxart is a small, clinical-stage biotechnology company primarily
focused on the development of oral recombinant vaccines based on
its proprietary oral vaccine platform. In early 2020, Vaxart
purportedly began to develop a Covid-19 vaccine.
In late June 2020, Vaxart made a couple of announcements regarding
its Covid-19 vaccine and the stock price increased dramatically.
Soon after these announcements, Vaxart's largest shareholder,
Armistice Capital LLP, sold massive amounts of its Vaxart shares
for a huge profit.
Then, on July 25, 2020, The New York Times published an article
entitled Corporate Insiders Pocket $1 Billion in Rush for
Coronavirus Vaccine. The article clarified one of Vaxart's
announcements and reported that, "Vaxart is not among the companies
selected to receive significant financial support from [the U.S.
Government's Operation] Warp Speed."
On this news, the price of Vaxart shares dropped and the Company's
stock price has continued to decline.
What You Can Do
If you purchased Vaxart stock between June 25, 2020 and July 25,
2020 and have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you
are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982
or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.
CONTACT:
Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]
W. ATLEE BURPEE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W. ATLEE BURPEE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-08477 (S.D.N.Y., October 12, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Plaintiff is a blind and visually-impaired handicapped person,
who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software, and a member of a protected class of individuals under
the ADA.
The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website,
www.burpee.com, in September 2020 to browse and potentially make a
purchase, he has encountered multiple access barriers which denied
him a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual. The
Defendant's Website allegedly lack of a variety of features and
accommodations which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being
able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public
accommodation.
The Plaintiff alleges that because the Defendant failed to comply
with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would
provide him and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access
to the Website, the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional
discrimination.
W. Atlee Burpee Company is a gardening supply company that owns and
operates the Website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Ave., Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses Buscema Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RITA BUSCEMA, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST LP,
WAL-MART STORES, INC., SPECTRUM BRANDS, INC., AND THE BLACK &
DECKER CORPORATION, Defendants (D. N.M.), Judge Martha Vazquez of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted
Plaintiff Buscema's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.
On Sept. 19, 2019, Ms. Buscema filed a Class Action Complaint for
Breach of Consumer Protection Statutes and for Injunctive Relief in
the Second Judicial District Court in Bernalillo County. The
Complaint asserts two claims for relief: an individual claim for
money damages in the amount of $300 pursuant to NMSA 1978 Sectio
57-12-10B and a class claim for injunctive relief under NMRA (2019)
1-023C(4)(a).
On Nov. 21, 2019, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal removing
the case from the Second Judicial District to the Court under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1332, 1441, and 1446. Ms. Buscema then moved the
New Mexico District Court to remand the case back to state court
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447 for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order filed April 16, 2020, the
District Court found that Ms. Buscema lacks Article III standing to
pursue her class claim in federal court but that the Defendants had
properly invoked the District Court's jurisdiction over her
individual claim. The District Court accordingly granted Ms.
Buscema's motion in part by remanding her class claim to state
court but declining to remand her individual claim.
Ms. Buscema now asks the District Court to dismiss her individual
claim without prejudice so that she can avoid litigating
substantially overlapping issues in two different courts. The
Defendants respond that the District Court should either dismiss
the action with prejudice or order Ms. Buscema to pay attorneys'
fees and costs.
Judge Vazquez finds that the equities of the case and the factors
set forth in Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531, 1537 (10th Cir.
1997) weigh in favor of dismissal without prejudice. As Ms.
Buscema points out, at this early stage of the case, the parties
have not yet expended significant time or resources conducting
discovery or litigating motions. And to the extent the Defendants
expended resources litigating Ms. Buscema's Motion to Remand, that
was a direct and foreseeable consequence of their own decision to
remove the case to federal court, where Ms. Buscema plainly lacks
Article III standing to bring her class claim. Nor does the Court
find that Ms. Buscema has caused excessive delay or demonstrated a
lack of diligence. She filed her Motion to Remand within a month
of Defendants filing their Notice of Removal and she filed the
instant Motion to Dismiss approximately five and a half weeks after
the Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order declining to
remand her individual claim to state court.
Judge Vasquez further finds that Ms. Buscema's stated reason for
requesting dismissal -- that litigating her individual claim in
federal court while litigating her class claim in state court would
be prohibitively costly and inefficient -- is a sufficient
explanation. It also relies on Ms. Buscema's representation that
the instant motion is not a pretext for seeking a change of venue
because she will not be immediately refiling her individual claim
in state court. Finally, the Judge notes that the case is at an
early, pre-discovery stage of litigation. Judge Vasquez
accordingly finds that dismissal without prejudice under Rule
41(a)(2) is proper and equitable under the circumstances.
Given that the Judge is dismissing the instant case without
prejudice, the Defendants ask for an award of attorneys' fees and
costs. In support, they point to caselaw finding that such an
award is appropriate especially where the expenses in the federal
litigation proved unnecessary. The Defendants also point to
caselaw holding that attorneys' fees and costs should be awarded
when the Plaintiff plans to refile in state court. In response,
Ms. Buscema represents that she lacks the resources to pay the
Defendants' attorney fees and must therefore be given an
opportunity to withdraw her Motion to Dismiss before being ordered
to pay such fees.
