/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201111.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 226 Headlines 4BUSH HOLDINGS: Bacon Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: Elbert Appeals Ruling to 8th Circuit ALFRED UNIVERSITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Claims ALLEN BROTHERS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Paguada Says ALOHA POOLS: Schroeder Seeks Overtime Pay for Service Technicians AMA 2 CORP: Faces Gonzalez Suit in Florida Over FLSA Violation AMAZON WEB: McGoveran Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection AMGEN INC: Antitrust Suit over Humira(R) Biosimilar Ongoing AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Challenge Dismissal Recommendation APPLE INC: McCloskey Sues Over Illegal Casino-Style Mobile Games APPLE INC: Payton Sues Over Illegal Gambling Games on App Store APPLE INC: Software Code Surges Cellular Data Usage, Turner Claims ARBELLA MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Prater Alleges Misleading Product Labels ARMISTICE CAPITAL: Jaquith Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties BANK OF AMERICA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Cantero Class Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Hymes Class Suit BARRETT BUSINESS: Faces Walker Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices BIKE BANDIT: Faces Angeles Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation BILL'S HEATING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Wolthers Suit Says BILOXI HMA: Henley Appeals S.D. Miss. Ruling to 5th Circuit BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Ignacuinos Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit BRILLIANCE NEW: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Arkansas PERS Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir. BULLDOG ONLINE: Martinez Sues Over Automatic Renewal Law Violation CALIFORNIA GRILL: Headrick Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Warn Passengers About COVID-19, Nahm Says CARRIER GLOBAL: Facing Darnis Putative Class Suit CASE WESTERN: Lozada Seeks Tuition Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19 CCC INFORMATION: Undervalues Insureds' Loss Vehicles, Niemis Says CEVA LOGISTICS: Faces Newton Wage & Hour Suit in Cal. State Court CHARLES COUNTY, MD: Gamble Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation CHELSEA LAUNDRY: Faces Aviles Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y CHEMOURS COMPANY: Priselac Suit Removed to E.D. California CHINA: Christenson Appeals Ruling in Reyes Suit to 11th Circuit CHOBANI LLC: Nacarino Sues Over False Vanilla Labelling in Yogurt CITY CHEVROLET: Gray Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls CNA FINANCIAL: Taiclet Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage Claims COMPSOURCE MUTUAL: Freds Tire Balks at Unlawful Insurance Coverage CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Mullen Alleges ADA Violation CONTRA COSTA, CA: Farrow Files Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court COOPERATIVE REGIONS: Collishaw Sues Over Misleading Product Labels CROWN CORK: Mimnaugh Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees CVS HEALTH: Mier Suit over Hand Sanitizers Moved to C.D. Calif. D. LOVES RESTAURANTS: Riley Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices DAY & ZIMMERMANN: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Waters Suit EAST COAST: Helwing Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit ELECTRIC BLUE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Lopez Claims ELECTRONIC EXPRESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Claims ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Pelletier Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. EVOLUS INC: Malakouti Sues Over 37% Decline in Share Price FIRST NATIONAL: Lara Appeals Auto Insurance Suit to Ninth Circuit FOLGER COFFEE: Number of Servings Misleading, Tan Claims FREDDIE MAC: Ohio Public Employees Appeal Ruling to 6th Circuit GANNETT PUBLISHING: Aronson Appeals Labor Suit Ruling to 9th Cir. GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas Sues Over Monopoly in Digital Ads Market GOOGLE LLC: McNamara Sues Over Android Mobile App Market Monopoly HARLAND CLARKE: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Says HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Weiss Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses HEALTHY BEVERAGE: Pierre Sues Over 'Lightly Sweetened' Label HENRY SCHEIN: Dropped as Defendant in Marion Diagnostic Suit HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Pending HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement in Salkowitz Securities Suit Now Final HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: Duran Seeks Conditional Class Certification HILTON WORLDWIDE: Winnie Appeals D. P.R. Ruling to First Circuit HM SANDOVAL: Faces Morales Employment Suit in Calif. State Court INSPERITY INC: Defends Building Trades Pension Fund Suit INSPERITY INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on March 2021 IQVIA INC: Appeals Order in Mussat TCPA Suit to Supreme Court JAKOV DULCICH: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in Cal. State Court JP CYCLES: Faces Johnson-Owen Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices JPMORGAN CHASE: Quinn Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit KING-TILLER LLC: Fields Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation LIBERTY MUTUAL: Penegar Sues Over Unreimbursed Medicare Claims LIVE WELL: Shakespeare Appeals E.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chapman Claims LOWE'S HOME: McPhee Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Fourth Circuit MARKEL AMERICAN: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims MARKOFF LAW: Faces Fleming FDCA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Misclassifies IT Personnel, Walker Suit Claims MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY: Delisle Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois MD CBD: Marantz Sues Over Rent Overcharge MDL 2796: Audubon Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 9th Circuit MDL 2878: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes MDL 2977: Haff Poultry Seeks to Transfer and Consolidate 4 Cases MERRIMACK MUTUAL: Collins Sues Over Deceptive Insurance Policies MEXGROCER.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Claims MIDLAND CREDIT: Cabrales Appeals N.D. Tex. Ruling to 5th Circuit MIDLAND CREDIT: Ortiz Consumer Credit Suit Removed to W.D. Tex. MISTER BEE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Claims MIZUHO BANK: Laydon Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit MODELL'S SPORTING: Faces Kretschman Class Suit in New Jersey MODERN FACILITIES: Padilla Alleges Unlawful Wage Pay for Janitors MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cruz Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Colorado Suit Pending MRS BPO: Macaraeg Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 7th Circuit NATIONAL AUTO: Faces Webster Suit in Connecticut Superior Court NOBILIS HEALTH: Yang Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 5th Cir. NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Marshall Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir. NOVA CASUALTY: LF Personal Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage NOVO FITNESS: Fails to Pay OT to Fitness Studio Staff, Mixon Says OFFICE DEPOT: Moran Balks at Deceptive Marketing of Leather Chairs OLD LYME: Wong Files Fraud Suit in N.D. California ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Moon Appeals Ruling in ADA Suit to 9th Circuit OVERSTOCK.COM: Mangrove Partners Appeals Ruling to 10th Cir. PANDORA MEDIA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Flo & Eddie Copyright Suit PHOENIX LEATHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid for Lead Plaintiff in UFCW Suit Pending PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Plant Workers Suit Granted PILGRIMS PRIDE: Facing New Mexico Attorney General Suit PILGRIMS PRIDE: Grower Litig. Underway in Okla., Colo. and Kansas PILGRIMS PRIDE: Oct. 2022 Trial in Illinois Broiler Chicken Suit PIONEER CREDIT: Tavernaro Appeals Order in FDCPA Suit to 10th Cir. PRIMAL NUTRITION: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims QUAID HARLEY: Sentry Select Files Insurance Suit in C.D. Calif. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vecchio Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir. RENTSPREE INC: Faces Brown Suit Over Background Checks REZULT GROUP: Stallworth Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Amigon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices SAGINAW, MI: Alcona County Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit to 6th Cir. SAGINAW, MI: Alpena County Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit to 6th Cir. SCIOTO DOWNS: Neal Suit in Ohio Alleges ADA Violation SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Beach Glo Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims SEAWORLD PARKS: Kouball Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Cir. SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces Koustis Suit Over Alleged RESPA Violations SHELTER MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims SIGMA DINER: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SIMON & SCHUSTER: Mejico Balks at Subscriptions' Automatic Renewal SOUTH SHORE: Underpays Non-exempt Workers, Perez et al. Allege SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending SPECIALTY PROMOTIONS: Citizens Files Insurance Suit in Illinois SQUARE INC: Faces Thorne Suit Over Denial of Fraud Dispute Claims ST. ANTHONY: Thompson Appeals Judgment to Minn. Appeals Court STATE FARM: Faces Rosenberg-Wohl Suit Over Denied Insurance Claim SUNOCO INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cline Class Suit SUNWORKS INC: Hoang Calls Company Sale to Peck Co. "Unfair" TACTILE SYSTEMS: Mart Securities Class Suit Ongoing TELEBRANDS CORP: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York TITAN STAFFING: Facing Arredondo Class Suit in NY State Court TRADER JOE'S: Robie Alleges Misleading Cereal Product Labels TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Treasuries Securities Suits Pending TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Peek Appeals Thompson Case Ruling to 9th Cir. TRAVEL RESORTS: Harris TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida UNISYS CORP: Kelley Seeks Collective Status of Managers' Suit UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Scholl Prisoner Suit UNITED STATES: Cleveland Square Appeals Order to Federal Circuit UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in Samma Suit UNITED STATES: Faces Wilcox Prisoner Rights Suit in W.D. Michigan UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Santiago Suit in State Court VALARIS PLC: Zhang Class Action Stayed Amid Bankrụptcy Filing VALLEY BROOK, OK: Hill Seeks Refund of Tickets & Citations VELLOSO & SANTOS: Buzzi et al. Seek Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT VILLAGE GREEN: Fails to Pay OT to Service Managers, Manco Claims VISION SERVICE: Faces Schmidt Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices WALMART INC: Hellige Appeals S.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Brezinski Files Class Suit in Pennsylvania WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Related to BolaWrap Ongoing XTO ENERGY: Fredericksburg Balks at Untimely Gas Royalty Payments YIELDSTREET INC: Paguada Seeks Blind Users' Full Access to Website ********* 4BUSH HOLDINGS: Bacon Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRACY BACON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. JARED FORBUSH, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-09853 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2020) arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants contacted her on her cellular telephone in an attempt to solicit customers to purchase CBD oils and products, in or around January 2020. She asserts that the Defendants continued to send multiple messages even without her consent or permission using an "automated telephone dialing system." The Defendants' conduct violated the TCPA and invade the Plaintiff's and putative class members' right to privacy, the suit says. Jared Forbush is the chief executive and registered agent of 4Bush Holdings, LLC, a Utah limited liability company with its principal place of business in South Kaysville, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT: Elbert Appeals Ruling to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Rich Elbert et al. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RICH ELBERT; JEFF A. KOSEK; REICHMANN LAND & CATTLE LLP; LUDOWESE A.E. INC.; and MICHAEL STAMER; individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, and FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01574-JRT-TNL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On June 5, 2017, a group of farmers and incorporated farms filed suit against a number of insurance companies, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Risk Management Agency, and the Federal Crop Insurance Corp. The Plaintiffs are dry bean farmers in Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota who have not received indemnity for crop insurance to which they believe they are entitled. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action on behalf of all dry bean farmers in Michigan (navy pea beans and small red beans), Minnesota (dark red kidney beans), and North Dakota (dark red kidney beans). Each Plaintiff purchased Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement ("DRBE") crop insurance for their dry bean crops in 2015. The purpose of this insurance was to protect dry bean farmers against a market price decline. However, even though dry bean market prices declined greatly in 2015, no indemnity was paid to the Plaintiffs. In July 2018, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment invalidating certain administrative determinations related to the DBRE, reforming or invaliding the insurance contracts, and ordering the Defendants to pay indemnity to them. The Minnesota Plaintiffs brought a Motion for Summary Judgment in September 2019, arguing that as a matter of law, the Defendants acted arbitrarily and capriciously in not setting a harvest price when Watts and Associates, Inc., an economic consulting firm, failed to determine the harvest price for dark-red kidney beans. On August 21, 2020, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. The District Court also denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss but granted their Motion for Summary Judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Rich Ebert, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al., Case No. 20-3073, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Rich Elbert, et al., are represented by: John D. Tallman, Esq. JOHN D. TALLMAN, PLLC Suite 101 4020 East Beltline Avenue, N.E. Grand Rapids, MI 49525 Telephone: (616) 361-8850 ALFRED UNIVERSITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAIM SARWAR, Individually v. ALFRED UNIVERSITY SAXON INN & VP BUSINESS & FINANCE, A New York Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01517-WMS (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and is a "tester" for the purpose of asserting his civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation and their Websites are in compliance with the ADA. The Defendant owns a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the law. The place of public accommodation/property that the Defendant owns is a place of lodging known as Saxon Inn Alfred NY located in the County of Allegany. The complaint contends that the Plaintiff visited the property's Websites for the purpose of reviewing and assessing its accessible features and ascertain whether they meet the requirements of ADA and his accessibility needs. However, Mr. Sarwar was unable to do so because the Defendant failed to comply with the requirements set forth in ADA. Specifically, the Websites, which accept reservations for the hotel online, did not identify or allow for reservation of accessible guest rooms and did not provide sufficient information for disabled persons regarding accessibility at the hotel. As a result, the Plaintiff was deprived the same services, features, facilities, benefits, advantages, and accommodations of the property available to the general public. Because the online reservations system discriminates against the Plaintiff, it is thereby more difficult to book a room at the hotel or make an informed decision as to whether the facilities at the hotel are accessible, the suit says.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tristan W. Gillespie, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 5150 Cottage Farm Rd. Johns Creek, GA 30022 Telephone: (404) 276-7277 E-mail: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com ALLEN BROTHERS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Paguada Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALLEN BROTHERS 1893, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09256-VSB (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2020) arises from Defendant's failure to design and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff asserts that most recently he visited the Defendant's Website, www.allenbrothers.com, in October of 2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase. Despite his efforts, however, he was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Allen Brothers 1983, LLC is a prime steak company that owns and operates the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com ALOHA POOLS: Schroeder Seeks Overtime Pay for Service Technicians ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON SCHROEDER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ALOHA POOLS & SPAS OF UNION CITY AND JONESBORO, LLC, and DALE BRADLEY COOK, Case No. 3:20-cv-00354-JM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 4, 2020), is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The Plaintiff contends that he and other Service Technicians regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The Defendant paid him and other Service Technicians 1.5x times their base hourly rate for the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. However, the Defendant did not include the commissions that were paid to them in their regular rates when calculating their overtime pay even though they received commissions in pay periods in which they also worked in excess of 40 hours per week, he adds. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid Service Technician from August of 2019 until September of 2020. He worked at the Defendant's location in Missouri until January of 2020, and at the Defendant's location in Jonesboro thereafter. Aloha is a franchise of America's Swimming Pool Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Short, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com AMA 2 CORP: Faces Gonzalez Suit in Florida Over FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMA 2, Corp. The case is captioned as MIGUEL GONZALEZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. AMA 2, CORP., VICTOR AMADOR, and ROSSANA AMADOR, Case No. 0:20-cv-62023-AHS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 5, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is assigned to Judge Raag Singhal. AMA 2, Corp. is a Florida-based company which is part of the business services sector industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. Tanesha LaShay Marie Walls, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com tblye@saenzanderson.com - and - Yadhira Ramirez-Toro, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 500 S. Federal Highway, Suite 1058 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (787) 453-0115 E-mail: yramirez@saenzanderson.com AMAZON WEB: McGoveran Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTINE MCGOVERAN, JOSEPH VALENTINE, and AMELIA RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and PINDROP SECURITY, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01399-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 16, 2020) alleges that the Defendants violated the Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, possessing, redisclosing, profiting from, and failing to safeguard their biometric identifiers and biometric information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who made one or more phone calls to or received one or more phone calls from call centers, customer service representatives and/or other entities using services offered by Amazon Web Services, Inc., and had their unique, biometric voiceprints collected, possessed, and used by the Defendants without their consent or authorization, including through the use of Pindrop's biometric voice authentication technology. Amazon Web Services is a subsidiary of Amazon providing on-demand cloud computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and governments, on a metered pay-as-you-go basis. Pindrop Security is an American information security company that provides risk scoring for phone calls to detect fraud and authenticate callers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Joel Rohlf, Esq. Alexander L. Braitberg, Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth St., Ste. 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com jrohlf@uselaws.com abraitberg@uselaws.com - and - Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq. Ronald P. Golden III, Esq. BAYARD, P.A. 600 North King Street, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-5000 E-mail: sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com rgolden@bayardlaw.com AMGEN INC: Antitrust Suit over Humira(R) Biosimilar Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated antitrust class action suit related to Humira(R) Biosimilar. On July 28, 2020, the plaintiffs in the antitrust class action lawsuit filed a notice of appeal. On October 5, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Amicus briefs were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, including one by the Federal Trade Commission and one on behalf of 20 states, both filed on October 13, 2020. Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California. AMGEN INC: Plaintiffs Challenge Dismissal Recommendation -------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that on August 5, 2020, the plaintiffs in Sensipar(R) Antitrust Class Actions filed objections to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Delaware's report and recommendation issued on July 22, 2020 that the claims against Amgen be dismissed but recommended that leave be given to plaintiffs to amend their complaints. On August 19, 2020, Amgen filed a response to the plaintiffs' objections. Amgen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human therapeutics worldwide. It offers products for the treatment of oncology/hematology, cardiovascular, inflammation, bone health, and neuroscience. Amgen Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California. APPLE INC: McCloskey Sues Over Illegal Casino-Style Mobile Games ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN McCLOSKEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00434-TMR (S.D. Ohio, October 23, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to recover money lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 3763.02 of the Ohio Revised Code. The complaint contends that the Defendant is profiting from illegal gambling machine games that it sells in its App Store by allowing customers to purchase games that are no more or no less than casino-style slot machines, casino style table games, and other common gambling games. The Plaintiff downloaded and played several of these casino-style gambling games. Since July of 2019, he has downloaded multiple games, including Coin Master, billionaire Casino Slots 777, Cash Frenzy and MyKONAMI-Real Vegas Slots. Beginning July 23, 2019, he purchased coins through the Apple App Store so he could continue to play for a chance to win free coins that would enable him to enjoy the games for a longer period of time. In the six months prior to the filing of this complaint, he paid $64.90 to Apple for the privilege of continuing to play the illegal gambling games, the suit alleges. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets personal computers and related personal computing and mobile communication devices along with a variety of related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions. Apple sells its products worldwide through its online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, third-party wholesalers, and resellers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Breen, Esq. BREEN LAW, LLC 7761 Chetwood Close, Ste. 100 Columbus, OH 43054 Telephone: (614) 374-3324 E-mail: john@breenlegal.com - and - Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com APPLE INC: Payton Sues Over Illegal Gambling Games on App Store --------------------------------------------------------------- VICKIE PAYTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04326-TWT (N.D. Ga., October 22, 2020) is brought against the Defendant to recover money lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 13-8-3 of the Georgia Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant promotes, enables, and profits from games downloaded from its App Store and played by numerous Georgia residents that constitute illegal gambling under the statutory law and the strong public policy of the state. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. It is considered one of the Big Tech technology companies, alongside Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven N. Newton, Esq. STEVEN N. NEWTON, LLC 401 Westpark Court, Suite 200 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Telephone: (678) 837-6398 Facsimile: (678) 831-0707 E-mail: steven@mynewtonlaw.com - and - John E. Norris, Esq. Dargan M. Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com APPLE INC: Software Code Surges Cellular Data Usage, Turner Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALASDAIR TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 24, 2020) is a lawsuit over Apple's unlawful and unfair business practices affecting the Plaintiff and all persons in the United States who owned or leased an Apple iPhone with iOS 13 installed and who used a limited cellular data plan with that iPhone. To use their iPhones, consumers are required to use Apple's mobile operating system, designed and marketed by Apple, known as iOS. In September 2019, Apple released iOS version 13, which Apple promised would bring "improvements across the entire system that make your iPhone even faster and more delightful to use." According to the complaint, the Defendant did not disclose that iOS 13 also contained hidden software code that caused devices running iOS 13 to consume cellular data without the user's input or control, and without providing the user any identifiable benefit. By increasing cellular data usage, the software code increases costs to users and uses up the cellular data they have purchased from their cellular providers. In June 2020, given the Defendant's months-long delay in mitigating the harmful effects of iOS 13, the only reasonable explanation is that the software code was not a defect. The code was designed to measure the performance of a new Apple software product or iOS feature, unbeknownst to and without the input of users -- and at their expense, the suit says. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services. It is considered one of the Big Tech technology companies, alongside Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Facebook.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com kpowell@tousley.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. Alexander J. Bukac, Esq. 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com dmb@classlawgroup.com ajb@classlawgroup.com ARBELLA MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. ARBELLA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and ARBELLA INSURANCE GROUP, Case No. 1:20-cv-24062-UU (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to meet the statutory payment and reimbursement obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors and all others similarly situated under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries' accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing agreements authorized under the law. Further, the Defendants have also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the class members for accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public. The Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the suit says. The Plaintiff has established various designated series pursuant to Delaware law in order to maintain various claims recovery assignments separate from other company assets, and to account for and associate certain assets with certain particular series. Arbella Mutual Insurance Company and Arbella Insurance Group are companies that issue property and casualty policies with principal place of businesses in Quincy, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Ruiz, Esq. Michael O. Mena, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. Le Jeune Rd. 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and - Alfredo Armas, Esq. Eduardo Bertran, Esq. Francesco Zincone, Esq. ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE 4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 461-5100 E-mail: alfred@armaslaw.com ebertran@armaslaw.com fzincone@armaslaw.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Prater Alleges Misleading Product Labels ----------------------------------------------------------- James Prater, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09108 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020) arises from the Defendant's conduct of branding and packaging its iced tea and lemonade blends that deceives, misleads, and defrauds the Plaintiff and other consumers. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells iced tea and lemonade blends purporting to be "Lite" - under its Arizona brand. The relevant front label statements include "Half & Half," "Iced Tea Lemonade," "Arnold Palmer" and "Lite." According to the complaint, the terms "light" and "lite" in the context of food descriptions are used interchangeably. Though "lite" may connote a wide variety of meanings, surveys have shown that consumers, including the Plaintiff, believe the term means that the caloric level has been reduced significantly. Thus, the term "Lite" is misleading because it gives the impression consumption of the product, when compared to other foods in its class, contributes substantially to the reduction of calories in the diet. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.19 for 12 OZ, excluding tax, and higher than the price compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, the suit says. Arizona Beverages USA LLC was founded in 2010. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-5101 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com ARMISTICE CAPITAL: Jaquith Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA JAQUITH and PAUL BERGERON, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of VAXART, INC. v. WOUTER W. LATOUR, STEVEN BOYD, KEITH MAHER, ANDREI FLOROIU, ROBERT A. YEDID, TODD DAVIS, MICHAEL J. FINNEY, ANNE M. VANLENT, and ARMISTICE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2020-0904-PAF (Del. Ch., Oct. 20, 2020) alleges that the Defendants artificially inflated Vaxart Inc.'s stock through their involvement in the "Operation Warp Speed" (OWS), a public-private partnership established to fast-track potential vaccines for SARS-CoV-2, commonly referred to as COVID-19. According to the complaint, just as Vaxart was about to sign agreements to participate in OWS, Armistice Capital LLC, the investment firm that serves as the Company's controlling shareholder, has amended warrant agreements it had with Vaxart, allowing it to rapidly profit off any upward movement in the Company's stock price. As Armistice and the Board foresaw the day that Vaxart's inclusion in OWS became public, Vaxart's stock skyrocketed and Armistice exercised these warrants - buying a large volume of Vaxart stock at a steep discount and immediately turning around and selling these shares for an enormous profit. These purchases could not have taken place without the Board's disloyal and improper revision of the warrant agreements. Through its insider trading, facilitated by the Board, Armistice has realized ill-gotten gains of nearly $200 million, with the potential for more sales to create more improper profits. The Plaintiffs allege that Vaxart directors breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing the warrant amendments despite knowing that doing so facilitated Armistice trading on material, non-public information. Boyd and Maher, the Armistice directors, also breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched by trading on such material, non-public information. Further, the Board awarded itself spring-loaded stock options under a plan approved by an uninformed stockholder vote - resulting in an improper windfall to the Board well in excess of appropriate compensation. Armistice's illegal and otherwise inexplicable trades have now resulted in Vaxart being served with a Grand Jury Subpoena by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California and a document request from the Securities and Exchange Commission's Enforcement Division. The Vaxart Board's and Armistice's wrongdoing could not be clearer, they must not be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains, and the Company's claims for all harm suffered must be vindicated, the suit says. The Plaintiffs further request the Court enter an order finding the Vaxart Board members breached their fiduciary duties, requiring Armistice to disgorge the nearly $267 million it earned through insider trading and the Vaxart Board to disgorge its improperly obtained options, and that the stockholder vote at the Annual Meeting was uninformed, requiring a new, fully informed, vote on the 2020 Plan. The Plaintiffs currently own shares of Vaxart common stock and have owned Vaxart shares continuously since April 2020. Vaxart Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on developing oral tablet vaccines designed to generate mucosal and systemic immune responses that protect against a wide range of infectious diseases including experimental vaccines for COVID-19. Armistice Capital LLC operates as a hedge fund focused on health and consumer sectors. Armistice was Vaxart's controlling shareholder.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3601 - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Sascha N. Rand, Esq. Rollo Baker, Esq. Silpa Maruri, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. Charlie Sangree, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7036 - and - Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. Matthew Guarnero, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 BANK OF AMERICA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Cantero Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Bank of America filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated September 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled ALEX CANTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-4157, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendant failed to pay interest to Plaintiff and the class members on the funds held in escrow accounts. According to the complaint, the Defendant like many mortgage lenders, regularly requires borrowers to maintain escrow accounts containing sufficient funds to cover payments for property taxes and insurance on mortgaged properties. The Defendant collects the funds from borrowers in advance, holds the funds in escrow accounts, and then directly pays property taxes and insurance premiums when they become due. In violation of New York State law, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and members of the Class he seeks to represent interest on amounts paid into these escrow accounts. Instead, Defendant uses this money to generate "float" income for itself. Money sitting in an escrow account is the property of the borrower, not the Defendant. For this reason, in New York, Defendant is required to pay interest on amounts in escrow accounts to the true owner of the account and may not use those amounts solely for its own benefit. Because the Defendant has ignored this legal obligation, the Plaintiff now brings this class action to stop this unlawful conduct and to seek redress for borrowers who did not receive the interest to which they were entitled. The appellate case is captioned as Bank of America, N.A. v. Cantero, Case No. 20-3581, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent Alex Cantero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bradley F. Silverman, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3282 E-mail: bsilverman@fbfglaw.com Defendant-Petitioner Petitioner Bank of America, N.A. is represented by: Mark William Mosier, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1 CityCenter 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-5435 E-mail: mmosier@cov.com BANK OF AMERICA: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Hymes Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Bank of America filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order dated September 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Saul R. Hymes and Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bank of America, N.A., and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2352, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action against the Defendants for restitution and reimbursement, injunctive relief, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, pursuant to the New York General Obligation Law. The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendants violated the New York General Obligation Law, which requires a mortgage lender making a loan secured by a one-to-six family residence located in New York to pay the borrower a minimum of 2% simple interest for money received in advance from the borrower for tax and insurance that is held by the lender in an "escrow" account until payment is due. During all or part of the Class Period, the Plaintiffs have paid hundreds of dollars into an escrow account but have received no interest on those payments. The appellate case is captioned as Bank of America, N.A. v. Hymes, Case No. 20-3582, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents Saul R. Hymes and Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel W. Krasner, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: krasner@whafh.com Defendant-Petitioner Petitioner Bank of America, N.A. is represented by: Mark William Mosier, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1 CityCenter 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-5435 E-mail: mmosier@cov.com BARRETT BUSINESS: Faces Walker Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- TASHAVEA WALKER, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a Maryland corporation; PERFORMANCE TEAM HOLDINGS INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV39172 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 9, 2020) alleges the Defendants subjected the Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees to security checks at the beginning of shifts, at meal breaks and at the end of work shifts without proper compensation; failed to provide proper meal and rest periods; failed to adopt standards that minimize excessive indoor heat; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failed to timely pay all wages upon termination or within 72 hours of resignation; and failed to reimburse for all expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt employee from approximately 2017 through August 25, 2019. Barrett Business Services, Inc. (BBSI) is a provider of business management solutions for small and mid-sized companies. The Company has developed a management platform that integrates a knowledge-based approach from the management consulting industry with tools from the human resource outsourcing industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com BIKE BANDIT: Faces Angeles Suit in S.D.N.Y. Over ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bike Bandit, LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bike Bandit, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08560-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. Bike Bandit, LLC is a motorcycle parts superstore retailer founded in 1999 by serial entrepreneur Ken Wahlster. The company sells motorcycle parts, apparel, and accessories through an online Website, bikebandit.