/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 1, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 240 Headlines ADIENT PLC: Bristol Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir. ADT INC: Mey Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ADVANCE AUTO: Seeks 3rd Circuit Review in PERS Securities Suit AMAZON INC: Faces Smalls Suit Over Racial Bias in COVID-19 Response AMAZON.COM LLC: Charges Sales Tax on Face Masks, Ranalli Claims AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Rollman Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California AMNEAL PHARMA: Brice Sues Over Carcinogenic Diabetes Drug AMTROL INC: Cordero Sues Over Racial Discrimination in Workplace ARCHER DANIELS: Green Plains Suit Moved From D. Nev. to C.D. Ill. ARIZONA: Kogianes Sues Over Inmates' Rights BAKER TECH: Stay of Komaiko Pending Rulings in Barr & Duguid Denied BAKERY DEPOT: Faces Perez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit Underway in California BBVA USA: St. Lucie Fire Firefighters Pension Trust Suit Ongoing BIOSCRIP INFUSION: Huber Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action Status BLACKBAUD INC: Lofton Sues Over Data Breach BLUE APRON HOLDINGS: Chute Hits Share Drop Over Delayed Deliveries BLUE LAGOON: Simon Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Handymen BOB BAKER VOLKSWAGEN: Barba Slams Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks BOCCACCIOS RESTAURANT: Faces Perez Employment Suit in California BRENDAN KELLY: McFarland Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Illinois BROKEN ARROW: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BUBBA GUMP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Alcazar's ADA Lawsuit CARAMICO 33 CORP: Faces Ammar Employment Suit in New York CHAAC PIZZA: Authorization to Send Notice to Drivers Class Sought CHARLES M. LEE: Faces Chon Lee Wage-and-Hour Suit in California CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cirillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime CLAIR DOLL: Court Dismisses Motion to Strike as Moot in "Thakker" CNB BANK: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Wriglesworth Claims COCA-COLA: Jones Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA COLORED ORGANICS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York COMPETENTIA US: Kasper Seeks Project Managers' Unpaid Overtime COMPLETION EQUIPMENT: Galindo Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages CREEK GROUP: Denied Austin Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips CUGURT RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Cruz Suit Claims DNATA US: Fails to Provide Spread of Hours Pay, Villar Suit Says DOLGENCORP LLC: Thornton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages DOMINO'S PIZZA: Smorowski Claims Discount Promo Deceptive ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Video Game Loot Boxes ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Laborers Pension Seeks to Certify Class Action ETX ENERGY: Byrd FLSA Class Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to N.D. Okla. EVA FRANCO: Kiler Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Claims Partly Granted FIRST STUDENT: Brewton BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FORD MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss Class Allegations Partly Granted FORD MOTOR: Fails to Cover Warranty-Related Repairs, Martin Says GARRETT MOTION: Husson Hits Share Price Drop GENERAL MOTORS: Siqueiros Fraud Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes GODADDY.COM LLC: $8.75MM Counsel Fees Awarded in Drazen TCPA Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss XP Inc. IPO Related Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Stay Venator IPO Related Suit Junked GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing GoHealth IPO Related Securities Class Suits GOOGLE LLC: Kober Antitrust Class Suit Removed to N.D. California GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, Stark Suit Says GREAT SOUTHERN: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought HANESBRANDS INC: Cota Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website HAY ADAMS: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Suit Claims HERMAN JONES: Shaw Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Sues Over Missed Breaks HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Wage & Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California ICONIC MORTGAGE: Correll TCPA Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to S.D. Fla. INDIGO FACILITY: Shone FLSA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Texas IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Myers Seeks 2 Classes in FLSA Suit IT'S JUST LUNCH: Vrugtman Says Online Dating Process Fraudulent JEA SENIOR: Bowen Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. California JOLO INC: Saad FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification JOSHUA DAVID: Faces Yoffee Suit Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls JVA INDUSTRIES: Workers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime, Missing Paystubs KATERRA INC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought KEAGLE INC: Campbell Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool KEYBANK NA: Conditional Certification of Class Members Sought KNAUF GIPS: Arnold Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall KNAUF GIPS: Burgos Sues Over Corrosive Effects of Gypsum Drywall KNAUF GIPS: Drywall Causes Damage to Property, Feng Hu Suit Claims KNAUF GIPS: Foreman Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall KNAUF GIPS: Ginart Suit Alleges Distribution of Defective Drywall KNAUF GIPS: Jackson Land Sues Over Sale of Defective Gypsum Drywall L BRANDS: Allison Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties LAS VEGAS SANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline LASERFORM LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Operators, Wilkerson Says LEVEL 28 NUTRIDRIP: Olsen Files ADA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Watson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes LIBERTY MUTUAL: Marano Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California LIFELABS: Personal Data Breach Leads to Multiple Class Action Suits LIVE AUCTIONEERS: Zheng Files Suit in S.D. New York LOWE'S COMPANIES: Court Preliminarily Certifies Class in Reetz Suit MAGGIE DOG: Markham Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE: Glynn ERISA Suit Wins Class Certification MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ch. 11 Cases Closed UAP&P Local 322 Class Suit MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Marietta Putative Class Suit Closed MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend Shaver Putative Class Suit MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class MARRIOTT INT'L: Barnes FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Aronstein Appeals Judgment to 1st Circuit MEIJI RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. of Cleaners Class Granted MEP NATIONWIDE: Faces Saylor Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages METRODATA: 1681c Class Granted, 1681k Class Denied in "Wentworth" MEYER DISTRIBUTING: Rocero Wage & Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Approves Stipulated Settlement Agreement MORGAN & MORGAN: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Sloatman Suit Says NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Root Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California NEOVASC INC: Faces Siple Suit Over 42% Drop in Share Price NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Jones Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages NIKOLA CORPORATION: Malo Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D. Ariz. NOR-CAL VENTURE: Diosdado Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages OFFERUP INC: Conner Claims Website not Blind-accessible ONE PLANET OPS: Loftus Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Zlotky Files Suit v. Trustees PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bid to Certify June 10 Summary Judgment Denied READY WIRE: Electricians Sue Over Denied Overtime Pay, Payslips REAL HOSPITALITY: Hotel Staff Slams Lack of Closure/Layoff Notice RENTOKIL NORTH: Dotan Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California RICO POLLO: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages RMI INTERNATIONAL: Abedalsalam Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ROANOKE AIRPORT: Joint Bid for Conditional Collective Cert. Sought ROLLIN COOK: Joint Motion to Amend Class Definition Sought RUBY NAILS TARRYTOWN: Sanango Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements SALLY BEAUTY: Contents of 1 Liter Items Short of a Liter, Suit Says SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Robinson-Luqman Sues Over Race Bias at Work SAS INSTITUTE: Cahoo Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice to SAS SAUNDERS CORP: Harrington Alleges Wrongful Termination SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses SHEEX INC: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SHILDAN TEXERE: Angeles Sues Over Bind-Inaccessible Website SIBANYE-STILLWATER: Securities Class Action Suit Dismissed SIXT RENT-A-CAR: Vitale-Renner Sues Over Insurance Premiums SJ EUS FOOD: Faces Davis Suit in California Over ADA Violation SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Grissom Sues Over Erroneous Background Check STOCKTON NURSING: Hudson Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Refunds THIRD AVENUE: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses TOTAL RENAL: Hesketh Labor Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TOWER HILL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Recovery Says TRALEE AFFORDABLE: Two Settlement Classes Certified in Davis Suit TTAC PUBLISHING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Shultz TCPA Suit U.S. CITIZENSHIP: ITServe et al. Drop Third Cause of Action UNITED STATES: Catholic Charities' Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Health Providers Files ERISA Class Action UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT: Toro Suit Removed to Conn. Federal Court UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS: Butterfield Seeks Healthcare Staff's OT Pay VEST MONROE: Unlawfully Discloses Mental Health Records, Suit Says VICTORIA'S SECRET: Silva Sues Over Manual Workers' Unpaid Wages VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT: Winks Suit Seeks Collective Action Status VITAMIN COTTAGE: Conditional Cert. of Managers' Class Granted VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Chavez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices WASHINGTON: Class Certification Bid in "Taylor" Suit Denied WELLPATH LLC: Shortchanges Workers Overtime Pay, Myles Says WELLS FARGO BANK: Phone Bankers Sue Over Unpaid Hours WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement in ATM Access Fee Suit Pending WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 29 Deadline WELLS FARGO: Shareholder Securities Fraud Class Suit Ongoing WELLS FARGO: Wilson Sues Over Improper Charging of Overdraft Fees WEST SHORE: Faces Beiswinger Suit Over Telemarketing Calls WESTPAC BANKING: Class Action Proceeding in Australia Discontinued WESTPAC BANKING: Initial Trial in Australia Suit Set for May 2021 WESTPAC BANKING: Settlement Reached in Rosen Law Firm Suit WHELAN SECURITY: Goto Remanded to San Francisco Cty. Superior Court WORKFORCE RESOURCES: Abdul Jamil Class Action Settlement Granted WRIGHT OF INDIANA: Underpays Flaggers, Grammer Suit Claims ********* ADIENT PLC: Bristol Appeals Order in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Bristol County Retirement System filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 14, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Julio Barreto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adient PLC, R. Bruce McDonald, Jeffrey M. Stafeil, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-9116, 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 alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Adient is an Irish corporation that designs, engineers and manufactures automotive seating. Nearly half of its annual revenues derive from the sale of metal components used in seat frames produced by its seat structures and mechanisms. On May 3, 2018, Defendants announced they recorded a $299 million impairment charge related to its seat structures and mechanisms business and admitted that it was facing significant operational and financial headwinds and a planned margin expansion was no longer achievable. This news drove the price of Adient shares down $6.14 per share, or about 10%, to close at $55.84 that day. On June 11, 2018, Adient announced the sudden and immediate resignation of CEO McDonald and slashed its earnings guidance. This news drove the price of Adient shares down $8.88 per share, or about 15.6%, to close at $48.10 that day. On April 2, 2020, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint, and on April 7, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants. On October 14, 2020, the court denied the Plaintiffs' first motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), as well as Plaintiffs' amended second motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Judge Ronnie Abrams on October 14, 2020, entered a Memorandum and Opinion denying Plaintiff Bristol County Retirement System's motions to set aside judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(6) and for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a). The appellate case is captioned as IN RE ADIENT PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 20-3846, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, November 10, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Bristol County Retirement System is represented by: Guillaume Buell, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 1 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 531-3933 E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com Defendants-Appellees Adient PLC, R. Donald McDonald, and Jeffrey M. Stafeil are represented by: Jeffrey Thomas Scott, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3082 E-mail: scottj@sullcrom.com ADT INC: Mey Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------- Diana Mey, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADT, Inc., Safe Streets USA, LLC and Perfectvision Manufacturing, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00209 (N.D. W.V., September 25, 2020), seeks to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief for injuries caused under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ADT, Inc. sells home-security hardware and home-monitoring subscriptions. To generate sales and subscribers, ADT relies on a network of third-party authorized dealers like Safe Streets, who in turn rely on telemarketing conducted by sales lead generators like PerfectVision Manufacturing. Mey claims to have received illegal auto-dialed and prerecorded telemarketing calls from PerfectVision and Safe Streets without her permission.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Barrett, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. Sharon F. Iskra, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com ymarshall@baileyglasser.com siskra@baileyglasser.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Email: ted@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net ADVANCE AUTO: Seeks 3rd Circuit Review in PERS Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Advance Auto Parts Inc, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled IN RE ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1-18-cv-00212, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, lead plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi asserts claims for federal securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Section 10(b) claim is asserted against Advance Auto, Thomas R. Greco, and Thomas Okray ("Advance Auto Defendants"). Messrs. Greco and Okray ("Individual Defendants") were the CEO and CFO of Advance Auto, respectively. The Section 20(a) claim is asserted against Starboard Value LP and Jeffrey C. Smith ("Starboard Defendants") as well as the Individual Defendants. Starboard is a hedge fund that owned approximately 3.7% of Advance Auto's shares, and Smith was the CEO of Starboard. In connection with Starboard's investment in Advance Auto, Smith was also appointed to the Board of Directors for Advance Auto. In a nutshell, the complaint alleges that the Defendants projected increased sales and operating margins for Advance Auto in fiscal year 2017 ("FY17 projections") at a time when they knew those projections were unattainable. When "the truth finally emerged" in August 2017, the Company's stock price dropped. The Plaintiff thereafter initiated the lawsuit. Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lead Plaintiff seeks to certify a class on behalf of itself and all other persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Advance Auto common stock between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017 (the "Class Period"). Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Lead Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check as Class Counsel and deLeeuw Law as Liaison Counsel. The Defendants oppose the Motion and have also filed a Motion for Leave to File a Surreply. On November 6, 2020, the Court ruled that the Lead Plaintiff's Motion is granted, and the Defendants' Motion is denied as it is untimely. The appellate case is captioned as Jewel Wigginton, et al. v. Advance Auto Parts Inc, et al., Case No. 20-8036, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, November 20, 2020.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI and JEWEL WIGGINTON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Sharan Nirmul, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com - and - P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0336 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com Defendants-Petitioners ADVANCE AUTO PARTS INC., THOMAS OKRAY, THOMAS R. GRECO, STARBOARD VALUE LP, and JEFFREY C. SMITH are represented by: Douglas Baumstein, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 692-6734 E-mail: DBaumstein@mintz.com - and - Emily K. Musgrave, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 542-6000 E-mail: EKMusgrave@mintz.com - and - Kevin M. Coen, Esq. David John Teklits, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL 1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 658-9200 E-mail: kcoen@mnat.com dteklits@mnat.com AMAZON INC: Faces Smalls Suit Over Racial Bias in COVID-19 Response ------------------------------------------------------------------- chicagodefender.com reports that former Amazon, Inc. employee Chris Smalls sued his former employer on behalf of a class of similarly situated African American and Latino workers for its failure to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) and complying with other safety guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. As New York City was fast becoming the epicenter of this deadly and brutal disease, Amazon knowingly subjected its majority-minority line workers to unsafe, dangerous, and inferior work conditions as compared to its white employees working in managerial classifications. When Chris Smalls organized workers against Amazon's discriminatory practices by voicing his opposition in an effort to protect the workers, he was fired. In an attempt to further discredit Chris Smalls, Amazon concluded that as a Black man, he would serve as a "weak spokesman" for the workers and criticized him for standing up and fighting for the workers", said Smalls' attorney CK Hoffler. "Over 240,000 people have died in the United States from COVID-19 and millions have been infected, but Amazon was cavalier with the safety of its employees amidst this pandemic. Amazon puts profits before people and placed its workers at risk." The lawsuit alleges violations of 42 U.S.C Section 1981 as well as Executive Law of State of New York and section 8-107(7) of the New York City Human Rights Law, among other things. The New York Attorney General's office is also investigating a whistleblower action against Amazon related to Chris Smalls' claims and allegations. "I was a loyal worker and gave my all to Amazon until I was unceremoniously terminated and tossed aside like the trash because I insisted that Amazon protect its dedicated workers from COVID-19," said Smalls who had been employed at Amazon for 4 1/2 years before the termination. "I just wanted Amazon to provide basic protective gear to the workers and sanitize the workplace" Famed civil rights icon Reverend Jesse Jackson and Rainbow Push Coalition are also supporting Smalls' fight against Amazon. "I have spent my entire career fighting against the type of oppression that Chris and his fellow workers experienced at JFK8 and around the world," said Jackson, the legendary civil rights leader. "It's a shame that Amazon would not protect its workers and laborers, exposing them to one of the deadliest enemies in modern history -- COVID-19. It's not right and I applaud Chris for his courage under fire. We, too, stand in solidarity with him on this journey. COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted Black and Brown communities on so many levels, from warehouses to jailhouses. It's an invisible enemy that is killing our communities. Chris's case is a classic example of how corporate greed and insensitivity can literally expose communities to untold and unnecessary risks. We must continue to fight for the voiceless who can't fight for themselves because of their circumstances." Chris Smalls is also represented by civil rights attorney Michael H. Sussman from Goshen. [GN] AMAZON.COM LLC: Charges Sales Tax on Face Masks, Ranalli Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- VINCE RANALLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, LLC; ZAZZLE INC; ARENA MERCHANDISING BY AND THROUGH AMAZON.COM, LLC, ETSY.COM, LLC, BRAVE NEW LOOK, and OUTDOOR RESEARCH, Case No. GD-20-011704 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Allegheny Cty., Nov. 12, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. On March 6, 2020, Governor Tom Wolf declared a disaster emergency due to COVID-19. Thereafter, Governor Wolf renewed the disaster emergency on June 3, 2020 and again on August 31, 2020 for a 90-day period. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue stated that "[p]rotective face masks that are sold at retail are exempt from Pennsylvania sales tax during the emergency disaster declaration issued on March 6, 2020 by Governor Wolf." According to the complaint, during Governor Wolf's declared state of emergency, Mr. Ranalli and others similarly situated purchased protective face masks and coverings from various Pennsylvania- licensed retailers and were charged an unlawful sales tax on said purchase. The Defendants represent a fraction of retailers that failed to comply with Pennsylvania Statutes as they knew or should have known that, during the state of emergency, "medical supplies" such as face masks or coverings are nontaxable. Charging consumers, like Mr. Ranalli and others similarly situated, sales tax on medical supplies and/or clothing and accessories constitutes unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive practices in stark violation of the UTPCPL, the suit says. The Defendants are licensed retail companies that operate within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. Kyle H. Steenland, Esq. J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC The Rubicon Building 201 South Highland Avenue Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Rollman Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled SHANE ROLLMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN MERCHANDISING SPECIALISTS, INC., a North Carolina corporation doing business as AMS Retail Solutions, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00283600-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 25, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-at-01177 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay employees for all hours worked at correct rates of pay, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide meal periods, failure to indemnify, wage statement penalties, unfair competition, waiting time penalties, and civil penalties. American Merchandising Specialists, Inc., doing business as AMS Retail Solutions, is a company that provides retail merchandising and marketing services, headquartered in Brentwood, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: John L. Barber, Esq. Efthalia S. Rofos, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 545-9200 Facsimile: (714) 850-1030 E-mail: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com Thalia.Rofos@lewisbrisbois.com - and – Armine Antonyan, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900 E-mail: Armine.Antonyan@lewisbrisbois.com AMNEAL PHARMA: Brice Sues Over Carcinogenic Diabetes Drug --------------------------------------------------------- Marcia E. Brice, Individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Walmart Stores, Inc. and John Does 1-100, Case No. 20-cv-13728, (D.N.J., October 1, 2020), seeks injunctive and monetary relief resulting from negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment and violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. Brice also seeks the creation of a fund to finance independent medical monitoring services, including but not limited to notification to all people exposed to contamination; examinations; testing; preventative screening; and care and treatment of cancer, resulting, at least in part, from the exposure to the N-nitrosodimethylamine contamination. Amneal Pharmaceuticals manufactured, sold and distributed Metformin containing drugs in the United States. Metformin is a first-line diabetes treatment. Its generic Metformin was allegdly contaminated with a probable human carcinogen known as N-nitrosodimethylamine. Brice was prescribed and used Metformin HCL 500mg ER from approximately 2018 to 2020. This MCD was contaminated with NDMA. She claims that she suffered cellular and genetic injury that creates and/or increases the risk of developing cancer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Honik, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Ste. 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 985-9177 Email: rhonik@golombhonik.com - and - George T. Williamson, Esq. FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR & HOLMES, P.A. 99 Nesbit Street Punta Gorda, FL 33950 Phone: (941) 639-1158 Email: gwilliamson@farr.com - and - Daniel Nigh, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7013 Email: dnigh@levinlaw.com - and - David J. Stanoch, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 524-5777 Email: d.stanoch@kanner-law.com AMTROL INC: Cordero Sues Over Racial Discrimination in Workplace ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amaurys J. Cordero, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Amtrol, Inc. and Worthington Industries, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00431 (D. R.I., October 2, 2020), seeks an injunction or other equitable relief, an award of back pay, front pay, actual damages, full reinstatement of employment, fringe benefits and seniority rights, as well as other compensation and/or benefits denied, compensatory damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs and such other and further relief arising out of violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, Rhode Island Civil Rights Act and the Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection Act. On or about November 14, 2019, Cordero filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging race, ethnicity, and/or color discrimination with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights on July 7, 2020. Cordero is a Hispanic male born in the Dominican Republic. He was was employed by Amtrol since January 30, 2017 at their facility in West Warwick, Rhode Island. Cordero claims that Hispanic workers had to endure almost daily racist remarks in the workplace by co-workers and supervisors alike. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Sinapi, Esq. Danilo A. Borgas, Esq. SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD. 2374 Post Road, Suite 201 Warwick, RI 02886 Phone: (401) 739-9690 Fax: (401) 739-9040 Email: ras@sinapilaw.com dab@sinapilaw.com ARCHER DANIELS: Green Plains Suit Moved From D. Nev. to C.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as GREEN PLAINS TRADE GROUP LLC, GREEN PLAINS INC., GREEN PLAINS WOOD RIVER LLC, GREEN PLAINS ORD LLC, GREEN PLAINS ATKINSON LLC, GREEN PLAINS CENTRAL CITY LLC, GREEN PLAINS YORK LLC, GREEN PLAINS SHENANDOAH LLC, GREEN PLAINS OTTER TAIL LLC, GREEN PLAINS FAIRMONT LLC, GREEN PLAINS HEREFORD LLC, GREEN PLAINS MOUNT VERNON LLC, GREEN PLAINS MADISON LLC, GREEN PLAINS HOPEWELL LLC, GREEN PLAINS SUPERIOR LLC, GREEN PLAINS OBION LLC, GREEN PLAINS BLUFFTON LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY, Case No. 8:20-cv-00279, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on November 23, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02332-CSB-EIL to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged manipulation of ethanol prices in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act and tortious interference with contractual relations. Green Plains Trade Group LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Inc. is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Wood River LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Ord LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Atkinson LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Central City LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains York LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Shenandoah LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Otter Tail LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Fairmont LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Hereford LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Mount Vernon LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Madison LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Hopewell LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Superior LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Obion LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Green Plains Bluffton LLC is a company that sells and markets ethanol, with a principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Archer Daniels Midland Company is an American multinational food processing and commodities trading corporation founded in 1902 and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Domina, Esq. DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO 2425 South 144th Street Omaha, NE 68144 Telephone: (402) 493-4100 E-mail: ddomina@dominalaw.com - and – Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Mark S. Hamill, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com mhamill@dicellolevitt.com - and – Greg G. Gutzler, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, NY 11022 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com ARIZONA: Kogianes Sues Over Inmates' Rights ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jensen, et al. The case is captioned as Michael George Kogianes and Cecil T. Kinkade, and such other similarly situated individuals, Petitioners v. Edward Jensen, Warden; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General for the State of Arizona, Respondents, Case No. 2:20-cv-02186-DLR-DMF (D. Ariz., Nov. 12, 2020). The lawsuit serves as Plaintiff's petition for writ of habeas corpus. The case is assigned to Judge Douglas L. Rayes. Edward Jensen is the warden of Arizona State Prison Complex in Yuma. The Petitioners, who are currently incarcerated at the Arizona State Prison Complex, in Yuma, Arizona, appear pro se.