Noting that the imposition of costs and fees as a condition for
dismissing without prejudice is not mandatory, the Judge will
exercise the Court's discretion to refrain from ordering them.
Although she understands that attorneys' fees should be ordered to
deter duplicative litigation where a plaintiff intends to re-file
following dismissal, the Judge again relies on Ms. Buscema's
representation that that is not her intention in the instant case.
The Judge is also unpersuaded by the Defendants' argument that such
fees should be awarded where the federal litigation proved
unnecessary because they were the party that gave rise to the
federal litigation in the case by removing the case to the Court.
In sum, Judge Vazquez granted Ms. Buscema's Motion to Dismiss
Without Prejudice. The action is accordingly dismissed without
prejudice by order of the District Court pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://bit.ly/2IXlduL from
Leagle.com.
WALLER ENTERPRISE: Approval of Notice to Drivers Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alan Bowers, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, v. Waller Enterprise, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02005-JRA (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff Alan
Bowers moves the Court for an Order authorizing him to send notice
of the pendency of this action to his similarly-situated
co-workers:
"all current and former delivery drivers employed at
Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores between the date three
years prior to filing of the original complaint and the
date of the Court's Order approving notice."
This is a wage-and-hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at Domino's Pizza franchise stores owned by the
Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' pizza delivery
drivers are all employed according to the same terms: they receive
minimum wage minus a tip credit for all hours worked while
completing deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver the
Defendants' pizzas, and they are not properly reimbursed for their
delivery related expenses. The Plaintiff claims that these
employment terms result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act. To operate its business, the Defendants need automobiles to
deliver their pizzas. Instead of maintaining a fleet of cars
themselves, the Defendants require their minimum-wage delivery
drivers to supply safe, functioning, insured cars to use at work,
the Plaintiff alleges.
A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion to Send Notice to Similarly
Situated Employees is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2SwMJ3w at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Spencer, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
WALT DISNEY: Pay-Equity Class Action Lawsuit Takes Legal Turn
-------------------------------------------------------------
foxbusiness.com report6s that the Walt Disney Co. is dealing with
new developments in the pay-equity class-action lawsuit the House
of Mouse was slapped with in 2019.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge requested on Sept. 25 that
Disney provide an outline of the private documents that detail how
their corporate compensation is doled out.
In a statement, a Disney spokesperson tells FOX Business:
"This is a routine discovery dispute common to litigation of this
type. We will provide the additional detail the court requires and
await the court's final determination on these issues."
Walt Disney Studios employees LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore
began the legal action on April 3 in an attempt to gain back pay,
lost benefits and other compensation.
It was revealed that Disney hired consultants in 2017 to perform a
pay equity study within the company and now the plaintiffs want to
see the documents. The order pertains to just an outline.
Shawna Swanson, part of the general counsel at Disney, hired firm
Willis Towers Watson to conduct the study, which included 33
employees, but Disney is arguing that the findings fall under
attorney-client privilege.
Disney is facing two major lawsuits from workers - one involving
gender-based pay discrimination toward female employees and a
second on pay equity at Disneyland.
Fighting Off 2 Potential Class-Action Lawsuits In California
In December, a group of Disneyland workers filed a class-action
lawsuit claiming the Anaheim resort is violating a 2018 city ballot
measure by failing to pay its workers a living wage. The group
claims Disneyland has violated the requirements of "Measure L,"
which mandates that any hospitality business located in Anaheim's
resort district and benefiting from a city subsidy must pay workers
a minimum of $15 an hour.
DISNEY CAN BE SUED BY BILL NYE 'THE SCIENCE GUY' JUDGE RULES
Disney did agree with some union workers in 2018 to increase its
minimum wage to $15. But the workers who filed suit say either
through that agreement or through "Measure L" the raise for them
has not occurred.
"We kept looking at our paystub every week for the first month or
two," Tom Bray, a bellman at the Disneyland Hotel, told LAist.
"Eventually we figured, OK, they're not going to pay us."
Get Fox Business On The Go By Clicking Here
The "Measure L" minimum wage rule applies to employers that receive
publicly funded subsidies, such as tax rebates, from the City of
Anaheim. Disney spokesperson Liz Jaeger told LAist, "The union
coalition is well aware that the city attorney has previously
looked at this issue and clearly stated that Measure L does not
apply to the Disneyland Resort." [GN]
WARREN DISTRIBUTING: Denial of Vazquez Class Certification Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DIANA VAZQUEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
WARREN DISTRIBUTING, INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents. HUGO
GALLEGOS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STREET CITY
LOGISTICS et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case Nos. B292573,
B292575 (Cal. App.), a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Second District, Division Four:
(i) affirmed the trial court's order striking most of the
Plaintiffs' declarations and dismissing their Private
Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") claim; and
(ii) reversed the trial court's order denying class
certification.
Defendant and Respondent Warren Distributing is an auto parts
distributor. It is headquartered in Santa Fe Springs and has eight
additional satellite warehouses throughout Southern California.