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com BILL'S HEATING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Wolthers Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN WOLTHERS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BILL'S HEATING AIR APPLIANCE REPAIR, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00504-CWD (D. Idaho, October 29, 2020) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from in or around December 2016 until in or around October 2019 as a non-exempt Service Technician/Sales Representative. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees were required by the Defendants to regularly and routinely perform duties even during meal periods and/or lunch breaks. However, they were not compensated for the overtime hours worked because the Defendant automatically deducted 30 minutes from its employees' pay, thereby failing to pay them overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Additionally, the Defendant failed to keep and/or maintain accurate records of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' wages and hours in accordance with the FLSA. Bill's Heating Air Appliance Repair, LLC is engaged in the business of selling, servicing, repairing, fixing, and installing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kammi Mencke Smith, Esq. Scott A. Gingras, Esq. WINSTON & CASHATT, LAWYERS 250 Northwest Blvd., Suite 206 Coeur d' Alene, ID 83814 Tel: (208) 667-2103 Fax: (208) 765-2121 E-mail: kms@winstoncashatt.com sag@winstoncashatt.com BILOXI HMA: Henley Appeals S.D. Miss. Ruling to 5th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kimberly Henley filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled KIMBERLY HENLEY, on behalf of, Plaintiff, herself and all others similarly situated v. BILOXI H.M.A., LLC; COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-544, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 18, 2020, Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Southern Division, denied without prejudice Henley's Placeholder Motion for Class Certification filed on Aug. 28, 2019. Henley filed the Complaint in the case on Aug. 27, 2019, asserting a single claim for declaratory relief. Specifically, she sought a finding that Defendants Biloxi H.M.A., LLC, doing business as Merit Health Biloxi, Community Health Systems, Inc., and John and Jane Does 1 Through 25, owed a duty to disclose a surcharge that is billed to emergency care patients in advance of receiving treatment or services that would trigger such a charge. On Aug. 28, 2019, Henley filed the present Placeholder Motion for Class Certification. She requests that the Court certifies a class in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated. The Plaintiff proposes a class of all individuals who, within the past three years, presented at a Merit Health hospital in Mississippi and were billed a facility fee identify with the CPT Code of 99281, 99282, 99283, 99284, or 99285. The appellate case is captioned as Kimberly Henley v. Biloxi H.M.A., L.L.C., Case No. 20-60991, in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Kimberly Henley, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Christopher Collins Van Cleave, Esq. CORBAN GUNN & VAN CLEAVE 146 Porter Avenue Biloxi, MS 39530-3704 Telephone: (228) 432-7826 E-mail: christopher@vancleavelaw.com Defendant-Appellee Biloxi H.M.A., L.L.C., a Mississippi Limited Liability Company, doing business as Merit Health Biolxi, is represented by: Jeffrey Ralph Blackwood, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, L.L.P. 188 E. Capitol Street 1 Jackson Place Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 E-mail: jblackwood@bradley.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Ignacuinos Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Carl Ignacuinos, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated September 25, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Ignacuinos v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceu, Case No. 19-cv-672, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 23, 2020, David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. convinced a Connecticut federal judge 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. The appellate case is captioned as Ignacuinos v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceu, Case No. 20-3643, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Carl Ignacuinos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; and Pamela Davis, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Defendant-Appellee Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticas Inc. is represented by: James T. Shearin, Esq. PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC 850 Main Street P.O. Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601 Telephone: (203) 330-2240 E-mail: jtshearin@pullcom.com BRILLIANCE NEW: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brilliance New York, LLC. The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brilliance New York, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08554-PGG-JLC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Paul G. Gardephe. Brilliance New York, LLC is a New York-based hair care products provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Arkansas PERS Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2020, and Judgment dated September 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Tung v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case No. 18-cv-1611, in the U.S. Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss claims in the case captioned JENNIFER TUNG et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY et al., Defendants, No. 18-CV-1611 (JPO), (S.D.N.Y.). Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company announced a clinical trial to test the efficacy of one of its newest anticancer drugs. The trial failed, which precipitated a drop in the company's stock price. The Plaintiffs now bring this putative shareholder class action, alleging that public statements by Bristol-Myers and its officers mischaracterized the experimental design of the trial, thereby overstating the likelihood of the trial's success. The plaintiffs bring claims under Rule 10b-5 and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act. The appellate case is captioned as Tung v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case No. 20-3716, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, Louisiana Sheriffs Pension & Relief Fund, and Erste-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH are represented by: Lauren Amy Ormsbee, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1593 E-mail: laurenm@blbglaw.com - and - William H. Narwold, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 20 Church Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1676 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com Defendants-Appellees Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Michael Giordano, Fouad Namouni, Francis M. Cuss, Giovanni Caforio, Lamberto Andreotti, and Charles A. Bancroft are represented by: Yosef J. Riemer, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 E-mail: yosef.riemer@kirkland.com BULLDOG ONLINE: Martinez Sues Over Automatic Renewal Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABELARDO MARTINEZ, JR., an individual v. BULLDOG ONLINE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV39577 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 13, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated arising from the Defendants' offer of "free" services and products that violate the California's Automatic Renewal Law and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff is a blind California consumer, who accepted a "free" trial online fitness class service/subscription and related products from the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Company (a) fails to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, in a "clear and conspicuous" manner and in "visual proximity" to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled; and (b) fails to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendants to the Plaintiff is an unconditional gift and must be refunded. Based in Villanova, Pennsylvania, Bulldog Online, LLC operates a Website which markets online fitness class services/subscriptions and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com CALIFORNIA GRILL: Headrick Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- TARA HEADRICK, and SOPHIA HEIDLER individuals v. CALIFORNIA GRILL LLC D/B/A FOXY'S CABARET; ERIC S. LANGAN AND TOMMY PERKINS, individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-01073 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 26, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated arising from the Defendants' conduct of evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with the Plaintiffs' tips. The Plaintiffs allege that throughout their employment with the Defendants, they have been denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of a scheme to classify them and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors" by the Defendants. The Plaintiff also assert that the Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay them the proper amount of the tips to which they were entitled. Plaintiffs Headrick and Heidler worked as exotic dancers for the Defendants from December 2017 through August 2018, and from January 2018 through September 2018, respectively. California Grill LLC is an Austin, Texas-based adult-oriented entertainment company doing business as Foxy's Cabaret.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com craft@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com CARNIVAL CORP: Fails to Warn Passengers About COVID-19, Nahm Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PETER NAHM, individually; and GRACE NAHM, individually v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a Panama corporation; CARNIVAL PLC, an England and Wales corporation; and PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., a Bermuda Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-09777 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2020) arises from the Defendants' negligent decision to continue cruise ship operations without implementing any safety protocols and/or preventative measures to the Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated, despite knowledge of the catastrophic risk to human life that COVID-19 posed and despite knowledge of the specific and acute threat the cruise ship industry presented related to COVID-19. When MR. and MRS. NAHM boarded the Coral Princess cruise ship in San Antonio, Chile on March 5, 2020, neither of them had any knowledge, notice, and/or warning that they were boarding a cruise ship armed with a super virus known to be highly contagious, kill at-risk populations quickly, and have no cure, known as SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. The Defendants decided to continue its operations without implementing any safety protocols including but not limited to, (a) screening and refusing to board passengers and crewmembers with recent contact with countries experiencing outbreak of COVID-19; (b) providing precautionary medical apparatuses, such as masks, gloves and/or hand sanitizer; (c) imposing safety precautions on-board, such as social distancing; (d) disinfecting, decontaminating, and/or sanitizing the exposed surfaces of the cruise ship prior to boarding passengers; and/or (e) changing how they off-board and on-board passengers to the ship, instead of using practices where passengers off-boarding the ship come in close contact with passengers on-boarding the ship. As a result, Plaintiffs both got COVID-19 on the Coral Princess after first being told they had the flu, the suit says. Carnival Corporation & PLC is a British-American cruise operator, with a combined fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line brands. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd. is a cruise line owned by Carnival Corporation & PLC. The company is incorporated in Bermuda and its headquarters are in Santa Clarita, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. James Dallal, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com nnishimura@cpmlegal.com jdallal@cpmlegal.com - and - Kelly W. Weil, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3088 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-2008 Facsimile: (310) 392-0111 E-mail: kweil@cpmlegal.com - and - P. Terry Anderlini, Esq. ANDERLINI & McSWEENEY LLP 66 Bovet Road, Suite 285 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 242-4884 Facsimile: (650) 212-0001 E-mail: tanderlini@amlawoffice.com CARRIER GLOBAL: Facing Darnis Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Carrier Global Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al. On August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against UTC, Carrier, and Otis Worldwide Corporation (Otis), the former members of the UTC Board of Directors, and the members of the Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors (Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.). The complaint challenges the method by which UTC equity awards were converted to UTC, Carrier, and Otis equity awards following the separation of UTC into three independent, publicly traded companies on April 3, 2020. The complaint claims that the defendants are liable for breach of certain equity compensation plans and for breach of fiduciary duty, and also asserts claims under certain provisions of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Carrier believes that the claims against the Company are without merit. Carrier Global Corporation is a leading global provider of heating, ventilating, air conditioning ("HVAC"), refrigeration, and fire and security solutions. Carrier also provides a broad array of related building services, including audit, design, installation, system integration, repair, maintenance and monitoring. Carrier’s operations are classified into three segments: HVAC, Refrigeration and Fire & Security. The company is based in Palm Beach, Florida. CASE WESTERN: Lozada Seeks Tuition Fee Refunds Due to COVID-19 -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL LOZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336-DAP (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 13, 2020) is brought on behalf of all persons who paid tuition and/or fees to attend Case Western Reserve University for in-person, hands-on educational services and experiences for the semesters or terms affected by Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"), including the Spring 2020, but had their course work moved to online only learning. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has not refunded any amount of the tuition or any of the mandatory fees, even though it has implemented online-only distance learning starting in or around March 10, 2020 and cancelled all on-campus events and services. Additionally, the Defendant's failure to provide the in-person and on-campus services for which tuition and the mandatory fees were intended to cover since approximately March 10, 2020 is an alleged breach of the contract between the University and the Plaintiff. The return of such amounts would compensate the Plaintiff and the Class members for damages sustained by way of the Defendant's breach, the suit says. Plaintiff Lozada was an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020 semester with an expected graduation date in 2022. Case Western Reserve University is a private university in Cleveland, Ohio that was founded in 1826. Case Western offers numerous major fields for undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8297 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com CCC INFORMATION: Undervalues Insureds' Loss Vehicles, Niemis Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL NIEMIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No. 20-005022-CI (Fla. Cir., Pinellas Cty., Oct. 19, 2020) seeks compensatory damages and other appropriate remedies caused by the Defendant's breaches of its contractual duties owed to Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company for the benefit of its insureds and intentional interference with the contract of insurance between Garrison and its insureds. Corporal Michael Niemis has an automobile insurance with Garrison Property. In May 2020, Cpl. Niemis was in a wreck and submitted a claim to Garrison, which deemed his vehicle a total loss. To determine the actual cash value of Cpl. Niemis' loss vehicle, Garrison has a general business practice of obtaining valuation reports from CCC Information, and Garrison uses those reports to determine the actual cash value of insureds' loss vehicles. According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically includes in its reports unfounded and deceptive negative condition adjustments that misrepresent the actual cash value of insureds' loss vehicles. These reports, in turn, cause Garrison to pay insureds less than the actual cash value of their total loss vehicles, in breach of its contracts of insurance. By providing inaccurate and deceptive valuation reports to Garrison, the Defendant has breached its contract with Garrison, thereby directly harming Garrison's insureds, the direct and intended beneficiary of that contractual relationship, the suit says. CCC Information Services, Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based information technologies company that develops claims management automation and valuation software for insurance companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlyn P. Miller, Esq. Mary Liu, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-mail: cmiller@awkolaw.com mliu@awkolaw.com - and - Hank Bates, Esq. Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. Jake G. Windley, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR, 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 CEVA LOGISTICS: Faces Newton Wage & Hour Suit in Cal. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- DIJON NEWTON, ANDRE ODOM, AND JACKIE WILSON, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. CEVA LOGISTICS U.S. INC., RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES, LLC, AND DOES 1-5, Case No. RG20076553 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the California Labor Code, the Industrial Wage Commission, and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have engaged in a system of willful violations of California wage-and-hour laws by implementing and adopting an unlawful Alternative Workweek Schedule that (1) willfully denied the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees overtime wages, (2) willfully failed to pay compensation owed Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees in a timely manner upon termination, and (3) willfully failed to provide Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements. From approximately November 2017 through May 2018, Plaintiff Newton worked at Hayward Warehouse as a dockworker or material handler/operator. Plaintiff Odom's employment period was from November 2017 through December 2018. Plaintiff Wilson worked at Hayward Warehouse from November 2017 through April 2019. CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc. is a global logistics company that provides storage and distribution services. It operates a network of warehouses or distribution centers in California, including one located in Hayward, California. Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC operates as a recruitment firm. The Company offers employment, integration, management, training, human resources solutions, temporary placement, and other services. Randstad Inhouse Services serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexei Kuchinsky, Esq. KUCHINSKY LAW OFFICE, P.C. 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 200-0902 Facsimile: (628) 200-0907 E-mail: ak@kuchinskylawoffice.com CHARLES COUNTY, MD: Gamble Sues Over Discrimination, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- AARON GAMBLE v. CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND and CHARLES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 8:20-cv-03126-PWG (D. Md., Oct. 27, 2020) is a complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation, and for violations of the overtime provisions of the federal and state laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff by, among other things, refusing to honor his shaving waiver and terminating him from his employment because of his race. The Plaintiff also engaged in activity protected by Title VII when he participated in the Office of Internal Affairs' investigation into the Defendants' actions through an interview, in which the Plaintiff recounted discriminatory activities. The Defendants also failed to comply with the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage & Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment & Collection Law, the suit says. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a police recruit on February 4, 2019. He was terminated on July 2, 2019. Charles County Sheriff's Office is an agency of Charles County, Maryland responsible for, among other things, hiring, directing, and supervising employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan K. Mechak, Esq. Diana J. Nobile, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: mkm@mselaborlaw.com djn@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com CHELSEA LAUNDRY: Faces Aviles Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y ----------------------------------------------------------- FAUSTA AVILES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHELSEA LAUNDRY INC. (D/B/A CHELSEA LAUNDRY), MARCO DOE, and SUSIE DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-08992 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that she worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours worked. She added that the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to provide accurate wage statements at the time of the payment of wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Chelsea Laundry from approximately November 2014 until on or about March 15, 2020 as a washer, dryer, and packer, and to pick up and deliver clothes. Chelsea Laundry Inc. owns, operates, or controls a laundry company under the name "Chelsea Laundry" in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 CHEMOURS COMPANY: Priselac Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TAMMIE PRISELAC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., E.I. DUPONT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, CORTEVA, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., ELLIS H. MCGAUGHY, BRIAN D. LONG, AND MICHAEL E. JOHNSON, Case No. 20-CVS-499, was removed from the Superior Court of North Carolina for the County of Bladen to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on October 6, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 7:20-cv-00190 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff after the Defendants committed the tort of trespass to real property by releasing toxic chemicals from the Fayetteville Works Site that physically intruded onto and wrongfully entered the Plaintiff's and class members' properties. The Chemours Company FC, LLC was founded in 2014. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing and production of agricultural chemicals.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas H. Segars, Esq. ELLIS & WINTERS LLP P.O. Box 33550 Raleigh, NC 27636 Telephone: (919) 865-7000 Facsimile: (919) 865-7010 E-mail: tom.segars@elliswinters.com - and - Kenneth J. Reilly, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd. 3200 Miami Center Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 960-6907 Facsimile: (305) 385-7470 E-mail: kreilly@shb.com - and - Dave Erickson, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P. 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 E-mail: derickson@shb.com CHINA: Christenson Appeals Ruling in Reyes Suit to 11th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Interested Party David Christenson filed an appeal from various court rulings entered in the lawsuit styled LOGAN ALTERS, MARTA REYES, LAWRENCE WOOD, STEPHEN CLYNE and THE PITCHING LAB d/b/a TBT TRAINING, on behalf of themselves, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; NATIONAL HEALTH COMMISSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; MINISTRY OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF HUBEI PROVINCE; and THE PEOPLE'S GOVERNMENT OF CITY OF WUHAN, CHINA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-21108-UUCHRISTEN, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 20, 2020, the lawsuit is brought against Defendants for their alleged negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, strict liability for conducting ultrahazardous activity, and public nuisance in violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. According to the complaint, the world has been devastated in recent days by the ongoing march of the new strain of the Coronavirus, more commonly known as COVID-19, which began in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019, and has quickly spread throughout Asia, Europe and North America. However, the People's Republic of China slowly acted, proverbially put their head in the sand, and/or covered it up for their own economic self-interest despite knowing that the virus was dangerous and capable of causing a pandemic. The complaint asserts that Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs and the members of the classes by: -- failing to admit their knowledge of the dangers of the virus, its lethalness, and the ease of human to human transmission; -- failing to contain the virus more quickly when the spread was apparent; -- failing to restrict a public gathering of more than 40,000 Wuhan families when they knew or should have known of the dangers of the virus and ease transmission; -- failing to adequately and reasonably supervise the outbreak and contain its effects; -- failing to provide adequate and reasonable warning to Plaintiffs and members of the classes when they knew or should have known of the dangers; and -- disseminating materials and statements that provided the wrong information to people within and outside China. The appellate case is captioned as Marta Reyes, et al v. David Christenson, Case No. 20-13766, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on October 21, 2020 as to Appellant David Christenson; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before November 4, 2020 as to Appellee Marta Reyes.[BN] Interested Party-Appellant DAVID CHRISTENSON, appears pro se. Plaintiffs-Appellees MARTA REYES, on behalf of themselves, and all those similarly situated; LAWRENCE WOOD, on behalf of themselves, and all those similarly situated; STEPHEN CLYNE, on behalf of themselves, and all those similarly situated; SB HOLDINGS I, LLC, Orlando, FL; and THE PITCHING LAB LLC, on behalf of themselves, and all those similarly situated d.b.a. TBT TRAINING, are represented by: Vincent Duffy, Esq. Matthew Thomas Moore, Esq. THE BERMAN LAW GROUP PO Box 272789 Boca Raton, FL 33427 CHOBANI LLC: Nacarino Sues Over False Vanilla Labelling in Yogurt ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELENA NACARINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHOBANI LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-07437 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2020) arises from the Defendant's false and misleading vanilla representations of its vanilla yogurt products under the Chobani brand in violation of the California Business & Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The complaint contends that despite the vanilla representations, the product's vanilla flavor, is not entirely vanilla as its label suggests. Further, the scientific testing of the product revealed that the vanilla flavoring of the product does not come exclusively from the premium ingredient known as the vanilla bean. Plaintiff Nacarino purchased the product in 2020 from a whole foods in San Francisco. She saw the vanilla representations and relied upon them to believe that the vanilla flavor came exclusively from the vanilla plant. Chobani, LLC is an American food company specializing in strained yogurt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. Sue J. Nam, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com snam@reesellp.com - and - George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd Ste 311 Great Neck, NY 11021-5101 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com CITY CHEVROLET: Gray Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGETTE GRAY, individually and one behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY CHEVROLET LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00870-DGK (W.D. Mo., October 29, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In or around June 2020 or approximately four years after the Plaintiff bought a vehicle from the Defendant, the Defendant began making telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number in an attempt to solicit her to trade in her car and purchase a new car from the Defendant. Although the Plaintiff told the Defendant's salesperson who called her that she was not interested, that her phone number is registered on the DNC, and specifically asked for the calls to stop, the Defendant's telemarketers still called her multiple times. According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited calls have harmed the Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone. City Chevrolet LLC operates a Chevrolet dealership in Kansas City, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donovan Bradley Dodril, Esq. PLAZA INJURY LAW, LLC Country Club Plaza 435 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 772-2474 Fax: (816) 977-2682 E-mail: donovan@plazainjurylaw.com - and – Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com CNA FINANCIAL: Taiclet Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL A. TAICLET, DMD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION; and TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01552-MRH (W.D. Pa., Oct. 8, 2020) is a civil class action for declaratory relief and breach of contract arising from the Plaintiff's contract of insurance with the Defendants. At the direction of local, state, and/or federal authorities, and/or due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, the Plaintiff was forced to temporarily close his dental office beginning on March 19, 2020, causing an interruption to and loss of the Plaintiff's business income. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class purchased and paid for an "all-risk" commercial property coverage insurance policy from the Defendants, which provides broad property insurance coverage for all non-excluded, including business income losses. The Plaintiff submitted timely notice of his claim to the Defendants for the interruption to his business brought by COVID-19 mandated rules, but the Defendants have refused to provide the purchased coverage to its insured, and has denied the Plaintiff's claim for benefits under the policy. CNA Financial Corporation is one of the largest commercial property and casualty insurance companies in the United States. CNA is headquartered in Illinois. Transportation Insurance Company is a subsidiary of CNA, who provides property and casualty underwriting for CNA. Transportation Insurance Company is headquartered in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com kiverson@carlsonlynch.com - and - Howard M. Louik, Esq. LOUIK LAW OFFICES 750 Washington Road, Unit 705 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Telephone: (412) 889-7541 Facsimile: (412) 391-7310 E-mail: howard@louiklaw.net COMPSOURCE MUTUAL: Freds Tire Balks at Unlawful Insurance Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRED'S TIRE AND BATTERY, LLC, and SHAWNEE OUTDOORS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. COMPSOURCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, formerly known as COMPSOURCE OKLAHOMA, a statutory agency, Case No. CJ-2020-4891 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendant's illusory nature of its insurance policy that cannot, under any reasonably expected set of circumstances, provide coverage. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all current and former insureds of CompSource residing or domiciled within the state of Oklahoma who purchased a workers compensation insurance policy containing "Part two-Employers Liability Insurance" from January 1, 2004 to present and who paid an additional premium for Part two coverage. The Part two coverage contains the following coverage exclusion: "BODILY INJURY INTENTIONALLY CAUSED OR AGGRAVATED BY YOU, OR BODILY INJURY THAT YOU KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WAS SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN TO OCCURE FROM AN ACT CAUSED, COMMITTED, OR AGGRAVATED BY YOU." According to the complaint, Part two coverage purports to insure an employer in the event employer is sued by an employee in district court as a result of an injury that occurred during the course of the employee's employment. The coverage afforded under Part two of the Defendant's insurance policy is allegedly illusory in that this coverage, for which a premium was paid, will not pay benefits under any reasonable circumstances. Additionally, by selling an illusory policy of insurance to its policyholders, the Defendant has wrongfully obtained and retained monies from its policyholders, in breach of its common law duties, the suit says. CompSource Mutual Insurance Company, formerly known as CompSource Oklahoma, is a private mutual insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terry W. West, Esq. Bradley C. West, Esq. J. Shawn Spencer, Esq. THE WEST LAW FIRM 124 W. Higland PO Box 698 Shawnee, OK 74802-0698 Telephone: (405) 275-0040 Facsimile: (405) 275-0052 E-mail: terry@thewestlawfirm.com brad@thewestlawfirm.com shawn@thewestlawfirm.com - and - Reggie N. Whitten, Esq. Michael Burrage, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 E-mail: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com CONCORD HOSPITALITY: Mullen Alleges ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concord Hospitality Enterprises Company. The case is styled as BARTLEY MULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONCORD HOSPITALITY ENTERPRISES COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-01530-RJC (W.D. Pa., Oct. 9, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Robert J. Colville. Concord Hospitality Enterprises Co, develops, owns, operates, and manages hotels throughout the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com CONTRA COSTA, CA: Farrow Files Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs John Farrow and Jerome Wade filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled JOHN FARROW, ON HIS BEHALF, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; JEROME WADE, ON HIS BEHALF, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent, Case No. 20-549. Response is due on November 25, 2020. Petitioners John Farrow and Jerome Wade petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled John Farrow, et al. v. Contra Costa County, et al., Case No. 19-15152. The Ninth Circuit entered judgment on March 30, 2020. On April 3, 2020, it extended time for filing a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc to May 13, 2020. On June 5, 2020, it denied Petitioner's timely motion for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. On March 19, 2020, the Court issued an order extending time for filing to 150 days from the date of the lower court judgment. The questions presented are: i) Is a detainee's first appearance in court a "critical stage" of the proceedings, when bail is set and statutory liberty interests are adjudicated, as the Second and Eighth Circuits and the highest courts of Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania hold, or are the Fifth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and the Supreme Courts of Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi and Missouri correct in holding that the first court appearance is not a "critical stage," enabling them to defer appointment of counsel until a "critical stage," which may occur weeks, months, or more than a year later? ii) Should this Court formulate a standard for determining when counsel must be appointed for indigent detainees under the Sixth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, or Equal Protection Clause given that the federal courts of appeals are irreconcilably divided on: (a) whether the Sixth Amendment permits indefinite denial of counsel to detainees in the absence of prejudice; (b) whether due process requires a counseled, individualized bail hearing within 48 hours of arrest; and (c) whether delayed representation violates equal protection; iii) Should this Court exercise its supervisory power when: (a) the District Court announced the standards of review after the matter was submitted; (b) the District Court conducted a bench trial by affidavit; (c) the Ninth Circuit failed to conduct de novo review of the constitutional standards promulgated by the magistrate judge answering the question left open by this Court in Rothgery v. Gillespie Cty., Tex., 554 U.S. 191 (2008) concerning what standards should apply in determining when delay in appointing counsel is unreasonably long; and (d) the Ninth Circuit avoided ruling on the potentially dispositive issue of whether the Heck preclusion doctrine would bar a civil rights action based upon denial of counsel at the "critical stage" of arraignment by erroneously claiming that the issue was not argued in appellant's opening brief and was, therefore, waived? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, John Farrow and Jerome Wade brought the putative class action asserting a number of claims based on the alleged failure of Defendant Contra Costa County to provide appointed counsel at the Plaintiffs' first court appearances, or within a reasonable time thereafter, in criminal proceedings in state court. After multiple motions to dismiss, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and remand to the Court, the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are for failure to provide the counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment within a reasonable time after the right attached, and for a writ of mandamus to enforce Contra Costa Public Defender Robin Lipetzky's obligations under Section 27706 of the California Government Code.