/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 246 Headlines ALIBABA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline ALLSTATE FIRE: Keister Suit removed to W.D. Missouri AMAZON.COM INC: Waithaka Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court Ruling ARROW ELECTRONICS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AURORA CANNABIS: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action AUTO CLUB: MSP Sues Over Unpaid Accident-Related Medical Expenses BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of 2nd Amended Hong Complaint Due Dec. 16 BENSHOT LLC: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BERRY CORPORATION: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 21 Deadline BIG AGNES INC: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA BIOGEN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline BJ'S WHOLESALE: Arbitration Ruling in Bugliaro Class Suit Quashed BLACKBAUD INC: Bishop Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Data BRIDGEMARK GROUP: Stock Promoters Lose Bid to Seal Records BRYAN BLEDSOE: Richardson's Bid for Class Certification Denied BUILT BRANDS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAPACITY WEST: Toney Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California CORIZON HEALTH: Nurses' Suit Wins Conditional Class Status CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Class Action DC INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Delivery Drivers Suit Wins Initial OK DENBY USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Buchsbaum DUBELL LUMBER: Heinz WARN Act Suit Wins Class Certification ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Lovett Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 24 Deadline FIRST AMERICAN: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline FORD MOTOR: Reed Suit Alleges Engine Defect in Ford Automobiles G.W. GOLDEN: Beal Files TCPA Suit in California GENERAL MOTORS: Tucker Files Suit in Missouri GRACE PRODUCTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Police Retirement System Seeks Class Status HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ABC Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Insurance Claims HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Retail Florist Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims HEATH CERAMICS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Suit Says HEAVENLY GODDESS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HEINEKEN: Tecate Beer Masquerading as Mexican, Lawsuit Claims HOMELAND SECURITY: Asks Court to Reconsider Injunction Order INMUSIC BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JERRYS ARTARAMA NC: Thorne Asserts Breach of ADA in New York JOYY INC: Vincent Wong Reminds January 19 Deadline KRAFT HEINZ: Asks Court to Stay Deadline for Class Cert. Response LAS VEGAS SANDS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline LES MILLS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LINCOLN NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in COI Litigation LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Summary Judgment in Fund Suit Affirmed LOOP INDUSTRIES: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline LSO LP: Thorne Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users MARTIN SIDOR: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCKEE FOODS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Lightner Consumer Suit Goes to C.D. California MIDDLESWARTH IRA: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MILESTONE AV: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyder Class Suit Removed to N.D. California NANO: Court OKs Revised Pretrial Schedule in Otto Suit NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lineburg Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois NEW YORK: E.G. Files Suit in New York NEXT BIO-RESEARCH: Crescent City Surgical Class Cert. Bid Due May NUESKE'S MEAT: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA OARS + ALPS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OCALA, FL: Certification of Homeless Persons Class Denied PACIFIC STEEL: Gay Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California PB HOLDCO: Winegard Files Suit in E.D. New York PEABODY ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action PETHONESTY LLC: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA PHH MORTGAGE CORP: Williams Files Suit under FDCPA PRETORIUS: Boyd Files Suit in S.D. Indiana RAMADA WORLDWIDE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Won Vision Says RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline RCSH OPERATIONS: Dix's Rule 23 Class Certification Bid Denied RESCARE WORKFORCE: Mills Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California REXEL USA: Torres Employment Class Suit Removed to E.D. California ROSS STORES: Marshall Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Class Action RP ON-SITE: Court Denies Class Certification in Miller Suit SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Asner ERISA Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Cesaletti Suit Claims Sale of Irreparable TVs SHAKE SHACK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ware Suit Alleges SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION: Loomis Settlement Has Prelim. Approval SPARC GROUP: Cota Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act SRA ASSOCIATES: Faces Mendonez Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection STOREY COUNTY, NV: Yohey FLSA Suit Settlement Has Prelim. Approval TEACHERS INSURANCE: Haley Suit Wins Class Status TESLA INC: Court Certifies Class in Securities Litigation TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Copaxone-Related Putative Class Suit Underway TURQUOISE HILL: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 14 Deadline UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Mikale v. DOL UNIVERSITY OF NORTH: Faces Hoelzer Suit Over Wrongful Termination VF OUTDOOR: Cota Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users VISION SERVICE: Faces Schmidt Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. California WASTE PRO: Hansen Renews Bid for Class Certification WELLS FARGO: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline ********* ALIBABA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of Alibaba Group Holding Limited 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. BABA Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11252&wire=1 Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA) BABA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 21, 2020 - November 3, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 12, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11252&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Alibaba Group Holding Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company in which Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest, did not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's initial public offering was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You have until the lead plaintiff 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. [GN] ALLSTATE FIRE: Keister Suit removed to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chong Keister, Russell Keister, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2016-CV22033, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Dec. 3, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00953-FJG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and roadside insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 421-0700 Fax: (816) 421-0899 Email: jkronawitter@hab-law.com - and - Brian Timothy Meyers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN TIMORHY MEYERS 1044 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 842-0006 Email: btmeyers@btm-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael John Carroll, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP - Des Moines 801 Grand Avenue, 33rd Floor Des Moines, IA 50309 Phone: (515) 447-4737 Fax: (515) 248-9010 Email: michael.carroll@faegredrinker.com AMAZON.COM INC: Waithaka Suit Stayed Pending Supreme Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez issued an order granting the Defendants' motion to extend stay in the lawsuit captioned as BERNARD WAITHAKA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. C19-01320-RSM (W.D. Wash.). The