Warren uses delivery drivers to transport auto parts among its
warehouses and to its customers. Warren "outsources" some of its
delivery driving duties to other entities. It pays the entities,
and the entities in turn pay the drivers. Those entities have
included, at various points in time, Defendants and Respondents
Millennium Transportation, Inc., Street City Logistics ("SCL"), and
Street City Transportation, Inc. ("SCT").
The Plaintiffs and Appellants in these consolidated wage and hour
actions worked as delivery drivers. Using their personal vehicles,
they transported automobile parts throughout the Los Angeles area
for Defendant Warren. Warren contracted for the Plaintiffs'
services with the SCL, SCT, and Millennium, which either employed
or independently contracted with the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to adequately
reimburse their driving-related expenses, which resulted in their
pay effectively falling beneath the minimum wage. They further
allege that defendants lacked or failed to communicate policies
governing meal and rest periods, failed to timely provide them with
their meal breaks, and willfully failed to timely pay them their
final wages.
On June 23, 2014, named Plaintiffs Gallegos and Miguel Chulde,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a
complaint against SCL, SCT, and 20 Doe Defendants. The Gallegos
Plaintiffs alleged they were employed by SCL and its alter ego SCT
as delivery drivers for Warren beginning on or about March 10,
2013. Gallegos was terminated from his employment in November
2013, but Chulde remained employed at the time the complaint was
filed.
The Gallegos Plaintiffs asserted five causes of action based on
this alleged conduct: conversion, failure to timely pay earned
wages during employment and upon separation therefrom, failure to
reimburse expenses, failure to pay wages on regularly established
paydays, and unfair business practices. They sought to represent a
class of similarly situated individuals, and to recover civil
penalties under PAGA.
On Sept. 18, 2015, named Plaintiffs Vazquez, Jennyfer Herrera,
Marcelino Solorzano Ascencio, and Regalado Villanueva de Guzman,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a
complaint against SCL, SCT, Warren, and 20 Doe Defendants. The
Vazquez Plaintiffs' allegations and claims were substantially
similar to those asserted by the Gallegos Plaintiffs. The Vazquez
Plaintiffs added allegations that they were misclassified as
independent contractors and should have been paid overtime wages.
They asserted causes of action for misclassification, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to pay wages on regularly established payday,
failure to reimburse expenses, conversion, and unfair business
practices. The Vazquez Plaintiffs sought class action treatment
and civil penalties under PAGA.
The Vazquez Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on Nov. 3,
2015. They added Millennium as a Defendant, alleging that it
provided delivery drivers to Warren until approximately March 2013.
On Dec. 15, 2015, the trial court consolidated the Gallegos and
Vazquez actions for certain purposes. The Gallegos Plaintiffs
appear to have served, but not filed, a first amended complaint on
March 9, 2016. Their first amended complaint added named
Plaintiffs and current drivers Humberto Rodriguez and Jose Munoz
and additional Defendants Warren and Millennium.
Both the Gallegos and Vazquez Plaintiffs served but apparently did
not file second amended complaints. The only material difference
between the two second amended complaints is that the second
amended Vazquez complaint included a cause of action alleging that
the Vazquez Plaintiffs were misclassified as independent
contractors, and the second amended Gallegos complaint did not.
Both second amended complaints asserted the following 12 causes of
action against all the Defendants, whom both sets of Plaintiffs
alleged were joint employers: (1) failure to pay minimum wage), (2)
failure to timely pay earned wages at separation of employment, (3)
failure to pay vested vacation upon termination, (4) failure to
provide meal and rest periods, (5) failure to reimburse expenses,
(6) failure to pay wages on regularly established paydays, (7)
failure to pay overtime compensation, (8) liquidated damages for
failure to pay minimum wage, (9) unfair business practices, (10)
conversion and theft of labor, (11) PAGA civil penalties, and (11)
failure to maintain records. All the named Defendants answered
both second amended complaints.
The Plaintiffs moved to certify two classes, one of employees and
one of allegedly misclassified independent contractors, and sought
civil penalties under the PAGA.
On Nov. 18, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify two
classes: an "Employee Driver Class" consisting of "All
California-based drivers performing services for Warren
Distributing, Inc. in California and paid as employees by Street
City Logistics, Inc., Street City Transportation, Inc., and/or
Millennium Transportation, Inc. during the time period of June 23,
2010 through the present"; and a "Contractor Driver Class"
consisting of "All California-based drivers performing services for
Warren Distributing, Inc. in California and paid as independent
contractors by Street City Logistics, Inc., Street City
Transportation, Inc., and/or Millennium Transportation, Inc. during
the time period of June 23, 2010 through the present."
They sought to certify all of the named Plaintiffs in the Gallegos
and Vazquez actions as the representatives of the class. They
supported their motion with declarations from the named Plaintiffs
and the putative class members. The trial court struck most of
their declarations, denied class certification, and dismissed their
PAGA claim as unmanageable on a class-wide basis.