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners John Farrow, et al. are represented by: Christopher Alan Martin, Esq. MARTIN LAW OFFICES 607 Hearst Ave. Berkeley, CA 94610 Telephone: (510) 206-2142 E-mail: M305@icloud.com COOPERATIVE REGIONS: Collishaw Sues Over Misleading Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Collishaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools, Case No. 7:20-cv-09009-PMH (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2020) arises from the Defendant's misleading front label representations of its product, in violation of the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells vanilla protein shake under its Organic Valley brand. The product is available to consumers from retail and online stores of third-parties and is sold in sizes including but not limited to cartons of 11 OZ. According to the complaint, the product's front label representation of "Vanilla," and vignette of the vanilla flower and cured vanilla beans "leads consumers to believe that it is flavored with vanilla extract, or another vanilla flavoring derived solely from vanilla beans, as defined in the federal standard of identity when in fact it is not." The representations of the product as "Vanilla" is misleading because the "Organic Flavor" provides much of the product's vanilla taste, yet this is not disclosed to consumers including the Plaintiff, the suit says. Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools sells a variety of dairy products across all fifty states at locations including grocery stores, convenience stores, and big box retailers with principal place of business in La Farge, Wisconsin, Vernon County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com CROWN CORK: Mimnaugh Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Hourly Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Mimnaugh, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-03762 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 4, 2020), alleges that the Crown Cork failed to pay Bruce Mimnaugh and other workers like the Plaintiff overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff contends that the unpaid payment included shift differential pay and other non-overtime compensation that is required to be calculated into the regular rate of pay for purposes of determining the overtime rate. Mimnaugh was an hourly employee of Crown Cork and currently resides in Conroe, Texas. Mimnaugh worked for crown Cork from approximately May 2017 until August 2020. Crown Cork -- https://www.crowncork.com/ -- is one of the largest packaging companies in the world. With operations in 47 countries employing over 33,000 people and net sales of $11.7 billion, we are uniquely positioned to bring best practices in quality and manufacturing to growing economies in Asia, Eastern Europe, South America and the Middle East and North Africa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 425-6445 Facsimile (713) 888-535-9271 E-mail: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com - and - Raphael Katri, Esq. E-mail: RKatri@gmail.com LAW OFFICES OF RAPHAEL A. KATRI 8549 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 940-2034 Facsimile: (310) 733-5644 CVS HEALTH: Mier Suit over Hand Sanitizers Moved to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSEPH MIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS HEALTH, Rhode Island corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01141024-CU-FR-CXC, was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-01979-DOC-ADS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is a proposed putative class consists of "[a]ll persons residing in the State of California who purchased CVS brand hand-sanitizer during the period beginning four years from the date of the filing of this complaint to the date of class certification. The complaint purports to bring claims under the California's False Advertising Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the common law. CVS Health is an American healthcare company that owns CVS Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy benefits manager; Aetna, a health insurance provider, among many other brands. The company's headquarter is in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carol Brophy, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 365-6700 Facsimile: (415) 365-6699 - and - Melanie Ayerh, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 439-9400 Facsimile: (213) 439-9599 D. LOVES RESTAURANTS: Riley Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Stacie Riley on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. D. Loves Restaurants, LLC, a New Mexico Limited Liability Company, and Donald Love and Jane Doe Love, a married couple, Case No. 1:20-cv-01085-JFR-KK (D.N.M., Oct. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Mexico Statutes Ann. Minimum Wage Act, and the Albuquerque Minimum Wage Ordinance. The complaint alleges that the Defendants: a) failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum wages; b) maintained a policy or practice of paying its employee servers sub-minimum hourly wages under the tip-credit provisions; c) reduced the Plaintiff's and the collective members' compensation to $5.65 per hour without providing them notice of their intent to do so; and d) engaged in the regular practice of automatically deducting $3.55 from the Plaintiff and the class members' pay for each and every shift that they worked to pay for food regardless of whether or not they ate during that shift or not. The Plaintiff was employed as a server by the Defendants at their Waffle House restaurant in New Mexico from approximately February 2020 through approximately June 20, 2020. D. Love's Restaurants, LLC owns and operates several Waffle House Restaurants in New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 6000 Freedom Square Dr. Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 Facsimile: (216) 642-5814 E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com DAY & ZIMMERMANN: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Waters Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled John Waters, Plaintiff, v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-11585-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 13, 2020, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Disqualify Judge with prejudice. The case is a putative class action which arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff Waters alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the law. After his first motion to disqualify the judge was denied without prejudice, the Plaintiff has filed a second motion to disqualify and asks the judicial officer assigned to the session of the Court to recuse himself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 455. Before the Court can consider the other pending motions in the case, it must address the Plaintiff's second motion for recusal. The Plaintiff states that one of his several attorneys, Attorney Philip J. Gordon, represented an employee of Slade Gorton & Co. Inc. in a potential litigation after she was discharged. In March, 2018, Attorney Gordon negotiated a Confidential Separation Agreement whereby that employee received a severance package in exchange for a release of her claims. That release included all "directors, officers and employees." The Plaintiff claims that because the judicial officer has a relationship with SG & Co., there is reason to question his impartiality in matters involving Attorney Gordon and, therefore, he should recuse himself in the case. Judge Gorton held that judicial officer has a familial relationship with SG & Co. and is recused from matters involving its retained counsel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. The Plaintiff does not, however, allege (nor is it true) that the judicial officer has any involvement in the day-to-day operation of the business or awareness of the employment matter handled by Attorney Gordon. Nor does he allege that the judicial officer has had any interaction with Attorney Gordon with respect to that dispute. The appellate case is captioned as JOHN WATERS, individually and for others similarly situated Plaintiff-Appellee v. DAY & ZIMMERMANN NPS, INC. Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1997, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance form, transcript report/order form, and docketing statement are due on November 12, 2020.[BN] EAST COAST: Helwing Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tomsz Helwing filed an appeal from the District Court's Final Order and Judgment dated September 21, 2020 entered in the lawsuit entitled Michalow v. East Coast Restoration & & Construction Consulting Corp., Case No. 09-cv-5475, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). Plaintiffs Dariusz Michalow, Sebastian Tkazyk, and Tomsz Helwing commenced this action on December 15, 2009, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against East Coast Restoration & Consulting Corporation, Midtown Restoration Incorporated and Bozena Barbara Marcisqak. Plaintiffs assert claims for unpaid overtime compensation and spread-of-hours pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. The appellate case is captioned as Michalow v. East Coast Restoration & & Construction Consulting Corp., Case No. 20-3453, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Tomasz Helwing, of Howard Beach, NY, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees East Coast Restoration & Consulting Corp.; Midtown Restoration, Inc.; Bozena Barbara Marcisquak; East Coast Installation & Consulting Corp.; East Coast Restoration & Construction Consulting Corp.; Roofing Systems Consulting, Corp.; Grzegorz Sobolewski; Andrzej Kaczmarek, 61-61 70 Street, Middle Village, NY 11379; Marcin Podgorney; and Karol Marcisquak are represented by: Michael Marc Rabinowitz, Esq. RABINOWITZ & GALINA 94 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 739-8222 E-mail: mwitz@optonline.net - and - Drew Sumner, Esq. SUMNER LAW LLP 245 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 559-2966 Defendant-Appellee Bozena Barbara Marcisquak, of Branchberg, NJ, appears pro se. ELECTRIC BLUE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Lopez Claims --------------------------------------------------------- The case, CARITA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. ELECTRIC BLUE L.L.C. d/b/a ELECTRIC BLUE CAFE, DENNING ENTERPRISES, INC., and KENNETH DENNING, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01631 (D. Conn., October 29, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer at an adult entertainment club for over two years from November 2017 to April 2019. According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers the federally mandated minimum wage or any other form of compensation because they were illegally classified by the Defendants as independent contractors to avoid paying them in accordance with the FLSA. They were compensated exclusively through tips from the Defendants' customers. As independent contractors, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers were obliged by the Defendants to pay a "house fee" per shift worked at the club, and required them to perform private and semi-private dances under the pricing guidelines, policies, procedures, and promotions set exclusively by the Defendants. Aside from that, the Defendants required them to share their tips with other non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips. Electric Blue L.L.C. and DENNING ENTERPRISES, INC. operate an adult entertainment club under the name "Electric Blue Cafe" in Tolland, Connecticut. Kenneth Denning is the owner/manager of both Corporate Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Katz, Esq. COHEN AND WOLF, P.C. 1115 Broad Street Bridgeport, CT 06604 Tel: (203) 368-0211 Fax: (203) 337-5505 E-mail: skatz@cohenandwolf.com - and – David W. Hodges, Esq. William Rivers Wallace, Esq. HODGES and FORTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com rwallace@hftrialfirm.com ELECTRONIC EXPRESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELECTRONICS EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09077 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his computer. The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website the last occurring in October 2020, he has encountered multiple access barriers which denied him full and equal access to its facilities, goods and services offered to the public. Because the Defendant allegedly failed to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Guidelines, thus it failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. Electronics Express, Inc. is an electronics retail company that owns and operates the said Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Pelletier Securities Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Pelletier et al. v. Endo International PLC et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01839, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 20, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05263-MMB to the proceeding. The lawsuit contends that the Defendants, Endo International PLC, its former and present chief executive officers, and its chief financial officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint asserts that Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo, conspired with several other pharmaceutical companies to fix generic drug prices in violation of the federal antitrust laws. It alleges that Endo and its officers made false or misleading public statements and failed to disclose or actively concealed material adverse facts about Endo's business, operations, prospects and revenue, artificially inflating Endo's share prices. Endo International Public Limited Company provides specialty healthcare solutions. The Company develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes pharmaceutical products and generic drugs. Endo International offers its products to the medical and healthcare industries worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 844-7750 - and - Thayne Stoddard, Esq. BLELCHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 7 Times Square 27th Fl New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 The Defendants are represented by: James E. Brandt, Esq. Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 885-3RD AVE New York, NY 10022-4834 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 E-mail: james.brandt@lw.com jeff.hammel@lw.com - and - John Thomas Ryan, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 12670 High Bluff Dr San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 523-3930 Facsimile: (858) 523-5450 - and - Thomas J. Giblin, Esq. GILBIN & LYNCH 2100 Morris Avenue Union, NJ EVOLUS INC: Malakouti Sues Over 37% Decline in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- ARMIN MALAKOUTI, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. EVOLUS, INC., DAVID MOATAZEDI, RUI AVELAR, and LAUREN SILVERNAIL, Case No. 1:20-cv-08647 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020) seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Evolus stock between February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive. According to the complaint, beginning in February 2019, Evolus embarked on a public campaign to hype the market right before the commercial launch of its sole leading product Jeuveau. To secure an aggressive growth and a rapid influx of revenue, Evolus and the individual Defendants disseminated dozens of public statements in which they promoted Jeuveau as a proprietary formulation of the botulinum toxic type A complex, purportedly developed by Korean bioengineering company Daewoong through years of clinical research and millions of dollars worth of investment in research and development. Among other things, Evolus promised investors that it would attain the number two U.S. market position within 24 months of launch. Throughout the Class period, the Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial strain as well as the manufacturing processes used to develop Jeuveau originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox; (ii) sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations that Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the development of Jeuveau; (iii) as a result, Evolus faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau; which in turn (iv) seriously threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau in the United States and generate revenue; and (v) any revenues generated from the sale of Jeuveau were based on Evolus' unlawful activities, including the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox. The complaint further asserts that the investing public learned the real truth about Jeuveau on July 6, 2020 when the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") issued its Initial Final Determination in a case brought by Allergan and Medytox against Evolus, alleging that Evolus stole certain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau. To make things even more catastrophic, the ITC Judge recommended a ten-year long ban on Evolus' ability to import Jeuveau into the United States and a ten-year long cease and desist order preventing Evolus from selling Jeuveau in the United States. The news caused a precipitous and immediate decline in the price of Evolus shares, which fell 37% over the course of two trading days, to close at $3.35 on July 8, 2020, on unusually high trading volume, the suit says. Evolus, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Newport Beach, California. The Company operates as a medical aesthetics company, and develops, produces, and markets clinical neurotoxins for the treatment of aesthetic concerns.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Andrea Farah, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com afarah@lowey.com FIRST NATIONAL: Lara Appeals Auto Insurance Suit to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Leeana Lara, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Leeana Lara, et al. v. First National Insurance Compa, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05301-RJB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 17, 2020, Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, (i) denied Defendant CCC Information Services Incorporated's Expedited Motion to Compel In-Person Depositions of Cameron Lundquist, Leeana Lara, and Lance Kaufman and Extend the Case Schedule; and (ii) denied without prejudice CCC's motion for a four-week extension of the case schedule to conduct in-person depositions. In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' practice of using unexplained and unjustified condition adjustments to comparable vehicles when valuing a total loss claim for a vehicle, violates the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), specifically WAC 284-30-391(4)(b) and (5)(d), and so constitutes: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act and (4) civil conspiracy. The Plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. The appellate case is captioned as Leeana Lara, et al. v. First National Insurance Compa, et al., Case No. 20-80154, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner LEEANA LARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and CAMERON LUNDQUIST are represented by: Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert B. Carey, Esq. John Michael DeStefano, III, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 11 West Jefferson Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com Defendant-Respondent FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire Corporation; LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC. are represented by: John M. Silk, Esq. WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON 901 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98164-2050 Telephone: (206) 623-4100 E-mail: silk@wscd.com FOLGER COFFEE: Number of Servings Misleading, Tan Claims -------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK TAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, a subsidiary of the J. M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-09370 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2020) is a consumer class action complaint against the Defendant for unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices in violations of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant engages in false and deceptive package labeling on its Folgers coffee product canisters with respect to the promised number of coffee servings contained in the package. The Defendant misrepresents the number of servings its containers can provide in order to spur sales, and disadvantage competitors who do not make similar claims. As a result, consumers overpay, as they do not receive the number of coffee servings Folgers represents to be present in the container, to the detriment of the consumer. By overpaying in this manner and failing to receive the benefit of the bargain, the Plaintiff and the class members suffered monetary injury, the suit says. The Folger Coffee Company retails packaged coffee. The Company offers ground, instant, single serve, and iced coffees through through grocery stores, drug stores, and other large chain retail stores, as well as online retailers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David N. Lake, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE A Professional Corporation 16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 788-5100 Facsimile: (818) 479-9990 E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com - and - Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C. 208 East 51st Street, Suite 380 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 685-0969 E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com - and - Beth A. Keller, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BETH A. KELLER, P.C. 118 North Bedford Road, Suite 100 Mount Kisco, NY 10549 Telephone: (914) 752-3040 E-mail: bkeller@keller-lawfirm.com - and - Emily Komlossy, Esq. KOMLOSSY LAW P.A. 4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 842-2021 Facsimile: (954) 416-6223 E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com FREDDIE MAC: Ohio Public Employees Appeal Ruling to 6th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Ohio Public Employees Retirement System filed an appeal from a court ruling in its lawsuit entitled OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00160, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown. District Judge Benita Y. Pearson on September 17, 2020, issued its Judgment in favor of Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and its four senior officers -- Richard F. Syron, Patricia L. Cook, Anthony S. Piszel and Eugene M. McQuade -- and against Plaintiff Ohio Public Employees Retirement System on the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. The final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, resolves both liability and damages. According to Judge Pearson, the only way for OPERS to move forward in the case would be to abandon price maintenance as its theory of price impact, and attempt to show price impact at the time of the misrepresentations and omissions through stock price movement. Judge Pearson said OPERS is not prepared to and cannot proceed individually on this basis. Judge Pearson said no additional discovery or expert report is likely to change the Court's determination that OPERS' price maintenance theory of liability cannot be used to prove price impact. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 23, 2019, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the Court of Appeals has denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal the decision of the district court denying their motion for class certification in the case, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al. This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning the company's business, risk management, and the procedures the company put into place to protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. The appellate case is captioned as Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. FHLMC, et al., Case No. 20-4082, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK, & DE MARCO 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com Defendants-Appellees FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, aka Freddie Mac, RICHARD F. SYRON, PATRICIA L. COOK, ANTHONY S. PISZEL, and EUGENE M. MCQUADE, are represented by: Jason D. Frank, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 951-8153 E-mail: jason.frank@morganlewis.com - and - Hugh E. McKay, Esq. PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR 950 Main Avenue, Suite 500 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 443-9000 E-mail: hmckay@porterwright.com - and - Frank R. Volpe, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 E-mail: fvolpe@sidley.com - and - Carl Spencer Kravitz, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER 1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com - and - Michael V. Rella, Esq. MURPHY & MCGONIGLE 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 880-3973 E-mail: mrella@mmlawus.com - and - Michael S. Doluisio, Esq. DECHERT 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 994-4000 E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com GANNETT PUBLISHING: Aronson Appeals Labor Suit Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Vicky Aronson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Vicky Aronson v. Gannett Publishing Services, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00996-PSG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 7, 2020, the Court entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. denying the Plaintiff's motions to strike; and 3. mooting the Defendant's motion to strike certification of the Plaintiff's claims. The Court said, "the Defendants have also moved for the Court to deny class certification on Plaintiff's California Labor Code violations. The Court need not reach the issue of whether common questions predominate as to the substantive labor code violations. To recover for substantive labor code violations, Plaintiff must first establish that the Class Members are employees. To establish that they are employees, Plaintiff must prevail on the misclassification claim. As the Court explained above, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that common issues predominate as to the misclassification claim. Therefore, regardless of how the Court answers the predominance question in the context of the wage-and-hour claims, individualized issues will invariably exist as to the Plaintiff's threshold misclassification claim, rendering the entire case unsuitable for class certification." The appellate case is captioned as Vicky Aronson v. Gannett Publishing Services, et al., Case No. 20-56077, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Vicky Aronson Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 26, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 16, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 15, 2020; -- Appellant Vicky Aronson opening brief is due on January 25, 2021; -- Appellees Louis Cox, Does, Gannett Publishing Services, LLC and LDC Distribution, LLC answering brief is due on February 25, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VICKY ARONSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92111 Telephone: (760) 480-4162 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com jimt@potterhandy.com Defendants-Appellees GANNETT PUBLISHING SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; LDC DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a California limited liability company; and LOUIS COX, an individual, are represented by: Richard B. Lapp, Esq. Camille Annette Olson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 460-5914 E-mail: rlapp@seyfarth.com colson@seyfarth.com - and - Bethany Pelliconi, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 E-mail: bpelliconi@seyfarth.com - and - Katelyn K. Empey, Esq. Shaun M. Murphy, Esq. SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY, LLP 1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Telephone: (760) 322-2275 E-mail: kempey@sbemp.com murphy@sbemp.com GENERAL MOTORS: Pilgrim Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs William D. Pilgrim, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Minute Order dated September 1, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Estate of William D. Pilgrim, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-08047-JFW-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages for the Defendant's violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint concerns purchasers or lessees of Corvette vehicles equipped with the LS7 7.0LV8 engine concerning model years 2006 to 2013. The vehicles exhibited excessive valve guide wear which led to engine failures and inspections and repairs. The Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on October 14, 2015. On March 16, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation to continue the court's October 15, 2019 Scheduling Order in order to permit mediation. The court issued an order modifying the schedule on March 18, 2020, issuing new dates including a motion hearing cut-off date of November 23, 2020, but not mentioning Civil Local Rule 23-3, or any separate date for a class certification motion. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on August 27, 2020. Thereafter, on August 27, 2020, the Defendant filed its Ex Parte application to strike Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Plaintiffs' class allegations or, in the alternative, to extend the Defendant's deadline to respond. Despite the fact that the parties had previously requested that the district court set a date certain for the filing of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the lack of clarity as to the status of the 90-day requirement of Civil Local Rule 23-3, the District Court issued a minute order on September 1, 2020, striking the Plaintiffs' class allegations and motion for class certification as being untimely. The appellate case is captioned as Estate of William D. Pilgrim, et al v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 20-56073, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Marc Adams, Shawn Bain, Adam Balducci, Lyle Barkley, S. Garrett Beck, Robert L. Briggs, Roger L. Browning, Tuan Bui, Ahmed J. Cannon, William Church, Aaron Clark, Christopher Martin Constantine, Devry Davis, Lyle Dunahoo, Robert Edgar, Jan Engwis, Estate of William D. Pilgrim, Mathew Evans, Michael Fernandez, Alan Ferrer, Andres Frey, Robert Geiss, Walter Goetzman, Bradley Grant, Roy Haleen, Kaleb Isley, Richard Jenkins, Frank L. Juzswik, Jared Kiley, Jeff Kolodzi, Howard Kopel, Edwin William Krause, John Lebar, Benjamin Luke, Jeffrey M. Millslagle, Robert C. Murphy, James Osheim, Dennis Palmquist, John Parsons, Jerome E. Pederson, Alan Pelletier, John Pendleton, David Penrod, Mike Peters, Kai Qian, Miguel Quezada, Chad Reese, Edwin Rojas, Mark Rowe, David Sheldon, Morris Smith, Anthony Stack, Randy Standke, Derek Van Den Top, David Ward, Dallas Wicker and Jack Woodall Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 23, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 16, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 15, 2020; -- Appellants Marc Adams, Shawn Bain, Adam Balducci, Lyle Barkley, S. Garrett Beck, Robert L. Briggs, Roger L. Browning, Tuan Bui, Ahmed J. Cannon, William Church, Aaron Clark, Christopher Martin Constantine, Devry Davis, Lyle Dunahoo, Robert Edgar, Jan Engwis, Estate of William D. Pilgrim, Mathew Evans, Michael Fernandez, Alan Ferrer, Andres Frey, Robert Geiss, Walter Goetzman, Bradley Grant, Roy Haleen, Kaleb Isley, Richard Jenkins, Frank L. Juzswik, Jared Kiley, Jeff Kolodzi, Howard Kopel, Edwin William Krause, John Lebar, Benjamin Luke, Jeffrey M. Millslagle, Robert C. Murphy, James Osheim, Dennis Palmquist, John Parsons, Jerome E. Pederson, Alan Pelletier, John Pendleton, David Penrod, Mike Peters, Kai Qian, Miguel Quezada, Chad Reese, Edwin Rojas, Mark Rowe, David Sheldon, Morris Smith, Anthony Stack, Randy Standke, Derek Van Den Top, David Ward, Dallas Wicker and Jack Woodall opening brief is due on January 25, 2021; -- Appellee General Motors LLC answering brief is due on February 25, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM D. PILGRIM, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Andre Emilio Jardini, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5000 Facsimile: (818) 547-5329 E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com Defendant-Appellee GENERAL MOTORS LLC is represented by: Andrew Holmer, Esq. CROWELL & MORING, LLP 515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4750 E-mail: aholmer@crowell.com - and - Gregory Oxford, Esq. ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 950 Torrance, CA 90503 Telephone: (310) 316-1990 E-mail: goxford@iccolaw.com - and - April N. Ross, Esq. Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 E-mail: aross@crowell.com ksooy@crowell.com GOOGLE LLC: Grand Atlas Sues Over Monopoly in Digital Ads Market ---------------------------------------------------------------- GRAND ATLAS LLC d/b/a GRAND ATLAS TOURS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03057 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2020) arises from the Defendants' conduct of gaining an illegal monopoly in brokering display advertising market in violation of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. The complaint alleges that Google achieved the market dominance in part by acquiring rivals in the online advertising space, conditioning access to its search-results data and YouTube video advertising platform upon the purchase of its separate display advertising services, and ensuring those systems were not compatible with those of its competitors in online advertising. Because of its pervasive monopoly conduct, Google now controls the "ad tech stack" comprising the intermediary services between advertisers, who pay to place digital advertisements, and publishers who are paid to publish those ads on their websites. Additionally, companies that wish to place or publish online advertisements have little choice but to pay Google for its advertising services, including its instantaneous auction platforms, and Google's monopolization of this intermediation market has enabled it to favor its own advertising platforms and products, the suit says. As a result, the Plaintiff, like the other class members, suffered economic losses due to Google's monopolization and seeks appropriate equitable relief and damages through this action. Plaintiff Grand Atlas LLC d/b/a Grand Atlas Tours is a private guided tour business based in Washington, D.C. and incorporated in Virginia. Grand Atlas paid Google directly for the placement of digital advertisements during the class period. Google LLC is a technology company that provides internet-related services and products, including online advertising technologies and a search engine. Google is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Dena C. Sharp, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com dsharp@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com scottg@girardsharp.com GOOGLE LLC: McNamara Sues Over Android Mobile App Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN McNAMARA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-07361 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2020) seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and California antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, while Google claims that the Android operating system is maintained as "open" source software, Google has engaged in course of conduct designed to deter competition in the market for Android mobile applications or "apps" and products sold with such apps. With control over the dominant Android OS, Google exercised its monopoly power to establish the Google Play Store as the dominant "store" by which other applications can be downloaded for use by consumers on the Android ecosystem. As a result of its monopolistic conduct, Google has extracted supracompetitive prices for its Android app distribution services and in-app purchases made through the Google Play Store, including a 30% commission on sales of paid apps and a 30% fee for in-app purchases. Google collects and processes these commissions and fees directly from the Plaintiff and class members, remitting the remainder of their payment to the mobile app developer, the suit says. Google LLC is a technology company that provides internet-related services and products, including online advertising technologies and a search engine. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Tamarah P. Prevost, Esq. Noorjahan Rahman, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: ecastillo@cpmlegal.com mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com tprevost@cpmlegal.com nrahman@cpmlegal.com HARLAND CLARKE: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Romero Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLAND CLARKE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09081 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his computer. The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website, www.checks-superstore.com, the last occurring in October 2020, he has encountered multiple access barriers which denied him full and equal access to its facilities, goods and services offered to the public. Because the Defendant allegedly failed to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Guidelines, thus it failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. Harland Clarke Corp. is a bank check distributing company that owns and operates the said Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Weiss Seeks Coverage for COVID-19 Losses ------------------------------------------------------------ JUNE WEISS, D.M.D., PA v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. D/B/A THE HARTFORD and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Case No. 2:20-cv-14420-CCC-ESK (D.N.J., Oct. 14, 2020) arises from the Defendant's denial of commercial insurance benefits due and owing to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated that suffered significant business interruption and substantial losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants' insurance policy sold to and purchased by the Plaintiff is a standard form business policy of insurance for which the COVID-19 event is not excluded. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff contracted for and secured insurance that covered losses sustained due to the interruption of business operations but, astonishingly, the Defendants take the position that the COVID-19 events -- and the direct losses that were caused due to decisions by governmental authorities and other public health officials as a result of the pandemic -- are not covered events entitling the Plaintiff to coverage under the policies it paid for. The Defendants have, on a widespread and uniform basis, allegedly refused to compensate their insureds under their Business Income Coverage and Civil Authority Coverage for losses incurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic, or due to any orders by civil authorities requiring the suspension or curtailment of insureds' businesses. As a result, this action is brought for breach of contract for the Defendants' failure to pay insurance proceeds that were and are owing to the Plaintiff under the policies, as well as by the Defendants to the class under the declarations. The Plaintiff is a dental office based in North Bergen, New Jersey. Hartford Financial Services Group d/b/a The Hartford is a Connecticut-based company that owns various subsidiaries that issue insurance, including but not limited to property and business insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janine L. Pollack, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. Justin Teres, Esq. CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036-5803 Telephone: (212) 969-7811 Facsimile: (332) 206-2073 E-mail: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com jteres@calcaterrapollack.com HEALTHY BEVERAGE: Pierre Sues Over 'Lightly Sweetened' Label ------------------------------------------------------------ LAMARTINE PIERRE JR., DANIELLE GRAHAM, AMIE DELEON, JESSE GONZALEZ, JEANNETTE RODRIGUEZ, VALERIE WELLS, STEPHANIE SMITH, SHANNON HOOD, SHANNA HER, MELANIE BARBER, CHRISTOPHER MORGAN, and MOLLY BROWN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE HEALTHY BEVERAGE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04934-GJP (E.D. Pa., Oct. 6, 2020) alleges that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly advertised and marketed its iced tea beverages to consumers including the Plaintiffs by labeling it as "Lightly Sweetened." According to the complaint, the Defendant's "Lightly Sweetened" representation it specifically makes on the product label is understood by consumers that such a product is in fact low in sugar. Instead, the Defendant's product is high in sugar which directly contradicts the sugar content representation Defendant prominently makes on its label. The Plaintiffs and other putative class members were harmed by paying a premium for the advertised product and only receiving an inferior product that in no way conformed to the "Lightly Sweetened" representation on the label, the suit says. The Healthy Beverage Company, LLC is a Doylestown, Pennsylvania-based beverage company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. David C. Magagna Jr., Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dmagagna@lfsblaw.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60630 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com HENRY SCHEIN: Dropped as Defendant in Marion Diagnostic Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that plaintiffs in Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, subsequently dropped Henry Schein as a defendant in their amended complaint. On May 3, 2018, a purported class action complaint, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC, et al. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-010509, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Becton, Dickinson, and Co. ("Becton'); Premier, Inc. ("Premier"), Vizient, Inc. ("Vizient"), Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal"), Owens & Minor Inc. ("O&M"), Henry Schein, Inc., and Unnamed Becton Distributor Co-Conspirators. The complaint alleged that the defendants entered into a vertical conspiracy to force health care providers into long-term exclusionary contracts that restrain trade in the nationwide markets for conventional and safety syringes and safety IV catheters and inflate the prices of certain Becton products to above-competitive levels. The named plaintiffs sought to represent three separate classes consisting of all health care providers that purchased (i) Becton's conventional syringes, (ii) Becton's safety syringes, or (iii) Becton's safety catheters directly from Becton, Premier, Vizient, Cardinal, O&M or Henry Schein on or after May 3, 2014. The complaint asserted a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and sought equitable relief, treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed asserting the same allegations against the same parties and adding McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. as a defendant. On November 30, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and entered a final judgment, dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties argued the appeal on September 27, 2019. On March 5, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision. The Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the necessary conspiracy by the defendants, but should be provided an opportunity to amend their complaint. The Seventh Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Plaintiffs subsequently dropped Henry Schein as a defendant in their amended complaint. Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Hollywood Police Officers Ret. System Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by the City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System. On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood Police Officers Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Inc., Covetrus, Inc., and Benjamin Shaw and Christine Komola (Covetrus's then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 2:19-cv-05530-FB-RLM. The complaint seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased or otherwise acquired Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12, 2019. The case relates to the Animal Health Spin-off and Merger of the Henry Schein Animal Health Business with Vets First Choice in February 2019. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 and asserts that defendants' statements in the offering documents and after the transaction were materially false and misleading because they purportedly overstated Covetrus's capabilities as to inventory management and supply-chain services, understated the costs of integrating the Henry Schein Animal Health Business and Vets First Choice, understated Covetrus' separation costs from Henry Schein, and understated the impact on earnings from online competition and alternative distribution channels and from the loss of an allegedly large customer in North America just before the Separation and Merger. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on December 23, 2019. Lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 21, 2020. Lead plaintiff added Steve Paladino, the company's Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant in the action. Lead plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 21, 2020, in which it added a claim that Mr. Paladino is a "control person" of Covetrus. Henry Schein said, "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously against this action." Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HENRY SCHEIN: Settlement in Salkowitz Securities Suit Now Final --------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schein, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that order and judgment approving the settlement in the consolidated class action suit initiated by Joseph Salkowitz is now final. On March 7, 2018, Joseph Salkowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws against Henry Schein, Inc., Stanley M. Bergman and Steven Paladino in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-01428. The complaint sought to certify a class consisting of all persons and entities who, subject to certain exclusions, purchased Henry Schein securities from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants had made materially false and misleading statements about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects during the Class Period, thereby causing the plaintiff and members of the purported class to pay artificially inflated prices for Henry Schein securities. Those alleged statements included matters relating to the issues in the In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, which Henry Schein settled and which the court dismissed in June 2019, and in the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") administrative proceeding, in which an administrative law judge ruled in Henry Schein's favor in October 2019 after a trial, as described in the company's prior filings with the SEC. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on June 22, 2018 and recaptioned the putative class action as In re Henry Schein, Inc. Securities Litigation, under the same case number. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on September 14, 2018. The consolidated class action complaint asserted similar claims against the same defendants (plus Timothy Sullivan) on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers during the Class Period. It alleged that Henry Schein's stock price had been inflated during that period because Henry Schein had misleadingly portrayed its dental-distribution business "as successfully producing excellent profits while operating in a highly competitive environment" even though, "in reality, (Henry Schein) had engaged for years in collusive and anticompetitive practices in order to maintain Schein's margins, profits, and market share." The complaint alleged that the stock price started to fall from August 8, 2017, when the company announced below-expected financial performance that allegedly "revealed that Schein's poor results were a product of abandoning prior attempts to inflate sales volume and margins through anticompetitive collusion,' through February 13, 2018, after the FTC filed a complaint against Benco, Henry Schein and Patterson alleging that they violated U.S. antitrust laws. The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On September 27, 2019, the court issued a decision partially granting and partially denying defendants' motion to dismiss the securities action. The court dismissed all claims against Messrs. Bergman and Paladino as well as the Section 10(b) claim against Henry Schein to the extent that that claim relied on the Company's financial results and margins to allege a material misstatement or omission. The court also dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against Henry Schein to the extent that it relied on the Company's August 8, 2017 disclosure to allege loss causation. The court otherwise denied the motion as to Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan. Henry Schein and Mr. Sullivan moved for partial reconsideration of the court's decision. Pursuant to all parties' request, the court temporarily took the motion off the calendar after it was fully briefed. The parties later agreed to resolve this matter in exchange for a cash payment of $35 million, which would be covered by the Company's insurance and would have no earnings impact to the Company. The Court held a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement on September 16, 2020 and approved it later that day. The order and judgment approving the settlement have become final. Henry Schein, Inc. provides health care products and services to dental practitioners and laboratories, animal health clinics, physician practices, government, institutional health care clinics, and other alternate care clinics worldwide. It operates through two segments, Health Care Distribution, and Technology and Value Added Services. The company was founded in 1932 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: Duran Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERASAMO DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HILL COUNTRY STAFFING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00445-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court for an order granting conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act of the following class: "Individuals who performed work for Hill Country Staffing Company LLC as Equipment Operator and/or other hourly non- exempt employeesfrom April 27, 2017 to the present." The Parties have further agreed to and propose the following schedule: -- 10 business days from the order approving notice to Potential Class Members Defendant to provide to Plaintiff ’s Counsel in Excel (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all Putative Class Members: full name; last known address(es) with city, state, and zip Code; last known e-mail address(es) (non-company address if applicable); beginning date(s) of engagement; and ending date(s) of engagement (if applicable). -- 21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class Members Plaintiff’s 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 by email. -- 30 days from order approving notice to Potential Members Plaintiff ’s Counsel may resend a copy of the Court- approved Class Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email. -- 60 days from mailing of Notice to Potential Class Members The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days from the initial and Consent Forms mailing of the Court-approved Notice to return their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff ’s Counsel for filing with the Court. Hill Country Staffing connects qualified workers in the oil and gas industry with companies that need them. A copy of the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eypSiA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: JFitapelli@fslawfirm.com Fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com The Defendant is represeted by: Bruce A. Griggs, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1150 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (915) 541-1513 E-mail: bruce.griggs@ogletree.com HILTON WORLDWIDE: Winnie Appeals D. P.R. Ruling to First Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jonathan Winnie filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled JONATHAN WINNIE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL OF PUERTO RICO, PARK HOTELS & RESORTS INC., and PUERTO RICO CARIBE LESSEE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01859-SCC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, San Juan. Judge Silvia L. Carreno-Coll of the Puerto Rico District Court entered on August 12, 2020, a Judgment in favor of the Defendants and against Plaintiff. Judge Carreno-Coll denied a Motion to Stay the case and a Motion to Change Venue, both as moot. She granted a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 3, 2019, Defendants Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Park Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Hilton International of Puerto Rico, Inc., and Puerto Rico Caribe Lessee, LLC own and/or operate the Caribe Hilton resort in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Defendants charged their guests resort fees calculated as a percentage of the applicable room rate, despite the fact that these resort fees are intended to compensate the hotel owner for certain fixed-cost amenities. As a result of this practice, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the Plaintiff's expense and the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of all amounts by which the Defendants have been so enriched. The appellate case is captioned as Winnie v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc, et al., Case No. 20-1927, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JONATHAN WINNIE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jane A. Becker Whitaker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER PO Box 9023914 San Juan, PR 00902-3914 Telephone: (787) 945-2406 - and - Brandon McCaull Bohlman, Esq. John Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC 5015 Grand Ridge Dr Ste 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market St, Ste 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 E-mail: scarson@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net HM SANDOVAL: Faces Morales Employment Suit in Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HM Sandoval Flc, Inc. The case is styled as Maria Morales, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Bella Vigna Farms, Inc., a California corporation; Delu Vineyards, Inc., a California corporation; Does 1-20; and HM Sandoval Flc, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 34-2020-00287251-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 19, 2020). The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues. HM Sandoval Flc, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from California. Bella Vigna Farms, Inc. is a registered motor carrier located in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Eric S. Trabucco, Esq., at ADVOCATES FOR WORKERS RIGHTS LLP. INSPERITY INC: Defends Building Trades Pension Fund Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a federal securities class action suit initiated by Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania. In July 2020, a federal securities class action was filed against the company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The name of the case is Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05635-NRB. On October 23, 2020, the court issued an order appointing Oakland County Employees' Retirement System and Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association Trust as lead plaintiff. The complaint alleges that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other relief that may be deemed proper. Insperity said, "We believe the allegations in the action are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has been made in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements." Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business solutions to enhance business performance for small and medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. INSPERITY INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on March 2021 -------------------------------------------------------------- Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court overseeing the class action suit related to its 401(k) retirement plan has set the final approval hearing for March 5, 2021. In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company and a third-party who served as the discretionary trustee (the "Co-Defendant") of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible worksite employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan participants. The suit generally alleges the third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent investment choices. The court certified a class defined as "all participants and beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30, 2017." The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to the selection of an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper of the Plan. On March 28, 2019, the court partially granted Insperity's motion for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of the claims concerning allegations of excessive recordkeeping fees. The court denied the plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and set a bench trial, which was held from March 2, 2020 to March 13, 2020. At trial, the plaintiffs alleged damages up to approximately $146 million against all defendants. All parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 15, 2020. On September 18, 2020, the plaintiffs and Co-Defendant informed the court that they reached an agreement in principle to settle the entire case, including a full and final release of all claims against Insperity. Insperity did not participate in the settlement discussions and will make no financial contribution to the settlement. In connection with the settlement, the plaintiffs and Co-Defendant filed a motion to extend the class period to March 31, 2019, which the court granted. The court has also granted preliminary approval of the settlement and has set the final approval hearing on March 5, 2021. Insperity said, "As a result of the uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter and the subsequent settlement agreement that, if approved by the court, will end the case with no financial contribution from Insperity, no provision has been made in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements." Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business solutions to enhance business performance for small and medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. IQVIA INC: Appeals Order in Mussat TCPA Suit to Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant IQVIA Inc. filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled IQVIA INC., Petitioner, v. FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D. S.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Respondent, Case No. 20-510. Response is due on November 16, 2020. Petitioner IQVIA Inc. filed the petition to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case titled FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D., S.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IQVIA, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-1204. The question presented is: Whether a district court with jurisdiction coextensive with a state court in the district can exercise personal jurisdiction over absent class members' claims as part of a putative class action when the court concededly could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the absent class members' claims if they had been brought in individual suits. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court granting IQVIA's motion to strike the class definition. Mussat, an Illinois physician doing business through a professional services corporation, received two unsolicited faxes from IQVIA, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Pennsylvania. These faxes failed to include the opt-out notice required by federal statute. Mussat's corporation (to which we refer simply as Mussat) brought a putative class action in the Northern District of Illinois under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, on behalf of itself and all persons in the country who had received similar junk faxes from IQVIA in the four previous years. IQVIA moved to strike the class definition, arguing that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over the non-Illinois members of the proposed nationwide class. The district court granted the motion to strike, reasoning that under the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, not just the named Plaintiff, but also the unnamed members of the class, each had to show minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state. Because IQVIA is not subject to general jurisdiction in Illinois, the district court turned to specific jurisdiction. Applying those rules, it found that it had no jurisdiction over the claims of parties who, unlike Mussat, were harmed outside of Illinois. The Court granted Mussat's petition to appeal from that order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). The Seventh Circuit now reaffirms the Rule 23(f) order, and holds that the principles announced in Bristol-Myers do not apply to the case of a nationwide class action filed in federal court under a federal statute. The Seventh Circuit finds that Bristol-Myers neither reached nor resolved the question whether, in a Rule 23 class action, each unnamed member of the class must separately establish specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In holding otherwise, the district court failed to recognize the critical distinction between the case and Bristol-Myers. The proper characterization of the status of absent class members depends on the issue. The Seventh Circuit sees no reason why personal jurisdiction should be treated any differently from subject-matter jurisdiction and venue: the named representatives must be able to demonstrate either general or specific personal jurisdiction, but the unnamed class members are not required to do so. It brings to IQVIA's second major point: that allowing the non- Illinois unnamed class members to proceed would be inconsistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k), which governs service of process. The Seventh Circuit holds that IQVIA is mixing up the concepts of service and jurisdiction. The rules for class certification support a focus on the named representative for purposes of personal jurisdiction. Finally, it is worth recalling that the Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers expressly reserved the question whether its holding extended to the federal courts at all. In addition, the opinion does not reach the question whether its holding would apply to a class action. Fitting this problem into the broader edifice of class-action law, the Seventh Circuit is convinced that it is one of the areas Scardelletti identified in which the absentees are more like nonparties, and thus there is no need to locate each and every one of them and conduct a separate personal-juris-diction analysis of their claims. Despite its insistence to the contrary, IQVIA urges a major change in the law of personal jurisdiction and class actions. This change is not warranted by the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers, nor by the alternative arguments based on Rule 4(k) that IQVIA puts forth. The Seventh Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court, and remanded for further proceedings.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner IQVIA Inc. is represented by: Neal Kumar Katyal, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth St., N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 E-mail: neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com JAKOV DULCICH: Faces Hernandez Employment Suit in Cal. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jakov Dulcich and Sons, LLC. The case is styled as Hipolito Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jakov Dulcich and Sons, LLC, a California limited liability corporation, Case No. BCV-20-102415 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Oct. 14, 2020). The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited. A case management conference is set for April 14, 2021 before Judge David R. Lampe. Jakov Dulcich and Sons, LLC provides fruit farming services. The Company offers grapes farming and growing services. Jakov Dulcich and Sons operates in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC 1180 S Beverly Dr Ste 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com JP CYCLES: Faces Johnson-Owen Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- AARON A. JOHNSON-OWEN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. JP CYCLES, INC. d/b/a Seminole Power Sports and LONGWOOD LINCOLN-MERCURY, INC. d/b/a Parks Lincoln of Longwood, Case No. 6:20-cv-01984 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and the class members time-and-a-half for each overtime hour worked since the Defendants had misclassified them as employees exempt from the FLSA; failed to maintain and keep accurate time records; and failed to post the required notice pursuant to the federal law. Mr. Johnson-Owen further asserts that the Defendants failed to notify him of his eligibility to take Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave during his absence, even though they were aware that he suffered from diabetes at the beginning of his employment. The Plaintiff was employed as a service advisor by the Defendants from approximately January 2019 until February 27, 2020. Based in Florida, JP Cycles, Inc., d/b/a Seminole Power Sports, is in the business of selling and servicing motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and personal watercraft. Longwood Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. operates as a car dealer. The Company offers retail sale of new and used automobiles, as well as provides parts and accessories and financing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Adams, Esq. N. Ryan Labar, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, P.A. 2300 East Concord Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 835-8968 Facsimile: (407) 835-8969 E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com rlabar@labaradams.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Quinn Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs James Quinn, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated September 21, 2020, and Judgment dated September 22, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES QUINN d/b/a Q FINANCIAL SERVICES; FAHMIA, INC.; and PRINZO & ASSOCIATES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., d/b/a CHASE BANK; and JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20-cv-4100, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks compensation from the Defendants, who refuse to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires the Plaintiffs to pay out of the compensation they received for processing Paycheck Protection Program loans, for services the Plaintiffs and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans. According to the complaint, the Defendants apparently decided that they do not need to complete the final step of the process and based on information and belief have refused to pay the agents who assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications. This practice seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application process, the Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in completing applications. The Plaintiffs contend that the refusal is harming accountants, attorneys, and other agents, who dropped everything (in the midst of tax season), to assist their customers in filling out these vital loan applications correctly and in compliance with the PPP, and who were specifically only allowed to be paid for these services out of the compensation paid to the lender. The appellate case is captioned as Quinn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 20-3588, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Fahmia, Inc.; Prinzo & Associates, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Robin Johnson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA CG Johnson Company; and James Quinn are represented by: Anne Brackett Shaver, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ashaver@lchb.com Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., DBA Chase Bank; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; Signature Bank; MUFG Union Bank, N.A.; Citibank, N.A.; Citigroup Inc.; and MUFG Americas Holding Co. are represented by: Sylvia Simson, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP MetLife Building 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 801-9275 E-mail: simsons@gtlaw.com - and - Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: esacksteder@paulweiss.com - and - Andrew Soukup, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1 CityCenter 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-5066 E-mail: asoukup@cov.com - and - Christopher J. Houpt, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2380 E-mail: choupt@mayerbrown.com KING-TILLER LLC: Fields Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- ANNANORA L. FIELDS, on Her Behalf, and on Behalf of a Group of Similarly Situated Employees v. KING-TILLER, LLC, THOMASINA R. TILLER-KING. a/k/a THOMASINA R. TILLER, and WILLIE COACHMAN, Case No. 115637643 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Oct. 26, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Whistleblower Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fail to pay legally required regular, minimum and/or overtime wages under FLSA. She asserts that she and all other employees similarly situated were paid hourly, not paid a salary, not paid time and one-half pay, or even regular pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, and were not paid anything if they did not work. The Plaintiff further contends that King-Tiller retaliated against her for opposing, and refusing to participate in, an activity that was illegal. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as the assistant director for the childcare facility operated by King-Tiller in Tampa, Florida from April 2017 to on or about April 22, 2020. King-Tiller LLC is a company located in Tampa, Florida which provides child day care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald E. Pinaud, Jr., Esq. ALL FLORIDA JUSTICE, LLC 4495-304 Roosevelt Blvd, #202 Jacksonville, FL 32210 Telephone: (904) 552-5500 Facsimile: (904) 398-1568 E-mail: Don@AllFloridaJustice.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Penegar Sues Over Unreimbursed Medicare Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CARRA JANE PENEGAR, Executrix of the Estate of JOHNNY RAY PENEGAR, JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., and ISO CLAIMS PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00585 (W.D.N.C., October 23, 2020) arises from the Defendants' uniform systems and practices for failing to reimburse Medicare claims for the Plaintiff and other claimants. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's decedent, her husband Mr. Penegar, was over age 65 and a Medicare beneficiary when he was diagnosed with the asbestos-related cancer, mesothelioma. He received medical care covered by Medicare, which extended his life. He brought a workers' compensation claim against the employer at whose workplace he was exposed to asbestos in the past, alleging that this workplace exposure was a proximate cause of his mesothelioma diagnosis. He also named in that claim Liberty Mutual as the workers' compensation carrier in that matter. However, the employer and its insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual, denied the claim. Medicare ran up a significant bill covering the chemotherapy, surgery and other treatment for Mr. Penegar's illness. The co-counsel litigated Mr. Penegar's workers' compensation claim, first as a living claim while he was alive, then with a death claim added after he died. While Liberty Mutual contested its duty to pay Mr. Penegar's medical expenses, it lost that battle. The North Carolina Industrial Commission found that Liberty Mutual was obligated to cover Mr. Penegar's medical expenses and to reimburse Medicare. That finding was made by the Deputy Commissioner in an order dated April 2016 more than four years ago. That order was affirmed and is binding. However, within the time period when it was supposed to do so, Liberty Mutual not reimbursed Medicare, the suit says. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and Mutual Group, Inc. are insurance providers in the U.S. Verisk Analytics, Inc. conducts risk assessment services and decision analytics. The Company offers data, statistical, and actuarial services, as well as standardized insurance policy programs, underwriting information, and rating-integrity tools. ISO Claims Partners provides Medicare compliance and claims resolution services to property/casualty insurance companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vernon Sumwalt, Esq. THE SUMWALT GROUP Post Office Box 31424 Charlotte, NC 28231-1424 Telephone: (704) 565-0621 Facsimile: (704) 599-1783 E-mail: vernon@sumwaltgrp.com - and - William Graham, Esq. Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. Ed Pauley, Esq. John Hughes, Esq. WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA 525 N. Main Street Salisbury, NC 28144 Telephone: (704) 633-5244 E-mail: bgraham@wallacegraham.com mwallace@wallacegraham.com epauley@wallacegraham.com jhughes@wallacegraham.com LIVE WELL: Shakespeare Appeals E.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Margaret Shakespeare filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated October 13, 2020, issued in her lawsuit entitled Shakespeare v. Live Well Financial, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-7299, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 9, 2020, Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed class action over allegedly improper payments made by Live Well Financial, Inc. for borrowers' property taxes has been closed indefinitely after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed all claims against the only viable defendants. If Live Well emerges from ongoing involuntary bankruptcy proceedings, and plaintiff Margaret Shakespeare can articulate a plausible claim against the reverse mortgage lender, the court will reopen proceedings, Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein said in one of three related orders issued on Sept. 15. Each order adopted findings and recommendations made by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields, without modification, dismissing claims. The appellate case is captioned as Shakespeare v. Live Well Financial, Inc., Case No. 20-3533, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Margaret Shakespeare, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph Seth Tusa, Esq. TUSA P.C. P.O. Box 566 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: (631) 407-5100 E-mail: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee Live Well Financial, Inc.; Compu-Link Corporation, DBA Celink; and Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC are represented by: Jennifer L. Gray, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 633 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 614-7340 E-mail: JGray@hinshawlaw.com - and - Maya Ginsburg, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 262-6700 E-mail: mginsburg@lowenstein.com LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chapman Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- LA'RIA CHAPMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-12875-AJT-APP (E.D. Mich., Oct. 28, 2020) seeks to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the state laws of Michigan. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's illegal company-wide policy has caused the Plaintiff and the putative class members to have hours worked that were not compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime compensation each workweek. The Plaintiff and the Michigan class members are entitled to recover their unpaid "straight time" or "gap time" wages for services rendered on behalf of the Defendant pursuant to Michigan Common Law, the suit says. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in its call center located in Southfield, Michigan from approximately August 2019 until April 2020. LogistiCare Solutions LLC provides non-emergency medical transportation management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. NDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com - and - Jennifer McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI Telephone: (248) 658-8951 Facsimile: (248) 542-6301 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com LOWE'S HOME: McPhee Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to Fourth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Rebecca McPhee, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SCOTT ALMINIANA, STACEY PFLUG, REBECCA McPHEE, KATIE SHOOK, AND IRIS TIRADO, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-CV-00010-KDB-DSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Statesville. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 18, 2020, Judge Kenneth Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina adopted Magistrate Judge David Cayer's Memorandum and Decision ("M&R") and thus granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Scott Alminiana and Stacey Pflug are dismissed as Plaintiffs and compelled to arbitrate their claims in accordance with their arbitration agreements with Defendant, Judge Bell ordered in June 26, 2020. The lawsuit seeks an award of unpaid wages and liquidated damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attendant penalties and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state labor statutes. The appellate case is captioned as Rebecca McPhee v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 20-2135, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 1, 2020; and -- Response Brief is due on December 31, 2020.