[BN] BAKER TECH: Stay of Komaiko Pending Rulings in Barr & Duguid Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied without prejudice Baker's motion to stay the case, RICHARD KOMAIKO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03795-DMR (N.D. Call.), pending the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, and Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. Plaintiffs Komaiko and Marcie Cooperman are named representatives in the putative class action against Defendant Baker. They assert claims for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). Baker provides a customer relationship marketing ("CRM") platform for over 900 cannabis dispensaries throughout Canada and the United States. It offers software that allows client dispensaries to collect customer contact information and to send customers text messages through an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). Between February 2015 and December 2016, the named Plaintiffs visited four of Baker's client dispensaries. After their visits, they began receiving marketing text messages from the dispensaries. They allege that they received the telemarketing texts without providing their prior express written consent in violation of the federal TCPA and California's UCL. On April 20, 2020, the Court granted in part Baker and TILT's motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against TILT for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fact discovery in the case closes on May 21, 2021 and expert discovery closes Aug. 20, 2021. The last day for hearing the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is Feb. 25, 2021 and the last day for hearing dispositive and Daubert motions is Oct. 28, 2021. Trial is scheduled to begin on Feb. 7, 2022. Baker's motion requests a stay of the case until the end of the Supreme Court's next term in mid-2021. His motion initially requested a stay of the case until the Supreme Court issued a decision in Political Consultants and Duguid. On July 6, 2020, the Court ruled on Political Consultants. One issue before the Court was whether the government-debt exception to the TCPA's automated-call restriction violated the First Amendment, and if so, whether the appropriate remedy would be to invalidate the call restriction entirely. If the Court had struck down the call restriction, the Plaintiffs' claims in the case would have been mooted. Instead, however, the Court severed the government-debt exception from the remainder of the statute, leaving the call restriction otherwise intact. Because the government-debt exception is not at issue in the instant case, the decision in Political Consultants does not impact the Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the only remaining issue in the motion is whether the case should be stayed pending the Court's ruling in Duguid, an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc. At issue in Duguid is the definition of ATDS in the TCPA, and specifically whether that definition encompasses any device that can 'store' and 'automatically dial' telephone numbers, even if the device does not use a random or sequential number generator. According to Baker, the issue before the Supreme Court in Duguid is dispositive in the case. It points out that the Plaintiffs' allegations only accuse its software of sending texts from lists of customer data, not randomly generating numbers. While these allegations are currently sufficient to impose TCPA liability in the Ninth Circuit, Baker asserts that a reversal by the Supreme Court would eliminate the Plaintiffs' case. However, Baker is notably evasive on a key fact: whether its software has the capacity to generate random numbers and call them, regardless of whether it used that capacity in sending the texts at issue. Magistrate Judge Ryu opines that it is not clear that a reversal in Duguid would be dispositive in the case. Baker requests a stay of a definite period—namely, until the end of the Supreme Court's next term which will conclude slightly less than a year from now. The Court granted certiorari on only the definitional issue in Duguid, rendering it likely that it will resolve the Circuit split on that issue. Waiting for a final Supreme Court decision is not similar to waiting for a decision from a lower court, where further appeals may render a stay indefinite. However, Baker has not clearly explained how the issue in Duguid is dispositive. Baker has not shown or argued that its software is incapable of storing and producing numbers using a random or sequential number generator. Instead, it merely points out that the Plaintiffs' allegations do not suggest that the capacity to use such a generator was used to send the texts at issue here. It is insufficient. Under existing Ninth Circuit authority not before the Supreme Court, the relevant consideration is whether a device has the capacity to perform as an autodialer, not whether it used that capacity to send the allegedly unlawful texts. Since Baker has not adequately explained how the outcome in Duguid is likely to have a significant impact in the case, it has not met its burden to show that a stay is warranted at this time. However, discovery will be restricted to the question of whether the ATDS allegedly used to send text messages to the named Plaintiffs had the capacity to store and produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator. Class discovery is not permitted. If discovery shows that the device at issue does not have said capacity, Baker may renew its motion for a stay. For the reasonsstated, Magistrate Judge Ryu denied Baker's motion to stay. A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4l7o5jx from Leagle.com. BAKERY DEPOT: Faces Perez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ MAURILIO HERNANDEZ PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAKERY DEPOT SUPPLIES, INC.; CATHY LEANG; AI NGO; WILTON THAI; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV44624 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, and failure to reimburse for business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a production helper from December 2017 until July 3, 2020. Bakery Depot Supplies, Inc. is a supplier of bakery products with a principal place of business in Vernon, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 956-1111 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 BBVA USA: Chattopadhyay Class Suit Underway in California --------------------------------------------------------- BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc., et al. In March 2019, the Company and its subsidiary, Simple Finance Technology Corp., were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Amitahbo Chattopadhyay v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc., et al. Plaintiff claims that Simple and the Company only permit United States citizens to open Simple accounts (which are exclusively originated through online channels). Plaintiff has recently amended the complaint and now also takes issue with BBVA USA's practice of directing non-citizen applicants to complete the online account origination processes in a physical branch location. Plaintiff alleges that these practices constitute alienage discrimination and violations of California's Unruh Act. The Company believes that there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that conducts its business operations primarily through its commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding, the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA acquired the Company in 2007. BBVA USA: St. Lucie Fire Firefighters Pension Trust Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al. In October 2016, BSI was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al., wherein the plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its officers and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including BSI) made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus related to a securities offering. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. (the Parent) is a financial holding company that conducts its business operations primarily through its commercial banking subsidiary, BBVA USA, which is an Alabama banking corporation headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. The Parent was organized in 2007 as a Texas corporation. In April, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (BBVA) announced that it was moving to unify its brand globally. As part of this re-branding, the Bank will transition away from the use of the BBVA Compass name and be re-branded as BBVA. As part of this re-branding, effective June 10, 2019, the Parent amended its Certificate of Formation to change its legal name from BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. to BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. The Parent is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA. BBVA is a global financial services group founded in 1857. It has a significant market position in Spain, owns the largest financial institution in Mexico, has franchises in South America, has a banking position in Turkey and operates an extensive global branch network. BBVA acquired the Company in 2007. BIOSCRIP INFUSION: Huber Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON HUBER AND JUSTIN THERIOT, Individually and on behalf of the Class v. BIOSCRIP INFUSION SERVICES AND OPTION CARE HEALTH, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02197-NJB-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order providing that this action shall be maintained as a class action. The Plaintiffs move this Court for certification of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Civil Rule 23.1. The Plaintiffs are salespersons employed by Defendants in Quarter 3 of 2019. The Plaintiffs have filed a Class Action suit against Bioscrip Infusion Services and Option Care Health, Inc. for unpaid commissions during that period. BioScrip Infusion Services, LLC The Company offers pharmacy, skilled nursing, post-acute and cardiac care, anti-infective and respiratory therapy, and nutrition support services. Option Care Health, Inc. provides infusion and home care management solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lJTQ5N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacqueline Barber, Esq. John C. Butler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BUTLER, LLC 3939 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 301 Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 285-5440 Facsimile: (504) 407-2101 E-mail: johnclaytonbulter@gmail.com BLACKBAUD INC: Lofton Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------- Helen Lofton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blackbaud Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-05775 (N.D. Ill., September 28, 2020), seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages and statutory penalties, an award of punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs and any other expense, including expert witness fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of express/implied contract. Blackbaud manages, maintains, and provides cybersecurity for the data obtained by schools and non-profit companies, including Northwestern Medicine, which maintained Lofton's private information. In May of 2020, ransomware attack and data breach of several schools, healthcare, non-profit companies and other organizations whose data and servers were managed, maintained and secured by Blackbaud compromised sensitive and personal data from students, patients, donors and other individual users. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Brittany E. Hartwig, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 214-7900 Fax: (312) 253-1443 Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com BLUE APRON HOLDINGS: Chute Hits Share Drop Over Delayed Deliveries ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Chute and Terry Minshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc., Matt Salzberg, Bradley Dickerson, Benjamin C. Singer, Julie M.B. Bradley, Tracey Britt Cool, Kenneth A. Fox, Robert P. Goodman, Gary R. Hirshberg and Brian P. Kelley, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04711, (E.D. N.Y., October 2, 2020), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Blue Apron operates an e-commerce marketplace that delivers original recipes and fresh ingredients packaged as fresh meal-kits. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Barclays Capital Inc. are investment banking firms that acted as underwriters of Blue Apron's initial public offering. At the time of the IPO, the Company was experiencing delays at its new factory in Linden, New Jersey, which would force the Company to delay new product roll-outs. Blue Apron had already decided to reduce advertising expenditures in the second quarter of 2017, which would depress sales in future quarters and that it was experiencing issues delivering meals to customers on time and with of the all ingredients, which was hurting customer retention rates. Because of this, Blue Apron experienced a 47% decline from the IPO price. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO 39 Sintsink Drive West, 1st Floor Port Washington, NY 11050 Telephone: (212) 490-9550 Facsimile: (212) 986-0159 Email: ctrinko@trinko.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. Luke R. Kennedy, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com lkennedy@holzerlaw.com BLUE LAGOON: Simon Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Handymen ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW SIMON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE LAGOON PAYROLL, LLC and DRIFTWOOD HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-82174 (S.D. Fla., November 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Mr. Simon worked for the Defendants as a handyman on or around May 5, 2020. Blue Lagoon Payroll, LLC is a payroll company with a principal place of business in Palm Beach, Florida. Driftwood Hospitality Management, LLC is a company that provides solutions-based services for the domestic and international hotel industry, headquartered in Palm Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com BOB BAKER VOLKSWAGEN: Barba Slams Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Armando Barba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bob Baker Volkswagen and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2020-00034251, (Cal. Super., September 28, 2020), seeks penalties and/or damages for failure to pay all regular and overtime wages for hours worked, failure to provide meal periods and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code statutes, as well as restitution for unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code. Bob Baker Volkswagen operates a car dealership where Barba worked as an hourly, non-exempt mechanic from March 2020 to July 22, 2020. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com - and - Edward W. Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 381-1515 Facsimile: (213) 465-4885 Email: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com - and - David Lee, Esq. DAVID LEE LAW 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213)236-3536 Facsimile: (866) 658-4722 Email: David@DavidJLeeLaw.com BOCCACCIOS RESTAURANT: Faces Perez Employment Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boccaccios Restaurant, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Hector Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boccaccios Restaurant Inc.; Andrew Kramer; Hamid Sadraie; and The Landing Grill Inc., Case No. 56-2020-00547028-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., Nov. 13, 2020). The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues. Boccaccios Restaurant is a restaurant company based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq. BRENDAN KELLY: McFarland Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as TOMMY McFARLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRENDAN KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, Case No. 1:20-cv-04145, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on November 24, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of Illinois assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02334-CSB-EIL to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by extending the Plaintiff's registration period for 10 years, once in 2012 and again in 2019, despite his non-conviction of any violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act. The Defendant based the extension on unproven allegations that the Plaintiff failed to register a change in his residential address. The Plaintiff has not been afforded any opportunity either before or after the administrative extension of his registration period to challenge the extension. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com - and – Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net BROKEN ARROW: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broken Arrow Ranch, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Broken Arrow Ranch, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-09766 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Broken Arrow Ranch is an artisanal producer of high quality free-range venison, antelope, and wild boar meat.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com BUBBA GUMP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Alcazar's ADA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JUAN ALCAZAR, Plaintiff, v. BUBBA GUMP SHRIMP CO. RESTAURANTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02771-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Alcazar filed the putative class action on April 21, 2020, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and related state laws against Defendants Bubba Gump and Landry's Payroll, Inc. Alcazar is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Bubba Gump is a restaurant establishment that has restaurant locations across the United States, including within California. It operates a website for its restaurants at www.bubbagump.com. The website offers various services, such as the ability to search for restaurant locations, buy gift cards and merchandise, and schedule group events. Alcazar has visited Bubba Gump's website on multiple occasions with the assistance of screenreading software, which translates written web content into an audio format. In order for screenreaders to function, information on a website must be capable of being rendered into text. Alcazar alleges that Bubba Gump's website contains multiple barriers to using a screenreader, including (1) lack of alt-text for graphics and images,2 (2) empty links that do not contain text; (3) redundant links that direct to the same URL address; and (4) lack of alt-text for linked images. As a result, blind users cannot access the same content available to sighted users. For example, Alcazar could not find the location and hours of operation for Bubba Gump's restaurants and therefore was prevented from visiting the restaurants. Alcazar asserts that the website denies visually-impaired individuals equal access to Bubba Gump's services and therefore violates the ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. He seeks to represent a class of all legally blind individuals who have attempted to access the Defendant's website by the use of a screen reading software during the applicable limitations period up to and including final judgment in the action. The subclass of California users is defined identically but is limited to legally blind individuals in California. Alcazar seeks injunctive relief requiring Bubba Gump to make its website accessible to visually-impaired users, statutory damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Bubba Gump moves to dismiss all claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the barriers alleged in the complaint have been fully remedied. The World Wide Web Consortium ("W3C") is a private organization that develops website standards. W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative publishes Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), which are private industry standards for website accessibility developed by technology and accessibility experts. Though WCAG are private, unenforceable guidelines, they've been widely adopted, including by federal agencies, which conform their public-facing electronic content to" WCAG standards. WCAG 2.1 is the most recent version of the guidelines. Alcazar seeks an injunction requiring Bubba Gump to conform its website with WCAG 2.1. Bubba Gump asserts that Alcazar's claims are moot because it has already remedied any ADA violations on its website. Magistrate Ryu finds that Alcazar and Bubba Gump submitted competing evidence about whether the alleged violations on Bubba Gump's website violate WGAC 2.1 standards. The evidence raises a genuine factual issue about whether the alleged barriers have been remedied, and this dispute goes to both the jurisdictional questions and the merits of Alcazar's claim. She holds that it is inappropriate to resolve the factual disputes at this stage of litigation, before discovery has commenced. In addition, whether Bubba Gump's website violates WGAC 2.1 standards is informative to, but not dispositive of, whether it violates the ADA. Thus, these issues are more appropriately addressed on summary judgment or at trial. Accordingly, Bubba Gump's motion to dismiss is denied, the Court ordered, a copy of which Order dated Aug. 11, 2020 is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4g956rd from Leagle.com. However, the Judge notes that some of the violations listed in the Plaintiff's declarations are not clearly alleged in the complaint. Alcazar was ordered to file an amended complaint that includes the allegations he made in opposition to the motion. A first amended complaint dated Sept. 23, 2020 has been filed in the case, and it is now deemed the operative complaint. A further case management videoconference is set for December 2, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. in Oakland via Zoom. CARAMICO 33 CORP: Faces Ammar Employment Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------- A request for judicial intervention was filed on November 11, 2020, in the case styled as Christopher Ammar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quentin Carbone, Joseph Carbone, and Caramico 33 Corp., Defendants, Case No. 721620/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., December 30, 2019). The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wage including all tips kept by the employer, liquidated damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Freelance Isn't Free Act and New York labor laws. The case is assigned to Judge Donna Golia. Caramico 33 Corp. operates a pizzeria in Richmond Hill, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: ANDERSON, KILL, OLICK & OSHINS 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 The Defendants are represented by: Peter Hanschke ANSCHKE, PC. 233 Broadway, Ste 2220 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (347) 766-6602 CHAAC PIZZA: Authorization to Send Notice to Drivers Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Mullen, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Chaac Pizza Midwest, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00893-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff move the Court for an Order: 1. authorizing him to send notice of the pendency of this action to his similarly situated co-workers: "all current and former delivery drivers employed at the Defendants' Pizza Hut stores between the date three years prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of the Court's Order approving notice." 2. approving his proposed notices and methods of disseminating notice; 3. directing the Defendants to provide name and contact information for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of the court's order; and 4. authorizing a 60-day opt-in period. This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who work at the Defendants' Pizza Hut franchise stores. The Plaintiff Robert Mullen alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery drivers are all employed according to the same terms: they receive minimum wage minus a tip credit for all hours worked while completing deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver Defendants' pizzas, and they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery related expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff claims that these employment terms result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. To operate their business, the Defendants need automobiles to deliver their pizzas. Instead of maintaining a fleet of cars themselves, the Defendants require their minimum-wage delivery drivers to supply safe, functioning, insured cars to use at work. A copy of the Plaintiff's Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nA5T6m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Spencer, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com CHARLES M. LEE: Faces Chon Lee Wage-and-Hour Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA CHON LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLES M. LEE; CHARLES M. LEE DDS, INC.; JESSICA R. NOVOTNY; ZACHARY SCOTT DRESBEN; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV45291 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Laws including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages, failure to keep records of total work hours, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a property manager in Los Angeles, California since November 2016. Charles M. Lee DDS, Inc. is a medical group practice located in Bakersfield, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Lee, Esq. LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC 3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 251-5533 Facsimile: (213) 251-5534 E-mail: thomas@thomasmlee.com - and – Barry G. Florence, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BARRY G. FLORENCE 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 232-4969 Facsimile: (213) 232-4890 E-mail: bgf@bgflawoffices.com CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cirillo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Cirillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Citrix Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00540, (W.D. N.C., September 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid straight-time compensation, unpaid overtime premiums for all overtime work required, suffered, or permitted by Defendants, reimbursement of unlawful deductions, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other damages permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Citrix is a publicly traded multinational software-developing company that markets and licenses its products both directly and indirectly through value-added resellers, independent software vendors, value-added distributors, and original equipment manufacturers. Cirillo worked for Citrix as as an Inside Sales Representative at its Raleigh, North Carolina location from approximately July 10, 2018 to January 30, 2020. Citrix allegedly did not compensate him for all hours worked, including hours over forty that were worked in a given workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Charlotte C. Smith, Esq. Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Phone: (919) 741-8693 Fax: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com CLAIR DOLL: Court Dismisses Motion to Strike as Moot in "Thakker" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BHARATKUMAR G. THAKKER, et al. v. CLAIR DOLL, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00480-JEJ-MCC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Martin C. Carlson entered an order dismissing motion to strike as moot since the district court has addressed the class certification issue on its merits. According to the district court, the case has been referred to the undersigned to resolve a number of outstanding motions and remaining claims by individual plaintiff-petitioners. Upon a review of the docket one motion referred was a motion to strike a supplemental filing by petitioners which was submitted in support of petitioners' motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IMuGFh at no extra charge.[CC] CNB BANK: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Wriglesworth Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA WRIGLESWORTH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNB BANK, Defendant, Case No. 201102201 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., November 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and violation of the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The case arises from the Defendant's routine policy and practice of charging its customers, including the Plaintiff and Class members, multiple overdraft fees for a single payment. The Defendant failed to abide with its contractual provisions to charge one overdraft fee for a single item that was returned one or more times for insufficient funds. In doing so, the Defendant breached its contractual promises and violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CNB Bank is a banking services provider with its headquarters located at 31 S. Second Street, Clearfield, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Spizer, Esq. Emily B. Ashe, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 790-4578 Facsimile: (215) 875-7712 E-mail: gspizer@anapolweiss.com eashe@anapolweiss.com - and – Jacob Rusch, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1804 Facsimile: (612) 436-4801 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com COCA-COLA: Jones Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties Under ERISA ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHEYENNE JONES AND SARA J. GAST, Individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC. 401(K) PLAN v. COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC., THE CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF COCA-COLA CONSOLIDATED, INC.; and DOES No. 1-20, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Case No. 3:20-cv-00654 (W.D.N.C., November 24, 2020) is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to recover and obtain all losses resulting from the Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs, individually and as participants of the Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. 401(k) Plan, bring this action on behalf of the Plan and a class of similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, against the Defendants beginning six years from the date this action is filed and continuing to the date of judgment. As of December 31, 2019, the Plan had 10,170 participants with account balances and assets totaling approximately $784 million, placing it in the top 0.2% of all 401(k) plans by plan size. Defined contribution plans with substantial assets, like the Defendants' Plan, have significant bargaining power and the ability to demand low-cost administrative and investment management services within the marketplace for administration of 401(k) plans and the investment of 401(k) assets. The marketplace for 401(k) retirement plan services is well-established and can be competitive when fiduciaries of defined contribution retirement plans act in an informed and prudent fashion. According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and have engaged in, inter alia, the following fiduciary breaches: (1) failed to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the Plan's investment options to participants; (2) allowed unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants; and (3) selected, retained, and/or otherwise ratified high-cost and poorly-performing investments, instead of offering more prudent alternative investments when such prudent investments were readily available at the time that they were chosen for inclusion within the Plan and throughout the Class period. Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc. manufactures and supplies non-alcoholic beverages. The Company produces, markets, and distributes energy and sports drinks, bottled water, tea, ready-to-drink coffee, and juices. Coca-Cola Consolidated serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com - and - Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and - James C. Shah, Esq. Michael P. Ols, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com mols@sfmslaw.com aberin@sfmslaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com COLORED ORGANICS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colored Organics LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Colored Organics LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09762 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Colored Organics offers sweatshop free 100% organic cotton clothing in a variety of unique styles and colors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com COMPETENTIA US: Kasper Seeks Project Managers' Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS KASPER, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPETENTIA US, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-03942 (S.D. Tex., November 19, 2020) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Project Manager from December 2017 to March 2019. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. As reflected in the Defendant's payroll records, the Plaintiff routinely worked 50 to 70 hours a week. However, instead of paying the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek, the Defendant paid them the same hourly rate only for all hours they worked. Competentia US, Inc. provides professional services in the energy industry throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Melodie K. Arian, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com marian@mybackwages.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 COMPLETION EQUIPMENT: Galindo Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA GALINDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLETION EQUIPMENT RENTAL, INC., RICHARD PRUDHOMME, and ASHLEY PRUDHOMME-DINSDALE, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-00260 (W.D. Tex., November 19, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately October 2019 to October 2020 as a field technician. The Plaintiff claims that during his employment with the Defendants, he worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving the entirety of his regular wages or his overtime at a rate not less than one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. When the Plaintiff complained to the Defendants about not being paid for all hours worked, the Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff by terminating him. Moreover, the Defendants did not maintain accurate time and pay records for their employees, and failed to post and keep posted the notice required by the FLSA. Completion Equipment Rental, Inc. delivers and installs equipment for servicing valves during fracturing operations. Richard Prudhomme and Ashley Prudhomme-Dinsdale had the authority to hire and fire CER employees, supervised or controlled CER employee schedules or conditions of employment, determined the rate or method of payment for CER employees, and/or maintained CER employee records. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana St., Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Tel: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net CREEK GROUP: Denied Austin Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips ------------------------------------------------------ Margot Austin, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. The Creek Group Company and Gary Mosely, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03363 (S.D. Tex., September 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as Cactus Cove Bar & Patio and Onion Creek Coffeehouse Bar & Lounge, restaurants in and near the Heights neighborhood where Austin worked as a tipped employee when she worked as a bartender and waiter for the past three years. Austin claims to have worked over 40 hours a week without being paid overtime. Creek also made unauthorized deductions from her tips. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 Email: trang@tranlf.com service@tranlf.com CUGURT RESTAURANT: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Cruz Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSUE GOMEZ CRUZ and MASEDONIO QUEVEDO VASQUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOHAMMAD GHADRI, CUGURT RESTAURANT, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV44606 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 20, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to give rest breaks, and failure to give meal breaks. Mr. Cruz was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher and delivery driver from December 2013 until May 31, 2019. Mr. Vasquez was employed by the Defendants as a cook, dishwasher, and bus boy from 2005 until December 5, 2019. Cugurt Restaurant is a company that operates a restaurant with a principal place of business located at 1904 1/2 Hillhurst Ave., Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sevag Nigoghosian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEVAG NIGOGHOSIAN 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 956-1111 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 DNATA US: Fails to Provide Spread of Hours Pay, Villar Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- YISSET GARCIA VILLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING, LLC d/b/a 121 InFlight Catering, and JOHN DOES 1-3, Case No. 613684/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Nov. 25, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings the case on behalf of a class of all current and former hourly employees who were employed by the Defendants in New York and who were not paid spread of hours wages when they worked in excess of 10 hours as required by the NYLL, during the six years preceding the filing of the suit up to the date the Defendants cease, or are enjoined from, the unlawful practices. The Plaintiff was employed by 121 InFlight Catering at the Defendants' kitchen located in Inwood, New York, County of Nassau. The Plaintiff was an hourly employee of the Company from on or about September 8, 2015 until on or about January 15, 2017. Dnata US Inflight Catering operates a food preparation kitchen in Inwood, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. 5 East Main Street Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (516) 671-1150 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com DOLGENCORP LLC: Thornton Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPAHNIE THORNTON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DOLGENCORP, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-01334-HES-PDB (M.D. Fla., Nov. 24, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and others similarly situated at least minimum wage for all the time they worked and overtime at time and one-half when they worked more than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a sales associate for the Defendant in or around September 2019 where she was paid on an hourly basis. Dolgencorp, LLC operates as a discount store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 244-2069 Facsimile: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvillleemploymentlaw.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Smorowski Claims Discount Promo Deceptive --------------------------------------------------------- JEFF SMOROWSKI, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC; DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC. and DOES 1 through 25 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10739 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful and fraudulent business practices which violate the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's False Advertising Law. Plaintiff Smorowski asserts that Domino's advertisements regarding its Mix & Match discounted program is uniform, consistent, distributed, patterned, and is to be equally applied the same -- every Mix & Match advertisement provides the prospective customer with a discount on the basis of a coupon or discount with the purchase of two or more items from a designated list of products which is a price reduction from the standard price for the product in question. In carrying out its deceptive scheme, Domino's allegedly uses advertisements that illustrate the wide variety of products available to the customer. On the Mix & Match advertisement itself, Domino's choice of few words is intended to highlight the deal available to its consumers. Domino's also prompts its consumers to act now with the use of its wording "ORDER NOW," which indicates the urgency in ordering and the fact that the Mix & Match deal may no longer be available in the near future. These type of tactics employed by Domino's is intended to get an immediate response from consumers. Contrary to the Company's representations, warranties, or statements regarding the discounted price of the products, it charges consumers more than $5.99 per product under the Mix & Match deal. On information and belief, Domino's has a pattern and practice of charging its consumers an amount exceeding $5.99 per product from the list of categories. Domino's representations, warranties, and/or statements relating to the $5.99 price per product pursuant to the Mix & Match deal is false and/or misleading, the suit says. Domino's Pizza operates a network of company-owned and franchise Domino's Pizza stores, located throughout the United States and in other countries. The Company also operates regional dough manufacturing and distribution centers in the contiguous United States and outside the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Glugoski, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 220 Halleck Suite 220 San Francisco, CA 94129 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Facsimile: (949) 209-0303 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Video Game Loot Boxes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Calvin at PCGamesInsider reports that publishing giant Electronic Arts is facing yet another class-action lawsuit over its use of loot boxes in its video games. As reported by GamesIndustry.biz, the suit has been filed with the US District Court of Northern California, with plaintiffs Jason Zajonc, Danyael Williams, and Pranko Lozano accusing EA of using the mechanic to keep players around. They alleged that Electronic Arts' patented Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment - which uses AI to adjust difficulty to keep players engaged - compels people to spend more money on loot boxes. Another day, another suit "EA's undisclosed use of Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms deprives gamers who purchase Player Packs of the benefit of their bargains because EA's Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms, rather than only the stated ranking of the gamers' Ultimate Team players and the gamers' relative skill, dictates, or at least highly influences the outcome of the match," the lawsuit reads. "This is a self-perpetuating cycle that benefits EA to the detriment of EA Sports gamers, since Difficulty Adjusting Mechanisms make gamers believe their teams are less skilled than they actually are, leading them to purchase additional Player Packs in hopes of receiving better players and being more competitive." Meanwhile, videogameschronicle.com, in a separate report, relates that last year, EA released a statement denying that its FIFA games use Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment mechanisms. "We would never use it to advantage or disadvantage any group of players against another in any of our games," it said. "The technology was designed to explore how we might help players that are having difficulty in a certain area of a game have an opportunity to advance." Responding to the class action lawsuit, an EA spokesperson told GI.biz: "We believe the claims are baseless and misrepresent our games, and we will defend." EA is currently facing separate class action lawsuits which claim its use of pay-to-win mechanics breaches gambling laws. The publisher is in the process of rolling out a new in-game monitoring tool which enables FIFA 21 players to track and limit the amount they play and spend. [GN] ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Laborers Pension Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn.), Lead Plaintiffs Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, LIUNA National (Industrial) Pension Fund, and the LIUNA Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund move the Court for an Order: 1. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. appointing the Lead Plaintiffs and named plaintiffs Central Laborers' Pension Fund and United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 655 Food Employers Joint Pension Fund as Class Representatives; and 3. approving their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. Envision was a publicly-traded healthcare company whose largest business segment, EmCare, provided outsourced emergency department and hospitalist physician services. The Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misled the public about: (1) the underperformance of certain hospital contracts that EmCare entered into in 2014-2015; and (2) EmCare's undisclosed reliance on out-of-network billing as a driver of revenue and earnings throughout the Class Period. A copy of the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38XQrwD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq. Jessica T. Shinnefield, Esq. Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. Christopher D. Stewart, Esq. J. Marco Janoski Gray, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 ETX ENERGY: Byrd FLSA Class Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to N.D. Okla. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as STEVE BYRD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ETX ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-01622, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on November 20, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00597-CVE-CDL to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated oilfield workers for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. ETX Energy, LLC is a company that drills wells for the oil and gas industry, headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com EVA FRANCO: Kiler Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARION KILER, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. EVA FRANCO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05696-WFK-SMG (E.D.N.Y., November 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has 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 persons. The Defendant's Website, www.Evafranco.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek 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 individuals. Eva Franco, Inc., is a women's clothing company, with a principal place of business located at 1704 Hooper Ave., Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Claims Partly Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as INTEGRITYMESSAGEBOARDS.COM v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-05286-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the California Business & Professions Code section 17200 claim and all requests for equitable relief in plaintiff IntegrityMessageBoards.com's first amended class action complaint (FAC); and 2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to seal various portions of the FAC, and associated portions of the plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. The court grants the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's section 17200 claim and all requests for equitable relief with prejudice to the extent they rely on past harm but denies that motion to the extent they rely on future harm. On August 28, 2018, the plaintiff initiated the instant putative class action against the defendant. In its original complaint, the plaintiff alleged a single claim against the defendant for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff premised that claim on the defendant’s alleged practice of knowingly misrepresenting to businesses purchasing its advertisement services the nature and scope of the Facebook users to whom defendant would deliver a purchasing business's advertisements. Facebook, Inc. is an American social media conglomerate corporation based in Menlo Park, California. A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ICzkG7 at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST STUDENT: Brewton BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROXANNE BREWTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Case No. 2020CH04840, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 25, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-07017 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act including failing to make a written policy with retention schedule detailing the length of time for which the Plaintiff's and Class members' biometrics are stored and/or guidelines for permanently destroying the biometrics; failing to inform them in writing that their biometrics were being collected and stored, prior to such collection or storage; failing to inform in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and used; and disclosing the biometric information of the Plaintiff and the Class to third parties. First Student, Inc., a division of FirstGroup America, is a brand used by the Scottish transport company FirstGroup for student transport in the United States, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Chierek Znosko, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 659-2000 E-mail: jznosko@littler.com - and – Jennifer L. Jones, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 372-5520 E-mail: jeljones@littler.com FORD MOTOR: Bid to Dismiss Class Allegations Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, TAMER KAHLIL, MARK PREISS, JULIE SNODGRASS, JOHN FARLEKAS, WILLIAM VINSON, JOYCE JENSEN, DAVID MORRIS, and SCOTT BITTNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting in part and denying in part Ford Motor's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) or in the alternative to strike nationwide class allegations. The Court said, "Generally, class actions may continue even if a state consumer protection statute precludes them, so long as applying Rule 23 does not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. Under the controlling Shady Grove opinion, the inquiry is on whether the state law had a substantive purpose. While a state law rule may be procedural, it may be so bound up with the state-created right or remedy that it defines the scope of that substantive right or remedy, and should not be preempted by a conflicting federal rule. Having considered the relevant authority, the Court declines to follow Plaintiffs' cited case law regarding the inapposite Alabama consumer protection law. Instead, the Court will join with numerous other district courts, which have found that the class action prohibition in Georgia's FBPA is substantive, and thus not displaced by Rule 23. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot maintain their class action under the Georgia FBPA. The Court grants Ford's motion on this basis and dismisses the Plaintiffs' class claims under the Georgia FBPA." The Plaintiffs bring several causes of action against Ford for alleged latent defects in various 2005-2019 Ford F-250 and F-350 trucks ("Class Vehicles" or "Vehicle"). These alleged latent defects involve abnormal wearing and loosening of the Class Vehicles' suspension components (i.e. track bar bushing, steering dampener, balls joints, control arms, and/or struts), resulting in severe shaking and oscillation of the steering wheel. The Plaintiffs refer to this alleged defect as the "Death Wobble." A copy of the Court's Order granting in part and denying in part Ford Motor's motion to dismiss dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/371dOmD at no extra charge.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Fails to Cover Warranty-Related Repairs, Martin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA MARTIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-10365-CBM-JPR (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2020) arises out of the Defendants' failure to properly identify and pay for all of the parts and labor that should be covered for 15 years or 150,000 miles, pursuant to California Code of Regulations relating to partial zero emissions vehicles. The Plaintiff contends that due to the Defendants' conduct, she and the Class members are paying out of pocket for repairs that should be covered under the California Emissions Warranty. In addition to Ford failing to cover all of the emissions components that Ford is required to cover under the California law, Ford fails to comprehensively identify to consumers and factory authorized repair facilities all of the parts that should be covered under the California emissions warranty, in order to limit the warranty coverage for those parts. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for, inter alia, all out of pocket costs paid for repairs that should have been covered under the law, including, without limitation, the hybrid system water pump, and an injunction to compel Ford to properly identify and cover all parts that should be covered. Mr. Martin purchased a new 2011 Ford Escape Hybrid from Santa Monica Ford in California. The vehicle came with Ford's new car warranty, and the California Emissions Warranty. Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Ari Y. Basser, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com GARRETT MOTION: Husson Hits Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------- Steven Husson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Garrett Motion Inc., Olivier Rabiller, Allesandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason and Su Ping Lu, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07992 (S.D. N.Y., September 25, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Garrett designs, manufactures and sells turbocharger, electric-boosting and connected vehicle technologies for original equipment manufacturers and the aftermarket. In October 2018, the Company formed as a spin-off of the Transportation Systems business of Honeywell International Inc. On August 26, 2020, before the market opened, the Garret disclosed that its leveraged capital structure has affected its ability to gain or hold market share in the automotive supply market and was made worse by significant claims asserted by Honeywell against certain Garrett subsidiaries under the disputed subordinated asbestos indemnity and the tax matters agreement. On this news, the Garrett's share price fell $3.04, or 44%, to close at $3.84 per share on August 26, 2020, thereby damaging investors. On Sunday, September 20, 2020, Garrett announced that it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The following Monday, September 21, 2020, the New York Stock Exchange announced that it would commence proceedings to delist Garrett's stock from the NYSE after its disclosure that it had filed for bankruptcy. On this news, the Garrett's stock began trading over-the-counter and closed at $1.76 per share on September 22, 2020, a 12% decline from the closing price on September 18, 2020. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 GENERAL MOTORS: Siqueiros Fraud Suit Seeks to Certify 4 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAUL SIQUEIROS, et al. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 28, 2021, for an order: A. certifying the following Classes and naming the following class representatives with respect to vehicles manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 by Defendant that were equipped with GM's defective Generation IV 5.3- liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine for the following models and model years: 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche; 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado; 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban; 2011- 2014 Chevrolet Tahoe; 2011-2014 GMC Sierra; 2011-2014 GMC Yukon; and 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL (Class Vehicle): 1. Tennessee Class: "all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Tennessee." The Tennessee Class seeks class certification of claims for: (a) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (b) fraudulent omission; and (c) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Joshua Byrge as the class representative for the Tennessee Class. 2. Pennsylvania Class "all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Pennsylvania." The Pennsylvania Class seeks class certification of claims for: (a) violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. sections 201–1 et seq; (b) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (c) fraudulent omission; and (d) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs move for the appointment of John Graziano as the class representative for the Pennsylvania Class. 3. Arkansas Class: "all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Arkansas." The Arkansas Class seeks class certification of claims for: (a) violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. sections 4-88-101, et seq; (b) breach of implied 26 warranty of merchantability; (c) fraudulent omission; and (d) unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Larry Goodwin as the class representative for the Arkansas Class.; and 4. Idaho Class: "all current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the State of Idaho." The Idaho Class seeks class certification of claims for: (a) violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Code Ann. sections 48-601 et seq.; (b) breach of implied of merchantability; (c) fraudulent omission; and (d) unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs move for the appointment of Gabriel Del Valle as the class representative for the Idaho Class.; and B. appointing DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. as Class Counsel for all certified Classes. General Motors Company, commonly referred to as General Motors, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center. A copy of the Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32U1oeJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq. J. Mitch Williams II, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 272 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com - and - Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Lori E. Andrus, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com lori@andrusanderson.com - and - Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P. 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com - and - Marcus Rael, Esq. ROBLES, RAEL & ANAYA, P.C. 500 Marquette NW, Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 242-2228 E-mail: marcus@roblesrael.com - and - Anthony J. Garcia, Esq. AG LAW 742 South Village Circle Tampa, Florida 33606 Telephone: (813) 259-9555 E-mail: anthony@aglawinc.com - and - Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Ben Finley, Esq. THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C. 200 13th Street Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 322-6226 E-mail: bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com - and - Eric J. Haag, Esq. ATTERBURY, KAMMER, & HAAG, S.C. 8500 Greenway Boulevard, Suite 103 Middleton, WI 53562 Telephone: (608) 821-4600 E-mail: ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com GODADDY.COM LLC: $8.75MM Counsel Fees Awarded in Drazen TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SUSAN DRAZEN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant. JASON BENNETT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. GODADDY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:19-00563-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern Dsitrict of Alabama, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards. On June 9, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary class certification and preliminary approval of the class settlement agreement. Thereafter, Notice of the Settlement was sent to over 1.26 million potential Settlement Class members. As of the date of the Plaintiffs' motion, over 15,600 claims have been submitted, there have been no objections to the proposed Settlement and only three individuals opted to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Plaintiffs commenced the proposed class action, alleging GoDaddy.com violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). Specifically, they allege that GoDaddy violated the Act by placing calls and sending text messages to their cellular telephones, marketing its products and services. They allege that these calls and text messages were sent using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"), as defined by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(a)(1) and prohibited by 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, the Plaintiffs contend GoDaddy's contacts were not made for emergency purposes and were made using an autodialing system that did not require human intervention. They also allege that GoDaddy did not have their prior express written consent to place the calls or send the text messages. The Plaintiffs request a common fund fee award amounting to $10.5 million in attorneys' fees. The Class Counsel's requested fee award represents 30% of the total potential $35 million common fund, payable from the settlement. Judge DuBose concludes that the fee should be 25% of the Common Fund as opposed to the requested 30%. The issues in the case were not complex and did not require more than the average skill required of litigation in federal court. Moreover, the results obtained for the Plaintiffs ($35 dollars or a $150 voucher) do not justify an award at the high end of the benchmark. The Judge acknowledges the significant effort expended to reach the Settlement in the case. Indeed, awarding a 25% rather than a 30% fee in the case does not in any way indicate that the Class Counsel has not done exceedingly well in litigatin on behalf of the Class. If the Class Counsel received a 30% fee, the average rate would be $1,936.12 per hour, and hourly rate that far exceeds the customary hourly rate in the legal community. Thus, the Judge finds the benchmark percentage fee award reasonable and appropriate. The Judge approved the attorneys' totaling 25% of the Common Fund, $8.75 million. The Class Counsel requests reimbursement of expenses totaling $105,410.51. These expenses include costs related to filing fees, travel expenses, copying, mediation fees, and case administration with the potential of more expenses yet to come. The Judge concludes that the Class Counsel's costs and expenses were properly incurred and are thus reimbursable. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' motion as to costs and expenses is granted. The Plaintiffs request a $5,000 service award for each Drazen, Bennett, and Herrick. The Defendant agreed not to oppose the request for such service award. The Plaintiffs represent that no award of any kind was promised to Drazen, Bennett, or Herrick prior to commencement of the litigation or at any time thereafter. The Judge holds that the incentive awards of $5,000 for each Drazen, Bennett, and Herrick are reasonable considering the services performed by each for the Settlement Class Members. The amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Second Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement. Based upon the foregoing, Judge DuBose granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs motion for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards. A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxwv9dgb from Leagle.com. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss XP Inc. IPO Related Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action suit related to XP Inc.'s $2.3 billion December 2019 initial public offering, is pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of York, filed beginning March 19, 2020, relating to XP Inc.'s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include XP, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 19,326,218 shares of common stock in the December 2019 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $522 million. On August 5, 2020, the defendants' motion to stay the state court action in favor of the federal court action was denied, and on August 21, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the state court action. On September 14, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed in the federal court action. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation related to the sale of U.S. Treasury securities remains pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Stay Venator IPO Related Suit Junked ---------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 defendants' motion to stay the New York state court action related to the Venator Materials PLC's $522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity offering, in favor of the federal action has been denied. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC's $522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August 2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares of common stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million. On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 18, 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the federal action. On July 1, 2020, the defendants' motion to stay the New York state court action in favor of the federal action was denied. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 class plaintiff's March 2019 motion for class certification in the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation is still pending. The Company, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Goldman Sachs Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to 2016. On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action, dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and state antitrust claims. On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class certification on March 7, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits -------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co LLC (GS&Co.) continue to defend antitrust suits alleging conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law and, in the second and third individual actions, unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the second individual action on December 21, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the first individual action was granted on August 7, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOLDMAN SACHS: Facing GoHealth IPO Related Securities Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") has been named as a defendant in a securities class action suits related to GoHealth, Inc.'s $914 million July 2020 initial public offering. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed on September 21, 2020 and September 28, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to GoHealth, Inc.'s (GoHealth) $914 million July 2020 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include GoHealth, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 11,540,550 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $242 million. A third putative securities class action relating to GoHealth's initial public offering that does not name the underwriters as defendants was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 25, 2020. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking, securities, and investment management company worldwide. It operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in New York, New York. GOOGLE LLC: Kober Antitrust Class Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled AMOS KOBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, ALPHABET INC. and DOES 1-100, Case No. 20CV372225, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 25, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-08336 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and California's common law of unjust enrichment by establishing parallel monopolies in the general search services and search advertising markets through exclusionary agreements and engaging in other anticompetitive conduct to gain control of distribution channels and prevent competition from rivals. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, headquartered in Mountain View, California. Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Justina K. Sessions, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation One Market Plaza Spear Tower, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Telephone: (415) 947-2000 Facsimile: (415) 947-2099 E-mail: jsessions@wsgr.com - and – John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Jesse T. Smallwood, Esq. Benjamin M. Greenblum, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com jsmallwood@wc.com bgreenblum@wc.com GOOGLE LLC: Monopolizes Android Mobile App Market, Stark Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JARED STARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC; GOOGLE IRELAND LTD.; GOOGLE COMMERCE LTD.; GOOGLE ASIA PACIFIC PTE. LTD.; AND GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 5:20-cv-08309 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2020) seeks to recover the damages caused by the Defendants' unlawful anticompetitive conduct in violations of the Sherman Act, the California's Cartwright Act, and the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act. Google owns and operates the largest app store, Google Play, which comes pre-installed on almost all mobile devices running Google's Android operating system (OS). To build this prodigious marketplace, Google represented that the Android OS would be maintained as "open" source software whereby anyone could create Android-compatible products without undue restrictions. According to the complaint, as the app store grew and as Google's Android OS became the "must-have" operating software for mobile device original-equipment manufacturers, Google began to close its ecosystem through a series of restrictive agreements that were designed to (and did in fact) deter and eliminate competition in the market for Android mobile apps and in-app products. This anticompetitive conduct allowed Google to extract supracompetitive profits from consumers -- including the Plaintiff and Class members -- who paid Google directly for mobile apps and in-app content purchased through the Google Play store. The Plaintiff have also been harmed by Google's anticompetitive scheme because: (1) developers set higher app prices due to the high costs imposed on developers by Google; and (2) app quality has been reduced as app developers generated lower returns, the suit says. Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, and Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited are subsidiaries of Google LLC which contract with all app developers that distribute their apps through the Google Play store. Google Payment Corp. provides in-app payment processing services to Android app developers and Android users and collects a 30% commission on many types of processed payments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison E. Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com - and - Laura Gerber, Esq. Matthew Gerend, Esq. Karin Swope, Esq. Garrett Heilman, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com mgerend@kellerrohrback.com kswope@kellerrohrback.com gheilman@kellerrohrback.com GREAT SOUTHERN: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTOFOR DeANGELIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD - LENWOOD, INC., and GREAT SOUTHERN WOOD PRESERVING, INCORPORATED, Case No. 6:20-cv-06103-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the following collective: "all hourly employees of Great Southern Wood – Lenwood, Inc., or Great Southern Wood Preserving, Incorporated, who received a bonus in connection with work performed in at least one week in which they worked over 40 hours on or after September 17, 2017." 2. permitting him to provide the Notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs via email as well as traditional U.S. Mail, and that this Court permit him to distribute a reminder postcard via traditional U.S. Mail as well as a follow-up email; 3. allowing a period of 90 days to distribute the Notice and file Consent to Join forms; and 4. directing the Defendants to provide the names and last known telephone numbers, mailing addresses, and email addresses of potential opt-in Plaintiffs no later than one week after the date of the entry of the Order granting this Motion. The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of all former and current hourly paid employees for the Defendants who received a bonus in connection with work performed in at least one week in which they worked over 40 hours, to recover wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36Pvb9N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tess Bradford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com HANESBRANDS INC: Cota Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hanesbrands Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01980 (Cal. Super., October 7, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Hanesbrands operates https://www.champion.com/ -- a website that provides consumers with access to a variety of athletic apparel, accessories and footwear including information about customer service, tracking information, delivery and shipping information, returns, store locations, contact information, sales, various discount programs, clothing sustainability and career opportunities. Cota is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com HAY ADAMS: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Sarwar Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- SAIM SARWAR v. HAY ADAMS HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03234-KBJ (D.D.C., November 10, 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 The Hay-Adams located in Washington, DC. 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. As a result, the Plaintiff was deprived the same services, features, facilities, benefits, advantages, and accommodations of the property available to the general public. 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. 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 HERMAN JONES: Shaw Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blaine Franklin Shaw, et al. v. Herman Jones, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol, et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-01343-KHV-GEB (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying this action as a class action with the proposed class of: "all persons in the United States who traveled in Kansas on I-70, I-35, U.S. Route 54 or U.S. Route 36 as a motorist or passenger, were actually or appeared to be driving to or from Colorado, in a vehicle with license plates from a state other than Kansas, who were stopped, detained by the KHP and subjected to searches of their vehicles or persons by a canine but were not subsequently convicted of a crime as a result of the stop, detainment, arrest, or search by the KHP." Excluded from the class are the Defendants and their affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents, and directors. Also excluded are any judicial officers presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.; 2. appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives for the proposed class; 3. appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g); and 4. granting all other and further relief that the Court deems equitable and just. The Plaintiffs challenge the the Defendant Superintendent Herman Jones -- in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) -- and the KHP's alleged policies, practices, and/or customs of targeting drivers with out-of-state plates for illegal stops, detentions, and unreasonable searches of persons and/or vehicles in violation of constitutional rights and authorizing and encouraging stops that are unsupported by individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct as required by the United States Constitution ("Defendant Jones's Two-Step Travelers Policy"). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32W3XwT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leslie A. Greathouse, Esq. Patrick McInerney, Esq. Madison A. Perry, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 474-8100 Facsimile: (816) 474-3216 E-mail: lgreathouse@spencerfane.com pmcinerney@spencerfane.com mperry@spencerfane.com - and - Lauren Bonds, Esq. Sharon Brett, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF KANSAS 6701 W. 64th St., Suite 210 Overland Park, KS 66202 Telephone: (913) 490-4110 Facsimile: (913) 490-4119 E-mail: lbonds@aclukansas.org sbrett@aclukansas.org HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Sues Over Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------- Edward Scott Gau, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Brandy Foster-Gau, Plaintiffs, v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV371039, (Cal. Super., September 30, 2020), seeks penalties and/or damages for failure to pay all regular and overtime wages for hours worked, failure to provide meal periods and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under California Labor Code statutes, and restitution for unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code. Edward Scott Gau worked for Hillstone Restaurant as a lead server for 15 years. Brandy Foster-Gau worked for Hillstone as a trainer, headwaiter and bartender up to June 2020. Throughout their employment, Hillstone denied them their duty-free 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked and did not provide duty-free 30-minute meal periods within the first five hours of work. They were also denied itemized wage statements that accurately showed the hours worked, asserts the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Simon L. Yang, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com sly@diversitlaw.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531 -4214 Facsimile: (831) 634—0333 HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Gau Wage & Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled EDWARD SCOTT GAU, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, and BRANDY FOSTER-GAU, as a private attorney General v. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV371039, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 23, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-08250 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to provide lawful rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages, failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions, and unfair competition. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. is an American casual dining restaurant chain based in Beverly Hills, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Greg S. Labate, Esq. Kristi L. Thomas, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: glabate@sheppardmullin.com kthomas@sheppardmullin.com ICONIC MORTGAGE: Correll TCPA Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as KIRSTEN CORRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ICONIC MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-00426, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on November 25, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-24858-CMA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited calls and by sending autodialed text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members despite being registered on the National Do-Not-Call registry. Iconic Mortgage Corp. is a mortgage broker based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE, LLC 1934 Old Gallows Road, Suite 350K Vienna, VA 22181 Telephone: (703) 789-4800 E-mail: william@robinsonlaw.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and – Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com INDIGO FACILITY: Shone FLSA Class Suit Removed to W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled THOMAS SHONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DANNY SPEARS, individually, and INDIGO FACILITY PARTNERS, Case No. C-1-CV-20-004863, was removed from the Texas County Court of Travis County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on November 24, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Texas assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01168 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labors Standards Act. Indigo Facility Partners is a company that specializes in facility maintenance based in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher C. Wike, Esq. HAJJAR PETERS, LLP 3144 Bee Caves Road Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 637-4956 Facsimile: (512) 637-4958 E-mail: cwike@legalstrategy.com IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS: Myers Seeks 2 Classes in FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA MYERS, BARBARA STANERSON, JOHN EIVINS, LIV KELLY-SELLNAU, CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR, and SHUNA TOSA on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. IOWA BOARD OF REGENTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00081-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a "Wages Class" pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23 consisting of: "all former, current and future health care professionals and other non-exempt employees who have worked at UIHC, and who were subject to the policy described above of not being paid their earned wages within 12 days of the pay period in which it was earned" since August 19, 2017 (two years prior to filing of the original complaint); 2. certifying a "Termination Pay Class" consisting of: "all former, current and future UIHC employees who did not receive their accrued vacation and qualifying sick leave on the next regular payday after the termination of their employment" since August 19, 2017 (two years prior to filing of the original complaint)"; 3. appointing Plaintiffs Melinda Myers, Barbara Stanerson, John Eivins, Liv Kelly-Sellnau, Christopher Taylor, and Shuna Tosa as class representatives of the "Wages Class"; 4. appointing Liv Kelly-Sellnau as class representative of the "Termination Pay Class;" and 5. appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. The claims in this case are straightforward and involve a challenge to the uniform wage payment practices of the Defendant Iowa Board of Regents. The Plaintiffs are two groups of employees who work for the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics ("UIHC"). The first are health care professionals, including nurses, who UIHC has classified primarily as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. The other group are so-called "blue collar" workers, such as custodians and clerical workers, who UIHC has classified as non-exempt or eligible for overtime pay under the FLSA. UIHC pays both of these groups of employees base wages on the first of each month for the work performed the prior month. UIHC employs approximately 3,438 health care professionals that it classifies as exempt from the overtime pay provisions of the FLSA. These employees include Plaintiffs Melissa Myers, John Eivins, and Liv Kelly-Sellnau who worked for the UIHC as nurses, and Barbara Stanerson, who worked for the UIHC as a physical therapist. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Tfp01 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Benjamin J. Weber, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com bjweber@llrlaw.com - and - Nate Willems, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON, P.L.C. P.O. Box 637 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406 Telephone: 319-363-5209 Facsimile: 319-363-6664 E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com IT'S JUST LUNCH: Vrugtman Says Online Dating Process Fraudulent --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSANNE VRUGTMAN and TAMMY GILLINGWATER, individually, and for all others similarly situated v. IT'S JUST LUNCH INTERNATIONAL LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-02352 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 11, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of California's consumer protection statutes and common law claims of fraudulent inducement and fraud. The Defendant positions itself as a premier dating service, offering to connect individuals interested in romantic relationships. On its Website, the Defendant claims to have a process of "6 easy steps" to match members. IJL claims its service utilizes a "signature matchmaking process" that the Company has "fine-tuned over the past 29 years." According to the complaint, the Defendant continues to engage in false claims that its highly trained experts offer personalized, sophisticated, and thoughtful matchmaking services. The Defendant fraudulently induces single professionals, especially women, into contracts by promising them that it has multiple matches in its database. The Defendant's members including the Plaintiffs pay thousands of dollars for its services only to discover that the Company either selects matches at random or that it lies about having other members in their region. As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class members are fraudulently induced into entering into a contract based on the Defendant's misrepresentation of fact that was material. It's Just Lunch International LLC provides online dating services. The Company offers introductory date consultations, dating tips, matchmaking for singles, and advisory services. It's Just Lunch International serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John G. Balestriere, Esq. Matthew W. Schmidt, Esq. BALESTRIERE FARIELLO 225 Broadway, 29th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 374-5401 Facsimile: (212) 208-2613 E-mail: john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com matthew.schmidt@balestrierefariello.com JEA SENIOR: Bowen Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as ANNICA B. BOWEN, a.k.a. ANNICA PALACIO, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. JEA SENIOR LIVING HEALTH & WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN LLC, WILLOW SPRINGS MANAGEMENT CA, LLC, BLOSSOM GROVE, CA, LLC, EMPIRE RANCH ALZHEIMER'S SPECIAL CARE CENTER, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06305, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 20, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02318-TLN-KJN to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, failure to provide itemized wage statements, and unfair competition. JEA Senior Living Health & Welfare Benefit Plan LLC is a privately-owned and operated management and development company, headquartered in Vancouver, Washington. Willow Springs Management CA, LLC is a limited liability company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. Blossom Grove, CA, LLC is a provider of senior living services in California. Empire Ranch Alzheimer's Special Care Center is an assisted living facility in Folsom, California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bryan L. Hawkins, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 447-0700 Facsimile: (916) 447-4781 E-mail: bryan.hawkins@stoel.com - and – Bao M. Vu, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1120 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 617-8900 Facsimile: (415) 617-8901 E-mail: bao.vu@stoel.com JOLO INC: Saad FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAH SAAD On Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, v. JOLO, INC. D/B/A HURRICANE BETTY'S, ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-11377-TSH (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting conditional certification of this action and for court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. approving proposed notice of this action and the consent and opt-out forms; 3. directing the Defendants to produce names, last known mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; 4. directing herself to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail and email to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs; and 5. requiring the Defendant to post the Notice and Consent Form in a conspicuous location within the dressing room at the Defendant's Hurricane Betty's Gentlemen's Club or the full 90-day Notice period. The Defendant operates an adult entertainment club. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pEo64s at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com - and - Michael D. Pushee, Esq. FORMISANO & CO., P.C. 100 Midway Place, Suite 1 Cranston, RI 02920 Telephone: (401) 944-9691 Facsimile: (401) 944-9695 E-mail: mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com JOSHUA DAVID: Faces Yoffee Suit Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL YOFFEE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JOSHUA DAVID MELLBERG, LLC d/b/a J.D. MELLBERG FINANCIAL, Case No. 3:20-cv-02304-CAB-DEB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed the automated calls and voice messages to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated without their prior express written consent in order to solicit their business. The Plaintiff specifically received a voicemail advertising the Defendant's services and instructing him to contact J.D. Mellberg for "annuity prospects" related to its lead database, and noting that the Defendant is a "trusted and recognizable brand." She received a total of four automated calls placed via an automatic telephone dialing system. Through the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest in privacy, which is specifically addressed and protected by the TCPA, the suit says. The Defendant is a privately-owned company founded in or around 2005 that specializes in retirement financial services and annuity income planning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com - and - Alex S. Madar, Esq. MADAR LAW CORPORATION 11510 Eaglesview Ct. San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 299-5879 Facsimile: (619) 354-7281 E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net - and - Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6806 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com JVA INDUSTRIES: Workers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime, Missing Paystubs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Grevil Martinez, Alexander Ramirez, and Luis Mart, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JVA Industries Inc. and Joseph Alfano, individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07977 (S.D. N.Y., September 25, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread-of-hours wages, earned wages and overtime compensation together with liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. JVA Industries Inc. is a construction company with its primary offices located in New Jersey where Plaintiffs worked as construction workers. They claim to have regularly work more than 40 hours per week without being paid overtime and denied wage statements containing accurate information about hourly rate, overtime rate and the number of regular and overtime hours worked per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com KATERRA INC: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Susan Hamlin, filing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Paul Hanks, filing individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Katerra Inc., a foreign corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-05886-GMS (D. Ariz), the Parties ask the Court for an order granting joint motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and FLSA opt-in class of and approving form of notice and distribution to: "the Plaintiffs and the group of those similarly situated individuals consisting of all current and former Supplier Quality Managers and Supplier Quality Engineers working for Katerra Inc. in the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area at any time during the last three years." The Plaintiffs, former Quality Supplier Managers, filed this action under the FLSA, alleging that the Defendant did not pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek. The Defendant denies that it has violated the FLSA in any respect and contests the Defendant consents to this Court's entering an Order conditionally certifying this matter as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) for the sole purpose of permitting court supervised notice to issue to the putative members of the FLSA Opt-In Collective as to the Plaintiffs' claims that they were misclassified as exempt and improperly denied overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a regular workweek and establishing an appropriate "opt-in" period. Katerra is an Japanese funded American technology-driven offsite construction company. It was founded in 2015 by Michael Marks, former CEO of Flextronics and former Tesla interim CEO, along with Fritz Wolff, the executive chairman of The Wolff Co. A copy of the joint motion to conditionally certify FLSA Collective Action dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pEFTZq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Pruitt, Esq. Nathaniel Hill, Esq. JACKSON WHITE LAW 40 North Center Street, Suite 200 Mesa, AZ 85201 The Defendant is represented by: R. Shawn Oller, Esq. Kimberly M. Shappley, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. KEAGLE INC: Campbell Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool ----------------------------------------------- Brandi Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Keagle Inc. and Edward Salfelder Jr., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02271, (C.D. Ill., September 29, 2020) seeks damages for violations of the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally withholding tips under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Keagle Inc. operates as "The Silver Bullet Bar," an adult-oriented entertainment facility owned by Edward Salfelder where Campbell worked as an exotic dancer. She was compensated exclusively through tips from customers and did not receive payment for any hours worked at the establishment. However, she was required to share her tips with other non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips, including the managers, disc jockeys, and the bouncer, asserts the Plaintiff. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. Marc Siegel, Esq. James Rogers, Esq. SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD. 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel. (312) 878-3210 Fax (312) 878-3211 Email: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com msiegel@msiegellaw.com jrogers@msiegellaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 993-5801 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com KEYBANK NA: Conditional Certification of Class Members Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL SHANAHAN, LEVORA ADDISON, MICHAEL ALAGICH, JAMIE SEROW, ALEJANDRO SOLANO, and LAURIE KIELBANIA, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. KEYBANK, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-02477-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement with respect to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Oregon and Massachusetts Classes' (collectively, "Class Members") claims; 2. granting conditional certification of the Class Members, as defined in the Parties' Settlement Agreement, for settlement purposes; 3. appointing Shavitz Law Group, P.A., Outten & Golden LLP, and Swartz Swidler, LLC as counsel for the Class Members; 4. approving A.B. Data, Ltd. as Settlement Administrator; 5. approving the proposed preliminary approval Settlement Notice to Class Members and the proposed distribution method; 6. directing the Parties to file any timely submitted and properly completed objections with the Court no later than 7 days after the close of the Opt-Out Deadline; 7. directing the Parties to file with the Court any written responses to any filed objections no later than 14 days after the close of the Opt-Out Deadline; 8. directing the Parties to file a motion for final approval of the Settlement no later than 14 days after the close of the Opt-Out Deadline; and 9. scheduling a Final Approval hearing at least 75 days after the Court's grant of the instant Motion. KeyBank, the primary subsidiary of KeyCorp, is a regional bank headquartered in Cleveland and is the only major bank based in Cleveland. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the settlement class, dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lH6uT9 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Justin Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25 th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2057 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com KNAUF GIPS: Arnold Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON ARNOLD, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03215 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for redhibition and violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the design, manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply, marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of a defective gypsum drywall. The gypsum drywall that the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers purchased from the Defendants releases sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide, and other noxious gasses that cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property. Exposure to sulfur compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants' drywall can also cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and omissions, the Plaintiff's home, structure, and personal property have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other gasses being released from the drywall. Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems based in Iphofen, Germany. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster, plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (844) 638-5812 E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com KNAUF GIPS: Burgos Sues Over Corrosive Effects of Gypsum Drywall ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSUELO BURGOS, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03200 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers allege that the Defendants are engaged in the design, manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply, marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of a defective gypsum drywall. The gypsum drywall that the Plaintiff and Class members purchased from the Defendants was unfit for its intended purpose and unreasonably dangerous in its normal use in that the drywall caused corrosion and damage to personal property in their homes. The product releases sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide, and other noxious gasses that cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property. Exposure to sulfur compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants' drywall can also cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity. The Plaintiff's home, structure, and personal property have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other gasses being released from the drywall as a result of the Defendants' actions and omissions. Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems based in Iphofen, Germany. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster, plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (844) 638-5812 E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com KNAUF GIPS: Drywall Causes Damage to Property, Feng Hu Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ FENG HU and SIMIN LIU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03213 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, redhibition, and violations of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Louisiana Products Liability Act. The case arises from the Defendants' design, manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply, marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of a defective gypsum drywall. According to the complaint, the gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall. The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property. Exposure to sulfur compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants' drywall can cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and omissions, the Plaintiffs' home, structure, and personal property have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other gasses being released from the drywall. Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems based in Iphofen, Germany. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster, plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (844) 638-5812 E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com KNAUF GIPS: Foreman Sues Over Harmful Effects of Defective Drywall ------------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM FOREMAN, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03203 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for their role in the design, manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply, marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of a defective gypsum drywall. The Defendants' gypsum drywall was unfit in its intended purpose and unreasonably dangerous in its normal use because it releases sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide, and other noxious gasses that cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property in the homes of the Plaintiff and Class members. Exposure to sulfur compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants' drywall can also cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity. The Plaintiff's home, structure, and personal property have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the product's corrosive and harmful effects as a result of the Defendants' negligence and omissions. Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems based in Iphofen, Germany. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster, plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (844) 638-5812 E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com KNAUF GIPS: Ginart Suit Alleges Distribution of Defective Drywall ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GINART and ALICE GINART, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03216 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for redhibition and violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the design, manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply, marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of a defective gypsum drywall. The Defendants' gypsum drywall releases sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide, and other noxious gasses that cause rapid sulfidation and damage to the Plaintiffs' personal property. The sulfur compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants' drywall can also cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity following exposure. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and omissions, the Plaintiffs' home, structure, and personal property have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other gasses being released from the drywall. Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems based in Iphofen, Germany. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster, plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (844) 638-5812 E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com KNAUF GIPS: Jackson Land Sues Over Sale of Defective Gypsum Drywall ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1329 GUM, JACKSON LAND TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNAUF GIPS KG and KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-3210 (E.D. La., November 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive substance, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The case arises from the Defendants' marketing, distribution, and sale of defective gypsum drywall to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers. According to the complaint, the gypsum and other components of the product react, break down, and release sulfur compounds and other noxious gasses from the drywall. The sulfur compounds, including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and carbon disulfide, exit the Defendants' drywall and cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property. Exposure to sulfur compounds and the other noxious gasses emitted from the Defendants' drywall can cause eye irritation, sore throat and cough, nausea, fatigue, shortness of breath, fluid in the lungs, and/or neurological harm to some inhabitants who possess a sensitivity. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and omissions, the Plaintiff's home, structure, and personal property have been exposed to the Defendants' defective drywall and the corrosive and harmful effects of the sulfur compounds and other gasses being released from the drywall. Knauf Gips KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems based in Iphofen, Germany. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd. is a manufacturer of plaster, plasterboard, and other products composed of gypsum, with a principal place of business in Tianjin, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq. DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC 2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 533-9500 Facsimile: (844) 638-5812 E-mail: jimmy@doylefirm.com L BRANDS: Allison Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------- DONNA ALLISON, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the L BRANDS, INC. 401(K) SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN, Plaintiff v. L BRANDS, INC., L BRANDS SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF THE L BRANDS, INC. 401(K) SAVINGS AND RETIREMENT PLAN and DOES No. 1-10, Whose Names Are Currently Unknown, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06018-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, November 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches. According to the complaint, the Defendants have severely breached their fiduciary duties of prudence and/or loyalty to the L Brands, Inc. 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan by failing to recognize that the Plan and its participants were being charged much higher fees than they should have been and/or failing to take effective remedial actions. The Defendants failed to scrutinize the going rates for the recordkeeping and administrative services the Plan received, and for which participants shoulder the financial responsibility to the detriment of their retirement savings. The Defendants have allowed the Plan to pay at least 60% more than it should have paid for such services if they had engaged in any modestly prudent approach to ensuring that the Plan's recordkeeping and administrative fees were fair and reasonable. L Brands, Inc. is an international company that sells lingerie, personal care and beauty products, apparel and accessories, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. L Brands Service Company, LLC is a subsidiary of women's apparel and beauty products company L Brands, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com - and – Ronald S. Kravitz, Esq. Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: rkravitz@sfmslaw.com ktang@sfmslaw.com - and – James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and – James C. Shah, Esq. Michael P. Ols, Esq. Alec J. Berin, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com mols@sfmslaw.com aberin@sfmslaw.com LAS VEGAS SANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of Las Vegas Sands Corp. shareholders. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. LVS Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/las-vegas-sands-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=10898&wire=1 Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE:LVS) LVS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 27, 2016 - September 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 21, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/las-vegas-sands-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=10898&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Las Vegas Sands Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) weaknesses existed in Marina Bay Sands' casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers; (ii) the Marina Bay Sands' casino was consequently prone to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among other issues, the transfer of customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential breaches in the Company's anti-money laundering procedures; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by regulatory authorities; (iv) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures; (v) consequently, all the foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] LASERFORM LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Operators, Wilkerson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ WADE WILKERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LASERFORM LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01739-WCG (E.D. Wis., November 19, 2020) brings this collective and class action complaint against the Defendant to obtain relief of their alleged willful violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant alongside all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees at the Defendant's Green Bay, Wisconsin manufacturing facility. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant via a third-party staffing company into the position of CNC Machine operator approximately from June 2020 to October 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has pay policies and practices of failing to compensate him and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours they actually worked and/or work performed each work day and each workweek as recorded, reflected, and represented via the Defendant's electronic timekeeping system. The Defendant allegedly shaved time from the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt employees' timesheets each work day and each workweek for pre-shift, post-shift, and in-shift compensable work performed, which resulted to the Defendant's failure to compensate them at the correct and lawful overtime rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. LaserForm LLC is a machinery company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Tel: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com LEVEL 28 NUTRIDRIP: Olsen Files ADA Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Level 28 Nutridrip LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Level 28 Nutridrip LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09565-RA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2020). The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams. Level 28 Nutridrip LLC is a nutrient therapy provider in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 764-7171 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Watson TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify 3 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN WATSON, DANIEL SAMARGHITAN, ANNMARIE GREENE f/k/a ANNMARIE MOHAMMED, JOSE ESPINAL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying the following Classes: -- ATDS Class: "all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United States that were sent text messages from Lexus of Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, stating "Can I text you regarding maintenance of your Honda vehicle," or an identical variant thereof, within four years of the filing of this action"; -- National Do Not Call Registry (NDNCR) Class: "all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United States that were sent text messages from Lexus of Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, whom were registered on the National Do Not Call List more than 32 days before receiving messages from Lexus, stating "Can I text you regarding maintenance of your Honda vehicle," or an identical variant thereof, within four years of the filing of this action" and -- Internal Do Not Call (IDNC) Class: "all Honda of Manhattan customers within the United States that were sent text messages from Lexus of Manhattan, using the Zipwhip texting platform, stating "Can I text you regarding maintenance of your Honda vehicle," or an identical variant thereof, while Lexus failed to institute procedures to maintain a list of persons who requested not to receive telemarketing calls, within four years of the filing of this action." This action arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiffs filed an initial Complaint on June 18, 2020 alleging that the Defendant violated various provisions of the TCPA by sending text solicitations to customers of Honda of Manhattan. Lexus of Manhattan sells and services LEXUS vehicles in the greater New York NY area. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2IHN8yB at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Elizabeth Apostola, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com ea@zemellawllc.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Marano Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as STEPHEN MARANO, on behalf of the individual and all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01165807-CU-OECXC, was removed from the California Superior Court for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 20, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-02215 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal and/or rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements and related penalties. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. is an American diversified global insurance company based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Katherine A. Roberts, Esq. Beth Anne Scheel, Esq. Abigail Hudson, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 E-mail: kate.roberts@sidley.com bscheel@sidley.com abigail.hudson@sidley.com LIFELABS: Personal Data Breach Leads to Multiple Class Action Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Hainsworth at biv.com reports that the medical lab company that experienced a cyberbreach of 15 million patients' personal information nationwide is facing multiple class action suits in two provinces. Privacy commissioners in Ontario and B.C. revealed last year cyber criminals penetrated the LifeLabs' systems, extracting data and demanding a ransom. LifeLabs CEO Charles Brown said the company retrieved the data by making payment. "We did this in collaboration with experts familiar with cyberattacks and negotiations with cyber criminals," he said in an open letter released in December 2019. Now, BC Supreme Court Justice Nitya Iyer Nov. 6 declined to stop two suits against LifeLabs in B.C. after Ontario Supreme Court awarded responsibility - or carriage - for Ontario suits to one of three competing groups of class action law firms. There are nine proposed actions in B.C. and four in Ontario. One B.C. suit proposes a single national action. The judge said the fact that parallel class actions have started does not make them duplicates of each other Further, Iyer said, "Although I appreciate that the multiple carriage motions are inefficient, this must be balanced against the interests of putative B.C. class members to have their best interests considered by a B.C. court." Iyer explained in the ruling that awarding of carriage of a suit to a law firm or group of firms can result in competition between firms when more than one class proceeding is brought regarding the same defendant and the same subject matter. Legislation allows courts to make decisions on how cases move forward in a fair and expeditious way. "When the court awards carriage to one action, it stays the competing action until certification has been determined," Iyer said. "If the court refuses to certify the proposed class proceeding, it may lift the stay on one of the other proceedings." The privacy commissioners have attempted to release a full report on the breach but said in June they are being thwarted by the company. They said LifeLabs claims information provided to the commissioners is privileged or otherwise confidential. As such, the company is seeking a court order to prevent publication of the full report. "LifeLabs' failure to properly protect the personal health information of British Columbians and Canadians is unacceptable. LifeLabs exposed British Columbians, along with millions of other Canadians, to potential identity theft, financial loss and reputational harm," B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner Michael McEvoy said in a statement earlier this year. [GN] LIVE AUCTIONEERS: Zheng Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Live Auctioneers LLC. The case is styled as Peiran Zheng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Live Auctioneers LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:20-cv-09744 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. LiveAuctioneers is a live auctions marketplace connecting buyers and sellers of art, antiques, jewelry, and collectibles across the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier Luis Merino, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM 372 Kinderkamack Road, Suite 5 Westwood, NJ 07675 Phone: (201) 355-3440 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: jmerino@dannlaw.com LOWE'S COMPANIES: Court Preliminarily Certifies Class in Reetz Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benjamin Reetz, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Lowe's 401(k) Plan v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., Administrative Committee of Lowe's Companies, Inc., Pat Belanger, Robin Bornkamp, Lance Cook, Matthew Eurey, David Green, Bob Ihrie, Mark Imhoff, Terry Johnson, Angela Kirby, Janice Little, Tiffany Mason, Colleen Penhall, Stacey Ryan, Kristie Shugart, Brandon Sink, Gregor Teusch, Jennifer Weber, John and Jane Does 1-20, and Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00075-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth D. Bell entered an order: 1. preliminarily certifying class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1): "all participants and beneficiaries of the Lowe's 401(k) Plan whose Plan account balances were invested in the Hewitt Growth Fund at any time on or after October 1, 2015, through the date of judgment, excluding Defendants, any of their directors, and any officers or employees of the Defendants with responsibility for the Plan's investment or administrative functions"; and 2. preliminarily appointing Nichols Kaster, PLLP and Tharrington Smith LLP as counsel for the class. 3. directing the parties no later than November 13, 2020 to submit a proposed class notice that includes at least a 30-day period for the preliminarily certified class members to object to the certification. 4. directing the Parties, within 14 days after the objection deadline, to either inform the Court that no objections have been received (in which case this preliminary class certification order shall automatically become final), or respond to any such objections (in which case the Court will rule on the objections); 5. directing class members, in the event that certification becomes final, that they have no more opportunity to opt out of the class; and 6. dismissing with prejudice the Defendants Pat Belanger, Robin Bornkamp, Lance Cook, Matthew Eurey, David Green, Bob Ihrie, Mark Imhoff, Terry Johnson, Angela Kirby, Janice Little, Tiffany Mason, Colleen Penhall, Stacey Ryan, Kristie Shugart, Brandon Sink, Gregor Teusch, Jennifer Weber, John and Jane Does 1-20. A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lFkhK0 at no extra charge.[CC] MAGGIE DOG: Markham Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Markham, individualy, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Maggie Dog, LLC, Christopher M. Hanada, Interlude US, Inc., Walmart, Inc., W*E Interactive Ventures JV, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV37357 (Cal. Super., September 30, 2019), seeks redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. Maggie Dog, LLC produced filmed entertainment for commercial purposes including "Walmart: Toylab 2.0" where Markham worked as a crew member on the production from August to September 2019. Markham claims to be unpaid for all hours worked and was not paid for all overtime hours worked at the correct rate. Because Markham carried a two-way radio most of the time, he was not able to avail of his meal breaks, asserts the complaint. [BN] Gray is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Ave., 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (323) 962-3777 Fax: (323) 962-3004 Email: harrisa@harrisanddruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisanddruble.com MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE: Glynn ERISA Suit Wins Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNEST J. GLYNN, et al. v. MAINE OXY-ACETYLENE SUPPLY CO., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00176-NT (D. Maine), the Hon. Judge Nancy Torresen entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Judge Torresen concludes that the existence of the DOL Action does not render a 23(b)(3) class action an inferior method of adjudicating this case. Seeing no other reason why the Plaintiffs' proposed class does not satisfy the superiority requirement, he conclude that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class should be certified as consisting of the following: "all Maine Oxy employees who participated in the company ESOP and who sold their shares back to Maine Oxy after the Albistons sold their 51% interest in the company." This case concerns a dispute surrounding an employee stock ownership plan ("ESOP") at Maine Oxy-Acetylene Supply Company ("Maine Oxy"), a supplier of welding equipment and industrial and specialty gases at retail locations across New England. Albiston family, the sole shareholders of Maine Oxy, established the ESOP to allow employees to "share in the growth and profits of [Maine Oxy] and to enable them to save and invest in accordance with the" ESOP. The Plaintiffs -- Ernest Glynn, Jeffrey MacDonald, Doug Johnson, and Joshua Richardson -- are four former employees of Maine Oxy, who participated in the company's ESOP. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not inform them of the price at which they were repurchasing the company's shares or the number of shares each employee owned. The only information that they received was the amount of their lump sum payout. The Plaintiffs also allege that they were unaware of the price per share that Guerin and Gentry had paid to acquire the majority of the company in 2012. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in April of 2019 alleging that the Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Defendants filed a partial motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiffs could not seek punitive damages under ERISA. In their response to the motion, the Plaintiffs conceded that the Defendants were correct and filed their First Amended Complaint (FAC). Thereafter, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file the SAC. Over the Defendants' objections, the Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file the SAC, which is now the operative Complaint. Finally, the Plaintiffs filed the pending motion to certify a class defined as follows: "all Maine Oxy employees who participated in the company ESOP and who sold their shares back to Maine Oxy after [the Albistons] sold [their] 51% interest in the company." The SAC alleges that Defendants Maine Oxy, Guerin, and Gentry breached the fiduciary duties that they owed to ESOP participants." A copy of the Court's Order on Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35KbZLr at no extra charge.[CC] MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ch. 11 Cases Closed UAP&P Local 322 Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the court ordered the putative class action suit initiated by the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern New Jersey, administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases. In November 2019, the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern New Jersey filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and other defendants in New Jersey state court on behalf of New Jersey and third party payers for alleged deceptive marketing and anti-competitive conduct related to the sale and distribution of Acthar Gel. The complaint asserts claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy/aiding and abetting and unjust enrichment. The proposed class is defined as "All third-party payors and their beneficiaries (1) who are current citizens and residents of the State of New Jersey, and (2) who, for purposes other than resale, purchased or paid for Acthar Gel from August 27, 2007 through the present." In January 2020, after removing the complaint to federal court in New Jersey, the Company moved to dismiss or stay the case. On August 18, 2020 the court dismissed all claims against the Company other than Local 322's antitrust claim relating to the former owner of Acthar Gel's acquisition of Synacthen. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and moved to dismiss the complaint in June 2020. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. On October 14, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Marietta Putative Class Suit Closed ------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the court ordered the putative civil class action suit City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases. In February 2020, the City of Marietta, Georgia filed a putative civil class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia relating to the price of Acthar Gel. The complaint, which pleads one claim for unjust enrichment, purports to be brought on behalf of third-party payers and their beneficiaries as well as people without insurance in the U.S. and its Territories who paid for Acthar Gel from four years prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of trial. The case is proceeding as City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC. Marietta alleges that it has paid $2 million to cover the cost of an Acthar Gel prescription of an employee and that the Company has been unjustly enriched as a result. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and has moved to dismiss the complaint. The Company's motion to dismiss remains pending. On October 16, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend Shaver Putative Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 25, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No. VLC-S-S-205793. On June 1, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Mallinckrodt plc, Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, the Canadian Ministry of Health and the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, captioned Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No. VLC-S-S-205793. The action purports to be brought on behalf of any persons (1) prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia after March 1, 2014, (2) covered by Pharmacare Plan C within British Columbia who were prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment after February 1, 2014, (3) who transitioned from compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia after March 1, 2014, or (4) covered by Pharmacare Plan C within British Columbia who were transitioned from compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment after February 1, 2014. The suit generally alleges that the Province's decision to grant Methadose coverage under Pharmacare Plan C and remove compounded methadone from coverage under Pharmacare Plan C had adversely affected those being treated for opioid use disorder. The suit asserts that the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt defendants failed to warn patients about, and made false representations concerning, the efficacy of Methadose and the risks of switching from compounded methadone to Methadose. The suit seeks general, special, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and interest and injunctive relief against the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt defendants. Pursuant to two orders granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) on October 15, 2020, the Chapter 11 proceedings commenced by Mallinckrodt plc and Mallinckrodt Canada ULC pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were recognized and given effect in Canada. Among other things, the Canadian Court has stayed all proceedings against the Mallinckrodt defendants, including the British Columbia class action proceedings. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit." Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK: Frankiewicz Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA FRANKIEWICZ and RUTH PEREZ, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals, v. MANHATTAN CRYOBANK, INC., and CNTP MCB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05157-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 on behalf of: "all persons who purchased sperm from Manhattan Cryobank, Inc. after November 1, 2014 but before June 5, 2018 that was donated to Manhattan Cryobank, Inc. prior to November 1, 2014"; and 2. appointing themselves as Class representatives and Steckler Wayne Cochran PLLC as Class Counsel. Manhattan CryoBank is a tissue bank with a large and diverse selection of rigorously screened tissue donors. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3f8PrqH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Rd. Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: 972-387-4040 Facsimile: 972-387-4041 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com krogers@swclaw.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Barnes FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE BARNES and PAIGE STROMAN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Maryland, Case No. 8:20-cv-03205-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action for unpaid overtime wages under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of: "all current and former hourly customer service representatives (CSRs) who worked for Marriott International, Inc. in the United States at any time in the past three years (the "FLSA Collective"); 2. requiring the Defendant to identify all putative members of the FLSA Collective by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within 14 days of the entry of the order; 3. permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to send Court-approved Notice of this action to putative members of the FLSA Collective via U.S. Mail, email and text message; and 4. approving a 60-day opt-in period from the date the Court- approved Notice is sent during which putative FLSA Collective members may join this case by returning their written consents, with one reminder email sent 30 days into the opt-in period to anyone who at that point has not yet opted into the action. The Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiff worked in three different call centers. The Plaintiff Stroman worked in San Antonio, Texas; the Plaintiff Barnes worked in Austin, Texas; and Opt-in Plaintiff Arrington worked in Solon, Ohio. Despite working in three different call centers, both Plaintiffs have provided declaration testimony that they used the exact same computer programs in carrying out their job duties as CSRs. Specifically, those computer programs were as follows: Windows (operating system), Avaya, Sales Force (or Pure), Passkey, Outlook, reservations notes, Excel, web-based Marriot Global Systems (MGS), and Webstation. The Defendant offers hotel/lodging services across the country. According to Defendant's Website, it offers the most powerful portfolio of hotels in the industry, with over 30 brands and more than 7,000 properties across 131 countries and territories. The Defendant is headquartered in Maryland, but operates call centers across the country. The Defendant employed CSRs to provide customer service to its customers in brick-and-mortar call centers across the country. Regarding Defendant's call centers, the Defendant boosts that Marriott has a "superior reputation for customer service." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32SEgxu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Aronstein Appeals Judgment to 1st Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jesse Aronstein filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jesse Aronstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. and C.M. Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-12864-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Springfield. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' bait and switch scheme, specifically by advertising, marketing, and selling fixed annuities and receiving and retaining funds, on the basis that they had a Minimum Guaranteed Interest Rate, but then unilaterally reducing that rate below the guaranteed rate. On November 12, 2020, Judge Mark G. Mastroianni entered an order denying Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co.'s motion for reconsideration. The exhibits attached to the Plaintiff's opposition reaffirm the court's conclusion that the parties' agreement as to the form of judgment was informal, as does a review of the transcript of the November 3, 2020 hearing, at which Defendant's counsel declined to press for specific enforcement of the agreement but instead argued it would be "entirely fair for the court to hold plaintiff to his agreement." In addition, as the Plaintiff argues, the Defendant had never made its argument regarding equitable relief prior to the parties' simultaneous briefs on prejudgment interest. Thus, given the Defendant's last-minute attempt to use the form of judgment against Plaintiff, the court finds Plaintiff had good cause to seek to walk away from that informal agreement after its legal implications (under Defendant's theory) became clear. The appellate case is captioned as Aronstein v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, Case No. 20-2103, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appellate briefing schedule states that the Appearance form, Docketing Statement and Transcript Report/Order form are due on December 4, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JESSE ARONSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin B. Love, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE PA 7301 SW 57th Ct Suite 515 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com - and - Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. Adam M. Stewart, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP Seaport East, 2 Seaport Ln Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 E-mail: imcloughlin@shulaw.com astewart@shulaw.com - and - Timothy J. O'Connor, Esq. The Law Office Of Timothy J. O'Connor 29 Wards Ln Albany, NY 12204 Telephone: (518) 426-7700 E-mail: tjo@tjolaw.com Defendants-Appellees MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and C.M. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by: Joel S. Feldman, Esq. Eric S. Mattson, Esq. Stephen W. McInerney, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1 S Dearborn St., Ste 3200 Chicago, IL 60603-0000 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: jfeldman@sidley.com emattson@sidley.com smcinerney@sidley.com - and - Jodi Kim Miller, Esq. John P. Pucci, Esq. BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP 1500 Main St., Suite 2700 Springfield, MA 01115-5507 Telephone: (413) 272-6249 E-mail: jmiller@bulkley.com jpucci@bulkley.com MEIJI RESTAURANT: Conditional Cert. of Cleaners Class Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUADALUPE COMONFORT PASTRANA and RODRIGO NERI-BELTRAN v. MEIJI RESTAURANT, LLC, CAI HUANG, and QIN YUN WU, Case No. 20-cv-470 (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification; 2. directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs the names and most recent known addresses of: "all non-tipped employees paid on a weekly or monthly basis that it employed at Meiji Restaurant in the last three years within 21 days of this order"; and 3. directing the Counsel for Plaintiffs to send notice to these current and former employees as proposed, in both English and Chinese. The Plaintiffs shall docket a Chinese-language version for purposes of the record. The parties are to confer and submit new proposed deadlines for discovery, if necessary, and motions for final certification/decertification and summary judgment. The Court said, "At this stage, the Plaintiffs need only make "a modest factual showing" that they and potential class members were "victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." The Plaintiffs offer a declaration from Plaintiff Pastrana and a copy of the Defendants' payroll records for 2019. The Plaintiffs also put forward a selection of the Defendant's payroll records, which they argue shows that other Meiji employees are similarly situated, i.e., underpaid with respect to hourly rates for overtime. Judge Adelman agrees with the Plaintiffs. Their interpretation of Defendants' pay sheet and the deductions applied to the named plaintiffs and others is reasonable and persuasive enough at this stage, he said." The Plaintiffs are former employees of Meiji Cuisine in Waukesha. While at Meiji, the Plaintiffs worked as non-tipped cleaning staff, responsible for washing dishes, mopping floors, and garbage removal. The Plaintiffs allege that they were required to work six days per week, from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m., with an hour break that was not fully taken sometimes. The Plaintiffs were paid monthly wages subject to reduction if they worked fewer than six days during any week and did not make up for the missed time by performing additional work. The Plaintiffs allege that their monthly wages were often insufficient for their average hourly wage for that month to reach the minimum wage, nor did they ever receive an overtime premium rate, regardless of the number of hours worked, says the complaint. A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Pk1EB at no extra charge.[CC] MEP NATIONWIDE: Faces Saylor Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURTIS SAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees v. MEP NATIONWIDE, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02825-SHM-CGC (W.D. Tenn., Nov. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff other similarly situated employees minimum wages and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a plumber in or around August 2018. MEP Nationwide, LLC is a commercial contractor providing plumbing services across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Yasinsky, Esq. NAHON, SAHAROVICH & TROTZ, PLC 488 S. Mendenhall Memphis, TN 38117 Telephone: (901) 683-7000 E-mail: jyasinsky@nstlaw.com METRODATA: 1681c Class Granted, 1681k Class Denied in "Wentworth" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON WENTWORTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. METRODATA SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00594-GWC (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Certify Class with respect to the section 1681c class: "all persons within the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States): (a) who were the subject of a consumer report furnished by Metrodata from June 29, 2015 through the present; and (b) whose report contained any public record of criminal arrest, charge, information, indictment or other adverse item of information other than records of actual conviction of a crime, which antedated the report by more than 7 years"; and 2. denying the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion to Certify Class with respect to the section 1681k class. "all persons within the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) who were the subject of a consumer report furnished by Metrodata from June 29, 2015 through the date of certification and whose report contained any public record of criminal arrest, charge, information, indictment or other adverse information." -- The Section 1681c Class The Court said, "The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals who were subject to a consumer report furnished by Metrodata between June 29, 2015 and the time of class certification and whose reports contained adverse nonconviction information that antedated the report by more than seven years. The Plaintiff has identified 109 individuals, besides himself, who meet these criteria and form the putative section 1681c. The The Plaintiff's definition of the section 1681c class uses objective criteria to identify its members. The Plaintiff has identified at least 110 members of the putative class. Consequently, the court deems the section 1681c class ascertainable. The court concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied the numerosity requirement for the proposed section 1681c class. The court concludes that the proposed section 1681c class action satisfies the superiority requirement of Rule 23. Because the proposed class meets all of the Rule 23 prerequisites of certification, the court grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify the section 1681c class. -- The Section 1681k Class: The Second Circuit has recognized that [c]ommon issues -- such as liability -- may be certified, consistent with Rule 23, even where other issues -- such as damages -- do not lend themselves to classwide proof. The same principle holds true for individual defenses. Nevertheless, such individual issues are factor[s] that we must consider in deciding whether issues susceptible to generalized proof outweigh individual issues, even though standing alone, [they are not] sufficient to defeat class certification, says the Court. A plaintiff's failure to establish that common proof regarding the elements of the asserted claims would predominate, is sufficient to warrant a denial of the motion for class certification, the Court added. In 2017, the Plaintiff Jason Wentworth sued the Defendant Metrodata Services, Inc., alleging that Metrodata violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), when it provided a consumer report about the Plaintiff to a prospective employer. In 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify two classes under section 1681c and section 1681k of Title 15. Finding the record insufficient to support a determination on whether either proposed class satisfied the certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), the court denied the Plaintiff's motion without prejudice and extended discovery on the issue of class certification for an additional 90 days. The extended discovery period concluded in early February 2020. The Plaintiff has filed a Renewed Motion to Certify Class in which he once again seeks to certify classes under section 1681c and section 1681k. The Defendant once again opposes class certification and argues that, despite the allowance for additional discovery, Plaintiff still fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed classes meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). A copy of the Court's Order on renewed motion for class certification dated Nov. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] MEYER DISTRIBUTING: Rocero Wage & Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as ANDREW ROCERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEYER DISTRIBUTING, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UWT-2020-0007755, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Joaquin to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 20, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02325-JAM-DB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including physical disability discrimination, failure to pay minimum wage compensation, failure to pay overtime & double-time compensation, failure to maintain time records, provide itemized statements, failure to pay all wages due upon discharge, unlawful business practices, and unfair business practices. Meyer Distributing, Inc. is a company that markets and distributes automotive specialty products, headquartered in Jasper, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Martin, Esq. Brittany A. Vulcan, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104-2872 Telephone: (415) 362-2580 Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 E-mail: Jonathan.Martin@lewisbrisbois.com Brittany.Vulcan@lewisbrisbois.com MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Approves Stipulated Settlement Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN SINGLETON, et al. v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00099-WKW-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that: -- if either Plaintiffs or the City object to the court's proposed order, the objecting party shall show cause, in writing, on or before November 23, 2020, as to the specific nature of the objection and shall provide citation to any legal authority supporting the objection; and -- if no objection to the court's proposed order exists, then Plaintiffs and the City shall file a Notice on or before November 23, 2020, indicating as much. On September 16, 2020, Jonathan Singleton, Ricky Vickery, and Micki Holmes and the City of Montgomery, Alabama City filed a Joint Motion to Approve their Stipulated Settlement Agreement. In their motion, the Plaintiffs and the City ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims against the City only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38UcF2O at no extra charge.[CC] MORGAN & MORGAN: Sends Unsolicited Robocalls, Sloatman Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LALA SLOATMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN & MORGAN MASS TORT LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-10670 (C.D. Cal., November 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to promote or sell its services without prior express consent in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. Morgan & Morgan Mass Tort Litigation Group, PLLC is a litigation firm doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Root Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as DAVID ROOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC dba NFI INDUSTRIES, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. RIC2003109, was removed from the Superior Court of the State California in and for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 20, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02452 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to pay wages upon separation of employment and within the required time, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and unfair business practices. National Distribution Centers, LLC, d/b/a NFI Industries, is a provider of transportation and logistics services, with its principal place of business in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua J. Cliffe, Esq. Carina Novell, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: jcliffe@littler.com cnovell@littler.com - and – Britney N. Torres, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 830-7200 Facsimile: (916) 561-0828 E-mail: btorres@littler.com NEOVASC INC: Faces Siple Suit Over 42% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SIPLE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NEOVASC INC., FRED COLEN, and CHRISTOPHER CLARK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09948 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020) seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc securities between October 10, 2018 and October 27, 2020, inclusive. In December 2018, the Company filed a Q-Sub submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that contained safety and efficacy results from Neovasc's clinical studies, as well as supporting data from peer-reviewed journals, involving its Reducer, a medical device that treats refractory angina by altering blood flow in the heart's circulatory system. On February 20, 2019, Neovasc announced that, despite "Breakthrough Device Designation," the FDA review team recommended that the Company collect further pre-market blinded data prior to submitting a Pre-Market Approval application. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Neovasc had overstated the viability of U.S. approval of the Reducer based on its "Breakthrough Device Designation" and prior studies supporting the Reducer's efficacy and safety; (ii) the results of Neovasc's clinical studies used to support approval for the Reducer in the U.S. contained imbalances in missing information present in the control group versus the treatment group, including significant missing information for secondary endpoints but none for the primary endpoint; (iii) the imbalance in missing information indicated that control subjects were aware of their treatment assignment (not blinded) and less inclined to participate in additional data collection; (iv) blinding is critical when studying a placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (v) the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret; (vi) as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably likely to require additional premarket clinical data; (vii) as a result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely to be approved without additional clinical data; and (viii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company announced that an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against the safety and effectiveness of the Reducer. The panel noted concerns with the Company's clinical data, including "that the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret." As a result, the panel reached a consensus "that additional premarket randomized clinical data was necessary." On this news, the Company's common share price fell $0.77 per share, or 42%, to close at $1.06 per share on October 28, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume, the suit says. Neovasc is a British Columbia-based specialty medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets products for cardiovascular diseases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com NEW YORK HEALTH CARE: Jones Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Bryant Jones, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New York Health Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08076 (S.D. N.Y., September 30, 2020), seeks to recover all available damages, including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages and spread of hours pay, compensation for not receiving notices and wage statements, liquidated damages, other damages including punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the action pursuant to New York labor laws. New York Health Care is in the business of providing health care services where Jones worked as a manual worker doing a variety of physical and repetitive tasks including, lifting, packing, filing and driving throughout his workday. He claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours a week, all without overtime pay and an extra hour of pay for each day in which they worked a spread of hours in excess of 10 hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com NIKOLA CORPORATION: Malo Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D. Ariz. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as DOUGLAS MALO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NIKOLA CORPORATION DBA NIKOLA MOTOR COMPANY, TREVOR MILTON and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-02168, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on November 20, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of Arizona assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02237-DLR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Unfair Business Practices Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act by misleading the Plaintiff and Class members that their electric trucks are functional for them to purchase the Defendants' common stocks. Nikola Corporation, d/b/a Nikola Motor Company, is a zero-emissions transportation and infrastructure solution provider based in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com NOR-CAL VENTURE: Diosdado Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Cara Diosdado, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NOR-CAL Venture Group, Inc., Varris Management, Inc., Yadav Enterprises, Inc., Anil Yadav and Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0008242 (Cal. Super., October 1, 2020), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest period premiums and derivative penalties for inaccurate wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and Wage Orders and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate restaurants throughout California doing business as "Jack in the Box," where Diosdado worked at their location in Elk Grove, California. She claims to typically work over eight hours per day without being for all hours worked.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. Brittany V. Berzin, Esq. Renald Konini, Esq. Jessica L. Hart, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 OFFERUP INC: Conner Claims Website not Blind-accessible ------------------------------------------------------- Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Offerup Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04639 (E.D. N.Y., September 30, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Offerup operates "Offerup.com" which provides a consumer-to-consumer marketplace which facilitates the transfer of goods between parties. Consumers can view, make monetary offers, and buy directly from manufacturers or from other person's goods such as automobiles, furniture, appliances, clothing, shoes, and other products, among other features. Conner is legally blind and claims that said applications does not contains accessibility options for those who are vision-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel. (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com ONE PLANET OPS: Loftus Slams Illegal Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------- William Loftus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. One Planet Ops, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08876 (C.D. Cal., September 28, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. One Planet Ops operates as "Buyerlink." It called Loftus' cellular telephone number in an attempt to promote its clients' products using an "automatic telephone dialing system." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Zlotky Files Suit v. Trustees --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, et al. The case is styled as Reid Zlotky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY doing business as: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:20-cv-16622-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., Nov. 19, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. The Trustees of Princeton University is a 40-member board responsible for managing Princeton University's endowment, real estate, instructional programs, and admission.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Joseph Kocher, Esq. MCOMBER, MCOMBER AND LUBER 39 E. Main Street Martlon, NJ 08053 Phone: (856) 985-9800 Email: cjk@njlegal.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bid to Certify June 10 Summary Judgment Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID M. RODRIGUEZ v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:17-cv-22652-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to certify the Court's June 10, 2020 summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal. The Court concludes that certification of the Order for interlocutory appeal will not materially advance the resolution of this case. Here, discovery has been completed, dispositive motions have been decided, and the case will be trial-ready as soon as the motion for class certification is resolved. In light of the advanced posture of this case, this factor weighs against certification. P&G may seek appellate review after the entry of a final judgment, the Court says. The Plaintiff is a DACA recipient with legal work authorization. In 2013, he applied for a twelve-week finance and accounting internship at Procter and Gamble (P&G). This action arises out of P&G’s rejection of his application due to its hiring policy for non-citizens. In 2013, through an online screening questionnaire, P&G automatically rejected at the first step of the application process all non-citizen applicants except for legal permanent residents, asylees, and refugees. The Plaintiff initiated a putative class action on behalf of DACA recipients and other work- authorized non-citizens claiming that the policy is facially discriminatory on the basis of alienage in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38UqTAI at no extra charge.[CC] READY WIRE: Electricians Sue Over Denied Overtime Pay, Payslips --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Beaver and Richard Carter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ready Wire Electrical Contractors, LLC and Christopher Stant, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-05109 (S.D. Ohio, September 29, 2020), seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ready Wire is an electrical contracting company serving Pickaway and surrounding counties. It specializes in new residential and commercial electrical services as well as existing service upgrades, panel change outs and whole house generators. Beaver and Carter worked as electricians for Ready Wire. Both claim to be denied overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek and Defendant failed to provide them wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel. (216) 912-2221 Fax: (216) 350-6313 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com REAL HOSPITALITY: Hotel Staff Slams Lack of Closure/Layoff Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kiefer Brazier, Luisairy Gonzalez Pena and Latasha Augustus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Real Hospitality Group, LLC and Real Payroll Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08239 (S.D. N.Y., October 3, 2020), seeks damages as a result of Defendants' failure to timely provide the proper required written notice after being subjected to a mass layoff pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Real Hospitality Group is a nationwide hotel management company, which operates and manages dozens of resorts and hotels across sixteen states including "Cassa Hotel," a boutique hotel located at 45th Street, New York where Plaintiffs are hotel staff. On or around March 23, 2020, Cassa Hotel completely suspended its operations due to the outbreak of CoViD-19. Starting on March 18, 2020, Cassa Hotel provided its employees a written notice that they were being terminated effectively immediately. Said notice allegedly failed to inform its terminated employees of any "bumping rights" and failed to include any statement for the basis of providing notice well after the required notification period. Despite this, a significant number of affected employees did not receive any written notice for months after their termination date.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 275 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1744 New York, NY 10175 Tel: (718) 971-0326 Fax: (718) 795-1642 Email: wbrown@bkllawyers.com RENTOKIL NORTH: Dotan Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as PATRICK DOTAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS-2020466, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 20, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-02216 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, non-compliant wage statements, final wages not timely paid, and unfair business practices. Rentokil North America, Inc. is a company that provides pest control services based in Reading, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jason E. Barsanti, Esq. Brett Greving, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 501 W. Broadway, Suite 1610 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 234-1700 Facsimile: (619) 234-7831 E-mail: jbarsanti@cozen.com bgreving@cozen.com RICO POLLO: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------- CANDIDO RODRIGUEZ, LEWIS REYES, and WENDY JOEL ESTEVEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. RICO POLLO #2 RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a RICO POLLO, LOS HERMANOS RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a RICO POLLO, JUAN F. PUNTIEL, CLEMENTE DE LA CRUZ and JOHN DOE #1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-05727 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages including over time due to a fixed salary, (2) unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, (3) unpaid spread of hours premium, (4) statutory penalties, (5) liquidated damages, and (6) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a collective action on behalf of all non-exempt persons employed by the Defendants in New York State, (including delivery persons, waiters, runners, bussers, porters, cooks, line-cooks, food preparers, and dishwashers) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the initial complaint. The Defendants operate two restaurants under the common trade name "RICO POLLO" in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 RMI INTERNATIONAL: Abedalsalam Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alkhatatbeh Abedalsalam, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. RMI International, Inc.; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV43544 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 12, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engage in unlawful policies and practices including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay all wages, failure to provide timely and compliant meal periods, failure to provide timely and compliant rest periods, failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse all reasonable and necessary business related expenses, and failure to timely pay all wages due to terminated/separated employees. Mr. Abedalsalam worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt security guard, from about March 26, 2018 until approximately April 28, 2020, when he was separated from employment. RMI International, Inc. provides security services. The Company offers consulting, physical security, and executive protection services. RMI International serves customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 Facsimile: (213) 457-3092 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com ROANOKE AIRPORT: Joint Bid for Conditional Collective Cert. Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT BRANDON PINON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROANOKE AIRPORT HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC, and KALYAN PLAZA, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00205-EKD (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "persons employed by the Defendants as Salaried Management Employees who worked at hotels owned, managed, and/or where benefits were administered by either Kalyan Plaza, LLC or Roanoke Airport Hotel Partners, LLC from April 9, 2017 through the present who were classified as exempt"; and 2. authorizing and approving judicial notice as agreed to by the parties to inform potential collective members of the action and to give them an opportunity to join this action as party plaintiffs by opting in. A copy of the joint motion for conditional collective certification dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36M0Ngn at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiffs are: Brittany M. Haddox, Esq. STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW Warehouse Row 119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330 Roanoke, VA 24011 E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com thomas@strelkalaw.com leigh@strelkalaw.com - and - Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.com Counsel for the Defendants are: Susan Childers North, Esq. Jesse D. Pound, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 5425 Discovery Park Boulevard, Suite 200 Williamsburg, VA 23188 Telephone: (757) 903-0870 E-mail: snorth@grsm.com jound@grsm.com ROLLIN COOK: Joint Motion to Amend Class Definition Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT BARFIELD, ET AL. v. ROLLIN COOK, Case No. 3:18-cv-01198-MPS (D. Conn.), the Parties ask the Court for an order to amend the class definition, so that the class of plaintiffs in this action shall be defined as follows: "all inmates, both sentenced and unsentenced, who were, are, or will be confined in a Connecticut Department of Correction facility, since the filing of this complaint until March 1, 2022." On April 1, 2020, the parties filed their proposed settlement agreement, and on November 6, 2020, the parties filed their Proposed Amended Settlement Agreement, agreeing to extend the Agreement to March 1, 2022, says the complaint. Defendant Rollin Cook is a Commissioner in Connecticut Department of Correction. A copy of the joint motion to amend class definition dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kP677X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Krayeske Esq. KENNETH J. KRAYESKE LAW OFFICES 255 Main Street, 5th flr. Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 995-5842 Facsimile: (860) 760-6590 E-mail: attorney@kenkrayeske.com - and - DeVaughn Ward, Esq. WARD LAW LLC 255 Main Street, 5th flr. Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 351-3047 E-mail: dward@attyward.com The Defendant is represented by: Terrence M. O'Neill, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Federal Bar #ct10835 110 Sherman St. Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone: (860) 808-5450 Facsimile: (860) 808-5591 E-mail: terrence.oneill@ct.gov - and - Steven R. Strom, Esq. 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone: (860) 808-5450 Facsimile: (860) 808-5591 E-mail: steven.strom@ct.gs RUBY NAILS TARRYTOWN: Sanango Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Concepcion Bermejo Sanango, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc., Mi Young Kal and Edwin Keh Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-08245, (S.D. N.Y., October 4, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and/or attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York labor laws. Defendants operate as "Ruby Nail," where Sanango was employed as a nail saloon worker. She claims to be denied lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty in a given workweek and full and accurate records of hours and wages. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Fax: (718) 762-1342 Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.Com SALLY BEAUTY: Contents of 1 Liter Items Short of a Liter, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Aileen Goldstein, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-04583 (E.D. N.Y., September 26, 2020), seeks injunctive relief resulting from violations of the California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Sally Beauty Supply operates four thousand "Sally Beauty Supply" stores worldwide with at least half in the United States, selling professional beauty products for hair, skin and nails through third-party brands and exclusive-label professional product lines. At least twice a year, Sally has a "Liter Sale," where many of the previously full price items that are purportedly one liter, are placed on sale. Goldstein claims that most of the items offered in the "Liter Sale" are less than a liter. Products sold as a "liter" are actually thirty-two ounces or 0.9463529 liters. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311 Great Neck, NY 11021-5101 Tel: (516) 303-0552 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Robinson-Luqman Sues Over Race Bias at Work -------------------------------------------------------------- KEKA ROBINSON-LUQMAN and ALICIA WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant, Case No. CGC-20-588012 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., November 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for unequal pay and opportunities in the workplace based on race discrimination in violation of the California Government Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a pattern or practice of race clustering Black employees, including the Plaintiffs, into lower-paying Permanent Civil Service positions, placing them in more hazardous roles, and subjecting them to common pay, promotion, training, performance management, job class, and disciplinary policies and practices that suppress their pay, promotion, and career-enhancing opportunities, and livelihoods. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful actions, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered and continue to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits. City and County of San Francisco is a municipal corporation organized under the laws and Constitution of the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Felicia Medina, Esq. Jennifer Orthwein, Esq. Kevin Love Hubbard, Esq. MEDINA ORTHWEIN LLP 230 Grand Avenue, Suite 201 Oakland, CA 94610 Telephone: (510) 823-2040 Facsimile: (510) 217-3580 E-mail: fmedina@medinaorthwein.com jorthwein@medinaorthwein.com - and – Therese Y. Cannata, Esq. Karl Olson, Esq. Michael M. Ching, Esq. CANNATA O'TOOLE FICKES & OLSON LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 409-8900 Facsimile: (415) 409-8904 E-mail: kolson@cofolaw.com mching@cofolaw.com SAS INSTITUTE: Cahoo Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice to SAS ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN MENDYK, KHADIJA COLE, HYON PAK, and MICHELLE DAVISON, Plaintiffs, v. SAS INSTITUTE INC., FAST ENTERPRISES LLC, CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEPHEN GESKEY, SHEMIN BLUNDELL, DORIS MITCHELL, DEBRA SINGLETON, and SHARON MOFFET-MASSEY, Defendants, Case No. 17-10657 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted SAS Institute's motion to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The five named Plaintiffs have commenced the putative class action to recover damages allegedly caused by the State of Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency's ("UIA") implementation of an automated system to detect and punish individuals who submitted fraudulent unemployment insurance claims. The automated fraud detection computer application that the UIA implemented sometime around 2013 was known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System ("MiDAS"). MiDAS was developed to search for discrepancies in the records of unemployment compensation recipients, automatically determine whether the claimants committed fraud, and execute collection proceedings, which included intercepting tax refunds and garnishing wages. The Plaintiffs say that they are victims of the system's many failures: it lacked human oversight, it detected fraud by certain claimants where none existed, it provided little or no notice to the accused claimants, it failed in many instances to allow administrative appeals, and it assessed penalties and forfeitures against individuals who were blameless. Their amended complaint listed 12 counts against the companies and individuals whom they believe contributed to the State's implementation of the flawed fraud-adjudication system. The case has been whittled down through motion practice and an interlocutory appeal, and now only one procedural due process claim remains. The Defendants have filed a second round of motions to dismiss, raising for the first time that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute because the Plaintiffs cannot establish Article III standing. The Plaintiffs apparently agree with the argument as it applies to Defendant SAS Institute, as they have not responded to the motion and have filed their own motion to dismiss the case with prejudice against that the Defendant. The parties ultimately disagree about how the Court should dismiss SAS. SAS proposed a stipulation to dismiss the case without prejudice, which included a factual narrative. The Plaintiffs rejected the stipulation because they did not agree with SAS' recitation of the facts and insisted (for reasons that remain unknown) that the case be dismissed with prejudice. SAS insists that it cannot stipulate to a dismissal with prejudice even if it wanted to because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it. That dustup aside, it is plain that SAS no longer should be part of the case, Judge Lawson holds. First, the Plaintiffs abandoned their claim against that the Defendant by failing to respond to SAS' motion to dismiss, never mentioning SAS in their class action certification motion, and informing SAS that they have no interest in pursuing the case against SAS. Their abandonment of their claim provides an independent basis for dismissal. Second, the named Plaintiffs' injuries are not fairly traceable to SAS. SAS did not design, implement, or operate MiDAS. SAS' Enterprise Fraud Detection Software ("EFDS") merely provided alerts for the UIA's independent investigation. And neither SAS' employees nor its EFDS software had any involvement in the named Plaintiffs' unemployment claim adjudications because the UIA adjudicated the Plaintiffs' cases before it implemented SAS's EFDS software on June 11, 2015. Because the Plaintiffs have not shown that any of their claimed injuries are fairly traceable to SAS' conduct, they have not established a critical element of standing. Therefore, the Judge dismisses the remaining part of the amended complaint against SAS without prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs have not tendered any evidence to establish the requisite elements of Article III standing as to Defendant SAS. Therefore, the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' dispute with that Defendant. Accordingly, Judge Lawson granted the motion by SAS to dismiss for want of subject matter jurisdiction. The amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant SAS Institute Inc. only. The Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the case against SAS with prejudice is dismissed as moot. A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yywr2chl from Leagle.com. SAUNDERS CORP: Harrington Alleges Wrongful Termination ------------------------------------------------------ RIFEEK HARRINGTON, an individual v. SAUNDERS CORPORATION, a corporation; R.S. HUGHES COMPANY, a corporation; JANET SALL, an individual; Does 1 through 100 Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV43634 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated arising from the Defendants' unlawful labor and practices in violations of the California Labor Code, the California Family Rights Act, the California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a machine operator and shipping coordinator from March 2019 through July 24, 2020, when his employment was terminated. Mr. Harrington alleges he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about unsafe working conditions, violations of law, for having an actual and/or perceived disability, exercising his right to take medical/disability leave, for seeking an accommodation including time off from work due to his actual and/or perceived disability and to obtain critical COVID-19 virus testing. Saunders Corp. is an industrial automation company based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian I. Vogel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL 572 E. Green Street, Suite 305 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 796-7470 SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER GARCIA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., NATIONAL BEVPAK, NATIONAL BEVERAGE CORP. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-07798-JWH-AFM (C.D. Cal., Filed July 26, 2019), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all current and former hourly employees and/or non exempt employees who performed work for any or all of the defendants at either the La Mirada or Buena Park facilities during the time period of July 26, 2015, to the present"; 2. certifying the following subclasses: A. Second Meal Period Subclass of: "all class members who were not authorized or permitted a second uninterrupted 30 minute meal period each time they worked over ten hours in a work shift and were not paid a premium in lieu thereof"; B. Unpaid Wage Subclass of: "all class members who had an automatic thirty minute deduction from their time card and suffered a wage loss because they worked some or all of the time that was automatically deducted from their time card"; C. Unpaid Overtime Subclass of: "all class members who had an automatic thirty minute deduction from their time card and suffered a wage loss, that would have been paid at an overtime rate had the deduction not been made, because they worked some or all of the time that was automatically deducted from their time card"; D. Wage Statement Subclass of: "all class members who received an inaccurate wage statement during the class period"; E. Failure to Pay Premiums Subclass of: "all class members who suffered damage as a result of the defendant’s policy not to pay premiums for missed meals and missed breaks"; F. Unfair Competition Subclass of: "all employees from Subclasses A, B, C, D or E who suffered damage as a result of any of those specific claims"; and G. Terminated Employee Wait Time Penalty Subclass of: "all employees from Subclasses B or C who suffered damages as a result of any of those specific claims and as a result of that were not properly paid all wages on termination or within 72 hours thereof"; and 3. granting reopening discovery so that discovery can be conducted on class issues. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kNCns4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Stevens, Esq. Heather McMillan, Esq. STEVENS & McMILLAN 335 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 730-1000 Facsimile: (714) 730-1067 E-mail: ken@scmclaw.com heather@scmclaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Kondon, Esq. Saman M. Rejali, Esq. Jonathan D. Kintzele K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 Facsimile: (310) 552-5001 E-mail: christopher.kondon@klgates.com saman.rejali@klgates.com Jonathan.kintzele@klgates.com SHEEX INC: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Emanuel Delacruz, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Sheex, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08393 (S.D. N.Y., October 7, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Sheex, Inc., operates the "Sheex" online retail store https://www.sheex.com/ providing consumers with access to an array of sleepwear, beddings and accessories. Delacruz is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal danalgottlieb@aol.com Michael@Gottlieb.legal SHILDAN TEXERE: Angeles Sues Over Bind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Jenisa Angeles, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Shildan Texere LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-08133 (S.D. N.Y., October 1, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Shildan Texere is a clothing and apparel company that owns and operates www.fabrikstyle.com. It offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. Angeles is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 107 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com SIBANYE-STILLWATER: Securities Class Action Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- miningreview.com reports that Sibanye-Stillwater advises that on November 10, 2020, a Brooklyn, New York, Federal Court dismissed with prejudice, a putative securities class action suit seeking damages for allegedly false and/or misleading statements by the Group and CEO Neal Froneman, related to safety incidents in 2018. The class action was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Sibanye-Stillwater ADRs between February 23, 2017 and October 31, 2018, inclusive. The class action was filed shortly after the occurrence of fatal incidents at Sibanye-Stillwater's SA gold operations in H1 2018. The Plaintiffs alleged that, in light of the fatalities, statements that the Defendants made regarding safety were false and misleading and violated the U.S. federal securities laws. In dismissing the class action, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege any violation of the U.S. securities laws, based on their failure to allege any materially false or misleading statements. The Court also found that Plaintiffs failed to establish that the Defendants acted with fraudulent intent, or that their alleged losses were caused by the statements in question. In doing so, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to file a further amended complaint, finding that it would be futile, and directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment and close the case. These Court proceedings are thus concluded, subject to any further proceedings required in the trial court to finalize a judgment and any appeals that may be lodged. Group CEO Neal Froneman commenting on the dismissal said: "We are extremely pleased with the outcome of the class action. We take the safety of our employees very seriously and ensuring a safe and enabling work environment is a primary focus throughout the Group. "The judgment validates our decision to oppose this class action and to protect the interests of our stakeholders against spurious and opportunistic legal actions." [GN] SIXT RENT-A-CAR: Vitale-Renner Sues Over Insurance Premiums ----------------------------------------------------------- KRISTINA VITALE-RENNER v. SIXT RENT-A-CAR, LLC, and NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No. 0:20-cv-62289-RAR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated arising from Sixt's unfair and deceptive self-enrichment scheme through supplemental insurance policy it obtained from National Casualty Company, in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, Sixt acquired a "Supplemental Liability Excess Policy" from Defendant NCC, for sale to individual renters at sums far in excess of the actual premium remitted to NCC. The premiums paid by renters to Sixt and not remitted to NCC allegedly constitute a hidden profit center for Sixt, undisclosed to consumers including the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff contends that Sixt has breached its contract by overcharging of premiums; Sixt, as NCC's agent, has fraudulently misrepresented the price of the SLI Policy, for which both Sixt and NCC are liable; and Sixt has been unjustly enriched under Florida law. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC, is a Delaware corporation and U.S. based subsidiary of its parent company Sixt S.E. The Company is the primary entity responsible for Sixt's U.S. vehicle rental operations, and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. National Casualty Company operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Lynch, Esq. CHRISTOPHER J. LYNCH, P.A. 6915 Red Road, Suite 208 Coral Gables, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 443-6200 Facsimile: (305) 443-6204 E-mail: Clynch@hunterlynchlaw.com SJ EUS FOOD: Faces Davis Suit in California Over ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SJ EUS Food Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Freeman Ray Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SJ EUS Food Inc. doing business as: Sarku Japan, a Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 3:20-cv-02209-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2020). The lawsuit arises over Defendants' alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Dana M. Sabraw. SJ EUS Food Inc. is part of a chain of teriyaki and sushi Japanese restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CORTESE, JAMES KEARNEY, DANIEL JULIO, JOHN SICILIANO, JEFFREY BROOKS, and MARK LEYBLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SKANSKA KOCH, INC., KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO., and SKANSKA KOCH - KIEWIT JV, Case No. 1:20-cv-01632-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting their motion for conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, on behalf of: "all current and former New Jersey union members employed by the Defendants on the Bayonne Bridge "Raise the Roadway Plan" construction project (the "Project") who have been denied payment of one-and-a-half times the New York City prevailing wage rate and/or the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rate for Richmond County, New York for all hours over 40 hours per week for work performed on the New York side of the Bayonne Bridge span within the last three years ("Covered Employees")"; 2. approving Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to Covered Employees, including a consent form (or opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA; 3. approving proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 4. allowing Production in Excel format of names, Social Security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, all known and telephone numbers of all Covered Employees within 10 days of Court approval of conditional certification; and 5. posting of the notice, along with the consent forms, in the Defendants' place of business where Covered Employees are employed during regular business hours. On April 17, 2014, the Defendants entered in a contract with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ("PANY") to serve as the general contractor for the Project (the "PANY Agreement"). Between March 2014 and February 2019, the Plaintiffs were W-2 employees of Defendant SKKJV on the Project. On February 25, 2020, and as subsequently amended by the Third Amended Complaint on October 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Class and Collective Action Complaint against the defendants, seeking unpaid wages under the FLSA and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Complaint seeks to recover damages because Defendants failed to pay the Covered Employees at one and a half times (i) the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rate for Richmond County, or (ii) the New York City prevailing wage that was being paid to New York union member employees for the same work on the New York side of the Bayonne Bridge span for all hours over 40 per week for work performed on the New York City side of the Bayonne Bridge span as required by Defendants' agreement with the PANY for the Project. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fbs3sk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bob Kasolas, Esq. Michael H. Ansell, Esq. 101 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-5700 E-mail: bkasolas@bracheichler.com mansell@bracheichler.com The Defendants are represented by: PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C. 1325 Avenue of the Americas 10th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 382-0909 STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Grissom Sues Over Erroneous Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------------ Grace Grissom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07948, (S.D. N.Y., September 25, 2020), seeks statutory and punitive damages, actual damages suffered due to Sterling's negligent and inaccurate reporting, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Grissom applied to be a nanny through Care.com. In connection with the hiring process, Sterling Infosystems produced a background check on her that reported a felony burglary and grand theft charges. Grissom claims that those charges are erroneous and not hers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John Albanese, Esq. BERGER AND MONTAGUE 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Tel: (612) 594-5933 Fax: (612) 584-4470 Email: jalbanese@bm.net emdrake@bm.net STOCKTON NURSING: Hudson Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Refunds --------------------------------------------------------- Linda Hudson, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stockton Nursing And Rehab Center, LLC, Eduro Healthcare, LLC, Dycora Transitional Health - Stockton, LLC, Grant Garrison and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0008507 (Cal. Super., October 7, 2020), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal and rest period premiums and derivative penalties for inaccurate wage statements and reimbursement of cellphone charges under the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and Wage Orders, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hudson began working at the Stockton Nursing and Rehab Facility (formerly Golden Living Hy-Pana), as a Unit Manager in or around 2013 in a facility owned and operated by Golden Living. Said facility was taken over by Dycora until June 2019, when Eduro Healthcare, LLC, took over operations, doing business as Stockton Nursing and Rehab Center. Hudson claims to have routinely worked well in excess of forty hours in a workweek and was not able to take an uninterrupted thirty minute lunch break. She also claims to have incurred cellphone charges in line with her duties but was not reimbursed for such.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. Brittany V. Berzin, Esq. Renald Konini, Esq. Jessica L. Hart, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 THIRD AVENUE: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMILCAR ROMEO PEREZ, FIDEL AVILA PEREZ, and LUIS EDUARDO GUARCAX CHILEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THIRD AVENUE FOOD CORP. (D/B/A TIVOLI CAFE), GUS KASSIMIS, and JAIME DOE A/K/A JIMMY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09832 (S.D.N.Y., November 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay spread of hours premium, failure to provide a written wage notice, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, unlawful tip and wage deductions, and failure to pay wages in timely manner. Plaintiff Amilcar Romeo Perez was employed by the Defendants as a cook at Tivoli Cafe from approximately January 2017 until on or about September 13, 2020. Plaintiff Fidel Avila Perez was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker at Tivoli Cafe from approximately August 2017 until on or about September 4, 2020. Plaintiff Luis Eduardo Guarcax Chilel was employed by the Defendants as a cook at Tivoli Cafe from approximately October 2018 until on or about September 13, 2020. Third Avenue Food Corp., d/b/a Tivoli Cafe, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 283 3rd Ave., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 TOTAL RENAL: Hesketh Labor Class Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as JOSEPH J. HESKETH III, on his behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v. TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC., on its own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Case No. 20-2-15575-6-SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on November 23, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01733-JLR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by failing to pay class members premium pay for the regularly schedule hours worked after a national emergency was declared on January 31, 2020. Total Renal Care, Inc. is a health care services provider headquartered in Denver, Colorado. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Chelsea Dwyer Petersen, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com TOWER HILL: Fails to Reimburse Medical Expenses, MSP Recovery Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC v. TOWER HILL PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, TOWER HILL SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, TOWER HILL SIGNATURE INSURANCE COMPANY, OMEGA INSURANCE COMPANY, ROCKHILL INSURANCE COMPANY, and INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00262 (N.D. Fla., Nov. 11, 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 accidents that are covered by property and casualty insurance policies issued by the Defendants. 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 Medicare Advantage Plans to the detriment of the Medicare Trust Funds and the public. The Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to be paid or reimbursed at industry standard rates by the defendant primary payers, the suit says. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC 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. The Defendants are insurance providers in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. Janpaul Portal, Esq. James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. Brickell World Plaza 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 Facsimile: (305) 379-6222 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com jpp@ferrarolaw.com jjr@ferrarolaw.com - and - John H. Ruiz, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com TRALEE AFFORDABLE: Two Settlement Classes Certified in Davis Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE DAVIS v. TRALEE AFFORDABLE PANTHER LLC d/b/a DEERFIELD CROSSING APARTMENTS and RAM PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00349-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement; 2. certifying settlement classes: -- Collection Letter Class: "all natural persons who (a) at any point between February 19, 2015 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) received a letter that threatened that Defendants would file a summary ejectment lawsuit, an eviction action, or notice to vacate the premises if the person failed to make a complete rental payment and that once the summary ejectment lawsuit was filed, the tenant would be charged Eviction Fees in order to dismiss the eviction action." There are approximately 931 potential Collection Letter Class members.; and -- Eviction Fee Class: "all natural persons who (a) at any point between February 19, 2015 and June 25, 2018, (b) resided in any of the properties in North Carolina owned and/or managed by Defendants and (c) were charged and (d) actually paid Eviction Fees." There are approximately 150 Eviction Fee Class members. Excluded from the Settlement Classes are (1) persons who are employees, directors, officers, and agents of Defendants; (2) persons who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Settlement Classes as provided in this Agreement; (3) anyone who has previously executed a written release of all claims against Defendants related to the collecting or threatening to collect Eviction Fees and would otherwise be a member o 3. appointing Edward H. Maginnis and Karl S. Gwaltney of Maginnis Law, PLLC, and Scott C. Harris and Patrick M. Wallace of Whitfield Bryson LLP as settlement classes counsel; 4. appointing the Plaintiff Jasmine Davis as settlement classes representative; 5. approving classes notice; and 6. scheduling a fairness hearing on March 22, 2021. A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pCb47B at no extra charge.[CC] TTAC PUBLISHING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Shultz TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant TTAC Publishing, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHELLE SHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. TTAC PUBLISHING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04375-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. The lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff after she received a series of unsolicited telemarketing text messages on her personal cellular telephone by or on behalf of Defendant beginning in November 2019. She further alleges that these text messages were sent using an automatic telephone dialing system. The Plaintiff denies ever providing her prior express consent to receive such texts. On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiff brings a single cause of action for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On October 26, 2020, the court denies the motion to compel arbitration filed by the Defendant. The Defendant's motion to strike is premised on the same argument that, like Plaintiff, class members who received text messages from the Defendant also agreed to the Terms and Conditions when completing purchases on the Defendant's Website. The appellate case is captioned as Michelle Shultz v. TTAC Publishing, LLC, Case No. 20-17300, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, November 24, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MICHELLE SHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard Drury, Esq. LOZEAU DRURY LLP 410 12th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 836-4200 E-mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com - and - Patrick Harry Peluso, Esq. Taylor True Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0676 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com Defendant-Appellant TTAC PUBLISHING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, is represented by: Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448 Telephone: (310) 228-2259 E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com U.S. CITIZENSHIP: ITServe et al. Drop Third Cause of Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ITSERVE ALLIANCE, INC., et al., v. KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI II, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Case No. 1:20-cv-00201-APM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs on November 25, 2020, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the Third Cause of Action in their Second Amended Complaint. The Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an Order dated November 17, 2020, denying in part and holding in abeyance in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Faced with this predicament, the court deferred ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety pending further instruction from the Plaintiffs as to the alternative relief sought by the Defendant -- transferring the action to the Court of Federal Claims. The parties were slated to appear for a telephonic status hearing on November 30, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The Plaintiffs in this putative class action are ITServe Alliance, Inc., a trade organization, and various of its member companies. They brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asserting that since January 2014, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has illegally charged sponsoring employers an excessive fee for filing change-of-status applications for H1-B visa beneficiaries who are already in the United States. They contend that USCIS has collected nearly $350 million in excessive fees. A copy of the Court's Order memorandum, opinion and order dated Nov. 17, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m8PIMM at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Catholic Charities' Class Cert. Bid Denied as Moot ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GATORE et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 1:15-cv-00459 (D.C., Filed March 31, 2015), the Hon. Judge Reggie B. Walton entered an order: 1. dismissing case with prejudice as to all claims and causes of action brought by the plaintiff Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington; 2. denying as moot Catholic Charities' Motion for Class Certification; and 3. denying as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Catholic Charities' Policy-or-Practice Claim. The suit alleges violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries.[CC] UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Health Providers Files ERISA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, P.A., as an authorized representative of its patients, and American Surgical Arts, P.C., as an authorized representative of its patient J.C., on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Unitedhealth Group Inc., United Healthcare Services, Inc., United Healthcare Insurance Company, United Healthcare Service LLC, Oxford Health Plans, LLC, and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-13834 (D. N.J., October 2, 2020), seeks an order requiring United to repay all class members, with interest, for the amount of out-of-network benefits denied. The lawsuit also seeks an order for United to reprocess all wrongfully denied appeals in compliance with plan terms and without the improper reductions, plus equitable payments, disbursements and expenses of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Atlantic Neuro and American Surgical are medical providers who claim to have been shortchanged on treatment payments for their patients covered by United. The latter is in the business of insuring and administering health plans including those of Atlantic Neuro and American Surgical. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Zefutie, Jr. COLELLA ZEFUTIE LLC 116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200 Princeton Forrestal Village Princeton, NJ 08540 Tel: (609) 551-9771 Fax: (202) 920-0894 Email: jzefutie@czlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT: Toro Suit Removed to Conn. Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled ABIGAIL TORO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Case No. FBT-CV20-6101151-S, was removed from the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on November 12, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of Connecticut assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01701-SRU to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's failure to reimburse the Plaintiff's and the Class' payment of tuition and fees for in-person and on-campus live education during the semesters affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The University of Bridgeport is a private university in Bridgeport, Connecticut. The university is accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Megan E. Bryson, Esq. KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYAN LLP 1010 Washington Blvd., 7th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 557-5700 Facsimile: (203) 557-5777 E-mail: mbryson@kbrlaw.com UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS: Butterfield Seeks Healthcare Staff's OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE BUTTERFIELD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, INC., d/b/a MARSHALL HEALTH, Case No. 3:20-cv-00759 (S.D.W. Va., November 11, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated, who work or worked for the Defendant as health care workers during the past four years, were denied a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the overtime hours they worked. University Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., doing business as Marshall Health, is a medical group practice located in Huntington, West Virginia that specializes in general surgery and critical care surgery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hoyt Glazer, Esq. Abraham J. Saad, Esq. GLAZER SAAD ANDERSON L.C. 320 Ninth Street, Suite B Huntington, WV 25701 Telephone: (304) 522-4149 Facsimile: (800) 879-7248 E-mail: hoyt@gsalaw-wv.com abe@gsalaw-wv.com VEST MONROE: Unlawfully Discloses Mental Health Records, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VEST MONROE, LLC, US HEALTHVEST, LLC, RV BEHAVIORAL, LLC, AMY ALEXANDER, AND JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2020CV342479 (Ga. Super., Fulton Cty., Nov. 12, 2020) arises from Defendants' disregard of the Plaintiff's privacy interests by disclosing his highly confidential, legally protected mental and behavioral health records. The Plaintiff brought this action for the Defendants' disregard of his privacy interests. As a former patient of Ridgeview Institute Monroe, a private hospital that treats individuals with addiction and mental health problems, he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his medical records and the personal identifying information and protected health information they contain. He contends that as a result of the Defendants' negligence, breaches of agreement and other tortious misconduct, his health records and 1,852 similarly situated individuals were released to unauthorized individuals, in whose possession such records remain. The unauthorized disclosure of the Plaintiffs' mental and behavioral health records has harmed the Plaintiff and the Class members in numerous ways, including but not limited to loss and invasion of privacy, loss of property, pecuniary loss, and loss of control of their highly sensitive mental and behavioral health records, the suit says. HealthVest, Vest Monroe, and RV Behavioral Health own and/or operate Ridgeview Institute Monroe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy R. Kelly, IV, Esq. Caitlin J. Derst, Esq. KELLY & KELLY, LLP 301 East 37th Street Savannah, GA 31401 E-mail: rkelly@kklegal.com cderst@kklegal.com VICTORIA'S SECRET: Silva Sues Over Manual Workers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, YVONNE SILVA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09745 (S.D.N.Y., November 19, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately September 2017 through February 2020 as a manual worker spending at least 25% of her time engaging in physical labor. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manual workers were required by the Defendant to work in excess of 40 hours a week, but the Defendant deprived them of their lawfully earned overtime at one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Additionally, the Defendant failed to pay all their commissions earned, failed to timely pay them all wages owed to them, and failed to provide them with accurate wage statements and with a hiring notice at or before their times of hire. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC owns and operates retail stores throughout New York State. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bouklas, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 357 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 Tel: (516) 742-4949 E-mail: james@bglawny.com VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT: Winks Suit Seeks Collective Action Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET AMANDA WINKS, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00420-HEH (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action; 2. tolling the statute of limitations applicable to the claims of putative opt-ins from the date of June 11, 2020; 3. approving Notice to the putative Plaintiffs; and 4. directing the Defendant to provide the names and addresses of potential class members, in electronic form. Virginia Department of Transportation is the agency of the state government responsible for transportation in the state of Virginia in the United States. VDOT is headquartered at the Virginia Department of Highways Building in downtown Richmond. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective certification dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Uz2SGZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sydney E. Rab, Esq. THE RAB LAW FIRM 5407 Langdon Drive Richmond, Va. 23225 Telephone: (804) 822-8981 E-mail: Msydrab@comcast.net - and - Tim Schulte, Esq. Blackwell N. Shelley, Jr., Esq. Shelley Cupp Schulte, P.C. 3 W. Cary Street Richmond VA 23220 Telephone: (804) 644-9700 Facsimile; (804) 278-9634 E-mail: schulte@scs-work.com shelley@scs-work.com - and - Timothy E. Cupp, Esq. SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C. 1951 Evelyn Byrd Avenue, Suite D Harrisonburg, VA 22803 Telephone: (540) 432-9988 Facsimile: (804) 278-9634 E-mail: Cupp@scs-work.com The Defendant is represented by: Jimmy F. Robinson, Esq. J. Clay Rollins, Esq. Scott A. Siegner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 Riverfront Plaza, West Tower Richmond, VA 23219 E-mail: jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com clay.rollins@ogletreedeakins.com scott.siegner@ogletreedeakins.com VITAMIN COTTAGE: Conditional Cert. of Managers' Class Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VITAMIN COTTAGE NATURAL FOOD MARKETS INC., doing business as Natural Grocers, Case No. 1:20-cv-00261-ST (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: 1. granting Levine's Motion for Conditional Certification; 2. conditionally certifying following class for purposes of Levine's Fair Labor Standards Act collective action claims: "all current and former "Assistant Store Managers" who worked for Natural Grocers in the United States at any time on or after January 31, 2017 to the present, and who were classified as exempt from overtime compensation"; and 3. directing the parties to meet and confer and draft a stipulated Notice and process for the collective action no later than November 23, 2020. The Court declines Natural Grocers' invitation to weigh the competing deposition testimony at the conditional certification stage. Accordingly, the Court finds that Levine has made substantial allegations that the putative class is similarly situated. The Court thus grants the Motion for Conditional Certification. Vitamin Cottage is a Colorado based health food chain. A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 6, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36MefRp at no extra charge.[CC] VIVINT SOLAR: Faces Chavez Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved employees v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., a Delaware corporation; VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV43755 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 13, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have: (1) failed to provide him and all other aggrieved employees with meal periods; (2) failed to provide them with rest periods; (3) failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; (4) failed to properly record their meal and rest breaks; (5) failed to pay them minimum wages for all hours worked; (6) failed to pay them overtime wages; (7) failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements; (8) failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment; and (9) and failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenditures incurred. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the State of California as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately October 2019 through March 2020. Vivint Solar, Inc. is an American solar energy company headquartered in Lehi, Utah. It is a residential solar provider that designs, installs, and maintains photovoltaic systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com david@setarehlaw.com WASHINGTON: Class Certification Bid in "Taylor" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE TAYLOR, et al. v. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES - FAR AND CPS DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01869-RAJ-JRC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge J. Richard Creatura entered an order denying Plaintiff's motions for: -- the appointment of counsel; -- class certification; and -- Rule 16 Case Management. The Court said, "The Plaintiff requests the appointment of pro bono counsel to represent her. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a civil action, and whether to appoint counsel is within this Court's discretion. The Court has recommended dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. The Court finds that plaintiff's request to certify a class is, at present, premature, in light of the pending reports and recommendations, and her motion for class certification is denied. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a case management order in light of the complexity of the action and number of named defendants. The Court has issued its scheduling order. And, a pretrial conference in this matter is premature, in light of the pending reports and recommendations. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for a case management order is denied." A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Uzz8cL at no extra charge.[CC] WELLPATH LLC: Shortchanges Workers Overtime Pay, Myles Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Shalonda Myles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WellPath LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01498 (E.D. Wis., September 28, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, compensation for missed breaks, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. WellPath LLC contracts with governmental and private entities across the United States to provide healthcare services to inmates. Myles worked as an hourly-paid, non-exempt registered nurse working at the Milwaukee County Jail. She claims that Wellpath failed to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses, shift differentials, incentives, awards and/or other rewards and payments, in employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com WELLS FARGO BANK: Phone Bankers Sue Over Unpaid Hours ----------------------------------------------------- Denise Droesch and Shakara Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06751 (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked exceeding forty in a workweek, statutory penalties, including liquidated damages, costs and fees and penalties for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina and California labor laws. Wells Fargo employed Droesch and Thompson as Premier Phone Banker at Wells Fargo's California Business Banking Call Center and Financial Crimes Specialist III at Wells Fargo's Charlotte, North Carolina Fraud Department Call Center. They claim to be uncompensated for the time spent in booting up their computers and open various software programs necessary for handling a call. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C. 8330 Allison Ave., Suite C La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 488-6400 Email: christina@chumphreylaw.com - and - L. Michelle Gessner, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC Post Office Box 78161 Charlotte, NC 28271 Tel: (844) 437-7634 Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement in ATM Access Fee Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company 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 has reached a settlement in principle pursuant to which the Company will pay $20.8 million to resolve the ATM Access Fee-related suit, subject to final documentation of the settlement agreement. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks, violates antitrust rules. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law. Two other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed in the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a defendant. On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the three actions. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the district court for further proceedings. On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the three cases returned to the district court for further proceedings. The Company has entered into an agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay $20.8 million to resolve the cases, subject to court approval. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company 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 an appeal has been taken from the court order granting final approval of a settlement in the class action related to guaranteed automobile protection (GAP). A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud class action against the Company and its executive officers alleging material misstatements and omissions of collateral protection insurance (CPI)-related information in the Company's public disclosures. In January 2020, the court dismissed this action as to all defendants except the Company and a former executive officer and limited the action to two alleged misstatements. In addition, the Company is subject to a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that customers are entitled to refunds related to the unused portion of GAP waiver or insurance agreements between the customer and dealer and, by assignment, the lender. Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and state court in California. The court dismissed the state court action in September 2018, but the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2018. The parties to the state court action have entered into an agreement to resolve the action pursuant to which the Company will pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and undertake certain business and governance practices. The state court granted final approval of the settlement on January 15, 2020, and a notice of appeal has been filed. These and other issues related to the origination, servicing, and collection of consumer automobile loans, including related insurance products, have also subjected the Company to formal or informal inquiries, investigations, or examinations from federal and state government agencies. In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50 state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the Company paid $575 million. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 29 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of Wells Fargo & Company shareholders. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. WFC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form-2?prid=10898&wire=1 Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) WFC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 13, 2017 - October 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 29, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form-2?prid=10898&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wells Fargo & Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) although defendants reassured investors that Wells Fargo's commercial credit portfolios were of exceptional credit quality and the product of robust, industry-leading underwriting and due diligence policies and procedures, Wells Fargo actually fueled its rapid commercial loan growth by lending to businesses that posed a heightened risk of default; 2) Wells Fargo systematically concealed these credit risks by artificially inflating the incomes generated by borrowing businesses, relaxing or failing to follow applicable underwriting procedures, and circumventing applicable risk controls; and 3) Wells Fargo exacerbated the threat posed by its defective commercial debt by packaging the loans into CLOs and CMBS and widely distributing these securitized products throughout the financial system. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Shareholder Securities Fraud Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Wells Fargo & Company 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 securities fraud class action suit brought by its shareholders. Wells Fargo shareholders have brought a securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers made false or misleading statements regarding the Company's efforts to comply with the February 2018 consent order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the April 2018 consent orders with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: Wilson Sues Over Improper Charging of Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- MOSANTHONY WILSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & CO., WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02307-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2020) seeks statutory damages under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, restitution, and injunctive relief due to, inter alia, Defendant's policy and practice of obtaining "affirmative consent" using a noncompliant opt-in disclosure agreement, unlawfully assessing and unilaterally collecting overdraft fees. Wells Fargo has allegedly violated and continues to violate Federal Reserve Regulation E, which requires that before financial institutions are permitted to charge overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions, they must provide a complete, accurate, clear, and easily understandable disclosure document of their overdraft services; they must provide that disclosure as a stand-alone document not intertwined with other disclosures; and they must obtain verifiable agreement of a customer's agreement to opt-in to the financial institution's overdraft program. Specifically, in order to purportedly comply with the Regulation E requirements, the Defendant provides its customers including the Plaintiff with the Regulation E opt-in disclosure agreement that describes the bank's overdraft service as "What You Need to Know About Overdrafts and Overdraft Fees". Wells Fargo's Regulation E opt-in disclosure agreement, however, provides customers with ambiguous and misleading language to describe the circumstances when Wells Fargo will charge the customer an overdraft fee. Not only does it not disclose the use of the available balance to assess overdraft fees, it describes an overdraft using language that conveys Wells Fargo's use of the actual balance instead of the artificial available balance to assess overdraft fees, the suit says. Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with managerial offices throughout the United States and overseas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557 1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com - and - Emily J. Kirk, Esq. McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 231 N. Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-6116 Facsimile: (618) 307-6161 E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com WEST SHORE: Faces Beiswinger Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- ERICA BEISWINGER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEST SHORE HOME LLC, a Pennsylvania company, Case No. 3:20-cv-01286-HES-PDB (M.D. Fla., Nov. 15, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brought this action to stop the Defendant from violating the TCPA by making pre-recorded telemarketing calls without consent to consumers, including those whose phone numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call registry, to promote the renovations sweepstakes in which consumers can get $5,000 towards a home renovation. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by the Defendant's conduct. West Shore Home LLC operates corporate-owned offices through the U.S. that provide construction and remodeling services including windows, doors, showers, baths and walk-in tubs to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com WESTPAC BANKING: Class Action Proceeding in Australia Discontinued ------------------------------------------------------------------ Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the Johnson Winter & Slattery proceeding was discontinued in May 2020 by agreement between Westpac, the applicant in that proceeding and the applicant in the Phi Finney McDonald proceeding. Westpac is defending a class action proceeding which was commenced in December 2019 in the Federal Court of Australia by law firm Phi Finney McDonald, on behalf of certain investors in Westpac securities between 16 December 2013 and 19 November 2019. The proceeding involves allegations relating to market disclosure issues connected to Westpac's monitoring of financial crime over the relevant period and matters which are the subject of the AUSTRAC proceedings. The claims do not identify the amount of any damages sought. However, given the time period in question and the nature of the claims it is likely that the damages which will be alleged will be significant. No provision has been taken in relation to the potential exposure. A second class action in relation to similar issues was commenced by law firm Johnson Winter & Slattery in March 2020. The Phi Finney McDonald claim was subsequently amended to include the group members from the Johnson Winter & Slattery proceeding. The Johnson Winter & Slattery proceeding was discontinued in May 2020 by agreement between Westpac, the applicant in that proceeding and the applicant in the Phi Finney McDonald proceeding. Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank, Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered in Sydney, Australia. WESTPAC BANKING: Initial Trial in Australia Suit Set for May 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that initial trial in the class action suit against the company and Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (WLIS), is set for May 2021. On 12 October 2017, a class action was filed in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of customers who, since February 2011, obtained insurance issued by Westpac Life Insurance Services Limited (WLIS) on the recommendation of financial advisers employed within the Westpac Group. The plaintiffs have alleged that aspects of the financial advice provided by those advisers breached fiduciary and statutory duties owed to the advisers' clients, including the duty to act in the best interests of the client, and that WLIS was knowingly involved in those alleged breaches. Westpac and WLIS are defending the proceedings. The matter has been set down for an initial trial in May 2021. Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank, Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered in Sydney, Australia. WESTPAC BANKING: Settlement Reached in Rosen Law Firm Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Westpac Banking Corporation said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the class action suit initiated by the Rosen Law Firm. In January 2020, a US class action was commenced by the Rosen Law Firm, naming Westpac, its current CEO and its former CEO as defendants. It was brought on behalf of certain investors in Westpac securities between 11 November 2015 and 19 November 2019. That claim related to market disclosure issues connected to Westpac's monitoring of financial crime over the relevant period and matters which are the subject of the AUSTRAC proceedings. The parties have agreed to settle this proceeding on a wholly without admissions basis and on the basis that in return for full releases from the class members in the proceeding, Westpac will pay an amount of US$3.1million. The settlement remains subject to approval by the District Court of Oregon and a process to give class members an option to opt out. Westpac said, "In light of the above developments, Westpac has taken a provision in respect of the settlement." Westpac Banking Corporation provides various banking and financial services in Australia, New Zealand, Asia, the Pacific region, and internationally. It operates through five divisions: Consumer Bank, Business Bank, BT Financial Group, Westpac Institutional Bank, and Westpac New Zealand. The company was formerly known as Bank of New South Wales and changed its name to Westpac Banking Corporation in October 1982. The company was founded in 1817 and is headquartered in Sydney, Australia. WHELAN SECURITY: Goto Remanded to San Francisco Cty. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California remanded the case, MICHAEL ANTHONY GOTO, Plaintiff, v. WHELAN SECURITY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01114-HSG (N.D. Cal.), to the San Francisco County Superior Court. On Jan. 10, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the proposed class action in San Francisco County Superior Court against Defendant Whelan and Does 1 through 10. He subsequently filed his first amended class action complaint on Feb. 7, 2020. The operative complaint alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in California from approximately April 2012 to October 2019, specifically as a non-exempt supervisor from about 2015 until October 2019. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other similarly situated current and former non-exempt and exempt supervisory and office employees of the Defendant who worked in California and all individuals who were subjected to a background check by the Defendant. He further seeks to represent the following classes and/or subclasses: (1) overtime wage class; (2) minimum and regular wage class; (3) vacation pay class; (4) rest period class; (5) wage statement class; (6) waiting time class; (7) unreimbursed expenses class; and (8) background check class. Id. In total, the Plaintiff alleges 20 causes of action on behalf of himself and the putative class against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and various California state law claims, including violations of labor laws, the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, and Private Attorneys General Act. The Defendant timely filed a notice of removal on Feb. 12, 2020, asserting federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. It identified two bases for federal question jurisdiction. First, the Plaintiff's FCRA cause of action arises under federal law. Second, a substantial portion of the alleged events giving rise to the Plaintiff's claims occurred on a federal enclave. Finally, the Defendant asserted that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining alleged events, even those that did not occur in the Presidio. The Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action because he alleges only a "bare procedural violation" of the FCRA, such that he lacks standing, and he has not alleged that any claims occurred or arose on a federal enclave. Additionally, he argues that the Court should decline to extend supplemental jurisdiction where it lacks original jurisdiction. Judge Gilliam finds that the Plaintiff parrots the language of the statute and contends that the Defendant obtained consumer reports and investigative consumer reports multiple times after the application process and during the employment of the Plaintiff and the other Class members. The Plaintiff does not allege belated discovery of these reports or plead anything about his state of mind at all, and the Judge thus cannot infer that the Plaintiff is claiming that he was confused by the inclusion of the "extraneous language." Because the Plaintiff has pled no more than a bare procedural violation of the FCRA (which appears to have been an intentional choice), he does not have Article III standing and the Court lacks jurisdiction over the FCRA claim. Based on the materials submitted to the Court, the Plaintiff has indicated that he does not intend to base his state claims on time worked at the Presidio client site, nor do the allegations clearly implicate such conduct. As a result, the Judge does not have jurisdiction over the California state law claims based on the federal enclave doctrine. Finally, Section 1367(a) provides that in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts will have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. The Judge finds that the Court lacks original jurisdiction under the two bases identified by the Defendant. Thus, the Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. For the reasons set forth, Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand. The case is remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court. The clerk is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 11, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5qdc42z from Leagle.com. WORKFORCE RESOURCES: Abdul Jamil Class Action Settlement Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMAD JAWAD ABDUL JAMIL, AHMAD JAMSHID ABDUL JAMIL, AHMAD FARHAD ABDUL JAMIL, individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, v. WORKFORCE RESOURCES, LLC; BRISTOL BAY NATIVE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00027-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; and 2. granting the Plaintiffs' Fee Motion bacause the requested attorneys' fees, costs, service awards, Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) award, and settlement administration expenses are reasonable; 3. approving Class Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of 22 $300,000 and reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $8,639.45; 4. approving class representative service payments to named Plaintiffs Ahmad Jawad Abdul Jamil, Ahmad Jamshid Abdul Jamil, and Ahmad Farhad Abdul Jamil in the amount of $10,000 each, for a total of $30,000; 5. approving settlement administration fees and expenses to Simpluris, the Settlement Administrator, in the amount of $12,500; 6. approving the PAGA Award in the amount of $10,000; and 7. retaining 7 exclusive jurisdiction over this action and the Parties, including the class, for purposes of enforcing the terms and conditions of the Settlement. The Defendants removed the action to federal court on January 24, 2018. Th Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint on July 20, 2018, adding a claim for civil penalties under the Labor Code PAGA. Because the Defendants' prior motion to dismiss was dismissed as moot, the Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims, which the Court denied. The Parties attended two Early Neutral Evaluation Conferences with the Honorable Nita L. Stormes, on April 23 and July 29, 2019, but were unable to reach a settlement. On September 24, 2019, the Parties attended a mediation conducted by Jill Sperber, Esq., during which they reached the Proposed Settlement Agreement. On February 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs of a separate, related putative class action, Abikar v. Bristol Bay Native Corporation, No. 18CV1700 JLS (AGS) (S.D. Cal. filed July 25, 2018), filed a motion to intervene and objection to the proposed settlement, they subsequently withdrew, leaving the Preliminary Approval Motion unopposed. On June 9, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs Preliminary Approval Declaration of Kevin Mahoney in Support of Prelim. On July 14, 2020, the Court-approved notice of the Settlement was sent via U.S. first class mail to the 1,087 members of the class, fifty-four of which ultimately were undeliverable. The Parties are now before the Court to seek the Court's final approval of their Settlement and attorneys' fees, costs, service awards, PAGA award, and settlement administration expenses. The Plaintiffs Ahmad Jawad Abdul Jamil, Ahmad Jamshid Abdul Jamil, and Ahmad Farhad Abdul Jamil filed a putative class action complaint against Workforce Resources in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego on September 27, 2017. The allegations included failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal and rest periods; failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements; and failure timely to pay wages due at separation in violation of various provisions of the California Labor Code, says the complaint. Wokforce Resources is a national corporation providing project management and staff augmentation to federal, state and local governments as well as the private sector. Bristol Bay Native Corporation is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 in settlement of aboriginal land claims. A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 5, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35E3YHC at no extra charge.[CC] WRIGHT OF INDIANA: Underpays Flaggers, Grammer Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- LONNIE J. GRAMMER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WRIGHT OF INDIANA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03041-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., November 19, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was hired by the Defendant as one of its flaggers who protect utility workers, alleges that the Defendant violated its rights to earned overtime through its unlawful overtime calculation and payment policies. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated Flaggers' wages and overtime wages have been systematically being underpaid by the Defendant by failing to pay them on a continuous workday basis. Specifically, the Defendant refused to pay their time spent traveling for the Defendant's business as well as the time spent performing post-shift duties at an assigned meeting location designated by the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and on behalf of members of the Class of current and former Flaggers of the Defendant, all available damages, including all unpaid wages, all underpaid wages, all unlawfully deducted wages, all available liquidated damages, and all attorney's fees, costs and expenses. Wright of Indiana, LLC provides traffic control service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terry Haute, IN 47807 Tel: (812) 232-9691 Fax: (812) 234-2881 E-mail: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com - and – Aaron J. Williamson, Esq. WILLIAMSON CIVIL LAW, LLC 8888 Keystone Crossing, Suite 1300 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Tel: (317) 434-0370 Fax: (765) 204-7161 E-mail: aaron.williamson@wcivillaw.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 ***