The Plaintiffs contend each of these rulings was in error. First,
Plaintiffs contend the court violated their due process rights and
held them to an improper evidentiary standard when it struck all
but two of their declarations for failing to comply with the
translation rules set forth in California Rules of Court, rule
3.1110.
The Appellate Court disagrees, finding that the Plaintiffs had
ample notice and opportunity to obtain certified translations of
their declarations, and the trial court did not err in striking the
nonconforming submissions. The Plaintiffs could have obtained
certified translations of some or all of the Spanish declarations
during that time. They failed to do so, and were unable to provide
the trial court with a satisfactory explanation after litigating
the issue at the hearing. The trial court was not required to
grant them additional time to comply with a standard court rule.
Even if the trial court erred in failing to give the Plaintiffs the
promised seven days to submit certified translations before it
ruled on the motion, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs
have failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced. The trial
court contrasted the remaining declarations with the ample
deposition testimony directly contradicting them and concluded that
the meal break experiences Vazquez and Herrera described in their
declarations were "atypical." The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated
how the stricken declarations, which contained, nearly verbatim,
the same assertions as the Vazquez and Herrera declarations, would
have aligned with the depositions or otherwise demonstrated
typicality. The Appellate Court accordingly finds that the
Plaintiffs were not prejudiced.
Second, the Plaintiffs contend the trial court abused its
discretion by denying their motion for class certification. With
respect to their expense reimbursement claim, as well as the
minimum and final wage claims predicated on that claim, they argue
that the trial court misapplied the holding of Gattuso v.
Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) and erroneously concluded that
common issues of law and fact do not predominate.
Again, the Appellate Court disagrees, holding that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the individualized
inquiries necessary to litigate these claims rendered them
unmanageable and inappropriate for class certification. The
Appellate Court does not disagree that the trial court has the
inherent authority to assess the manageability of claims pending
before it, nor that it may dismiss claims that prove unmanageable.
However, in this particular instance, the trial court did not rely
on that authority but instead expressly imposed "class-wide"
manageability requirements on PAGA claims in connection with a
class certification motion. That was error, but it does not
preclude the trial court from revisiting the issue of the
manageability of the PAGA claims pursuant to its inherent authority
at some future point in the litigation.
With respect to their meal and rest period claims, the Plaintiffs
assert that the trial court improperly relied on their deposition
testimony attesting to receipt of the breaks rather than analyzing
their theories of liability. The Appellate Court rejects this
contention as to the meal period claim. The Appellate Court finds
that the court did not abuse its discretion by looking to the
depositions to conclude that the named Plaintiffs' claims were not
typical of the class. The Appellate Court agrees with the
Plaintiffs that the trial court erred with regard to their rest
period claim, however. The court did not address either the
Plaintiffs' theory of liability or the evidence. The Panel
therefore remand to allow the court to exercise discretion in
considering certification on the rest period claim.
Finally, the Panel agrees with the Plaintiffs that the trial court
erred in dismissing their PAGA claim as unmanageable on a
class-wide basis. The Plaintiffs are not required to satisfy class
action requirements to pursue civil penalties for Labor Code
violations in a representative PAGA action. The Panel accordingly
reverses the order with respect to the PAGA claim and the rest
period claim, and remands for further proceedings.
Accordingly, Judge Audrey B. Collins, writing for the Appellate
Panel, ruled that the order denying class certification is reversed
as to the Plaintiffs' rest period claim and dismissal of their PAGA
claims. The remainder of the order is affirmed. On remand, the
trial court is to reconsider the motion to certify a class on the
rest break claim and articulate the reasoning for its decision.
The parties are to bear their own costs of appeal.
A full-text copy of the Appellate Court's July 10, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://bit.ly/31A43to from Leagle.com.
Strauss & Strauss, Michael A. Strauss -- mike@strausslawyers.com;
Mostafavi Law Group, Amir Mostafavi for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan, Sue M. Bendavid --
SBendavid@lewitthackman.com -- and Nicholas Kanter --
NKanter@lewitthackman.com -- for Defendant and Respondent Warren
Distributing, Inc.
Kaufman McAndrew, Stephen F. McAndrew; Miller Law Partners, Lee A.
Miller -- lmiller@millerlawpartners.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent Street City Logistics, Inc. and Street City
Transportation, Inc.
WESTPAC: Settlement Agreement Good News for Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Grieve, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that the principal lawyer leading a class action against the
country's second largest bank has said the mammoth settlement
agreement over its money laundering charges would spell good news
for claimants.
Tim Finney, director of Melbourne law firm Phi Finney McDonald,
said the $1.3 billion penalty agreement between Westpac and the
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) would
now put pressure on the bank to settle its other lawsuits.
"The size of the settlement with AUSTRAC indicates the value of the
class action claim is substantial, very substantial relative to the
normal size of these cases," Mr Finney said.
Thousands of Westpac shareholders had signed up through the open
class action against the bank, and Mr Finney said Westpac's
admission of wrongdoing as part of its Austrac settlement would
also assist their case.
"It would be unusual for Westpac to admit something in the AUSTRAC
proceeding and not admit that in the class action," Mr Finney said.
"It certainly may assist a settlement."