Defendants moved to extend stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on their petitions for writ of certiorari. Plaintiff Waithaka is an Amazon Flex ("AmFlex") delivery driver for Amazon. Amazon historically used third-party delivery providers like FedEx and UPS to deliver its products but recently began using independent contractors for delivery services for the last mile of the order. These "last mile" delivery drivers, like the Plaintiff, use the AmFlex smartphone application to sign up for delivery shifts and use their own methods of transportation, such as a private vehicle, to deliver products subject to Amazon's service standards. Contractors are paid an hourly rate for their shifts but are not compensated for additional time needed to complete all their deliveries, nor are they reimbursed for gas, vehicle maintenance, or cellphone data expenses. To work as an AmFlex driver, contractors like the Plaintiff must download the AmFlex app and agree to the AmFlex Independent Contractor Terms of Service ("Agreement"). Section 11 of the Agreement provides, in part, that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and applicable federal law "will govern any dispute that may arise between the parties." In a separate section, the Agreement states that "interpretation of this Agreement is governed by the law of the state of Washington without regard to its conflict of laws principles, except for Section 11 of this Agreement, which is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and applicable federal law." The Plaintiff brought this action against the Defendants in Massachusetts state court alleging (1) misclassification of AmFlex drivers as contractors; (2) violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act; and (3) violation of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law. Amazon removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Amazon then moved to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to transfer or stay the case. On August 20, 2019, Judge Hillman of the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part Amazon's motion, concluding that a transfer to the Western District of Washington was proper but denying Amazon's motion to compel arbitration. On the arbitration issue, Judge Hillman concluded that the Plaintiff and those similarly situated fall within the FAA's transportation worker exemption, 9 U.S.C. Section 1, that Massachusetts law therefore governed the enforceability of the arbitration provision, and that the provision was unenforceable based on Massachusetts public policy. Amazon appealed Judge Hillman's ruling on the FAA transportation worker exemption to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On July 17, 2020, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's holding as to the scope of 9 U.S.C. Section 1, agreeing that the FAA transportation worker exemption encompasses the contracts of transportation workers, like Plaintiff, "who transport goods or people within the flow of interstate commerce, not simply those who physically cross state lines the course of their work." Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., 966 F.3d 10, 13 (1st Cir. 2020). On September 1, 2020, the First Circuit denied Amazon's petition for rehearing en banc. Rittmann Litigation A group of AmFlex delivery drivers brought a separate action against the Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge John C. Coughenour, alleging misclassification of AmFlex drivers as independent contractors. Amazon moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the Agreement. The district court denied Amazon's motion to compel arbitration on the basis that plaintiffs fell within the FAA's transportation worker exemption, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., 383 F.Supp.3d 1196 (W.D. Wash. 2019), aff'd, 971 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2020). Judge Bress dissented with the majority's interpretation of "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" under 9 U.S.C. Section 1 on the basis that a delivery worker must belong to a "class of workers" that crosses state lines in order to qualify for the FAA's transportation worker exemption. Rittman, 971 F.3d at 921 (J. Bress, dissenting). Amazon filed a petition to the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which was pending at the time Amazon filed the instant motion. Motion to Extend Stay Amazon moves to extend the stay of this case while awaiting (1) the Supreme Court's ruling on Amazon's forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari in Waithaka; and (2) the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Amazon's petition for rehearing in Rittmann. After Amazon filed the instant motion, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, see Rittmann, No. 19-35381, (9th Cir. Sept. 25, 2020), Dkt. #70, and Amazon filed a petition for a writ of certiorari that is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Accordingly, the only basis for Amazon's motion to extend the stay is the Supreme Court's decision on its forthcoming and pending petitions for certiorari in Waithaka and Rittmann. Order The Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Extend Stay, and ORDERS as follows: (1) This matter is stayed until the final resolution of Waithaka v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (1st Cir. No. 19-1848), or Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (9th Cir. No. 19-35381), whichever occurs first; and (2) Defendants shall notify the Court in writing, within ten days of any disposition of its petitions for certiorari by the Supreme Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated November 30, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxbekk5z from Leagle.com. ARROW ELECTRONICS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arrow Electronics, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Arrow Electronics, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10152 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Arrow Electronics -- https://www.arrow.com/ -- is an American Fortune 500 company headquartered in Centennial, Colorado. The company specializes in distribution and value added services relating to electronic components and computer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal AURORA CANNABIS: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in the following publicly traded company. Shareholders interested in taking an active role in the case had until the deadline indicated below to petition the court. There is no cost or obligation to you. See below for more information on the case. Aurora Cannabis, Inc. investors (NYSE: ACB); December 1, 2020 deadline Credit Acceptance Corporation On August 28, 2020, a lawsuit was filed against Credit Acceptance by the Massachusetts Attorney General which alleges that the Company has, for years, been making deceptive and unfair automobile loans to thousands of Massachusetts consumers. The lawsuit also alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed securitizations which they offered to investors, and that the Credit Acceptance engaged in unfair debt collection practice. Credit Acceptance's stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%, in response to the public disclosure of the Mass AG lawsuit, to close at $374.07 per share over two trading days ending on September 1, 2020. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors on a contingency basis in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] AUTO CLUB: MSP Sues Over Unpaid Accident-Related Medical Expenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS SERIES 44, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTO CLUB INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, AUTO CLUB GROUP, AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, and AUTO CLUB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24911-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Social Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to report their primary payer responsibility and failed to pay and/or reimburse accident-related medical expenses. The Defendants' obligation to pay for accident-related medical expenses on behalf of enrollees is primary relative to Medicare's obligation to pay for those same accident-related medical expenses, which is secondary. The Defendants have systematically failed to make these payments and reimbursements, passing on those expenses to Medicare and Medicare Advantage payors. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC is a Delaware series limited liability company with a principal place of business located at 2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor, Coral Gables, Florida. MSPA Claims 1, LLC is a Florida limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor in Coral Gables, Florida. MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC is a Delaware series limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Coral Gables, Florida. Auto Club Insurance Company of Florida is a company that issues property and casualty policies, with its principal place of business at 9125 Henderson Road Tampa, Florida. Auto Club Group is a company that issues property and casualty policies, with its principal place of business at 1 Auto Club Drive Dearborn, Michigan. Auto Club Insurance Association is a company that issues property and casualty policies, with its principal place of business at 1 Auto Club Drive Dearborn, Michigan. Auto Club Group Insurance Company is a company that issues property and casualty policies, with its principal place of business at 1 Auto Club Drive Dearborn, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John H. Ruiz, Esq. Michael O. Mena, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 2701 S. LeJeune Road, 10th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com mmena@msprecoverylawfirm.com serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com - and – Francesco Zincone, Esq. Eduardo Bertran, Esq. J. Alfredo Armas, Esq. ARMAS BERTRAN ZINCONE 4960 SW 72nd Avenue, Suite 206 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 661-2021 E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com ebertran@armaslaw.com alfred@armaslaw.com - and – Christopher L. Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2505 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 Facsimile: (504) 355-0089 E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com BANK OF AMERICA: Filing of 2nd Amended Hong Complaint Due Dec. 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SUE HONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., individually and as successor in interest, QBE INSURANCE CORP., and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01667-RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle ordered the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint by Dec. 16, 2020. Defendants Bank of America and QBE's responses to the then-operative complaint will be filed by Jan. 13, 2021. On Oct. 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Violations of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligent Supervision; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (5) Violations of Washington Consumer Protection Act; and (6) Conspiracy against Defendants Bank of America and QBE in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint re-asserting the same six causes of action on Oct. 5, 2020. On Nov. 12, 2020, the Defendants removed the action from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, to the District Court. On Nov. 17, 2020, Judge Barbara J. Rothstein signed and entered the Parties' stipulation extending the Defendants' time to respond to the First Amended Complaint to Dec. 2, 2020. On Nov. 23, 2020, Judge Rothstein, to whom the action originally was assigned, transferred the action to the Court's docket pursuant to the Parties' stipulation. The Parties have since engaged in good-faith efforts to narrow and focus the issues and allegations raised in the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Further to these discussions, the Plaintiff has agreed to consider amending the complaint in an effort to revise and/or remove certain allegations. To that end, the Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by Dec. 16, 2020. The Defendants have consented to the request, subject to the Court's approval. In addition, to avoid unnecessary motion-to-dismiss briefing, conserve the Court's and the Parties' time and resources, and to account for intervening Holidays and undersigned counsels' Holiday schedules, the Parties asked that the Defendants' deadline to respond to the then-operative complaint be extended to Jan. 13, 2021, to avoid unnecessary responses to a First Amended Complaint that the Plaintiff seeks to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y35wz4fb from Leagle.com. Harish Bharti of BHARTI LAW GROUP, PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, represents Plaintiff SUE HONG. Jason E. Anderson -- jason@jasonandersonlaw.com -- of the Law Office of Jason E. Anderson, in Seattle, Washington, represents Plaintiff SUE HONG. Roger S. Davidheiser -- info@friedmanrubin.com -- of Friedman Rubin, in Seattle, Washington, represents Plaintiff SUE HONG. Laura A. Stoll -- lstoll@goodwinlaw.com -- Stella Padilla -- spadilla@goodwinlaw.com -- of GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, in Los Angeles, California, represent Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Daniel F. Shickich -- dshickich@omwlaw.com -- of OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, represents Defendant QBE INSURANCE CORP. Stephen M. LeBlanc -- sleblanc@mitchellsandler.com -- Rebecca A. Guiterman -- rguiterman@mitchellsandler.com -- of Mitchell Sandler LLC, in Washington, D.C., represent Defendant QBE INSURANCE CORP. BENSHOT LLC: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BenShot, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BenShot, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10191 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BenShot -- https://benshot.com/ -- makes handmade bulletproof glasses in rural Wisconsin since 2015; designing and building fine, handcrafted whiskey, beer and shot glasses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BERRY CORPORATION: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 21 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of Berry Corporation 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. BRY Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11252&wire=1 Berry Corporation (NASDAQ:BRY) Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased: (a) Berry common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018; or (b) Berry securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates inclusive Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 21, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11252&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (i) Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry's operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. 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. [GN] BIG AGNES INC: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------- Big Agnes, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Big Agnes, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09914 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020). Big Agnes Inc was founded in 1999. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of fabricated textile products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003 New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal BIOGEN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Biogen Inc. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ:BIIB) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11256&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021 Class Period: October 22, 2019 - November 6, 2019 Allegations against BIIB include that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding the effectiveness of aducanumab, Biogen's investigational human monoclonal antibody studied for the treatment of early Alzheimer's disease; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data provided by the Company to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BJ'S WHOLESALE: Arbitration Ruling in Bugliaro Class Suit Quashed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., etc., Appellant, v. Laura Bugliaro, et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D19-2038 (Fla. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District quashed the portion of the trial court's order addressing the entitlement of BJ's to arbitration because the court lacked jurisdiction. On March 17, 2015, Bugliaro filed the underlying class action complaint. The fourth amended complaint -- the operative complaint in the appeal -- alleges that BJ's engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices by improperly collecting from its members a charge denominated as a "sales tax" on the full, undiscounted price of products purchased with a discount, funded in part by BJ's, at all of BJ's thirty-one Florida locations. Bugliaro asserts that when members of BJ's Wholesale Club's 31 Florida stores use discounts--issued and funded in whole or part by BJ's--to make in-store purchases, BJ's still charges and purports to collect "sales tax" on the full price of the item, without application of the portion of the discount that is funded by BJ's to reduce the sales price of the item. Ms. Bugliaro seeks prospective injunctive relief pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") and a judicial declaration interpreting the relevant statutory and regulatory rules. On Sept. 9, 2016, Bugliaro moved for certification of a class on the injunctive relief claim. On May 24, 2017, the trial court certified a class and BJ's appealed. The Court reversed the certification order finding the class was not ascertainable ("Bugliaro I"). It further held the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as to Count I for injunctive relief because Bugliaro failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. On Sept. 5, 2017, while Bugliaro I was pending on appeal, the trial court entered an order denying BJ's' motion to compel arbitration of prospective putative class members finding that it's waived its right to arbitration and that compelling arbitration would result in substantial prejudice to the Plaintiffs. BJ's appealed. On Oct. 10, 2019, the Court sua sponte dismissed the appeal as moot given its reversal of the class certification order in Bugliaro I ("Bugliaro II"). In response to the decision in Bugliaro I and while Bugliaro II was still pending on appeal, Bugliaro filed her fourth amended complaint removing any claims for a tax refund and re-defining the class. BJ's moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint and to compel arbitration individually as to Bugliaro. The trial court held a hearing and denied BJ's' motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration on Sept. 24, 2019. In its order, the trial court found the holding in Bulgiaro I that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction was limited to the claim involving money damages and rejected BJ's' claim that every prior order in the litigation was void. The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the September 2017 arbitration order, which remained pending on appeal in Bugliaro II. The court, however, then proceeded to rule substantively that BJ's waived its right to arbitration, that compelling arbitration would significantly prejudice the Plaintiffs, and that BJ's right to arbitration was not revived. BJ's appeals. The Appellate Court opines that BJ's misconstrues its Bugliaro I opinion in claiming that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the entire case. The Appellate Court's opinion regarding subject matter jurisdiction in Bugliaro I was limited to the claim over which administrative remedies exist; it did not conclude the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction entirely. As such, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with Appellate Court's rulings regarding the failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the ascertainability of the class. The subsequent dismissal of Bugliaro II was based on the Court's reversal of the class certification order in Bugliaro I, which rendered moot the appeal of BJ's motion to compel arbitration of the class members because there was no longer a class. In the order on appeal, the trial court appropriately concluded it lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its prior arbitration ruling as to the then-certified class because the matter was pending on appeal before the Court. Notwithstanding that jurisdictional impediment, the trial court went further, explicitly making rulings regarding BJ's' right to compel arbitration as to Bugliaro and the putative class members. The Appellate Court concludes that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to determine BJ's' right to arbitration while that matter was pending on appeal. For these reasons, the Appellate Court quashed the portion of the order addressing BJ's' entitlement to arbitration because it lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter while Bugliaro II was pending. The Appellate Court remanded with instructions to vacate all factual findings and legal conclusions adjudicating the substantive merits of the motion to compel arbitration. The Opinion is not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3oaldsl from Leagle.com. Kevin A. Reck -- kreck@foley.com -- and Christina M. Kennedy -- ckennedy@foley.com -- (Orlando), Brandon J. Williams -- bjwilliams@foley.com -- James A. McKee -- jmckee@foley.com -- and Benjamin J. Grossman -- bjgrossman@foley.com -- (Tallahassee), of Foley & Lardner, LLP, represent Appellant BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. Alan J. Kluger -- akluger@klugerkaplan.com -- Steve I. Silverman -- ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com -- and Erin E. Bohannon -- ebohannon@klugerkaplan.com of Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen and Levine, P.L.; Samson Appellate Law and Daniel M. Samson; Victor M. Diaz, Jr., of VM Diaz & Partners, LL;, and Jorge D. Lorenzo, represent the Appellees. BLACKBAUD INC: Bishop Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Data ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKBAUD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-40149-TSH (D. Mass., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the sensitive personal information of its customers, including the Plaintiff, following a ransomware attack and data breach in May 2020. Information compromised in the data breach included a copy of a subset of information retained by Blackbaud, including name(s), addresses, phone numbers, and other personal information. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third-party and also failed to identify all information that was accessed. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and thousands of other Class Member users suffered ascertainable losses in the form of out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. Blackbaud, Inc. is a cloud computing provider with its principal place of business located on Daniel Island, Charleston County, South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com - and – Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com - and – Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq. Kristen L. Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 West Las Olas Blvd. Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com BRIDGEMARK GROUP: Stock Promoters Lose Bid to Seal Records ---------------------------------------------------------- Graeme Wood at biv.com reports that investors pitching a class action lawsuit against a group of purported consultants and stock promoters known as the Bridgemark Group scored two favourable verdicts in court this month. The verdicts should allow the investors access to investigative records they would have normally been allowed if not for the legal procedures of the promoters who face a B.C. Securities Commission (BCSC) notice of hearing. First, the B.C. Court of Appeal tossed out an attempt by Bridgemark Group members to block the BCSC from releasing investigative affidavits to law firm Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP (CFMM), representing investors Michael Tietz and Duane Loewen, who launched the class action that has yet to proceed. Those affidavits, containing consulting contracts, had already been released to Glacier Media in April 2019, and the law firm had requested their own copies in July, 2019. The affidavits form part of the evidence presented by BCSC at interim hearings for the case and will be used at a full hearing that has yet to be scheduled after temporary orders were issued November 26, 2018 by the BCSC to the Bridgemark Group and 11 Canadian Securities Exchange-listed companies (two of which have since admitted conduct abusive to the capital markets). The group and the