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants REBECCA MCPHEE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals; KATIE SHOOK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals; and IRIS TIRADO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Rod M. Johnston, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Square Southfield, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com jthompson@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP 2 International Drive Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com fran@klafterolsen.com - and - James J. Mills, Esq. BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, PA P. O. Box 10867 Raleigh, NC 27605-0000 Telephone: (919) 782-1441 E-mail: jmills@bdppa.com Defendant-Appellee LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC is represented by: Adam Doerr, Esq. ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA 101 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-8114 E-mail: adoerr@robinsonbradshaw.com - and - Naima Lillian Farrell, Esq. Jason Craig Schwartz, Esq. Molly Trustman Senger, Esq. Greta Bradlee Williams, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: (202) 955-8500 E-mail: nfarrell@gibsondunn.com jschwartz@gibsondunn.com msenger@gibsondunn.com gbwilliams@gibsondunn.com MARKEL AMERICAN: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., AND UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-24063-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to meet the statutory payment and reimbursement obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors and all others similarly situated under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries' accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing agreements authorized under the law. Further, the Defendants have also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the class members for accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public. The Plaintiff and the class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the suit says. The Defendants are auto and/or other liability insurers that provide either no-fault or med-pay insurance to their customers, including Medicare beneficiaries enrolled under Part C of the Medicare Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Ruiz, Esq. Michael O. Mena, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. Le Jeune Rd. 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and - Alfredo Armas, Esq. Eduardo Bertran, Esq. Francesco Zincone, Esq. ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE 4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 461-5100 E-mail: alfred@armaslaw.com ebertran@armaslaw.com fzincone@armaslaw.com MARKOFF LAW: Faces Fleming FDCA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Markoff Law LLC. The case is styled as Diana Fleming, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Markoff Law LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06092 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 13, 2020). The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. Markoff Law LLC operates as a law firm. The Company practices in the areas such as consumer and commercial debt collection, repossession, enforcement of judgment, commercial litigation, proof of claims, evictions, and creditors rights in bankruptcy. Markoff Law serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com - and - Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 726-6160 E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com MASSACHUSETTS BAY: Misclassifies IT Personnel, Walker Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WALKER and GERALD HICKOX; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Case No. 20-2353-G (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 14, 2020) alleges that the Defendant violated the Massachusetts General Laws by failing to classify the Plaintiffs and other persons performing information technology services as employees. The complaint contends that the Defendant systematically failed to classify many of its information technology personnel as employees in order to save on wage and benefits payments. By failing to classify the Plaintiffs as MBTA's employees, the Defendant denied them benefits to which they would have been entitled as an employee, including paid time off, travel expenses, liability and worker's compensation insurance, health benefits, retirement benefits, other "fringe benefits" and employer tax contributions. Plaintiffs Walker and Hickox were employed by the Defendant as Information Technology personnel in Massachusetts from in or about July 7, 2016 until in or about July 22, 2019, and from in or about November 23, 2016 until in or about January 30, 2017, respectively. Both were not classified as MBTA employees during their tenure. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), is a legislatively created entity, under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 161A. It was created to "provide mass transportation service" within the Commonwealth, including commuter rail transportation and bus, subway and trolley service in and around Boston.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Regan, Esq. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS GROUP, LLC 185 Devonshire Street, Ste. 200 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (857) 277-0902 Facsimile: (857) 233-5287 E-mail: jregan@maemployeerights.com - and - Jeffrey S. Strom, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY S. STROM P.O. Box 916 Boylston, MA 01505 Telephone: (508) 925-5525 E-mail: jeffrey@jeffreystromlaw.com MCKENDREE UNIVERSITY: Delisle Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Kelsey Delisle and Kaitlyn Pennington, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. McKendree University, Case No. 20-L-685, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court for the County of St. Clair to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on October 12, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01073-RJD to the proceeding. McKendree University is a private university in Lebanon, Illinois. Founded in 1828 as the Lebanon Seminary, it is the oldest college or university in Illinois. McKendree enrolls approximately 2,300 undergraduates and nearly 700 graduate students representing 25 countries and 29 states.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq. Daniel Scott Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD 1010 Market Street, Suite 1645 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5799 Facsimile: (314) 241-5788 E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Kyle P Seelbach, Esq. Aleksandra Ostojic Rushing, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP - ST. LOUIS 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105-3433 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 Facsimile: (314) 480-1505 E-mail: kyle.seelbach@huschblackwell.com aleks.rushing@huschblackwell.com MD CBD: Marantz Sues Over Rent Overcharge ----------------------------------------- RUTH MARANTZ and ANTONIO CHECCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MD CBD 180 FRANKLIN LLC, Case No. 521055/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., Oct. 29, 2020) alleges that the Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to comply with the requirements of the 421-a Program by, among other things, improperly registering the apartments with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), in violation of the Rent Stabilization Law. In 1971, the New York State Legislature enacted the Real Property Tax Law Section 421-a, which provides tax incentives for developers who construct new, market-rate, multi-family housing. The Plaintiff, who resides in Apartment 511 at 180 Franklin Avenue, alleges that the Defendant has evaded the 421-a Program's requirements and governing rent stabilization laws, in two ways, both through the improper use of concessions. First, the initial legal regulated rent to be registered for an apartment in a 421-a building must be the "monthly rent charged and paid by the tenant," and all subsequent rent increases are to be derived from that payment. But the Defendant hoodwinked tenants, and DHCR, by registering a legal regulated rent higher than the "monthly rent charged and paid by the tenant." Second, the Defendant utilizes what amounts to a "double" preferential rent. For the Plaintiff's renewal lease, commencing after the enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA), the Defendant pulled her concession, and wrongfully increased her rent from $2,484.44 to $2,836.93 for a one-year lease. The Defendant's conduct demonstrates an attempt to circumvent the requirements of law, all at the expense of the tenants residing at the building, the suit says. MD CBD 180 Franklin LLC is the owner-in-fee of the apartment building located at 180 Franklin Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 619-5400 E-mail: ferrara@nfllp.com rsachar@nfllp.com MDL 2796: Audubon Appeals Ruling in Antitrust Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Audubon Imports, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Audubon Imports, LLC, d/b/a Mercedes Benz of Baton Rouge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Lead Case No. 3:17-md-02796-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is consolidated in the Multidistrict Litigation No. 2796. The case asserts that the Defendants are engaged in a cartel to artificially generate supra-competitive profits by agreeing to reduce product quality, deter innovation, and not fully compete against each other for sales of millions of passenger cars that they sold in the United States. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Audubon Imports, LLC, et al v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktie, et al., Case No. 20-17139, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Audubon Imports, LLC, Autohaus Acquisition, Inc., Bronsberg & Hughes Pontiac, Inc., Estate Motors, Inc., Powders Automobiles, Inc., Tom Schmidt, Team Imports, LLC and Wyoming Valley Motors, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 6, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 30, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 30, 2020; -- Appellants Audubon Imports, LLC, Autohaus Acquisition, Inc., Bronsberg & Hughes Pontiac, Inc., Estate Motors, Inc., Powders Automobiles, Inc., Tom Schmidt, Team Imports, LLC and Wyoming Valley Motors, Inc. opening brief is due on February 8, 2021; -- Appellees Audi Aktiengesellschaft, Audi of America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC, BMW of North America, LLC, BMW(US) Holding Corp., Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, Daimler Aktiengesellschaft, Daimler North America Corporation, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. answering brief is due on March 8, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants AUDUBON IMPORTS, LLC, DBA Mercedes Benz of Baton Rouge; AUTOHAUS ACQUISITION, INC.; ESTATE MOTORS, INC.; POWDERS AUTOMOBILES, INC., FKA Powders Volkswagen Audi, Inc.,, FKA Powders Volkswagen, Inc.; TEAM IMPORTS, LLC, DBA Team Audi and Team VW; TOM SCHMIDT; WYOMING VALLEY MOTORS, INC., DBA Wyoming Valley BMW; and BRONSBERG & HUGHES PONTIAC, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA Porsche Wyoming Valley, is represented by: Ian Barlow, Esq. William A. Kershaw, Esq. KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 448-9800 - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Isaac Diel, Esq. SHARP MCQUEEN, P.A. 6900 College Boulevard Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 661-9931 E-mail: idiel@midwest-law.com - and - Qianwei Fu, Esq. Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Esq. Judith Zahid, Esq. ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 44 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 E-mail: qfu@zelle.com cmicheletti@zelle.com jzahid@zelle.com - and - Jennifer Duncan Hackett, Esq. ZELLE LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 899-4100 E-mail: jhackett@zelle.com Defendants-Appellees BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, (BMW AG); BMW(US) HOLDING CORP.; BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI OF AMERICA, INC.; AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, (Audi AG); AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG; PORSCHE CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.; DAIMLER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, (Daimler AG); DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION; MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC.; MERCEDES-BENZ VANS, LLC; MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; and VOLKSWAGEN AG are represented by: Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Belinda S. Lee, Esq. Daniel Murray Wall, Esq. Elizabeth Hays Yandell, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: alicia.jovais@lw.com belinda.lee@lw.com dan.wall@lw.com elizabeth.yandell@lw.com - and - Michael Lacovara, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-4834 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 E-mail: michael.lacovara@lw.com - and - Amanda F. Davidoff, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1700 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 956-7500 E-mail: davidoffa@sullcrom.com - and - Suhana Han, Esq. Sharon Nelles, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 E-mail: hans@sullcrom.com nelless@sullcrom.com - and - Eric J. Knapp, Esq. Troy M. Yoshino, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 954-0200 E-mail: eric.knapp@squirepb.com troy.yoshino@squirepb.com - and - Shon Morgan, Esq. Adam Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com MDL 2878: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Rule 23 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: RANBAXY GENERIC DRUG APPLICATION ANTITRUST, Case No. 1:19-md-02878-NMG (D. Mass.), the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc. (DPPs) ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Diovan and/or AB-rated generic versions of Diovan directly from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer at any time during the period September 21, 2012, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the "Diovan Class Period"); "all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Valcyte and/or AB-rated generic versions of Valcyte directly from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer, but excluding those purchasers who only purchased branded Valcyte, at any time during the period August 1, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the "Valcyte Class Period"); and "all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Nexium and/or AB-rated generic versions of Nexium directly from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer at any time during the period May 27, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the "Nexium Class Period"). Excluded from each of the direct purchaser classes are the defendants and their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, and all governmental entities.; 2. appointing Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc. as the representatives of each Class; and 3. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Hilliard & Shadowen LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for each Class. A copy of the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IoOgH3 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., and the Proposed Direct Purchaser Class, are: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com kristiel@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. Matthew C. Weiner, Esq. HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP 919 Congress Ave., Suite 1325 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (855) 344-3928 E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com - and - John D. Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM 34 Sunset Boulevard Long Beach, NJ 08008 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com - and - Paul E. Slater, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. David P. Germaine, Esq. John Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com jvanek@sperling-law.com dgermaine@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com mslater@sperling-law.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tziegler@ktmc.com ebarlieb@ktmc.com - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Tyler Story, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com tjs@wexlerwallace.com - and - Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. Donna M. Evans, Esq. Royce Zeisler, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: srobertson@cohenmilstein.com devans@cohenmilstein.com rzeisler@cohenmilstein.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com MDL 2977: Haff Poultry Seeks to Transfer and Consolidate 4 Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters, Myles B. Weaver, and Melissa Weaver, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in the case IN RE: BROILER CHICKEN GROWER LITIGATION, Case No. 6:17-CV-00033 (E.D. Okla.) filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an Order to consolidate four actions against Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., and transfer them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma under MDL No. 2977. The Plaintiffs move the Panel to transfer and consolidate pretrial proceedings for these actions: -- In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. 6:17-CV-00033 (E.D. Okla.) (Hon. Robert J. Shelby); -- In re Sanderson and Koch Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. 7:18-CV-00031 (E.D.N.C.) (Hon. James C. Dever, III); -- McEntire, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-CV-02764 (D. Colo.) (Hon. Nina Y. Wang); and -- Colvin v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-02464 (D. Kan.) (Hon. Holly L. Teeter). The Plaintiffs assert that the claims and proposed classes in the four actions are identical in all substantive aspects. All of the actions bring identical claims on behalf of farmers who raise broiler chickens under contracts with Integrators, the entities that control nearly every aspect of broiler production. All of the actions arise out of the same conduct—agreements between Integrators not to compete for Broiler Grow-Out Services, with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, or stabilizing Grower compensation below competitive levels. All of the actions allege that this conspiracy is in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as unfair practices under Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Tyson Foods, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas, that operates in the food industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Christina M. Black, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net cblack@bm.net - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mcoolidge@hausfeld.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 Facsimile: (215) 985-3271 E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Samantha S. Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD & CO. LLP 12 Gough Square London, EC4A 3DW United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)20 7665-5000 E-mail: sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Kimberly A. Fetsick, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: kfetsick@hausfeld.com - and - Larry S. McDevitt, Esq. David M. Wilkerson, Esq. VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, PLC 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Gregory Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 832-9080 Facsimile: (334) 409-7001 E-mail: gldavis@knology.net - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 96 Alpharetta, GA 30097 Telephone: (678) 735-5903 Facsimile: (678) 735-5905 E-mail: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - Harlan Hentges, Esq. HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 102 East Thatcher Street Edmond, OK 73034 Telephone: (405) 340-6554 Facsimile: (405) 340-6562 E-mail: harlan@organiclawyers.com - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. Caroline Taylor, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 821-0656 E-mail: john@wbmllp.com caroline@wbmllp.com - and - Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 305 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: jennifer@wbmllp.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Telephone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202)789-1813 E-mail: Danielc@cuneolaw.com - and - David S. Muraskin, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC 1620 L Street NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 861-5245 Facsimile: (202) 232-7203 E-mail: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Telephone: (580) 234-5144 Facsimile: (580) 234-8890 E-mail: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com - and - M. David Riggs, Esq. Donald M. Bingham, Esq. Kristopher Koepsel, Esq. RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS 502 West Sixth Street Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 699-8914 Facsimile: (918) 587-9708 E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com don_bingham@riggsabney.com kkoepsel@riggsabney.com - and - William A. Edmondson, Esq. RIGGS, ABNEY, NEAL, TURPEN, ORBISON & LEWIS 528 N.W. 12th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 843-9909 Facsimile: (405) 842-2913 E-mail: dedmondson@riggsabney.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Aaron Sheanin, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN, LLP 2440 West El Camino Real Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4040 Facsimile: (650) 784-4041 E-mail: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com - and - M. Stephen Dampier, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF M. STEPHEN DAMPIER, P.C. 55 North Section Street P.O. Box 161 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 Facsimile: (251) 929-0800 E-mail: dampier.steve@gmail.com MERRIMACK MUTUAL: Collins Sues Over Deceptive Insurance Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY COLLINS and MARC LOMBARD, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MERRIMACK MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 20-2393 (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 19, 2020) arises from the Defendant's unfair and deceptive conduct in the sale of homeowners insurance policies in violation of the Massachusetts General Laws. The complaint alleges that the Defendant engaged in unfair and/or deceptive acts and practices through one or more of the following acts and omissions: (i) failing and refusing to permit the Plaintiffs to purchase Coverage A limits based on "full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss;" (ii) requiring the Plaintiffs to purchase Coverage A limits that the Plaintiffs did not want and that Plaintiffs were not required to purchase in order to be eligible for unreduced replacement cost benefits; (iii) charging the Plaintiffs premiums for based on property valuations that included "debris removal" even though such coverage was part of the basic policy; and (iv) charging the Plaintiffs premiums for "ordinance/law compliance" even though such coverage was part of the basic policy. All of the Defendant's misconduct was motivated by, and resulted in, the generation of higher revenues for the Defendant at the expense of the Plaintiffs and Class members. The Plaintiffs suffered harm due to the Defendant's unlawful conduct by being deprived of coverage options available under the Defendant's policies and by being charged and paying for insurance coverage that they did not want and/or that was duplicative of existing coverage, the suit says. The Plaintiffs have owned, as trustees of the Mary Collins and Marc Anthony Lombard Revocable Trust, the single-family home located in Greenfield, Massachusetts, where they have lived since 1994. Merrimack Mutual Fire Insurance Company is a corporation engaged in the business of insurance, with a principal place of business in Andover, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 373 Winch Street Framingham, MA 01701 Telephone: (508) 872-1261 E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq. CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP 273 State Street Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 455-1730 E-mail: jmomeau@emolawyers.com MEXGROCER.COM LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MEXGROCER.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08809 (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design and operate its Website 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 alleges that on multiple occasions, the last occurring in October 2020, she visited the Defendant's Website, www.mexgrocer.com, to make a purchase. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred her from being able to determine what specific products were offered for sale. Ms. Angeles contends that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, thus seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mexgrocer.com, LLC is a Mexican grocery store company that owns and operates the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Cabrales Appeals N.D. Tex. Ruling to 5th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Juan Cabrales filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled JUAN CABRALES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-1703, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 14, 2020, the lawsuit seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The appellate case is captioned as Juan Cabrales v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 20-11050, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Juan Cabrales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Shawn Jaffer, Esq. SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC 13601 Preston Road Dallas, TX 75240-0000 Telephone: (214) 494-1871 E-mail: shawn@jaffer.law Defendant-Appellee Midland Credit Management, Incorporated is represented by: Gregg D. Stevens, Esq. MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, P.L.L.C. 6688 N. Central Expressway Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 445-2406 E-mail: gstevens@mcglinchey.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Ortiz Consumer Credit Suit Removed to W.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Eric Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2020CV04348, was removed from the Texas County Court in and for Bexar County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on October 12, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-01205-FB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Maurice Clanton, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BILL CLANTON, P.C. 926 Chulie Dr San Antonio, TX 78216 Telephone: (210) 226-0800 Facsimile: (210) 338-8660 E-mail: bill@clantonlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-7576 Facsimile: (305) 789-7799 E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com MISTER BEE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Paguada Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MISTER BEE POTATO CHIP COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-08666-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, 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 he recently visited the Defendant's Web site, www.misterbee.com, in October of 2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase. Despite his efforts, however, he was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Web site's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, thus he 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. Mister Bee Potato Chip Company is a potato chip manufacturing company that owns and operates the Web site.[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 MIZUHO BANK: Laydon Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Jeffrey Laydon filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated August 27, 2020, and Judgment dated September 25, 2020, entered in the lawsuit JEFFREY LAYDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ, LTD., THE SUMITOMO TRUST AND BANKING CO., LTD., THE NORINCHUKIN BANK, MITSUBISHI UFJ TRUST AND BANKING CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING CORPORATION, J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES PLC, MIZUHO CORPORATE BANK, LTD., DEUTSCHE BANK AG, THE SHOKO CHUKIN BANK, LTD., SHINKIN CENTRAL BANK, UBS AG, UBS SECURITIES JAPAN CO. LTD., THE BANK OF YOKOHAMA, LTD., SOCIETE GENERALE SA, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS SECURITIES JAPAN LIMITED, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, CITIBANK, NA, CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK, JAPAN LTD., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS JAPAN, INC., COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISENBOERENLEENBANK B.A., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, ICAP EUROPE LIMITED, R.P. MARTIN HOLDINGS LIMITED, MARTIN BROKERS (UK) LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, AND JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50, Case No. 12-cv-03419 (GBD), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case involves the Defendants' alleged manipulation of Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (TIBOR), Yen London Interbank Offered Rate for Japanese Yen (LIBOR), and the prices of Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover for losses that he allegedly suffered when he initiated short positions in Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange during the Class period, claiming that the Defendants' manipulation of Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR affected the prices of his Euroyen TIBOR futures contracts. Specifically, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendants made artificial Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the British Bankers' Association in London and the Japanese Bankers' Association in Tokyo in order to profit from derivatives involving Japanese Yen. The Defendants argue that the alleged conduct at issue is so predominantly foreign as to render the Plaintiff's claims impermissibly extraterritorial. The appeal is filed on October 16, 2020 following the District Court's Judgment to dismiss the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, and all other orders entered in the case that were adverse, either in whole or in part, to Plaintiff. The appellate case is captioned as Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Case No. 20-3626, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY LAYDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Margaret MacLean, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com ghorn@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com mmaclean@lowey.com - and - Todd A. Seaver, Esq. Carl Hammarskjold, Esq. Colleen Cleary, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com ccleary@bermantabacco.com - and - Christopher Lovell, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 500 5th Avenue, Suite 2440 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 Facsimile: (646) 398-8392 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com MODELL'S SPORTING: Faces Kretschman Class Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action and adversary proceeding has been filed against Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc. The case is styled as ERNST KRETSCHMAN and CATHERINE NUNEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and Catherine Nunez v. Modell's Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 20-01584-VFP (Bankr. D.N.J., October 30, 2020). The lawsuit seeks recovery of money/property. The case is assigned to Judge Vincent F. Papalia. Modell's Sporting Goods was an American sporting goods retailer with locations in the Northeastern United States. Modell's carried both sporting goods and related apparel. Modell's had more than 150 retail locations in ten states and the District of Columbia in 2018.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gail C. Lin, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Ave, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: gcl@raisnerroupinian.com The Defendant appears pro se. MODERN FACILITIES: Padilla Alleges Unlawful Wage Pay for Janitors ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKLIN PADILLA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MODERN FACILITIES SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-05038 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices in violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employed in the State of New York "on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned"; failed to pay overtime at the rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; failed to provide upon hire written notice of rate of pay and other information; and failed to provide with an accurate statement each pay period indicating the number of overtime hours worked, overtime rate of pay and other information. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid janitorial worker from in or about 2017 until on or about September 30, 2020. Modern Facilities Services, Inc. provides janitorial services to clients throughout the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cruz Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled NICO CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC., an unknown business entity; DALTILE SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity; DAL-TILE SERVICES, INC., an unknown business entity; DAL-TILE CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG02675, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 23, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01510-NONE-EPG to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices in violation of the California Labor Code. Mohawk Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures, sources, distributes, and markets flooring for residential and commercial applications. DAL-Tile Services, Inc. provides building products and materials. The Company distributes stone, cement, lime, construction sand, gravel, and other construction materials.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jesse M. Jauregui, Esq. Ian A. Wright, Esq. Kelsey K. Wong, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410 Telephone: (213) 576-1000 Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 E-mail: jesse.jauregui@alston.com ian.wright@alston.com kelsey.wong@alston.com MOLSON COORS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Colorado Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Molson Coors Beverage Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit before a Colorado trial court remains pending. On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed substantially similar putative class action complaints against the Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert (the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a substantially similar complaint in the Colorado District Court. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead plaintiff were filed in each case. On May 24, 2019, the securities class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was transferred to the Colorado District Court, and subsequently was voluntarily dismissed on July 25, 2019. On October 2, 2019, the class action lawsuits originally filed in Colorado District Court were consolidated, and, on October 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated case. On December 9, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint alleging that the Defendants made false statements and material omissions to the market beginning in February 2017 and ending in February 2019, which, it alleges, misled the market as to the strength of our financial condition and internal control processes related to financial accounting. The amended complaint further alleges that the Company and the Defendants caused the Company to falsely report its financial results by overstating retained earnings, net income, and tax benefits and understating deferred tax liabilities in an effort to inflate the price of the company's common stock. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 23, 2020; the plaintiff subsequently filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on March 9, 2020; and the company filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss on April 8, 2020. Oral argument on the motion occurred on October 28, 2020. Molson Coors said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A range of potential loss is not estimable at this time." Molson Coors Beverage Company is a multinational brewing company, formed in 2005 by the merger of Molson of Canada, and Coors of the United States. At December 31, 2019, the Company's reporting segments included: MillerCoors LLC ("MillerCoors" or U.S. segment), operating in the United States; Molson Coors Canada ("MCC" or Canada segment), operating in Canada; Molson Coors Europe (Europe segment), operating in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, the Republic of Ireland, Romania, Serbia, the United Kingdom and various other European countries; and Molson Coors International ("MCI" or International segment), operating in various other countries. MRS BPO: Macaraeg Appeals Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 7th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jessica Macaraeg, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Jessica Macaraeg, Karen Sanders, Jacquelyn S. Harrell, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. MRS BPO, LLC doing business as: MRS Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03209, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 10, 2020, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Macaraeg, et al. v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 20-3066, in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript information sheet was due by November 5, 2020; and -- Appellants' brief is due on or before December 1, 2020 for Jacquelyn S. Harrell, Jessica Macaraeg and Karen Sanders.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JESSICA MACARAEG, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals; KAREN SANDERS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals; and JACQUELYN S. HARRELL, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, are represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 581-5456 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com Defendant-Appellee MRS BPO, LLC, doing business as MRS ASSOCIATES, INC., is represented by: Bradley Richard Armstrong, Esq. MOSS & BARNETT, PA 150 S. Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 877-5359 E-mail: Bradley.Armstrong@lawmoss.com NATIONAL AUTO: Faces Webster Suit in Connecticut Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Auto Loans, LLC. The case is captioned as ALICIA WEBSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NATIONAL AUTO LOANS, LLC, Case No. HHD-CV-20-6133473-S (Conn. Super., Hartford Cty., Oct. 5, 2020). National Auto Loans, LLC is a loan agency based in Waterbury, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: CONSUMER LAW GROUP LLC 35 Cold Spring Road Suite 512 Rocky Hill, CT 06067 Telephone: (860) 571-0408 NOBILIS HEALTH: Yang Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 5th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Zhang Yang filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled ZHANG YANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NOBILIS HEALTH CORP., HARRY FLEMING, DAVID YOUNG, KENNETH J. KLEIN, Case No. 4:19-cv-00145-ASH, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Nobilis securities between May 8, 2018 and November 15, 2018, both dates inclusive. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company overstated its accounts receivables and revenue; (2) consequently, the Company would be required to delay the filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q; (3) such a delay would result in the Company falling in non-compliance with the New York Stock Exchange listing requirements; and (4) that, as a result the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The appellate case is captioned as Zhang Yang v. Nobilis Health Corp., et al., Case No. 20-20538, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Zhang Yang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Omar Jafri, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ojafri@pomlaw.com - and - Sammy Ford IV, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING PC 1221 McKinney, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: sford@azalaw.com NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Marshall Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Clifton W. Marshall, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CLIFTON W. MARSHALL, THOMAS W. HALL, MARIA E. MIDKIFF, MANUEL A. GONZALEZ, RICKY L. HENDRICKSON, PHILLIP B. BROOKS, AND HAROLD HYLTON, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons on behalf of the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, DENISE PEPPARD, IAN ZISKIN, MICHAEL HARDESTY, KENNETH L. BEDINGFIELD, KENNETH N. HEINTZ, TALHA A. ZOBAIR, PRABU NATARAJAN, DANIEL HICKEY, MARIA T. NORMAN, STEPHEN C. MOVIUS, MARK A. CAYLOR, MARK RABINOWITZ, SILVA THOMAS, JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06794-AB-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certified a class of: All persons, excluding defendants and/or other individuals who are liable for the conduct described in the complaint, who are or were participants or beneficiaries of the Northrop Grumman Savings Plan at any time between September 9, 2010 and the date of judgment, and were affected by the conduct set forth in this complaint. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Northrop Grumman Corporation, the Northrop Grumman Corporation Savings Plan Administrative Committee, the Northrop Grumman Corporation Savings Plan Investment Committee, and certain officers and employees of Northrop, and Plan fiduciaries. On January 20, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court allowed Plaintiffs leave to amend the putative class period to comport with the statute of limitations, allegations involving Financial Engines and the Emerging Markets Equity Fund in order to establish standing, and allegations regarding the extent of Northrop's role as a fiduciary. The appellate case is captioned as CLIFTON W. MARSHALL; THOMAS W. HALL; MANUEL A. GONZALEZ; RICKY L. HENDRICKSON; PHILLIP B. BROOKS; HAROLD HYLTON, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons on behalf of the Northrop Grummna Savings Plan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, ALAN CARLSON; PETER DELUCA; ROBERT STOLTE, Objectors-Appellees, and MARIA E. MIDKIFF, Plaintiff, MICHAEL FRIEDLANDER; JOHN MURRAY, Objectors, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; NORTHROP GRUMMAN SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE; DENISE PEPPARD; IAN ZISKIN; MICHAEL HARDESTY; KENNETH L. BEDINGFIELD; KENNETH N. HEINTZ; TALHA A. ZOBAIR; PRABU NATARAJAN; DANIEL HICKEY; MARIA T. NORMAN; STEPHEN C. MOVIUS; MARK A. CAYLOR; MARK RABINOWITZ; SILVA THOMAS; JOHN DOES, 1-10; RICHARD BOAK; DEBORA CATSAVAS; TERI HERZOG; TIFFANY MCCONNELL KING; CHRISTOPHER MCGEE; GARY MCKENZIE; CONSTANCE SOLOWAY; RAJENDER CHANDHOK; GLORIA FLACH; JAMES M. MYERS; SUNIL NAVALE; ERIC SCHOLTEN; STEVEN SPIEGEL, Defendants, Case No. 20-56096, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 27, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 18, 2020; -- Transcript shall be filed by court reporter on December 18, 2020; -- Appellant's opening brief is due on January 27, 2021; -- Appellee's answering brief is due on February 26, 2021; and -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief.[BN] NOVA CASUALTY: LF Personal Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- LF PERSONAL TRAINING, INC., an Illinois Corporation v. NOVA CASUALTY COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-05930 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 5, 2020) arises from the Defendant's denial of business interruption insurance coverage to the Plaintiff and all those similarly situated for losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff purchased a business owner's policy for commercial property from the Defendant to protect its business from risk. The policy contract was authored and issued by the Defendant and contains numerous promises to pay Plaintiff -- also known as "coverages" -- for a broad range of losses that the Plaintiff might suffer including business interruption. According to the complaint, despite the fact that the Defendant has accepted the Plaintiff's insurance premium payments, the Defendant has summarily denied the Plaintiff's claims for coverage arising from government-ordered interruption and closure of its business due to COVID-19, in breach of the Defendant's contractual obligations under the policy. The Defendant denied Plaintiff's claims without even formal correspondence but rather an informal email sent from its agent. The Plaintiff also asserts nationwide class action claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Plaintiff is a small business who owns and operates a fitness studio in Lake Forest, Illinois offering personal training and other physical fitness services. NOVA Casualty Company is a New York insurance company which specializes in both commercial and personal lines of insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William E. Meyer, Jr., Esq. Lucas M. Fuksa, Esq. Lema A. Khorshid, Esq. Vincent P. Formica, Esq. 200 W. Superior, Suite 410 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 266-2221 Facsimile: (312) 266-2224 E-mail: william@fklawfirm.com lucas@fklawfirm.com lema@fklawfirm.com vince@fklawfirm.com NOVO FITNESS: Fails to Pay OT to Fitness Studio Staff, Mixon Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- COURTNEY MIXON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVO FITNESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00269-CDL (M.D. Ga., October 29, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay its employees' appropriate wages and overtime compensation earned. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in July 2019 as an assistant studio manager performing non-exempt non-managerial tasks and manual labor tasks, and then she was promoted to operations manager in October 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that she was misclassified by the Defendant as exempt of overtime pay. According to the complaint, the Defendant employs a uniform policy and/or practice of consistently requiring the non-exempt employees to remain available at all hours and to perform duties without receiving compensation. Specifically, they were required to attend meetings but were not included in the number of hours regularly worked, in which the Defendant benefitted from because it lessened its personnel costs and increased its profits. Novo Fitness, Inc. owns and operates a fitness studio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis C. Hargrove, Esq. Abigail W. Miller, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th Street Columbus, GA 31901 Tel: (706) 322-6226 Fax: (706) 322-6221 E-mail: thargrove@thefinleyfirm.com amiller@thefinleyfirm.com OFFICE DEPOT: Moran Balks at Deceptive Marketing of Leather Chairs ------------------------------------------------------------------ GENE MORAN, and others similarly situated v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-02043-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal., October 23, 2020) arises from the Defendant's unfair, illegal and fraudulent business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's business practices in selling leather chairs is unfair as it violates public policy, injuring the Plaintiff and others similarly situated consumers substantially, by selling bogus leather chairs as being actual leather. There is no countervailing benefit to the Plaintiff and the Class members in buying the bogus leather chairs, and they could not avoid the injury since they had no knowledge of the true composition of the chairs and the percentages of non-leather material because it was never disclosed. Office Depot, Inc. is an American office supply retailing company headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Okorie Okorocha, Esq. THE OKOROCHA FIRM 117 E Colorado Blvd., Ste 465 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (310) 497-0321 E-mail: Toxlawyer@gmail.com OLD LYME: Wong Files Fraud Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old Lyme Gourmet Company. The case is captioned as Darren Wong, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Old Lyme Gourmet Company, d/b/a Deep River Snacks, Case No. 3:20-cv-07095-JCS (N.D. Cal., October 12, 2020). The lawsuit arises from fraud-related issues. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. An initial case management conference is set for January 15, 2021. Old Lyme Gourmet Company was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Robert Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 W. 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Moon Appeals Ruling in ADA Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Mark Moon, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Mark Moon, et al. v. County of Orange, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-00258-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The lawsuit alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The appellate case is captioned as Mark Moon, et al. v. County of Orange, et al., Case No. 20-56076, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Stephen Bartol, Walter Cole, Julio Dorantes, Gary Figueroa, Johnny Martinez, Ronald McGregor, Mark Moon, Robert Ruiz and Jonathan Tieu Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 23, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 16, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 14, 2020; -- Appellants Stephen Bartol, Walter Cole, Julio Dorantes, Gary Figueroa, Johnny Martinez, Ronald McGregor, Mark Moon, Robert Ruiz and Jonathan Tieu opening brief is due on January 25, 2021; -- Appellees County of Orange, Does and GTL answering brief is due on February 24, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARK MOON, ROBERT RUIZ, GARY FIGUEROA, JONATHAN TIEU, JOHNNY MARTINEZ, JULIO DORANTES, WALTER COLE, RONALD MCGREGOR, and STEPHEN BARTOL, and others similarly situated, are represented by: Richard Paul Herman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD P. HERMAN P. O. Box 53114 Irvine, CA 92619-3114 Telephone: (714) 547-8512 E-mail: rherman@richardphermanlaw.com - and - Jerry Lawrence Steering, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JERRY L. STEERING 4063 Birch Street Suite # 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 E-mail: jerrysteering@yahoo.com Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF ORANGE, a Governmental Entity, and GTL, A Corporation, AKA GTL Holdings, Inc., are represented by: Donald Kevin Dunn, Esq. ORANGE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE 333 W. Santa Ana Boulevard P.O. Box 1370 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Telephone: (714) 834-3300 E-mail: kevin.dunn@coco.ocgov.com - and - Zachary M. Schwartz, Esq. KOELLER, NEBEKER, CARLSON & HALUCK LLP 3 Park Plaza Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 864-3400 E-mail: zachary.schwartz@knchlaw.com - and - Gregory Alan Nylen, Esq. LOBB & CLIFF, LLP 1650 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 Telephone: (951) 788-9410 OVERSTOCK.COM: Mangrove Partners Appeals Ruling to 10th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Lead Plaintiff Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Decision and Order, dated September 28, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. Overstock.com, Case No. 2:19-cv-709-DAK-DAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Dale A. Kimball of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud class action asserting violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against an online home goods retailer (the "Company") and certain of its current and former officers. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. Overstock.com, No. 2:19-CV-709-DAK-DAO (D. Utah Sept. 28, 2020). Plaintiff, a short seller, alleged that the Company (i) manipulated the market by issuing a digital dividend through the Company's newly developed alternative trading platform and triggering a "short squeeze," and (ii) misrepresented the purpose of the digital dividend by not disclosing it would result in a short squeeze and the Company's financial condition by adjusting its earnings guidance upwards. The Court dismissed the claims because they were based on "speculation and fraud-by-hindsight." The Company developed blockchain technology to create an alternative trading platform for investors to trade digital securities as part of its plans to transition from an online retailer to a blockchain technology business. In July 2019, the Company announced it would issue dividends for its common and preferred stock in digital tokens to promote its alternative trading platform. The Company also explained that the digital tokens would not be (and were not required to be) registered and that, under federal securities laws, they could not be traded for approximately six months after their issuance. During that same time period, the Company revised its earnings guidance upward based on increased customer retention for its retail business. Shortly after the digital dividends announcement, the Company's CEO resigned when his relationship with a Russian spy became public. Approximately one month later, the Company adjusted its earnings guidance downward and the former CEO sold over 4.7 million Company shares for $90 million. Plaintiff, who was a short seller, claimed that the Company misrepresented (i) its financial condition by revising its earnings guidance upward, and (ii) its purpose for issuing digital dividends as business driven when the real objective was to increase the stock price around the time of the CEO's anticipated departure. Plaintiff also claimed that the Company manipulated the market by causing an artificial short squeeze and an increase in share price through its digital dividends. Short sellers, who borrow stock from a brokerage, sell the borrowed stock at a time when they believe the market price for the stock is high and purchase them back when they believe the stock price is low, returning the newly purchased stock to the brokerage. If a dividend is issued on a stock that a short seller has borrowed, the short seller is obligated to pay the dividend to the lender. The digital dividend and the six-month lock-up period thus would force short sellers to cover their positions at an inflated price. The Court rejected these claims. The Court first held that earnings guidance is "the quintessential example of a forward-looking statement protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor" and that plaintiff's reliance on the missed guidance was a "classic attempt to plead fraud by hindsight." The Court also held that the Company's downward revision of its earnings guidance after the CEO left the Company did not demonstrate that prior guidance was false but only that a different management team took a different approach. The Court also held that there was nothing misleading about the Company's statements on the digital dividend. The Company stated a legitimate business purpose -- i.e., facilitating the Company's transition from an online retailer to a blockchain company -- and plaintiff had failed to allege any facts for their contention that the purpose of the digital dividend was to target short sellers. Additionally, the nature and the terms of the digital dividend were clearly disclosed such that its impact was clearly understood, and "[t]here is no duty to disclose something so obvious that the entire market immediately understands it." Based on the district court's September 28, 2020 Memorandum Decision and Order dismissing Plaintiff's Consolidated Complaint against all Defendants, Plaintiff's action is dismissed. The appellate case is captioned as Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. Overstock.com, Case No. 20-4115, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. is represented by: Keith M. Woodwell, Esq. Joseph D. Watkins, Esq. CLYDE, SNOW & SESSIONS, P.C. 201 South Main Street, Suite 1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 322-2516 Facsimile: (801) 521-6280 E-mail: kmw@clydesnow.com jdw@clydesnow.com - and - Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. Laura H. Posner, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com lposner@cohenmilstein.com - and - Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Molly J. Bowen, Esq. Joshua Handelsman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com mbowen@cohenmilstein.com jhandelsman@cohenmilstein.com PANDORA MEDIA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Flo & Eddie Copyright Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Pandora Media, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-07648-PSG-GJS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit on October 2, 2014 against Pandora Media, LLC, the successor to Pandora Media, Inc. (Pandora) in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972 (which the company refer to as, "pre-1972 recordings"). On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statute, which following denial of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to ... settle an important question of law." The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims asserted in the lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case. On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. After Flo & Eddie filed its action in 2014 against Pandora, several other plaintiffs commenced separate actions, both on an individual and class action basis, alleging a variety of violations of common law and state copyright and other statutes arising from allegations that Pandora owed royalties for the public performance of pre-1972 recordings. Many of these separate actions have been dismissed or are in the process of being dismissed. Sirius XM Holdings believes that none of the remaining pending actions is likely to have a material adverse effect on Pandora's business, financial condition or results of operations. The appellate case is captioned as Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, LLC, Case No. 20-56134, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Pandora Media, LLC Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 4, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 27, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 28, 2020; -- Appellant Pandora Media, LLC opening brief is due on February 4, 2021; -- Appellee Flo & Eddie, Inc. answering brief is due on March 8, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee FLO & EDDIE, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Evan Seth Cohen, Esq. COHEN AND COHEN 8340 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90069-5420 - and - Henry D. Gradstein, Esq. KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-8989 - and - Maryann Rose Marzano, Esq. GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C. 6310 San Vicente Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (323) 302-9488 E-mail: mmarzano@gradstein.com - and - Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 373-7380 E-mail: smorrissey@SusmanGodfrey.com - and - Rohit D. Nath, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-4405 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: RNath@susmangodfrey.com Defendant-Appellant PANDORA MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Jessica Stebbins Bina, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 653-5500 E-mail: jessica.stebbinsbina@lw.com - and - Andrew Michael Gass, Esq. Joseph Wetzel, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: andrew.gass@lw.com joe.wetzel@lw.com - and - Carolyn M. Homer, Esq. Elana Nightingale Dawson, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: carolyn.homer@lw.com elana.nightingaledawson@lw.com PHOENIX LEATHER: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Romero Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PHOENIX LEATHER GOODS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09086 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, www.beltoutlet.com, the last occurring in October 2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied him the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of the Website. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Phoenix Leather Goods LLC is a clothing accessories company, and owns and operates the Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid for Lead Plaintiff in UFCW Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motions for lead plaintiff in the putative class action suit initiated by United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A ("UFCW"), is pending. On July 6, 2020, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A ("UFCW"), acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of PPC stock between February 9, 2017 and June 3, 2020, filed a class action complaint in the Colorado Court against PPC, and Messrs. William W. Lovette, Jayson J. Penn, and Fabio Sandri. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's (PPC's) public statements regarding its business and the drivers behind its financial results were false and misleading due to the defendants' purported failure to disclose its participation in an antitrust conspiracy as alleged in the Broiler litigation and the Indictment (defined below). On September 4, 2020, UFCW and the New Mexico State Investment Council filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff under the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act. A decision on the lead plaintiff motions is currently pending. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIMS PRIDE: Bid to Dismiss Plant Workers Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated putative class action suit initiated by plant workers has been granted. Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the "Maryland Court") against the company (PPC) and a number of other chicken producers, as well as WMS (Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company) and Agri Stats. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing plant production and maintenance workers ("Plant Workers"). They allege that the defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act and seek damages from January 1, 2009 to the present. On November 12, 2019, the Maryland Court ordered the consolidation of the four cases for pretrial purposes. The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on November 22, 2019. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs informed the defendants and the Maryland Court that they would be amending their complaint, which they did on December 20, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint asserts largely similar allegations to the pleadings in the consolidated complaint, but was extended to include more class members and turkey processors as well as chicken processors. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on March 2, 2020, with oppositions originally due on April 24, 2020 and replies on May 21, 2020. The Maryland Court has issued a series of Standing Orders related to the exigent circumstances created by COVID-19, which extended filing deadlines by 84 days, including the deadlines for the response briefings related to defendants' motions to dismiss. The Company filed its motion to dismiss, and on September 16, 2020, the Maryland Court granted the motion without prejudice. The Maryland Court did allow, however, the plaintiffs to amend their Complaint, which they are expected to do. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIMS PRIDE: Facing New Mexico Attorney General Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is facing a suit entitled, State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector Balderas v. Koch Foods, et al., No. D-101-CV-2020-0891. On September 1, 2020, the Attorney General of New Mexico filed a complaint raising similar allegations as the class action and direct action complaints before the Illinois Court ( In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 ). The case is styled as State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector Balderas v. Koch Foods, et al., No. D-101-CV-2020-0891 and is pending before the First Judicial District Court in the County of Santa Fe. The company (PPC) has not been served with the complaint. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIMS PRIDE: Grower Litig. Underway in Okla., Colo. and Kansas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative class action suits in Oklahoma, Colorado and Kansas, relating to Grower Litigation. On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against the company (PPC) and four other producers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble damages. The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS (the "Grower Litigation"). The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017 for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Oklahoma Court granted only certain other defendants' motions challenging jurisdiction. In addition, on March 12, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (the "Bankruptcy Court") enjoined the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs from litigating the Grower Litigation complaint as pled against PPC because allegations in the consolidated complaint violate the confirmation order relating to PPC's bankruptcy proceedings in 2008 and 2009. Specifically, the 2009 bankruptcy confirmation order bars any claims against PPC based on conduct occurring before December 28, 2009. On January 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and lifted the stay on discovery. On February 21, 2020, the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in light of the Bankruptcy Court's injunction. On April 13, 2020, the Oklahoma Court entered a case management order setting a September 24, 2021 deadline for the close of fact discovery. In September 2020, similar class action complaints were filed in the Colorado Court and the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (the "Kansas Court") alleging claims that mirror those before the Oklahoma Court. On October 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") seeking consolidation of the various cases, including any tag-along cases, and transfer of them to the Oklahoma Court. On October 8, 2020, another similar class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Defendants, on October 13, 2020, in the Kansas Court case and, on October 14, 2020, in the Colorado Court case, filed motions seeking dismissal of those complaints under the first-to-file rule. The motions before the JPML, Colorado Court, and Kansas Court are pending. Discovery in the Oklahoma Court case is ongoing. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PILGRIMS PRIDE: Oct. 2022 Trial in Illinois Broiler Chicken Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Illinois Court has set a trial date of October 17, 2022 in the purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Illinois Court") against the company (PPC) and 13 other producers by and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the present. The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of distinct groups of indirect purchasers. Between December 8, 2017 and October 14, 2020, 44 individual direct action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action complaints, with four complaints including additional allegations of fixing prices and rigging bids on small birds sold to quick service restaurants. On August 26, 2020, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, one of the plaintiffs, filed a notice dismissing its case. On September 22, 2020, the Illinois Court required direct action plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by October 23, 2020 and stayed bid-rigging claims until the resolution of plaintiffs’ supply reduction and other conspiracy claims are resolved. The Illinois Court has ordered the parties to coordinate scheduling of the direct action complaints with the class complaints with any necessary modifications to reflect time of filing. Discovery will be consolidated. On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") filed a motion to intervene and stay discovery in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation for a period of six months. Following a hearing on June 27, 2019, on June 28, 2019, the Illinois Court granted the government's motion to intervene, ordering a limited stay, which was subsequently reset, until March 31, 2020. The stay was lifted on March 31, 2020. On August 28, 2020, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling order through trial, which contemplates class certification briefing and related expert reports proceeding from October 30, 2020 to May 6, 2021, the close of all merits fact discovery on June 11, 2021, and summary judgment briefing and related expert reports proceeding from July 2, 2021 to February 22, 2022. The Illinois Court has set a trial date of October 17, 2022. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing, marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of JBS S.A. PIONEER CREDIT: Tavernaro Appeals Order in FDCPA Suit to 10th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Jason Tavernaro filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum and Order and corresponding Judgment, dated September 25, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled JASON TAVERNARO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02141-KHV-ADM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Plaintiff brings suit against Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. for alleged violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et. seq. The Plaintiff alleges that defendant - a debt collector - violated the FDCPA when it sent his employer a wage withholding order in the name of a creditor. The Plaintiff endeavors to represent a class of similarly situated persons. The case is before the Court on the Motion To Dismiss By Defendant Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. filed June 19, 2020. The Court sustains defendant's motion. The appellate case is captioned as Tavernaro v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 20-3219, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Jason Tavernaro is represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC 231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 Facsimile: (314) 863-5711 E-mail: roberts@butschroberts.com - and - Mark D. Molner, Esq. Molner Law Group, LLC E. 39th Street, Suite 1G Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 281-8549 Facsimile: (816) 817-1473 E-mail: Mark@MolnerLaw.com PRIMAL NUTRITION: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Paguada Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PRIMAL NUTRITION, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08659 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, 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. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff recently visited the Defendant's Web site, www.primalkitchen.com, in October of 2020 to browse and potentially make a purchase. Despite his efforts, however, he was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Web site's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, thus he 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. Primal Nutrition, LLC is a paleo friendly food company that owns and operates the Web site.[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 QUAID HARLEY: Sentry Select Files Insurance Suit in C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Quaid Harley Davidson, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sentry Select Insurance Company, a Wisconsin corporation v. Quaid Harley Davidson, Inc., a California corporation, and Lisa Hill, an individual, on behalf of herself, the proposed class(es), all other similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Case No. 5:20-cv-02145-JWH-KK (C.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2020). The case is assigned to Judge John W. Holcomb. Quaid Harley-Davidson, Inc. operates as a motor vehicle dealer. The Company offers new and used vehicles, financing, repairing, and service center services. Quaid Harley-Davidson serves clients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Hobbs, Esq. SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard Sixth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-6546 Telephone: (310) 445-0800 Facsimile: (310) 473-2525 E-mail: rhobbs@selmanlaw.com ayuter@selmanlaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Vecchio Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Maria Vecchio filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled MARIA VECCHIO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC., and EXAMONE LLC, Case No. 16-cv-5165, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). On September 18, 2020, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the motion of the defendants in 16 Civ. 5165 to decertify the case's preliminarily certified FLSA collective. The Federal Action was filed on behalf of Mobile Examiners who visit patients (most commonly insurance applicants) at their homes or places of business, and conduct physical examinations and basic lab work for the purposes of insurance and benefits eligibility and underwriting) under federal law based on the exact same underlying alleged facts and circumstances. The appellate case is captioned as Vecchio v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 20-3571, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Maria Vecchio, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Salvatore Charles Badala, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 400 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: SBadala@napolilaw.com Defendants-Appellees Quest Diagnostics, Inc., ExamOne World Wide, Inc., and ExamOne LLC are represented by: Arthur James Rooney, Esq. BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 300 East Randolph Street Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-2838 E-mail: Arthur.Rooney@bakermckenzie.com RENTSPREE INC: Faces Brown Suit Over Background Checks ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rentspree, Inc. The case is captioned as Jennifer Lee Brown, on behalf of herself and all individuals similarly situated; and Christopher W. Brown, on behalf of himself and all individuals similarly situated v. Rentspree, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01167-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va., Oct. 5, 2020). The nature of the suit is "consumer credit" filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Anthony J. Trenga. Rentspree, Inc. provides real estate agents and landlords a tool to collect and request online rental applications for free.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com - and - Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com REZULT GROUP: Stallworth Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meka Stallworth, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE REZULT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00932 (M.D. Tenn., October 29, 2020) brings this complaint to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately December 2018 to April 2019 to perform various consulting and related services. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but they were not paid any overtime at the proper overtime rate at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked in excess of 40. Instead, the Defendant paid them straight-time-for-overtime in which they only receive regular hourly rates for all hours worked. The Rezult Group, Inc. provides staffing solutions for companies in the technology, accounting, finance, and healthcare IT scores across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A Nashville, TN 37215 Tel: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Amigon Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO AMIGON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES LLC and STEVEN CESTARO, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05222 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a backhoe operator from in or around February 2017 through in or around December 2018 and again from in or around March 2019 through in or around January 2020. The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the Defendants, he only received wages for the time spent performing work on job sites. The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiff for the time spent traveling between the Maspeth Yard and the job sites, and for the time spent at the Maspeth Yard performing duties such as receiving job assignments, inspecting the backhoe and preparing reports of the job sites. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff's overtime premiums of one and one-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendants failed to maintain any formal timekeeping system to keep track of the hours that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated machine operators spent in the Maspeth Yard and traveling between the Maspeth and the job sites. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements and a proper wage notice when he was hired and/or before change of pay rate. Safeway Construction Enterprises LLC offers underground installation, repairs, upgrades and maintenance of gas, electrical, water, steam and telecommunication infrastructure throughout the New York metropolitan area. Steven Cestaro is in-charge of the day-to-day operations, including hiring and firing employees and setting he schedules and wage rates of employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. Kristen E. Boysen, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 385-9700 Fax: (212) 385-0800 SAGINAW, MI: Alcona County Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Alcona County, MI, by its Board of Commissioners, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled as THOMAS A. FOX, for himself and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asked the Court for an order: 1. certifying a plaintiff class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) defined as follows: "all persons and entities that owned real property in the following counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period, was seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and were not refunded the value of the property in excess of the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw"; 2. appointing E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm PC and Philip L Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC as Co-Lead Counsel; and 3. appointing Thomas A. Fox as class representative. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington on October 16, 2020, entered an order granting Plaintiff's Motions to Lift the Stay, Certify the Class, and Appoint Class Counsel, and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Consideration and Wayside Church's Motion for Leave to File a Response as Moot. According to the Plaintiff, counties throughout Michigan foreclose on parcels when their property taxes are unpaid. But when the Counties auction the foreclosed parcels, they keep all of the sales proceeds and destroy any value beyond the auction price, even if the property's value far exceeds the amount of the tax delinquency. The Plaintiff Thomas A. Fox was the owner of residential property in Gratiot County (the Property), which, like the other Defendant Counties, has affirmatively elected to administer the tax foreclosure process instead of allowing the state to administer it. As of the auction sale, the Property had an outstanding tax delinquency of $3,091.23. The Defendants seized ownership of the Property on or about February 21, 2017. At this time, the Property had a fair market value of at least $50,400.00. The Defendants later sold the Property at a tax auction on August 16, 2017 for $25,500.00. The Property had equity -- that is, the difference between what the Property was worth and the tax delinquency that Plaintiff owed. The Plaintiff had a property interest in this equity. But the Defendants seized it and failed to return it. The Gratiot Defendants retained the entire value of the sales proceeds even though the sales proceeds were $22,408.77 more than the amount of the tax delinquency. Throughout, they neither initiated a condemnation action nor afforded Plaintiff any process to seek the equity's return. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Alcona County, MI, et al., Case No. 20-111, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent THOMAS A. FOX, and all those similarly situated, is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com Defendants-Petitioners In re: ALCONA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; CHERYL FRANKS, in her official and individual capacities; WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI; CATHERINE MCCLARY; OGEMAW COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; DWIGHT MCINTYRE, in his official and individual capacities; CRAWFORD COUNTY, MI; KATE M. WAGNER; JOSEPH V. WAKELEY; MACOMB COUNTY, MI; LAWRENCE ROCCA; PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY, MI; and BRIDGET LALONDE are represented by: Matthew T. Nelson, Esq. WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD 150 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 752-2000 E-mail: mnelson@wnj.com - and - Theodore W. Seitz, Esq. DYKEMA 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 374-9100 E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com - and - Gregory M. Meihn, Esq. FOLEY & MANSFIELD 130 E. Nine Mile Road Ferndale, MI 48220 Telephone: (248) 721-4200 E-mail: gmeihn@foleymansfield.com - and - Charles Lawler, Esq. CLARK HILL 212 E. Cesar E. Chavez Avenue Lansing, MI 48906 Telephone: (517) 318-3100 E-mail: clawler@clarkhill.com - and - Aaron C. Thomas, Esq. MACOMB COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL 1 S. Main Street, Eighth Floor Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 Telephone: (586) 469-6346 SAGINAW, MI: Alpena County Appeals Ruling in Fox Suit to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Arenac County, MI, by its Board of Commissioners, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled as THOMAS A. FOX, for himself and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City. The Plaintiff asked the Court for an order: 1. certifying a plaintiff class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) defined as follows: "all persons and entities that owned real property in the following counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period, was seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and were not refunded the value of the property in excess of the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw"; 2. appointing E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm PC and Philip L Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC as Co-Lead Counsel; and 3. appointing Thomas A. Fox as class representative. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington on October 16, 2020, entered an order granting Plaintiff's Motions to Lift the Stay, Certify the Class, and Appoint Class Counsel, and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Consideration and Wayside Church's Motion for Leave to File a Response as Moot. According to the Plaintiff, counties throughout Michigan foreclose on parcels when their property taxes are unpaid. But when the Counties auction the foreclosed parcels, they keep all of the sales proceeds and destroy any value beyond the auction price, even if the property's value far exceeds the amount of the tax delinquency. The Plaintiff Thomas A. Fox was the owner of residential property in Gratiot County (the Property), which, like the other Defendant Counties, has affirmatively elected to administer the tax foreclosure process instead of allowing the state to administer it. As of the auction sale, the Property had an outstanding tax delinquency of $3,091.23. The Defendants seized ownership of the Property on or about February 21, 2017. At this time, the Property had a fair market value of at least $50,400.00. The Defendants later sold the Property at a tax auction on August 16, 2017 for $25,500.00. The Property had equity -- that is, the difference between what the Property was worth and the tax delinquency that Plaintiff owed. The Plaintiff had a property interest in this equity. But the Defendants seized it and failed to return it. The Gratiot Defendants retained the entire value of the sales proceeds even though the sales proceeds were $22,408.77 more than the amount of the tax delinquency. Throughout, they neither initiated a condemnation action nor afforded Plaintiff any process to seek the equity's return. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Alpena County, MI, et al., Case No. 20-110, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent THOMAS A. FOX, and all those similarly situated, is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com Defendants-Petitioners In re: ALPENA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; ARENAC COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; BAY COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; CLARE COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; GENESEE COUNTY, MI; GLADWIN COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; GRATIOT COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; HURON COUNTY, MI; ISABELLA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; JACKSON COUNTY, MI; LAPEER COUNTY, MI; LENAWEE COUNTY, MI; MIDLAND COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; MONTMORENCY COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioner; OSCODA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; OSTEGO COUNTY, MI; ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MI; SAGINAW COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; SANILAC COUNTY, MI; ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI; and TUSCOLA COUNTY, MI, are represented by: Jennifer Anne Richards, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO 17436 College Parkway Livonia, MI 48152 Telephone: (734) 261-2400 E-mail: jrichards@cmda-law.com SCIOTO DOWNS: Neal Suit in Ohio Alleges ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scioto Downs, Inc. doing business as: Eldorado Gaming Scioto Downs. The case is styled as Spencer Neal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Scioto Downs, Inc., doing business as: Eldorado Gaming Scioto Downs; and Columbus Southeast Hotel Group LLC, doing business as: Hampton Inn & Suites Columbus Scioto Downs, Case No. 2:20-cv-05240-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 6, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley. Scioto Downs, Inc. owns and operates a harness horse racing club. The Company offers gaming, racing, restaurants, and meeting facilities. Scioto Downs serves customers in the State of Ohio. Columbus Southeast Hotel Group LLC is a joint venture of Eldorado Resorts, Inc. with Vista Host, Inc. to develop a new 118-room Hampton Inn & Suites hotel that will be attached to Eldorado's Scioto Downs Racino in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colin George Meeker, Esq. BLAKEMORE, MEEKER & BOWLER CO., L.P.A. 495 Portage Lakes Dr. Akron, OH 44319 Telephone: (330) 253-3337 Facsimile: (330) 253-4131 E-mail: cgm@bmblaw.com SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Beach Glo Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- BEACH GLO TANNING STUDIO INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-13901-BRM-ZNQ (D.N.J., Oct. 5, 2020) arises from the Defendant's denial of coverage for losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff purchased a policy of full coverage insurance issued by the Defendants that would provide coverage for any kind of loss of income. In March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to close its business pursuant to the closure orders of the state due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, the Defendants have refused to cover losses caused by the closure orders as part of business interruption coverage. The Defendants have denied similar claims submitted by other members located throughout the country. The suit further asserts a claim against the Defendants for breaches of their contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial property insurance policies to indemnify the Plaintiff and others similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses, and related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to stop the human-to-human and surface-to-human spread of the COVID-19 outbreak. The Plaintiff is a tanning studio located in Ocean County, New Jersey offering a variety of tanning products and services. Scottsdale Insurance Company provides property and casualty insurance services. The Company offers insurance products such as commercial transportation, commercial property, employers, liquor, aircraft liability, general liability, public entity, and veterinary pet insurance. Scottsdale Insurance serves customers throughout the United States. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, the parent company of Scottsdale Insurance, offers property and casualty, life insurance, banking, retirement, and investment services. Nationwide Mutual Insurance serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin P. Roddy, Esq. Joshua S. Kincannon, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 636-8000 Facsimile: (732) 726-6686 E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com jkincannon@wilentz.com - and - Luke Montgomery, Esq. Brad Ponder, Esq. MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC 1015 15th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 2005 Telephone: (888) 201-0305 Facsimile: (205) 208-9443 E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com - and - Brian L. Kinsley, Esq. CRUMLEY ROBERTS 2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200 Greensboro, NC 27406 Telephone: (336) 333-9889 Facsimile: (336) 333-9894 E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com SEAWORLD PARKS: Kouball Appeals Ruling in Fraud Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Lisa Kouball filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled LISA KOUBALL, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00870-CAB-BGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 15, 2020, Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted SeaWorld's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff Kouball filed the putative consumer class action complaint against Defendant SeaWorld on May 8, 2020. The complaint asserts claims for: (1) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (4) breach of contract; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) money had and received. SeaWorld operates several amusement parks and water parks throughout the United States, with locations in San Diego, Orlando, and San Antonio. The Plaintiff alleges SeaWorld offers annual passes that allow its customers to access its parks on an unlimited basis. The Plaintiff purchased four annual passes for SeaWorld's San Diego location for which she is charged a total of $48.99 per month. In March of 2020, SeaWorld closed all its parks due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On approximately April 23, 2020, the Plaintiff was charged the full amount of her monthly payment of $48.99 for her annual passes even though she did not have access to SeaWorld's parks due to the closure. The Plaintiff alleges she signed up for SeaWorld's annual membership passes with the belief and on the basis that she would have access to SeaWorld San Diego amusement park at any time during the month in which she was charged. She further alleges she would not have paid for the membership had she known that she would not have access to the park and that SeaWorld continues charging its customers monthly fees while the parks remain closed. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a Nationwide class and California subclass of all persons who were charged annual membership fees for a period in which SeaWorld's parks were closed. SeaWorld moved to dismiss the complaint on July 1, 2020. It moves to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiff fails to plead all of her claims with the required specificity under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), fails to state each of her claims as a matter of law, and lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. The Court held a telephonic hearing on Sept. 9, 2020. The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Kouball v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Case No. 20-56069, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant Lisa Kouball Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 23, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 13, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 14, 2020; -- Appellant Lisa Kouball opening brief is due on January 22, 2021; -- Appellee SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. answering brief is due on February 22, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LISA KOUBALL, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Michael Houchin, Esq. Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: admin@consumersadvocates.com Defendant-Appellee SEAWORLD PARKS AND ENTERTAINMENT, INC. is represented by: Lawrence Y. Iser, Esq. Kristen Louise Spanier, Esq. KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT LLP 808 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 566-9800 E-mail: liser@kwikalaw.com kspanier@kwikalaw.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces Koustis Suit Over Alleged RESPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE G. KOUSTIS and RONALD J. COLLINS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02425 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 26, 2020) arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Defendant is the current servicer of the Plaintiffs' and class members' notes, and mortgages on real property that secure those notes. The Plaintiffs' and class members' loans are each a "federally related mortgage loan" as defined by RESPA and Regulation X. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and class members each submitted their borrower inquiries to the Defendant at the address, email address, and/or facsimile number designated for receipt of notices of errors and requests for information, pursuant to the law. However, the Defendant did not otherwise make a substantive response to the Plaintiffs' and class members' borrower inquiries following the issuance of the active litigation letters. As such, the Defendant failed to provide adequate written responses as required by RESPA. As a result of the Defendant's failure to comply with RESPA and Regulation X, the Plaintiffs and class members were each harmed because they incurred the expenses associated with sending borrower inquiries - such as their time, postage, etc. - but they either did not receive the information to which they were legally entitled or did not receive a reasonable investigation of the purported errors regarding their loans, as required under RESPA and Regulation X. Thus, the Defendant's practice of sending active litigation letters and failing to provide substantive responses to borrower inquiries is part of a sustained pattern and practice of noncompliance with RESPA and Regulation X, the suit says. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. operates as a mortgage servicing company. The Company specializes in the servicing of single-family residential mortgage loans. Select Portfolio Servicing offers its services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Daniel M. Solar, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANN LAW P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com SHELTER MUTUAL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SHELTER INSURANCE COMPANIES, Case No. 1:20-cv-24465 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 29, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to meet the statutory payment and reimbursement obligations of the Plaintiffs' assignors and all others similarly situated under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants fail to pay for or reimburse medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, those accident-related medical expenses were paid by Medicare Advantage Organizations, as well as first tier and downstream actors who ultimately paid for Medicare beneficiaries' accident-related medical expenses pursuant to risk-sharing agreements authorized under the law. Further, the Defendants have also failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs and the Class members for accident-related medical expenses upon entering into settlements with Medicare beneficiaries. As a result, the cost of those accident-related medical expenses has been borne by Medicare and MA Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public. The Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the suit says. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company and Shelter Insurance Companies are companies that issue property and casualty policies with principal place of businesses in Columbia, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Ruiz, Esq. Michael O. Mena, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. Le Jeune Rd. 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and - Francesco Zincone, Esq. Eduardo Bertran, Esq. J. Alfredo Armas, Esq. ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE 4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 461-5100 E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com ebertran@armaslaw.com alfred@armaslaw.com SIGMA DINER: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RIVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SIGMA DINER CORP. d/b/a STOP 20 DINER, 1336 HEMPSTEAD REALTY LLC, STEPHEN SERAFIS, and CONSTANTINOS SERAFIS, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-05229 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment, the Defendants paid him a flat weekly salary that did not provide him with the legally-required minimum wage and overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 each week or spread-of-hours premiums for days when he worked in excess of 10 hours. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide him with accurate wage statements or wage notices pursuant to the federal and state laws. Mr. Rivera worked for the Defendants at Stop 20 Diner as a cook from in or around October 2016 through on or about June 21, 2020. Sigma Diner Corp. owns and operates a restaurant under the name "Stop 20 Diner," located in Elmont, New York. 1336 Hempstead Realty LLC owns the premises where Stop 20 Diner is located.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 SIMON & SCHUSTER: Mejico Balks at Subscriptions' Automatic Renewal ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRITTNEY MEJICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC. and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-02299 (C.D. Cal., November 3, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California's Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has offered free trial online Pimsleur language learning service/subscription and related products that violate the California law. Specifically, the Defendant: (a) fails to present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms, including its full cancellation policy, in a clear and conspicuous manner and in visual proximity to the request for consent to the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement was fulfilled; (b) charges consumer credit or debit cards without first obtaining affirmative consent to automatically renewing charges; and (c) fails to provide an acknowledgment that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. As a result, the product or service provided by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and Class members is an unconditional gift pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17603 and must be refunded. Simon & Schuster, Inc. is an American publishing company headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com SOUTH SHORE: Underpays Non-exempt Workers, Perez et al. Allege -------------------------------------------------------------- HELDER PEREZ and JEORGE ALBERTO LOPEZ SANCHEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v. SOUTH SHORE DRYWALL INC. and JOSEPH ZANGLA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05215 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful policies, practices and procedures in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt drywall construction and repair workers, allege the Defendants of willfully failing and refusing to pay them regular and overtime wages for all hours worked due to time shaving. Additionally, the Defendants failed to provide proper wage notices and proper wage statements. South Shore Drywall Inc. is a drywall contractor owned by Defendant Joseph Zangia, who is the president and CEO and exercised functional control over the business and financial operations of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Petition for Review in St. Lucie Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's petition for review of the trial court's decision in the putative class action suit initiated by St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust with the Texas Supreme Court remains pending. On October 17, 2016, the St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust filed a putative class action in the 61st District Court in Harris County, Texas, against the Company, certain of its former officers and current and former directors and the underwriters on behalf of itself and others that purchased certain depositary shares from the Company's January 2015 equity offering, alleging material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement for that offering. The Company removed the case to federal court, but after a decision by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that these types of cases are not subject to removal, the federal court remanded the case to the Texas state court. The Texas trial court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and in February 2020, the court of appeals declined to exercise discretion to reverse the trial court's decision. The Company filed a petition to review the trial court's decision with the Texas Supreme Court, and the Court requested a response from the plaintiff. The Court subsequently requested full briefing on the merits of the case. The Company carries insurance for the claims asserted against it and the officer and director defendants, and the carrier has accepted coverage. The Company denies all allegations and intends to continue to defend this case vigorously. Southwestern Energy said, "The Company does not expect this case to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company after taking insurance into account. Additionally, it is not possible at this time to estimate the amount of any additional loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably possible." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and oil in the United States. It operates through two segments, Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas. SPECIALTY PROMOTIONS: Citizens Files Insurance Suit in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Specialty Promotions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Citizens Insurance Company of America, a Michigan corporation; and Hanover Insurance Company, a New Hampshire corporation v. Specialty Promotions, Inc., a Texas corporation and Roger Stiles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:20-cv-06026 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 9, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Contract: Insurance. The case is assigned to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Specialty Promotions, Inc., doing business as Specialty Print Communications, offers printing and direct marketing services. The Company provides loyalty, card issuance platform, marketing on demand, inline, lettershop, binding, and books printing services for direct marketers. Specialty Print Communications markets its services in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Alan Goldwater, Esq. Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 550 West Adams, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 345-1718 E-mail: jgoldwater@lbbslaw.com kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com SQUARE INC: Faces Thorne Suit Over Denial of Fraud Dispute Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEEANN THORNE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SQUARE, INC. and SUTTON BANK, Case No. 1:20-cv-05119 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful conduct of denying the Plaintiff's fraud dispute claims in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and the New York General Business Practice. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a victim of electronic fraud. The perpetrator, who is unknown to Plaintiff, fraudulently misrepresented themselves online in a successful effort to obtain the Plaintiff's Cash App payment information which they used to charge and withdraw roughly $3,000 from the Plaintiff's account. The Plaintiff disputed the charges with the Defendants. She alleges that the Defendants' error resolution procedures violate the EFTA dispute process provisions in a variety of ways. First, the Defendants unlawfully require a host of information to be provided as a condition precedent of opening or investigating a dispute or resolving a dispute in a consumer's favor. Second, the Defendants' error resolution process violates the EFTA by explicitly placing the burden of proving the unauthorized transfer on the consumer (and denying disputes on grounds that the consumer has not met his or her burden of proving that the transaction was unauthorized). And lastly, the Defendants' error resolution process also violates the EFTA because the Defendants deny claims without providing any explanation or providing to the consumer the documents Defendants reviewed during the investigation. The Defendants have thus refused to refund the Plaintiff the $3,000 that was drained from her account as a result of fraud, the suit says. Square, Inc. is an American financial services, merchant services aggregator, and mobile payment company. Sutton Bank is a state chartered banking association and is chartered and located in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 80 Broad Street, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 Facsimile: (646) 612-7996 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com ST. ANTHONY: Thompson Appeals Judgment to Minn. Appeals Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Linda Cobb Thompson filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated September 1, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Linda Cobb Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dominium Management Services, LLC, St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, Limited Partnership, St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates U, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-20-4576, in the Minnesota District Court, Hennepin County. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 16, 2020, the lawsuit seeks permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from charging rents in excess of fair market rent for all current and future Legends tenants. According to the complaint, since 2015, the Defendant has unlawfully overcharged rent to dozens of low-income senior citizens living in an apartment complex in St. Anthony, Minnesota-The Legends at Silver Lake. Dominium has imposed rents well above statutorily mandated limits even as it falsely assured tenants that it was complying with the required rent limits. According to the complaint, when Dominium was confronted last year with evidence that it had overcharged rent to Legends tenants for years, it refused to either refund the overcharges to tenants or comply with the rent limits going forward. The Plaintiff files this class action to stop Dominium unlawful conduct and remedy the harm caused to the tenants. The appellate case is captioned as Linda Cobb Thompson, Appellant, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated vs. St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates II, LP, et al., Respondents, Case No. A20-1367, in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Linda Cobb Thompson is represented by: John D. Cann, Esq. James William Poradek, Esq. Margaret Louise Kaplan, Esq. HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER 382 Banfil Street. St. Paul, MN 55102 Telephone: (612) 600-4028 E-mail: jcann@hjcmn.org jporadek@hjcmn.org mkaplan@hjcmn.org Defendants-Respondents St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates, II, LP; St. Anthony Leased Housing Associates, II, LLC; and Dominium Management Services, LLC, are represented by: David Allan Davenport, Esq. Peter Gregory Economou, Esq. Sean Michael Zaroogian, Esq. WINTHROP & WEINSTINE Capella Tower, Suite 3500 225 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402-4639 Telephone: (612) 604-6400 Facsimile: (612) 604-6800 E-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com peconomou@winthrop.com szaroogian@winthrop.com STATE FARM: Faces Rosenberg-Wohl Suit Over Denied Insurance Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE ROSENBERG-WOHL, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-587264 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., October 22, 2020) arises from the Defendants' practiced of denying the Plaintiff's claim in a way that conceals her rights under the homeowner's policy. According to the complaint, in 2019, the Plaintiff decided to replace her staircase as she became concerned for the safety of her guests, particularly for elderly neighbors, and for the possibility of a liability claim under policies underwritten by the Defendants. The Plaintiff then submitted a formal claim under the State Farm Homeowners Policy as a covered loss of the safe egress from her house, by way of her staircase, and the risk of resulting injury. In August 2020, the Defendants summarily denied the Plaintiff's claim, stating that there was "no evidence of a covered cause or loss nor any covered accidental direct physical loss to the front exterior stairway." The Plaintiff allegedly spent just under $70,000 to replace her staircase, the suit says. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers automobile, property, casualty, health, disability, and life insurance services. State Farm Fire and Casualty serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Rosenberg-Wohl HERSHENSON ROSENBERG-WOHL A Professional Corporation 315 Montgomery St., 10th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 829-4330 E-mail: david@hrw-law.com SUNOCO INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cline Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, INC. (R&M) filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and, SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS, L.P., Case No. 6:17-CV-00313-JAG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, Muskogee. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr., denied Sunoco's motion to stay the case pending its appeal of the District Court's class certification ruling to the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Cline owns a royalty interest in one or more oil wells in Oklahoma. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. ("Sunoco"), purchase and resell oil from Cline's wells. Oklahoma law requires Sunoco to pay proceeds from the oil to Mr. Cline. If Sunoco pays the proceeds late, it must pay Cline interest on the payment at a rate set forth in Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. Mr. Cline has sued Sunoco for paying his production proceeds late without paying the required interest. On Oct. 3, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Cline's motion to maintain a class action on behalf of other owners whom Sunoco paid late and did not pay interest. On Oct. 8, 2019, Sunoco filed a motion to stay the case pending its appeal of the District Court's class certification ruling to the Tenth Circuit. On Oct. 17, 2019, Sunoco filed its appeal. The appellate case is captioned as Cline, et al. v. Sunoco Inc. (R&M), Case No. 20-7064, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Docketing statement is due on November 13, 2020 for Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); -- Transcript order form is due on November 13, 2020 for Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); and -- Notice of appearance is due on November 13, 2020 for Perry Cline, Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M).[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq. Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq. Andrew G. Pate, Esq. NIX PATTERSON 3600 North Capital of Texas Highway Building B, Suite 350B Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (903) 645-7333 E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com bbeckworth@nixlaw.com dpate@nixlaw.com - and - Robert N. Barnes, Esq. Emily Nash Kitch, Esq. Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq. BARNES & LEWIS 128 West Hefner Road Oklahoma City, OK 73114 Telephone: (405) 843-0363 E-mail: rbarnes@barneslewis.com ekitch@barneslewis.com plewis@barneslewis.com - and - Michael Burrage, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 16-7800 E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com - and - Paula Jantzen, Esq. Jason A. Ryan, Esq. Patrick M. Ryan, Esq. RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER 400 North Walnut Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Telephone: (405) 239-6040 E-mail: pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com jryan@ryanwhaley.com pryan@ryanwhaley.com - and - Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq. SMOLEN LAW 611 South Detroit Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone: (918) 777-4529 - and - James Edward Warner, III, Esq. NIX PATTERSON 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 206 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 E-mail: jwarner@nixlaw.com - and - Russell S. Post, Esq. BECK REDDEN 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Defendants-Appellants SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P. and SUNOCO, INC. (R&M) are represented by: Mark D. Christiansen, Esq. EDINGER LEONARD & BLAKLEY 6301 North Western Avenue, Suite 250 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 702-9900 E-mail: MChristiansen@ELBattorneys.com - and - Matthew Dekovich, Esq. Daniel Mead McClure, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT 1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 651-5151 E-mail: matt.dekovich@nortonrosefulbright.com dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT 799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001-4501 Telephone: (202) 662-0200 E-mail: jonathan.franklin@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Emma Perry, Esq. Robert D. Woods, Esq. R. Paul Yetter, Esq. YETTER COLEMAN 811 Main Street, Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 632-8000 E-mail: eperry@yettercoleman.com rwoods@yettercoleman.com pyetter@yettercoleman.com - and - Michael A. Heidler, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746-7568 Telephone: (512) 542-8400 - and - Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS 1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-7533 - and - Marie R. Yeates, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Telephone: (713) 758-2222 SUNWORKS INC: Hoang Calls Company Sale to Peck Co. "Unfair" ----------------------------------------------------------- LINH HOANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUNWORKS, INC., CHARLES F. CARGILE, DANIEL GROSS, JUDITH HALL, RHONE RESCH, STANLEY SPEER, THE PECK COMPANY HOLDINGS, INC., and PECK MERCURY, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02106-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal., October 22, 2020) is brought for breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Peck Company as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote on an a proposed transaction. The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Sunworks, Inc. The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in an August 10, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan of merger. Under the terms of the agreement, Sunworks will become an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Peck Company, and Sunworks stockholders will receive only 0.185171 shares of Peck common stock for every share of Sunworks common stock they own, resulting in a merger consideration of approximately $0.80 per share of Sunworks' common stock based upon the closing price of Peck on August 7, 2020 of $4.33 per share. As a result of the proposed transaction, Sunworks shareholders will own only approximately 36.54% of Peck. Thereafter, on October 1, 2020, Peck filed a registration statement on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the proposed transaction, and which was later amended by Peck on October 14, 2020 on Form S-4/A. According to the complaint, the Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient amended registration statement on October 14, 2020 with the SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote their Sunworks shares in favor of the proposed transaction. The amended registration statement is materially deficient, deprives Sunworks' stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to tender their shares in favor of the proposed transaction, and is thus in breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties. Specifically, the amended registration statement omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b) the financial projections for Sunworks and Peck, provided by Sunworks to the Company's financial advisor Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses, if any, that purport to support the fairness opinions created by HCVT and provide to the Company and the Board. Sunworks, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides photovoltaic based power systems for the agricultural, commercial, industrial, public works, and residential markets in California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, New Jersey, and Washington. Peck Company Holdings, Inc. operates as a solar engineering, construction, and procurement contractor for commercial and industrial customers in the Northeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com TACTILE SYSTEMS: Mart Securities Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported securities class action suit entitled, Brian Mart, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al. On September 29, 2020, a complaint in a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and three of its present or former officers in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the following caption: Brian Mart, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operational and compliance policies, and financial results during the time period from May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020 ("alleged class period"), in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all investors who purchased our stock during the alleged class period. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. Tactile said, "We have not yet responded to the complaint, and do not have a deadline to respond, but we intend to move to dismiss it." Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. a medical technology company that develops and provides innovative medical devices for the treatment of chronic diseases. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. TELEBRANDS CORP: Faces Monegro ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Telebrands Corp. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Telebrands Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-08555-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick. TeleBrands Corp. operates as a television marketing company. The Company offers designing, manufacturing, marketing, and distributing consumer products. TeleBrands uses television, and internet advertising to market and sell their products. TeleBrands serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com TITAN STAFFING: Facing Arredondo Class Suit in NY State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A request for judicial interference was filed on October 5, 2020, in the case styled as KAZANDRA ARREDONDO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TITAN STAFFING SYSTEMS, INC., AND WILLIAM ALMONTE, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 610074/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Oct. 5, 2020). The case is assigned to Judge Thomas Feinman. Titan Staffing Systems, Inc. is a staffing agency based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: FITAPELI & SCHAFFER LLP 28 Liberty St New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 The Defendants are represented by: COLE, SCHOTZ P.A. Court Plaza North 25 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 489-3000 TRADER JOE'S: Robie Alleges Misleading Cereal Product Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ LISA ROBIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-07355 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendant's conduct of falsely and misleadingly markets its breakfast cereal product to consumers including the Plaintiff in violation of the California Business & Professions Code and the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Defendant manufactures distributes, markets, labels and sells breakfast cereal labeled as "Vanilla Almond Clusters - A blend of Vanilla Oat Clusters, Corn Flakes, Multigrain Flakes and Almonds" under their Trader Joe's brand. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly markets the product to consumers as having a primary characterizing flavor of "Vanilla" that comes from vanilla beans, from the vanilla plant. Where in reality, the product contains non-vanilla, artificial flavors, not disclosed to consumers and has de minimis vanilla. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less $3.89 for boxes of 20 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the price of the product if represented in a non-misleading way, the suit says. Trader Joe's Company is an American chain of grocery stores headquartered in Monrovia, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway E Fl 2 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 772-7200 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com klaukaitis@shublawyers.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com TRADEWEB MARKETS: Bid to Nix Treasuries Securities Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tradeweb Markets Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that he Company's motions to dismiss the antitrust class actions related to trading practices in United States Treasury securities auctions are pending. The Company has been named as a defendant, along with other financial institutions, in antitrust class actions (consolidated into two actions) relating to trading practices in United States Treasury securities auctions. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the actions, believes it has substantial defenses to the other plaintiff's claims and intends to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, the Company was dismissed from a class action relating to an interest rate swaps matter in 2017, but that matter continues against the remaining defendant financial institutions. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Tradeweb Markets Inc. is a leader in building and operating electronic marketplaces for its global network of clients across the financial ecosystem. The company's network is comprised of clients across the institutional, wholesale and retail client sectors, including many of the largest global asset managers, hedge funds, insurance companies, central banks, banks and dealers, proprietary trading firms and retail brokerage and financial advisory firms, as well as regional dealers. The company is based in New York, New York. TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Peek Appeals Thompson Case Ruling to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objectors Peck Et Al Policy Holdings LLC by Levi Katz, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled GAIL THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05422-CAS-GJS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has issued protective order in the case. Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of confidential and proprietary actuarial, business, technical, and financial information of Defendant Transamerica Life Insurance Co. as well as private information of Plaintiffs Thompson, individually and as Power of Attorney for Lois Thompson, for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of the case. The protections conferred by the Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel or their Experts that reveals Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. The appellate case is captioned as Gail Thompson, et al. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co., Case No. 20-56088, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Frank 2000 Irrevocable Trust dated January 1, 2000 and Peck Et Al Policy Holdings LLC By Levi Katz Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 26, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 16, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 14, 2020; -- Appellants Frank 2000 Irrevocable Trust dated January 1, 2000 and Peck Et Al Policy Holdings LLC By Levi Katz opening brief is due on January 25, 2021; -- Appellees Belinda Bucci, Debra Lewis, Diana Lewis, Marc Soble, Michael H. Stephens, Hans Sunder, Kathleen Swift, Gail Thompson, Lois Thompson and Transamerica Life Insurance Company answering brief is due on February 22, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GAIL THOMPSON, individually and as Power of Attorney for Lois Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; HANS SUNDER, Trustee; SUNDER IRREVOCABLE TRUST; DIANA LEWIS; MARC SOBLE, Trustee; MARILYN B. SOBLE IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED 11/19/1997; MICHAEL H. STEPHENS; BELINDA BUCCI, Trustee; NANCY AND CHARLES BARCELONA IRREVOCABLE TRUST; KATHLEEN SWIFT; and DEBRA LEWIS are represented by: Harvey Rosenfield, Esq. Gerald S. Flanagan, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 6330 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 E-mail: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org jerry@consumerwatchdog.org - and - Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com afriedman@bffb.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - James Richard Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 1350 Columbia Street, Unit 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 398-4760 E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com Objectors-Appellants PECK ET AL POLICY HOLDINGS LLC BY LEVI KATZ and FRANK 2000 IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JANUARY 1, 2000 are represented by: Daniel L. Keller, Esq. KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP 28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 342-7442 E-mail: dkeller@kfjlegal.com Defendant-Appellee TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Erin Elizabeth Bennett, Esq. EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 337-5583 E-mail: erin.bennett@mhllp.com - and - Jarrett Earl Ganer, Esq. Thomas F. A. Hetherington, Esq. Hutson Brit Smelley, Esq. MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 337-5585 E-mail: jarrett.ganer@mhllp.com tom.hetherington@mhllp.com hutson.smelley@mhllp.com - and - Vivian Orlando, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 614-7358 E-mail: vorlando@hinshawlaw.com TRAVEL RESORTS: Harris TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ASHLEY HARRIS, (On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated) v. TRAVEL RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 562020CA001394AXXXHC, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for St. Lucie County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 19, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-14368-KMM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Travel Resorts of America, Inc. is a membership-based camping service with resorts located along the East coast.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nelson C. Bellido, Esq. ROIG LAWYERS 44 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 405-0997 Facsimile: (305) 405-1022 E-mail: nbellido@roiglawyers.com UNISYS CORP: Kelley Seeks Collective Status of Managers' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMON KELLEY, v. UNISYS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-03237-PAB-MEH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order conditionally certifying a collective action consisting of, and authorizing notice of the lawsuit to: "a putative class, Client Service Managers (CSMs) and other similarly situated employees, who were collectively victims of a single decision, policy, or plan of Unisys to evade compensating these employees for overtime work, by designating them as exempt employees." Unisys is an American global information technology company based in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, that provides IT services, software, and technology.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Whitcomb, Esq. WHITCOMB, SELINSKY, PC 2000 S. Colorado Blvd. Tower One, Suite 9500 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 534-1958 Facsimile: (303) 534-1949 UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Scholl Prisoner Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants Steven Terner Mnuchin, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Colin Scholl, et al. v. Steven Mnuchin, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-05309-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. Mr. Mnuchin is sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs sought an order: 1. certifying a class of incarcerated persons under FRCP 23(b)(2) and/or (b)(3); and 2. granting a class-wide preliminary injunction declaring the Defendants' policy unlawful and requiring them to issue Economic Incentive Payments (EIP) benefits to eligible Class Members; and 3. appointing a co-lead class counsel. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' exclusion of incarcerated people from the EIP program is unlawful and that further delay will cause irreparable harm to themselves, the proposed Class, and their friends and family members, particularly given that the CARES Act's express purpose is to provide relief "as rapidly as possible." The appellate case is captioned as Colin Scholl, et al. v. Steven Mnuchin, et al., Case No. 20-17077, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Steven Terner Mnuchin, Charles P. Rettig, United States Department of the Treasury, United States Internal Revenue Service and United States of America Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 27, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by November 19, 2020; -- Transcript is due on December 21, 2020; -- Appellants Steven Terner Mnuchin, Charles P. Rettig, United States Department of the Treasury, United States Internal Revenue Service and United States of America opening brief is due on January 28, 2021; -- Appellees John Galvan, Colin Scholl, Lisa Strawn and Patrick Taylor answering brief is due on March 1, 2021; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees COLIN SCHOLL and LISA STRAWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jalle Dafa, Esq. Kelly M. Dermody, Esq. Yaman Salahi, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 E-mail: jdafa@lchb.com kdermody@lchb.com ysalahi@lchb.com - and - Eva Jefferson Paterson, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE SOCIETY 1999 Harrison Street Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 288-8700 Facsimile: (510) 338-3030 Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN GALVAN and PATRICK TAYLOR are represented by: Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com Defendants-Appellants STEVEN TERNER MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury; CHARLES P. RETTIG, in his official capacity as U.S. Commissioner of Internal Revenue; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, are represented by: Julie Ciamporcero Avetta, Esq. Michael J. Haungs, Esq. Francesca Ugolini, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 502 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 616-2743 UNITED STATES: Cleveland Square Appeals Order to Federal Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Independent Plaintiffs Cleveland Square, LLC, et al. filed an appeal from the Federal Circuit's Opinion and Order dated August 12, 2020, and Judgment dated August 13, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART, ET AL., FOR THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:09-cv-00103-CFL, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The origins of the dispute underlying the pending motions concern land in the state of Washington that was converted into a recreational train pursuant to Section 208 of the National Trails System Act Amendments of 1983. The Plaintiffs filed suit over a decade ago, alleging that the conversion constituted a taking of their property without just compensation. The court certified an initial class of over 500 members, which was subsequently split into six subclasses. In 2012, the court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, finding "the government liable to certain class members within Subclass Two and Categories A through D of Subclass Four" while also granting "the government summary judgment as to class claimants in Subclass Four, Category E." The Plaintiffs sought approval of a renewed notice to the class regarding the settlement, which the government opposed to the same grounds it had raised in its prior post-remand motions. The court heal a fairness hearing on December 18, 2017 in Seattle, Washington, in which numerous class members participated. On January 26, 2018, the court approved the settlement agreement and entered a partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), enabling the government to appeal the settlement approval immediately while reserving judgment on the matter of whether the Plaintiffs could recover statutory legal fees and costs beyond those already contained within the settlement agreement itself. Effectively, the court employed Rule 54(b) to bifurcate its approval of the settlement agreement from any determination regarding legal fees and costs outside the settlement agreement. On the government's subsequent appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed this court's approval of the settlement on November 27, 2019 but declined to address the government's arguments regarding legal fees and costs on the jurisdictional ground that this court had not previously acted regarding them. The Federal Circuit's mandate issued on January 21, 2020. On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed five separate motions, representing four different plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, seeking statutory legal fees and costs pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Following an additional round of motions practice in which the government sought to compel the production of retainer and fee agreements from class counsel, the government individually responded to each of the fee motions on June 22, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed replies on July 6, 2020. The appellate case is captioned as DANIEL HAGGART, KATHY HAGGART, Husband and Wife, For Themselves and As Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs; CLEVELAND SQUARE, LLC, RC TC MERIDIAN RIDGE, LLC, TWOSONS LLC, GRETCHEN CHAMBERS, DENNIS J. CRISPIN, DEBLOIS PROPERTIES, LLC, c/o David and Debra Deblois, STAR L. EVANS, MICHAEL B. JACOBSEN, FRANCES JANE LEE, SUSAN B. LONG, CLAUDIA MANSFIELD, FREDERICK P. MILLER, SUSAN L. MILLER, PBI ENTERPRISES, LLC, MICHAEL G. RUSSELL, ELANA RUSSELL, JAMES M. SATHER, KELLY J. SATHER, JAMES E. STRANG, D. MICHAEL YOUNG, JULIA H. YOUNG, MOLLY A. JACOBSEN, LESLIE MILSTEIN, ALISON L. WEBB, PATRICIA STRANG, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1072, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Cleveland Square, LLC; RC TC Meridian Ridge LLC; TWOSONS LLC; Gretchen Chambers, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Guy Roger Chambers; Dennis J. Crispin, as Trustee of that Certain Declaration of Trust dated September 17, 1980; DeBlois Properties LLC; Star L. Evans; Michael B. and Molly A. Jacobsen; Frances Jane Lee; Susan B. Long; Claudia Mansfield, individually, and as Power of Attorney for C.A. Mansfield; Frederick P. and Susan L. Miller; Leslie Milstein; PBI Enterprises LLC; Michael G. and Elana Russell; James M. and Kelly J. Sather; James E. and Patricia Strang; Alison L. Webb; and D. Michael and Julia H. Young are represented by: Mary Crego Peterson, Esq. HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON P.S. 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 E-mail: mary.peterson@hcmp.com UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in Samma Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Defendants United States Department of Defense, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANGE SAMMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01104-PLF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) involving review or appeal of agency decision. On April 28, 2020, six named Plaintiffs (Samma, Abner Bouomo, Ahmad Isiaka, Michael Perez, Sumin Park, and Yu Min Lee), who are noncitizens serving in the United States Armed Forces, filed the putative class action, claiming that the O-6 Requirement and the Minimum Service Requirements in the N-426 Policy violate various provisions of the APA. Of the six, five were serving in Active Components while one, Isiaka, was serving in the Reserves. As clarified by a later filing, the Plaintiffs specifically claim that the O-6 Requirement, the Active Minimum Service Requirement, and the Reservist Minimum Service Requirement are arbitrary and capricious, and were enacted without notice and comment. With respect to the Active and Reservist Minimum Service Requirements, they further claim that they violate the APA because they are not in accordance with law are in excess of statutory jurisdiction, and they result in unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed agency action. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel at the same time they filed their initial complaint, seeking to certify a class consisting of: All individuals who: (a) are noncitizens serving honorably in the U.S. military; (b) have requested but not received a certified Form N-426; and (c) are not Selected Reserve MAVNIs covered by the Kirwa lawsuit. The appellate case is captioned as Ange Samma, et al v. DOD, et al., Case No. 20-5320, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Ange Samma, Abner Bouomo, Ahmad Isiaka, Michael Perez, Sumin Park, and Yu Min Lee, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated; Timotius Gunawan and Rafael Leal Machado are represented by: Brett Max Kaufman, Esq. Scarlet Kim, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004-2400 Telephone: (212) 549-2607 Defendant-Appellant United States Department of Defense, and Mark T. Esper, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense, are represented by: DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: Faces Wilcox Prisoner Rights Suit in W.D. Michigan ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against United States of America. The case is styled as Steven Jon Wilcox #223862, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Steven Mnuchin, U.S. Secretary of Treasury; Dana Knessel, Michigan Attorney General; and Heidi Washington, Director, MDOC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00211-JTN-MV (W.D. Mich., Oct. 14, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the civil rights laws. The case is assigned to Judge Janet T. Neff. The Department of the Treasury is the national treasury of the federal government of the United States where it serves as an executive department. The Plaintiff appear pro se.[BN] UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Santiago Suit in State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Regents of the University of California. The case is styled as Sofia Santiago and Valeria Revollo, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baychildren's Physicians, a California Corporation; Baychildren's Physicians, dba UCSF Benioff Children's Physicians, an unknown business entity; Does 1 to 10 inclusive; and The Regents of the University of California, a California corporation, Case No. CGC20587405 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 20, 2020). A case management conference is set for March 24, 2021 before Judge Samuel K. Feng. The Regents of the University of California is the governing board of the University of California. The Board has 26 voting members. The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy, with limited exceptions, to the Regents. Baychildren's Physicians is a pediatric clinic in Berkeley, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by Kane Moon, Esq., at Moon & Yang. VALARIS PLC: Zhang Class Action Stayed Amid Bankrụptcy Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valaris PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action suit initiated by Xiaoyuan Zhang has now been stayed in light of the Valaris plc bankruptcy filing. On August 20, 2019, plaintiff Xiaoyuan Zhang, a purported Valaris shareholder, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Valaris shareholders against Valaris plc and certain of our executive officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The complaint cites general statements in press releases and SEC filings and alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose material information regarding the performance of the company's ultra-deepwater segment, among other things. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Valaris plc shares between April 11, 2019 and July 31, 2019. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The case has now been stayed in light of the Valaris plc bankruptcy filing, with the exception that lead plaintiff may continue efforts to serve certain defendants and may file an amended complaint. Valaris said, "At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the extent of any resulting liability. Valaris PLC provides offshore contract drilling services. The Company owns, operates, and manages rig fleets and provides drilling services. Valaris serves customers globally. The company is based in London, England. VALLEY BROOK, OK: Hill Seeks Refund of Tickets & Citations ---------------------------------------------------------- DANA S. HILL, for herself and all others similarly situated v. TOWN OF VALLEY BROOK, Case No. CJ-2020-5004 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., Oct. 19, 2020) challenges the Defendant's conduct to assess and collect fines and costs from citizens who were stopped by Valley Brook Police Officers outside their jurisdiction. On January 27, 2018, at the location of 6000 block of South Eastern, the Plaintiff was stopped, detained and arrested by the Valley Brook Police Department and charged with driving under the influence, possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of controlled dangerous substances. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant approximately $3,200 in fines and costs for the three charges mentioned. According to the complaint, Eastern Avenue, where the Defendant was stopped, detained and arrested the Plaintiff, is located beyond the eastern edge of the Town Valley Brook, and is outside the Defendant's jurisdiction. The Plaintiff is seeking reimbursement or refund of money had and received by the Defendant from her, as well as all others similarly situated, of all amounts paid to the Defendant as a result of tickets/citations issued by the Police Department while acting outside their jurisdiction, the suit says. The Town of Valley Brook is a municipal corporation created and organized under the laws of the state of Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Box, Esq. JEFFREY J. BOX, P.C. 400 North Walker Avenue, Suite 330 Oklahoma City, OK 73109 Telephone: (405) 600-9918 Facsimile: (405) 543-2336 E-mail: jeffreybox@coxinet.net - and - Marvel E. Lewis, Esq. MARVEL E. LEWIS, P.C. P.O. Box 338 Guthrie, OK 73044 Telephone: (405) 655-8288 Facsimile: (405) 322-5848 E-mail: marvel@marvellewislaw.com VELLOSO & SANTOS: Buzzi et al. Seek Restaurant Staff's Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDA DANIELE BUZZI, RAFAEL MARCOS DE OLIVEIRA AREDES, BETTINA DE OLIVEIRA NICOLELLIS DELBONI, NATALIA DE OLIVEIRA NICOLELLIS DELBONI, LUCIANA SANTOS DA ROCHA, BEATRIZ VENTURA PEREIRA, LEONARDO BARROS NOBRE, MARIA PENHA BARONE, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RONNED DA SILVA, FLAVIA RIBEIRO HENSEL, LENOIR-EVANDRO DOS SANTOS, VELLOSO & SANTOS, LLC, and V&V CORP., Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-02009 (M.D. Fla., October 29, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged illegal labor policies and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were required by the Defendants to work more than 40 hours per week, but were not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, the Defendants paid them straight time pay for all hours. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants engaged in unlawful retaliation. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly paid servers, cashiers and cooks. Ronne Da Silva is the owner and/or manager of Defendant V&V Corp. Defendants Flavia Ribeiro Hensel and Lenoir-Evandro Dos Santos are the owners of Velloso & Santos LLC. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent B. Lynch, Esq. Carlos J. Bonilla, Esq. ELP Global, PLLC 7901 Kingpointe Parkway, Suite 8 Orlando, FL 32819 E-mail: vincent@elpglobal.com carlos@elpglobal.com VILLAGE GREEN: Fails to Pay OT to Service Managers, Manco Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARRYL MANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VILLAGE GREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-3159 (N.D. Tex., Oct. 16, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid time-and-one-half of his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Rather, the Defendant misclassified him as exempt from the requirements of the FLSA and paid him primarily on a salaried basis and without regard to the number of hours he actually worked. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately June of 2014 to March of 2020 as service manager. Village Green Management Company is an Austin, Texas-based company which offers apartment rentals and management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 VISION SERVICE: Faces Schmidt Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SCHMIDT, on behalf of the State of California and Aggrieved Employees v. VISION SERVICE PLAN, Case No. RG20077472 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Oct. 20, 2020) arises from the Defendant's systematic violations of the California Labor Code with respect to its current and former non-exempt employees who worked in the state of California. The Plaintiff and aggrieved employees bring this action to challenge the Defendant's policies and practices of (l) failing to pay them all minimum wages owed; (2) failing to pay overtime wages; (3) failing to compensate for all hours worked; (4) failing to authorize and permit to take meal and rest breaks to which they are entitled by law; (5) failing to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and (6) failing to timely pay full wages upon termination or resignation. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt customer service representative for the Defendant at a Vision Service Plan location in Rancho Cordova, California from approximately August 2015 to August 2019. Vision Service Plan operates a vision care health insurance company throughout the United States and California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Ryan Hecht, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rhecht@schneiderwallace.com WALMART INC: Hellige Appeals S.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Lance Hellige and Trista Oettle filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LANCE HELLIGE and TRISTA OETTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAL-MART, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00455-DWD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The case is about WAL-MART, INC., a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Arkansas, selling a "Balloon Time 9.5" Helium Tank" that breached the implied warranty of merchantability and, in turn, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. In pertinent part, the product is not of merchantable quality or fit for its intended purpose of keeping helium balloons inflated for a sufficiently long period of time, and, thus, has a propensity to deteriorate and fail its essential purpose, namely that the product contains only 80% helium and balloons tend to either not float or sink to the ground after a handful of hours. The appellate case is captioned as Lance Hellige, et al v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 20-8031, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners LANCE HELLIGE and TRISTA OETTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Peter J. Maag, Esq. MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC 22 W. Lorena Avenue Wood River, IL 62095 Telephone: (618) 216-5291 Facsimile: (618) 551-0421 E-mail: lawmaag@gmail.com Defendant-Respondent WALMART INC. is represented by: James W. Ozog, Esq. GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP 222 W. Adams Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 542-8400 E-mail: jozog@goldbergsegalla.com WIDENER UNIVERSITY: Brezinski Files Class Suit in Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Widener University. The case is styled as Sara Brezinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Widener University, Case No. 2:20-cv-04939-JMY (E.D. Pa., Oct. 6, 2020). The nature of suit is "Diversity-Breach of Contract." The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John M. Younge. Widener University is a private university in Chester, Pennsylvania. The university has three other campuses: two in Pennsylvania and one in Wilmington, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue Suite 1300 Law & Finance Bldg Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Related to BolaWrap Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Wrap Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative class action suits related to its BolaWrap product. On September 23, 2020, Carone Cobden filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, former Chief Executive Officer David Norris ("Norris"), Chief Financial Officer James A. Barnes ("Barnes") and President Thomas Smith ("Smith") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-08760-DMG-PVCx. The class period in the Complaint is defined as July 31, 2020 through September 23, 2020. The Complaint alleges that the named defendants, in their capacities as officers of the Company, knowingly made false or misleading statements or omissions regarding trials of the Company's BolaWrap product conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department (the "BolaWrap Pilot Program"). The Complaint further alleges that the conduct of the named defendants artificially inflated the price of the Company's traded securities, and that the disclosure of certain adverse information to the public led to a decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 1, 2020, Joseph Mercurio filed a second putative class action complaint against the Company, Norris, Smith, and Barnes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which contains substantially the same factual allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Complaint, and is docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-09030-DMG-PVCx. On October 15, 2020, Paula Earley filed a third putative class action complaint against the Company, Smith, Norris, Barnes, Chief Strategy Officer Mike Rothans, and Chief Executive Officer Marc Thomas in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which contains substantially the same factual allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Complaint, but defines the class period as April 29, 2020 through September 23, 2020, and alleges that the named defendants made additional false or misleading statements in connection with BolaWrap and the BolaWrap Pilot Program. The complaint is docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-09444-DMG-PVCx. On October 20, 2020, the Hon. Dolly M. Gee issued an order to show cause why the above-described cases should not be consolidated under the caption In re Wrap Technologies, Inc. Securities Exchange Act Litigation, Case No. 20-8760-DMG (PVCx), with a single consolidated class action complaint or designated operative complaint. Wrap Technologies said, "As such, the Company expects that these cases will be consolidated, and that plaintiffs in these cases will file a consolidated amended complaint following the selection of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B). The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims raised therein. Wrap Technologies, Inc. designs, produces, and markets security products. The Company focuses on developing security products designed for the use of law enforcement and security personnel. Wrap Technologies serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Tempe, Arizona. XTO ENERGY: Fredericksburg Balks at Untimely Gas Royalty Payments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fredericksburg Royalty, Ltd., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. XTO Energy, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00154-SPW-TJC (D. Mont., Oct. 26, 2020) arises from the Defendant's willful and ongoing violations of Montana and North Dakota law related to the interest owed on untimely payments of oil-and-gas royalties. Montana statute requires operators like XTO to pay royalties to leased mineral owners within 120 days after the initial oil or gas produced under the lease is marketed and, thereafter, within 60 days after oil is marketed and 90 days after for gas is marketed. North Dakota statute, on the other hand, requires operators like XTO to pay royalties to mineral owners, both leased and unleased, within 150 days of marketing the oil or gas. Both statutes require operators to pay mineral owners statutory interest when they fail to meet the said deadlines. According to the complaint, the Defendant does not automatically pay mineral owners the interest it owes on untimely royalty payments. Instead, it has a policy of only paying statutory interest when mineral owners demand it, despite the fact that neither Montana nor North Dakota law contains such a demand requirement. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for itself and all similarly situated mineral owners who received untimely payments from XTO for which it did not pay the interest required by both statutes. Plaintiff Fredericksburg Royalty, Ltd. is a Texas limited partnership domiciled in San Antonio, Texas. XTO Energy, Inc. operates as an oil company. The Company acquires, develops, and explores oil and gas properties, as well as offers processing, marketing, and transportation services. XTO Energy serves customers in the United States, Canada, and Argentina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric E. Holm, Esq. HOLM LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 3094 Billings, MT 59103 Telephone: (406) 252-2900 Facsimile: (406) 794-0802 E-mail: eric@holm-law.com YIELDSTREET INC: Paguada Seeks Blind Users' Full Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YIELDSTREET INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09254-LGS (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has denied him and all others similarly situated blind or visually-impaired consumers full and equal access to its Website. The Defendant's Website, www.yieldstreet.com, contains access barriers that hinder blind consumers to fully use and enjoy the products and services offered by the Defendant to the public. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) features fail to contain proper label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same title elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links. As a result of the Defendant's failure and refusal to remove these access barriers to its Website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to the Website, and the numerous goods and services and benefits offered to the public through it. YieldStreet Inc. is an investment company headquartered in New York, New York. [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 ********* 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 ***