The bank declined to comment.
Westpac was hit with three shareholder class actions where lawyers
allege the bank failed to properly warn investors of the risk
involved in AUSTRAC's investigation into the bank over breaches of
anti-money laundering laws.
American investor rights firm Rosen filed a similar class action in
January. Another case brought by Johnson Winter & Slattery has been
merged with the Phi Finney McDonald claim.
Westpac reached a landmark agreement with AUSTRAC, where it
acknowledged systemic failures in its technology and management
resulted in a failure to properly vet 19.6 million international
payments, some linked to child exploitation in the Philippines.
In a prospectus released prior to Westpac's November capital raise,
the bank disclosed a "key risk" as a failure to report a "large
number" of transactions to the regulator and the bank could face
litigation and reputational damage.
The class actions allege the bank breached its continuous
disclosure obligations by failing to inform shareholders of the
extent and scope of these risks.
AUSTRAC's chief executive Nicole Rose said the bank's misconduct
had meant law enforcement agencies missed critical intelligence
needed to support police investigations.
When AUSTRAC first lodged its statement of claim in the Federal
Court last November, mounting investor pressure for accountability
forced chief executive Brian Hartzer to resign and chair Lindsay
Maxsted to bring forward his retirement. [GN]
WHITEFEATHER HOLDINGS: Class Status Sought for Dancers' Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Cati French, et al., v.
Whitefeather Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-0349-TUC-RCC
(D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally
certifying this case as collective action and allowing notice of
this action to be sent to:
"dancers who have performed at the defendants' club Venom in
the past three years."
On August 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs brought this action seeking to
recover wages owed to them and other dancers who have been
classified as independent contractors at Venom under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants misclassified them and
other dancers as independent contractors when, in fact, the dancers
are the Defendants' employees under federal law. As a result of
this misclassification, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
have violated the FLSA by failing to pay dancers any wages (minimum
or overtime), requiring dancers to pay kickback fees in order to
work, and forcing dancers to "tip out" ineligible employees,
management and back to the club as well.
The Plaintiffs Cati French, Ivoryonna L. Dean-Davis, and Alexia
Chavez worked as exotic dancers at Venom, an adult entertainment
venue in Tucson, Arizona. The club is owned and operated by
Whitefeather.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33TydcS at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Samuel R. Randall, Esq.
RANDALL LAW PLLC
4742 N. 24th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 328-0262
E-mail: srandall@randallslaw.com
WHOLE FOODS: Mitchell Sues Over Deceptive 'Organic 365' Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mandell Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-08496 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2020), contends that the
Defendant's branding and packaging of Organic 365 brand (Product)
is designed to -- and does -- deceive, mislead, and defraud
plaintiff and consumers.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant sold more of the Product and at
higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct,
resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers like
him. The value of the Product that he purchased and consumed was
materially less than its value as represented by the Defendant. Had
he and class members known the truth, they would not have bought
the Product or would have paid less for them, he adds.
According to the complaint, Whole Foods manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells vanilla ice cream bars purporting to be
dipped in chocolate and covered with almonds under the Organic 365
brand (Product). Though Defendant may not be the actual
manufacturer of the Product, it subcontracts third-parties to
manufacture the Product at its express instructions, direction and
control subject to a "supplier" or "co-packer" agreement.
The Product is marketed under defendant's private label Organic 365
Everyday Value Brand, for which Defendant has exclusive control of
the final labeling. The Product is available to consumers from the
defendant's retail stores, its website and Amazon.com and is sold
in 3 OZ bars in packages of three. The relevant front label
representations include "Organic 365," "Chocolate & Almond,"
"Vanilla Ice Cream Bars," "Organic Vanilla Ice Cream Dipped in
Organic Chocolate & Almonds," "Chocolate Coating," "Decadent" and
an image of the Product.
The Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the Product within his
district and/or State for personal consumption and/or use in
reliance on the representations the Product contained milk
chocolate, understood as not containing vegetable oils. He
purchased the Product at the Defendant's stores, including the
location at 4 Union Square E S, New York, NY 10003, during 2019 and
2020.
The Plaintiff Mandell Mitchell is a citizen of Bronx, Bronx County,
New York.
The Defendant operates over 500 high-end grocery stores, which
sells high-value groceries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
WM BOLTHOUSE: Settlement in Felix Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC FELIX, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No.: 1:19-cv-00312-AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California (i) granted Felix's motion for final approval of the
class action settlement, and (ii) granted in part the Plaintiff's
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs from the
Settlement fund; a class representative enhancement; and costs for
settlement administration.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Jan. 7,
2020. On May 4, 2020, the Court issued a Findings and
Recommendation ("F&R") to grant the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the class settlement, and to grant in part the
Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs and class
representative incentive payment, providing the parties 14 days to
file any objections to the recommendation. In addition, the
parties were advised that their failure to file objections within
the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
Court's order. To date, no objections have been filed and the time
period for doing so has expired.
Having carefully reviewed the file, Judge Ishii finds the F&R is
generally supported by the record and proper analysis. However,
there is one part of the F&R's analysis the Judge will respectfully
decline to adopt. The F&R relied on prevailing rates for attorneys
in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California as
part of the evaluation of an attorney's fee award. It was
improper. Judge Ishii finds that the applicable hourly rates for
an attorney's fee award are the prevailing rates for the forum in
which the court sits.
The Court sits in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of
California. The prevailing rates outside of the Fresno Division,
including the prevailing rates for the Sacramento Division, are
generally irrelevant. Subject to some exceptions, in the Fresno
Division, attorneys with 20 or more years of experience generally
are awarded between $325 and $400 per hour, attorneys with 10 to 20
years of experience are awarded between $250 and $350, attorneys
with five to 10 years of experience are generally awarded between
$200 and $300 per hour, and attorneys with less the five years of
experience are generally awarded between $150 and $200 per hour.
The Judge will apply this range to the attorneys' fees requested.
As the F&R notes, the Plaintiff's firm successfully specializes in
labor and wage related class actions and has been practicing in
this area of law for twenty years. Eric Kingsley is the managing
partner of the Plaintiff' firm and has been practicing law since
1996. Justin Aufderhar graduated from law school in 2016 and is an
associate attorney. Jessica L. Adlouni graduated from law school
in 2019 and is an associate attorney at the Plaintiff's firm.
Finally, Kelsey Szamet has been practicing law since 2008 and
appears to be an associate at the Plaintiff's firm. Ms. Szamet has
done the most work on the case.
After consideration, the Judge finds that the following rates are
appropriate and consistent with the prevailing rates in Fresno:
Eric Kingsley - $400 per hour, Kelsey Szamet - $300, Justin
Aufderhar - $190, Jessica Adlouni - $150. He will not adjust the
hours claimed. So applying these rates, the fees for Mr. Kingsley
total $2,560 ($400 x 6.4), the fees for Ms. Szamet total $12,540
($300 x 41.8), the fees for Mr. Aufderhar total $4,199 ($190 x
22.1), the fees for Ms. Adlouni total $2,565 ($150 x 17.1). The
lodestar figure for attorneys' fees is $21,864.
The F&R calculated a fee award of $26,395 using Sacramento hourly
rates. However, the F&R recognized that the amount is below the
Ninth Circuit's approved benchmark, 25% of the total settlement.
The F&R found that an appropriate fee award would be an award at
the 25% benchmark and recommended a total fee award of $29,568.75.
The F&R's recommendation of an award based on the 25% benchmark is
appropriate. Therefore, while he respectfully declines to adopt
the lodestar figure of the F&R, the Judge will adopt the ultimate
recommendation and award attorneys' fees in the amount of
$29,568.75.
Otherwise, the Judge adopts all other aspects of the F&R.
Accordingly, Judge Ishii adopted the F&R. Judge Ishii granted the
Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Ishii granted the Plaintiff's request for certification of
the Settlement Class, and defined as:
All applicants in the United States who filled out WM.
Bolthouse Farms, Inc.'s standard 'Consent to Request Consumer
Report & Investigative Consumer Report Information' form as
administered by Sterling Infosystems Inc. during the Class
Period.
The Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees is granted in the
amount of $29,568.75, which is 25% of the gross settlement amount.
The Class Counsel's request for costs is also granted in the amount
of $931.11.
The request for fees for the Settlement Administrator JND Legal
Administration is granted in the amount of $18,500; as well as the
Plaintiff's request for class representative incentive payment in
the modified amount of $1,500.
The action is dismissed with prejudice with each side to bear its
own costs and attorneys' fees, except as otherwise provided by the
Settlement and ordered by the Court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 7, 2020 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3oj6cU4 from Leagle.com.
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds 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 Wrap Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WRTC). 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.
Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRTC)
Class Period: July 31, 2020 to September 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 23, 2020
On September 23, 2020, White Diamond Research published a report
entitled "Wrap Technologies: Disastrous LAPD BolaWrap Pilot Program
Results, No Evidence These Have Been Communicated To Investors"
alleging, among other things, that the Company's trial pilot
program with the LAPD was a disaster, and that the Company had not
disclosed the results to investors.
On this news, securities of Wrap fell $2.07 per share, or 25.43% to
close at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020.
The complaint, filed on September 23, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants 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.
For more information on the Wrap Technologies class action go to:
https://bespc.com/WRTC
About Bragar Eagel
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. [GN]
YAYYO INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Plaintiff Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of YayYo, Inc. (OTC Pink: YAYO)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with YayYo's November 2019 initial public offering (the
"IPO") of the important November 9, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
the federal class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for YayYo investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the YayYo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.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, the Registration Statement featured false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
defendant El-Batrawi continued to exercise supervision, authority,
and control over YayYo, and was intimately involved, on a
day-to-day basis, with the business, operations, and finances of
the Company, including assisting the Underwriter Defendants in
marketing YayYo's IPO; (2) defendant El-Batrawi never sold the
12,525,000 "Private Shares" and continued to own a controlling
interest in YayYo despite the NASDAQ's insistence that he retain
less than a 10% equity ownership interest in connection with the
listing agreement; (3) defendants promised certain creditors of
YayYo that in exchange to their agreeing to purchase shares in the
IPO - in order to permit the Underwriter defendants to close the
IPO - YayYo would repurchase those shares after the IPO; (4)
defendants intended to repurchase shares purchased by creditors of
YayYo in the IPO using IPO proceeds: (5) YayYo owed its former
President, CEO, and Director a half of million dollars at the time
of the IPO; (6) YayYo owed SRAX, Inc. (formerly Social Reality,
Inc.) $426,286 in unpaid social media costs, most of which was more
than a year overdue as payment had been delayed while YayYo
attempted to complete its IPO; and (7) as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's 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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November
9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1915.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.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.
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]
ZURICH AMERICAN: Refuses to Pay COVID-19 Claims, Lindenwood Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDENWOOD FEMALE COLLEGE d/b/a LINDENWOOD UNIVERSITY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-01503 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 16,
2020), is a class action for declaratory judgment and breach of
contract arising from the Defendant's refusal to pay claims related
to COVID-19 as required by the property insurance policies it sold
to Plaintiff and other institutions of higher education.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of their claim
for coverage is not unique. Based on other lawsuits and other
publicly available information, it appears that the Defendant is
taking a consistent position with other insureds -- including other
higher education institutions -- across the country.
According to the Defendant, COVID-19 cannot under any set of facts
or circumstances cause physical loss of or damage to property
within the meaning of the Policy. The Defendant also contends the
Policy includes a "Contamination" exclusion that applies and
defeats any COVID-19 related coverage claim.
The Defendant's position on coverage under the Policy is wrong as
to the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated insureds, the
complaint says.
According to information published by the Insurance Information
Institute, the U.S. insurance industry collected net premiums of
$1.22 trillion in 2018. Premiums recorded by property/casualty
insurers accounted for 51% of that amount. Between 2014 and 2018,
these insurers wrote net premiums each year of between $497 billion
to $612.6 billion but only incurred losses of between $277.7
billion and $360.9 billion.
Lindenwood Female College is a private liberal arts college. It was
founded in 1827 and is the second-oldest institution of higher
education west of the Mississippi River.
Zurich American operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers
property and casualty insurance products including automobile,
motorcycle, homeowner, and mobile home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
Todd M. McGuire, Esq.
Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
Curtis Shank, Esq.
Abby E. McClellan, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: 816 714-7100
Facsimile: 816 714-7101
E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
mcguire@stuevesiegel.com
wilders@stuevesiegel.com
shank@stuevesiegel.com
mcclellan@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
mlytle@millerschirger.com
jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
- and -
J. Kent Emison, Esq.
LANGDON & EMISON LLC
911 Main Street
PO Box 220
Lexington, MO 64067
Telephone: (660) 259-6175
Facsimile: (660) 259-4571
E-mail: kent@lelaw.com
- and -
Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN, P.C.
2001 Wyandotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: 816-931-0500
Facsimile: 816-931-5775
E-mail: rlombardo@sls-law.com
[*] D&O Insurers Big Enough to Handle Pandemic Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that as claims related to the economic
fallout from the pandemic emerge in the U.S. directors & officers
(D&O) liability insurance segment, insurers can expect the claims
to take several years to pay out and underwriting losses to
continue over the near term, according to Fitch Ratings.
However, there is limited risk to ratings of individual D&O
insurers as a result of pandemic-related claims, Fitch said, adding
that carriers with significant D&O premiums are larger, diversified
entities.
Also, recent pricing changes are supportive of improving
profitability post-pandemic, which will depend on the path of the
economic recovery.
According to Fitch, P/C insurers with exposure to D&O underwriting
are typically larger multiline insurers that can absorb or offset
potential losses with results from other segments. It is usually
offered as part of a suite of product offerings, representing
approximately 1% of total industry direct premiums. At the end of
2019, the 10 largest D&O writers held a combined 67% share of all
direct statutory premiums, and only 37 individual organizations
wrote greater than $10 million of D&O direct premiums.
Years of Losses
Underwriting performance for the segment has been hurt by many
years of competitive pricing and ongoing increases in
multimillion-dollar jury verdicts and claims settlements, as well
as rising defense-related costs. Fitch estimates the D&O has
reported statutory underwriting losses for three consecutive years
from 2017 through 2019, including a 106.6% direct combined ratio in
2019.
Despite renewal rate pricing skyrocketing, results remain under
pressure with the direct incurred loss ratio rising to 62% in the
first half of this year, the highest midyear level in 10 years. The
Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers commercial market survey
indicates that D&O renewal rates moved 16.8% in 2Q20 versus a 4.3%
increase in 2Q19. Rates on excess coverage layers are increasing at
a higher rate.
"Direct written premiums increased by 22.5% for the first half
compared to the same period last year, with "pricing momentum
poised to propel revenue growth through 2021," Fitch said. "Changes
in underwriters' risk appetite are leading them to raise insured
retentions and lowering policy limits offered that are creating
challenges in placing excess layers and larger programs."
The pandemic represents a potential for D&O claims including
allegations against leadership of companies experiencing
shareholder value declines or insolvencies from the economic
fallout of the pandemic. Organizations that failed to protect
employees or customers from exposure to the virus or serious
illness could also face claims as could businesses creating
protective products or vaccines.
In recent years, D&O claims have also emerged in areas including
cyber events and employment practices matters where alleged
negligence or poor governance practices effected corporate
reputations or generated material financial losses. These can lead
to more allegations of a lack of management oversight of
information system security and lax risk management. Class action
filings related to cryptocurrencies are also a recent phenomenon.
[GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson & Johnson to Pay $100MM in Powder Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reports that pharmaceutical
giant Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay more than $100 million to
settle more than a thousand lawsuits claiming its iconic talc-based
baby powder caused cancer, according to Bloomberg News.
The settlement stems from burgeoning litigation after earlier
asbestos-contaminated talc was found in one of its products.
Johnson & Johnson, the world's largest maker of health care
merchandise, recalled 33,000 bottles of its baby powder in 2019,
"out of an abundance of caution."
It also stopped selling talc-based baby powder the same year in the
United States and Canada, switching to a cornstarch-based product.
This will be the first time Johnson & Johnson has settled lawsuits
in bulk involving talc contamination. It previously settled only
individual cases before or during trial.
J&J Still Insists Products Are Safe
The settlement involved several law firms across the country,
including the Lanier Law Firm, which won a US$4.7 billion verdict
in 2018 against Johnson & Johnson. That award was cut to US$2.1
billion on appeal and is being appealed again in the Supreme Court
of Missouri.
This settlement, according to Bloomberg, resolves most all of
Lanier's remaining cases against J&J.
Despite this latest settlement, Johnson & Johnson continues to
insist its product are safe to use and the contamination found was
an isolated case.
"Scientific evidence by medical experts around the world shows that
our talc is safe and does not cause cancer," Kim Montagnino, Global
Corporate Media Relations director for J&J, said in an email.
"However, in certain circumstances, we do choose to settle
lawsuits, which is done without an admission of liability and in no
way changes our position regarding the safety of our products. Our
talc is safe, does not contain asbestos and does not cause
cancer."
Even after this latest settlement, J&J is still facing an estimated
20,000 talc-related lawsuits, which Bloomberg estimated would cost
US$10 billion to settle.
The majority of contaminated talc lawsuits involve women who used
the product for many years and developed ovarian cancer. A small
percentage of the cases involve malignant mesothelioma, a more
aggressive cancer caused almost exclusively by exposure to
asbestos.
Contaminated talc stems from the mining of the product, which often
is found on the earth's surface near asbestos, another naturally
occurring mineral.
Internal J&J documents have shown that company executives have
known for decades that trace amounts of asbestos had been found in
the talc, but they failed to alert consumers.
Mesothelioma Cases Are Growing
The company has adamantly claimed that any asbestos present is
removed in the manufacturing process and has cleared the most
stringent scientific testing.
The safety of talc, and the presence of asbestos, has been debated
vigorously by lawyers and scientists.
Different testing methods have revealed conflicting results.
The 2019 recall by J&J, for example, came after U.S. Food and Drug
Administration scientists discovered traces of asbestos in one
bottle. Johnson & Johnson later said its own test of the same
bottle showed no trace of asbestos.
J&J's decision to move from talc-based to cornstarch-based baby
powder has been part of a recent trend among all users of talc,
including cosmetic manufacturers.
The presence of talc also is changing traditional asbestos-related
lawsuits, which once were dominated by working-class exposure to
the mineral and mesothelioma.
According to KCIC, a consulting firm in Washington, D.C., that
manages asbestos product liabilities, almost 600 cases involving
contaminated talc and mesothelioma will be filed in 2020.
J&J is scheduled to face its next case involving
asbestos-contaminated talc beginning Oct. 13 in California, where
Rosalino Reyes III says he used the baby powder for almost 50 years
before being diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2019.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Malta Dockyard Victims to Receive Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Azzopardi at MaltaToday reports that the government announces
compensation scheme for asbestos victims and their families.
Shipyard workers or their families who got sick because of asbestos
will be receiving compensation.
Finance Minister Edward Scicluna said government is currently in
talks with former dockyard employees to pave the way forward.
"Government is expecting that when all facts are in hand,
appropriate compensation is granted to the former employees and
their families," Scicluna said, MaltaToday notes.
A number of shipyard workers had in 2015 sued the Director General
of Public Health, the CEO of the Occupational Health and Safety
Authority and the Attorney General in 2015 over claims that they
were exposed to the carcinogenic asbestos at their place of work.
They claimed to have been exposed to the carcinogenic material
without adequate safety precautions being taken, despite it being a
known fact that inhaling asbestos fibres caused cancer.
The asbestos mineral was commonly used in the manufacturing
industry for its resilience to damage by heat, electricity and
chemicals. In the 1970s, it was discovered to be highly
carcinogenic and was widely banned.
As it has been doing in the past years, government will also be
allocating EUR9 million for 5,500 people from various entities who
have passed through past injustices.
*********
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 ***