companies are alleged to have partaken in an illegal cash swap and securities distribution scheme considered by the BCSC to be "conduct abusive to the capital markets." The scheme, as alleged, sees the consultants buying shares from the companies, who in turn grant millions of dollars worth of contracts, despite little or no work being performed. The consultants then quickly sold their shares to retail investors on the secondary market at a discount. The class action lawsuit seeks damages for unlawful conspiracy, secondary market misrepresentations and fraud, or disgorgement of the benefit the defendants obtained as a result of the scheme. In June, the commission narrowed down two "primary architects" of the scheme: West Vancouver residents Anthony Jackson and Justin Liu, both of whom led the appeal. Liu and Jackson argued the commission failed to uphold its confidentiality obligations by releasing the affidavits, which reveal details of the significant consulting contracts, some of which have been subsequently shown in filings by the companies. Justice Peter Willcock, Justice Patrice Abrioux and Justice Joyce DeWitt-Van Oosten of the B.C. Court of Appeal sided with the commission's initial decision and dismissed their appeal on November 2. "In my view, the Commission was correct to say that, once it decided to hold a hearing, the statutory provisions imposed upon it a duty to hold the hearing in public, to maintain a record of the hearing, and, consistent with the open court principle, to permit the public to have access to the record unless doing so would be unduly prejudicial to a party or a witness and withholding access would not be prejudicial to the public interest," stated Willcock. The group could apply for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Following that ruling, Bridgemark Group members were handed another loss in court on November 10 when Justice Veronica Jackson denied an application to seal similar documents from the public in relation to a constitutional challenge the group is putting forth. Liu and his company Lukor Capital Corp. applied to seal investigative memos, making them accessible only to counsel of record, parties of record, or by further order of the court -- effectively shutting out the investors launching the class action claim. Jackson and his companies BridgeMark Financial Corp. and Jackson & Company Professional Corp. supported the application. At issue for Justice Jackson was whether there was a commercial interest at risk for the Bridgemark Group members if the documents were filed and became public record. "I conclude the applicants have failed to discharge their burden . . . to establish there is an important commercial interest at risk," ruled the judge. Many members of the Bridgemark Group are challenging freeze orders against them put there by the commission in 2019 (some have been lifted). The court is being asked if the Securities Act is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by allowing the commission to freeze assets before a hearing. And if it is not, does the action constitute a reasonable and demonstrably justified limit under section one of the Charter. The documents obtained by Glacier Media show the extent of consulting contracts. For example, investigative records show how over the course of two years a Vancouver woman named Danilen Villanueva seemingly went from working at McDonald's to working as Jackson's corporate receptionist in 2016. Villanueva went on to buy and sell at least $5.9 million worth of stock and signing, over a five-month span, lucrative six-figure consulting contracts. On November 10, 2017, Villanueva, as sole director and beneficiary, incorporated Detona Capital Corp. with the same mailing address as Jackson's companies, according to the BCSC. Polish-Canadian wood pellet company Green 2 Blue Energy Corp. (a hearing respondent) provided Detona a $220,500 contract to provide "general administrative assistance and services" and "initiate and prepare draft agreements" while reporting net sales of $71,586 in 2018. Based on the BCSC allegations and various related court claims, Bennett Montour LLP lawyer Paul Bennett's class action filing (working with CFMM) states Jackson conceived the scheme along with fellow West Vancouver residents and respondents including Liu, who operated illegal marijuana dispensaries, former professional hockey player Cameron Paddock and Aly Babu Mawji, who spent time behind bars in 2013 for securities fraud in Germany before finally being expelled by the commission from B.C.'s markets last February. [GN] BRYAN BLEDSOE: Richardson's Bid for Class Certification Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEBASTIAN RICHARDSON, v. BRYAN A. BLEDSOE, et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-02266-JPW (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer P. Wilson entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 2. scheduling a telephonic conference on January 13, 2021, with the parties to set further deadlines for this case. This action was brought on behalf of the individual Plaintiff, Sebastian Richardson, and a putative class comprised of all current and future prisoners in the Special Management Unit ("SMU") at the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg ("USP Lewisburg") for alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Richardson is a former SMU inmate at USP Lewisburg. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of himself, and injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of the putative class. The Court said, "Richardson appears to argue that the population at USP Lewisburg increased shortly after the SMU program was transferred to USP Thomson, and that this increase should give rise to a concern that the SMU program has not left USP Lewisburg. However, Richardson fails to distinguish between the total inmate population at the USP versus the inmate population specifically in the SMU program. Indeed, the population report produced by the Defendants from January 15, 2020 indicates that USP Lewisburg maintains at least four categories of inmates within its overall population at the USP. Richardson has produced no evidence to show that the population increase at USP Lewisburg was attributable to a resurgence in the inmate population in the SMU program. Thus, the court finds that the voluntary cessation doctrine is not applicable in this case, that the court cannot grant the requested relief, and that Richardson's class claims are moot. Accordingly, Richardson's motion for class certification pursuant to [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(b)(2) will be denied." The SMU program was created to house inmates presenting "unique security and management concerns," namely individuals with histories of violence or individuals who "participated in or had a leadership role in geographical group/gang-related activity." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qzCifw at no extra charge.[CC] BUILT BRANDS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Built Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Built Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10165-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Built Brands -- https://builtbar.com/ -- is a leading manufacturer and distributor of protein and energy products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CAPACITY WEST: Toney Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CRYSTAL TONEY, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CAPACITY WEST LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV40620, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-10840 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 overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business practices. Capacity West LLC is a logistics service provider in Irwindale, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: David L. Cheng, Esq. Paul M. Suh, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com psuh@fordharrison.com CORIZON HEALTH: Nurses' Suit Wins Conditional Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERYL FRITZ, et al., v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., and CORIZON, LLC, Case No. 6:19-cv-03365-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of Class Claims Under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; and 2. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Exhibits to Motion for Class Certification. The Court conditionally certifies the class defined as: "any individual who: (a) is, or was, employed by Corizon as an hourly, non-exempt nurse and worked more than 40 hours in a workweek (i.e., from Sunday at midnight through Saturday at 11:59pm) on an hourly, or non-exempt basis between October 15, 2016 through the present, and (b) performed pre- and post- shift activity for which they were not paid because their time clock was not near (i.e., within 25 feet) of the facility's entrance/exit. Pre- and post- shift activity means any, and all, activities performed after entering a correctional institution before clocking in (other than walking in), and any, and all, activities performed after clocking out before exiting the correctional institution (other than walking out). The parties jointly stipulate to the Court that they have reached an agreement on most of the terms related to conditionally certifying the proposed collective action and sending notice to the putative plaintiffs. Upon considering the parties' joint stipulations and the factual record, the Court finds Plaintiffs satisfy their evidentiary burden at this early stage and adequately show that a group of similarly-situated plaintiffs are the alleged victims of a common "decision, policy, or plan." The Court approves the Notice of Claims and Opt-In Consent Form, subject to the specified changes, to be sent by Plaintiffs' counsel to potential plaintiffs via email and first-class mail in a manner consistent with the terms of the Court's Order. The Court Order further provides that: -- Within 60 days of this Order, Corizon shall: (1) identify to the Plaintiffs any facilities or locations where there are potential plaintiffs and provide discovery to verify the same; and (2) produce a list of potential plaintiffs in a usable electronic format, including the full name, work location, dates of employment, employee identification number, physical home address, and personal email address. -- Within 30 days of this Order, Corizon shall post the Notice of Claims and Opt-In Form in the break room of Corizon staffed locations. Notice shall remain posted for the duration of the opt-in period. -- The Plaintiffs' counsel shall send notice within 14 days of receiving the list of potential plaintiffs, in a manner consistent with the terms of this Order. -- The opt-in period for potential plaintiffs to complete, sign, and return the Consent to Join form to Plaintiffs' counsel is 90 days from the date notice is initially sent. The Plaintiffs shall file a notice with the Court advising of the date when notice was initially sent. -- The Opt-In consent form may be filled, signed, and returned via Docusign, a signed PDF document that is emailed, a faxed signature, or a jotform.com document. The Plaintiffs will file the completed Opt-In forms with the Court. -- The Plaintiffs are permitted a single follow up email after the initial notice is sent. -- The Plaintiffs may establish and maintain an informational page about this collective action for potential plaintiffs on the www.burgerlaw.com website, specifically at http://burgerlaw.com/corizon-class- action/. Any disputes regarding the content of this website will be treated as disputes arising under Local Rule 37.1. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lVc43A at no extra charge.[CC] CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors in the following publicly traded company. Shareholders interested in taking an active role in the case had until the deadline indicated below to petition the court. There is no cost or obligation to you. See below for more information on the case. Credit Acceptance Corporation investors (NASDAQ: CACC); December 1, 2020 deadline On August 28, 2020, a lawsuit was filed against Credit Acceptance by the Massachusetts Attorney General which alleges that the Company has, for years, been making deceptive and unfair automobile loans to thousands of Massachusetts consumers. The lawsuit also alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed securitizations which they offered to investors, and that the Credit Acceptance engaged in unfair debt collection practice. Credit Acceptance's stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%, in response to the public disclosure of the Mass AG lawsuit, to close at $374.07 per share over two trading days ending on September 1, 2020. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors on a contingency basis in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] DC INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Delivery Drivers Suit Wins Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE MERSCHDORF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DC INDUSTRIES INC. and DANIEL CAHEE, Case No. 3:19-cv-01037-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order: 1. certifying this Fair Labor Standards Act collective for settlement purposes: "all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Delivery Driver employees employed by Defendants within the two years immediately preceding the filing of the complaint;" 2. preliminary approving the parties' joint motion for settlement of this lawsuit; 3. directing Merschdorf to send notice to the collective and class members; 4. setting a deadline for a motion for final approval; and 5. setting a date for a telephonic fairness hearing. The proposed class satisfies all of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23's requirements, so the court will certify the proposed class for settlement purposes, Judge Peterson says. The settlement creates a settlement fund of $143,943.50. From this amount, class counsel would receive attorney fees, costs, and expenses of up to $50,476.37 and Merschdorf would receive a service award of $5,000. The remaining $88,467.13 would be divided among the class members, with the members receiving checks. Any checks not cashed within 180 days, and any awards not distributed because class members opted out of the Rule 23 class or failed to opt in to the FLSA collective, will revert to the Defendants. Merschdorf contends the Defendants owe DC's delivery drivers unpaid wages under the FLSA and Wisconsin wage law. DC Industries operates several Domino's Pizza restaurants in Wisconsin. Mr. Cahee, is DC's owner and manager. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oymTu9 at no extra charge.[CC] DENBY USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denby USA Limited. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Denby USA Limited, Case No. 1:20-cv-10157 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Denby USA Ltd. -- https://www.denbyusa.com/ -- operates as a supplier of tableware and cookware offering utensils, cast iron and glassware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Buchsbaum ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BERNARDO BUCHSBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, Plaintiff, v. DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00706-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Defendant provides temporary staffing and Information Technology consulting services to companies. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Technical Recruiter from approximately August 2018 until June 2019 as an hourly, non-exempt employee. In doing so, the Plaintiff supported one of the Defendant's clients, T-Mobile USA, Inc. As a condition of his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff signed an Employee Arbitration Agreement on Aug. 13, 2018. Further, the Arbitration Agreement contains a class action waiver. On March 4, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the action in San Diego County Superior Court. He brings various putative class claims against the Defendant for wage and hour violations under California state law, including claims regarding overtime compensation and meal and rest breaks. The Defendant answered the Complaint on April 9, 2020. The Answer does not mention arbitration. On April 13, 2020, the Defendant removed the action under the Class Action Fairness Act. Like its Answer, the Defendant's Notice of Removal does not mention arbitration. On June 8, 2020, the Defendant filed the motion raising arbitration for the first time. In a declaration accompanying the motion, the Defendant's counsel states she received the Plaintiff's personnel records from the Defendant around May 14, 2020. Before then, the counsel believed the Plaintiff had signed an arbitration agreement with T-Mobile, but not the Defendant. The Defendant's counsel, thus, first confirmed the Plaintiff had electronically signed the Arbitration Agreement and then brought the motion after conferring with the Plaintiff's counsel. According to the order granting the Defendants' motion, there is no question in the case that an agreement to arbitrate exists, and that the Arbitration Agreement's broad terms encompass the Plaintiff's wage and hour claims. The Plaintiff, rather, contests enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement on two grounds: first, he argues the Defendant waived its right to seek arbitration, and second, he argues the Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable. Judge Bashant explains that a party seeking to prove waiver must demonstrate: (1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; (2) intentional acts inconsistent with that existing right; and (3) prejudice to the person opposing arbitration from such inconsistent acts. She finds that the Plaintiff demonstrates the first requirement for waiver but not the other two. On the first requirement, the Judge agrees that the Defendant had knowledge of the right to arbitrate. Although the Defendant's counsel may have been unaware of the Arbitration Agreement for several months, the Defendant itself had knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration. Advancing to the second requirement, the Plaintiff does not show the Defendant took "intentional acts inconsistent with" its existing right to arbitrate. The Plaintiff may have expended some time and effort on the case, but not "considerable time and money" that would support a waiver finding. Nor does he show another type of actionable prejudice, such as him being forced to "relitigate a key legal issue" in arbitration upon which the Court had already ruled in his favor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not meet his "heavy burden of proof" to demonstrate the Defendant waived its right to arbitration. Therefore, the Judge is unmoved by his waiver argument. The Plaintiff next argues the Arbitration Agreement is unconscionable and cannot be enforced. He argues the Arbitration Agreement is procedurally unconscionable because it was mandatorily imposed on him as a take-it-or-leave-it condition of employment. The Judge agrees that there is some procedural unconscionability. The Judge notes that the Plaintiff has demonstrated a low degree of procedural unconscionability based on the Arbitration Agreement's adhesive nature. He must, then, demonstrate a significant degree of substantive unconscionability to succeed on his unenforceability argument. The Plaintiff claims that several parts of the Arbitration Agreement are substantively unconscionable. He argues the Arbitration Agreement is substantively unconscionable because only he is expressly bound to arbitrate any controversy or claim arising out of the employee's employment relationship. The Judge holds that the Plaintiff is correct, that the Arbitration Agreement is unfairly one-sided because it excludes the Defendant's potential claims for injunctive or equitable relief. The Defendant provides no evidence regarding the "business realities" that justify the one-sided carve out of its injunctive and equitable claims against employees like the Plaintiff. In parallel circumstances, many courts have found this type of carve out to be substantively unconscionable. And given the abundance of case law on the issue, the Judge agrees that the carve out in Section 1.B.iii of the Arbitration Agreement is substantively unconscionable. The Plaintiff next argues that the Arbitration Agreement's forum selection and choice of law provisions are substantively unconscionable. The Judge holds that overall, the Plaintiff demonstrates a low degree of procedural unconscionability and a high degree of substantive unconscionability with respect to three provisions of the Arbitration Agreement: its carve out of the Defendant's claims for injunctive or equitable relief, its forum selection provision, and its choice of law clause. She finds that the Plaintiff has met his burden to show these three provisions are unenforceable in light of his unconscionability defense. Finally, the Plaintiff argues severance is not appropriate because the Arbitration Agreement is permeated with unconscionability. The Judge finds severance is appropriate for several reasons. Initially, she notes the contract contains a severance clause. Further, each unconscionable provision can be severed from the Arbitration Agreement without adding additional terms to the contract. Finally, although there are multiple unlawful provisions in the Arbitration Agreement, this fact alone does not mean the agreement is permeated with unconscionability, Judge Bashant states. Because she finds that the Arbitration Agreement is not permeated with unconscionability, Judge Bashant opines that severing the problematic provisions from the contract under California Civil Code section 1670.5(a) is appropriate. The Judge, thus, ultimately rejects the Plaintiff's unconscionability defense to enforcement of the Arbitration Agreement, and she will compel arbitration upon severing the three problematic clauses from the contract. In light of the foregoing, Judge Bashant granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Specifically, she severed the choice of law, forum selection, and claim carve-out provisions from the Arbitration Agreement. She also ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration in California in the manner provided for in the Arbitration Agreement. In addition, she stayed the action. The Judge directed the Clerk of Court to administratively close the case. The decision to administratively close the case pending resolution of the arbitration does not have any jurisdictional effect. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxchw8ns from Leagle.com. DUBELL LUMBER: Heinz WARN Act Suit Wins Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD HEINZ, v. DUBELL LUMBER CO., Case No. 1:19-cv-08778-RBK-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of: The Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) Class defined as: "all persons who worked at or reported to one of the Defendant's Facilities and were terminated without cause on or within 30 days of February 9, 2019, or were terminated without cause as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs and/or plant closings by the Defendant on or within 30 days of February 9, 2019;" and The New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act Class defined as: "all persons who worked at or reported to one of the Defendant's Facilities and were terminated without cause on or about February 9, 2019"; and 2. denying without prejudice Motion for Default Judgment. The Court said, "The Plaintiff has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed class, as defined, satisfies all four factors under [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(a) and meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Therefore, class certification is appropriate, and the Plaintiff's motion will be granted . However, the motion for default judgment will be denied. The Plaintiff has not sent notice to the proposed class members, and therefore by entering a default judgment, this Court would be binding persons whose rights are at issue without first giving them proper notice. Accordingly, the motion for default judgment will be denied without prejudice and the Plaintiff may re-file after the opt-out period has closed." The Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant Dubell Lumber Company, contends he and at least 157 other employees were terminated without timely notice as required under the WARN Act, and the New Jersey WARN Act. Dubell Lumber Company, a Medford-based maker and supplier of retail lumber and building materials, maintained facilities throughout New Jersey, including locations in Cherry Hill, Millville, Winslow, Vineland, and Pleasantville. The Plaintiff and at least 100 similarly situated, full time workers were employed by Defendant up until February 9, 2019. The Defendant's employees, in the aggregate, worked more than 4,000 hours per a week. The Plaintiff filed the complaint on March 20, 2019. On May 7, 2019, a John Bambach executed a waiver of service of the summons on behalf of Defendant. Despite executing this waiver, the Defendant never filed an answer or other responsive pleading. As such, May 28, 2019, the Clerk entered default against Defendant at Plaintiff's request. On July 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Default Judgment. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2W4df6t at no extra charge.[CC] ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Lovett Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TERRANCE LOVETT, ROBERT PARSONS, and JAVIER CUEVAS MAGANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC; HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00285865, 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 December 2, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-at-01193 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 meal break premiums, unpaid rest break premiums, wage statement penalties, and waiting time penalties. Estenson Logistics, LLC is a transportation company based in Mesa, Arizona. Hub Group Trucking, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company based in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Kyle A. Wende, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 840-3150 Facsimile: (916) 840-3159 E-mail: michael.nader@ogletreedeakins.com kyle.wende@ogletree.com FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 24 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: First American Financial Corp. (FAF) Class Period: 2/17/2017 - 10/22/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 24, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-faf/ If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About Kahn Swick Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] FIRST AMERICAN: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of First American Financial Corporation ("First American" or the "Company") (NYSE:FAF) between February 17, 2017 and October 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired First American securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 24, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. First American investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the First American Securities Class Litigation First American, headquartered in Santa Ana, California, provides financial services through its title insurance and services segment and its specialty insurance segment. The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the Company failed to implement security standards to protect its customers' confidential personal and other information, and (2) the Company faced an increased risk of cybersecurity failures as a result of its automation and efficiency initiatives. On May 24, 2019, the data security news website, www.KrebsOnSecurity.com, reported a massive leak of "hundreds of millions of [customer] documents" by First American. First American's website exposed approximately 885 million files, "including bank account numbers and statements, mortgage and tax records, Social Security numbers, wire transaction receipts, and drivers license images." On this news, the price of First American stock fell $3.46 per share, or over 6%, from its closing price of $55.26 on May 24, 2019, to close at $51.80 on May 28, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. On October 22, 2020, following the close of the market, First American filed its third quarter of 2020 Form 10-Q with the SEC, revealing that the Company had received a Wells Notice from the SEC enforcement staff regarding the security breach. According to the notice, "[t]he SEC enforcement staff is questioning the adequacy of disclosures the Company made at the time of the incident and the adequacy of its disclosure controls…[and] has made a preliminary determination to recommend a filing of an enforcement action by the SEC against the Company." On this news, the price of First American stock fell $4.83 per share, or more than 9%, from its closing price of $51.58 on October 21, 2020, to close at $46.75 per share on October 22, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." [GN] FORD MOTOR: Reed Suit Alleges Engine Defect in Ford Automobiles --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT REED, STACEY COPPOCK, CRAIG MORFORD, KELLI MORFORD, and DAVID SCHIAVI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01631-UNA (D. Del., November 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment and/or fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and consumer protection laws in various states. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the design, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and sale of vehicles, including 2013-2019 Ford Escapes, 2013-2019 Ford Fusions, 2015-2018 Ford Edges, 2017-2019 Lincoln MKC's, and 2017-2019 Lincoln MKZ's, with defective Ecoboost engines. The Ecoboost engines in the Class Vehicles suffer from a defect that causes their engine coolant to leak into the engine's cylinders. Even with extensive knowledge of the engine defect, the Defendant has nevertheless failed to provide any final solution to consumers who purchased or leased Class Vehicles. Further, the Defendant has not addressed the source of the defect for those consumers, including for those whose vehicles are still under warranty. When a consumer's Ecoboost engine overheats or fails after expiration of their vehicle's warranty, the consumer must pay out-of-pocket for the necessary repairs and may still have to return for repeated service visits. These repairs, including a full engine replacement, can total thousands of dollars. As a result of the Defendant's breach and omissions, the Plaintiffs and the other Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages, including economic damages at the point of sale or lease. Additionally, they have incurred or will incur economic damages at the point of repair in the form of the cost of repair. Ford Motor Company is an automobile manufacturing company with its corporate headquarters located at 1 American Road, Dearborn, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net agertner@bm.net apark@bm.net - and – Steven R. Weinmann, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Steven.Weinmann@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com G.W. GOLDEN: Beal Files TCPA Suit in California ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.W. Golden Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Jordan Beal, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. G.W. Golden Enterprises, Inc., doing business as: 1st Platinum Realty and Does 1 Through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02288-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. G.W. Golden Enterprises, Inc. is a Mortgage lender in Costa Mesa, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Tucker Files Suit in Missouri --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC. The case is styled as Michael Tucker and Robert Riddle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. General Motors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00254-ACL (E.D. Mo., Nov. 24, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed over Diversity-Insurance Contract. General Motors Company 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.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Greg G. Gutzler, Esq. DICELLO AND LEVITT LLC - New York 444 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (314) 833-6645 Email: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com GRACE PRODUCTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grace Products, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Grace Products, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10167 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grace -- https://grace.com/ -- is a global leader in specialty chemicals and materials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Police Retirement System Seeks Class Status ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, JAMES H. ROBERTS, JIGISHA DESAI, and LAUREL J. KRZEMINSKI, Case No. 3:19-cv-04744-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff the Police Retirement System of St. Louis will move the Court on January 14, 2021, for entry of an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Granite common stock during the period of April 30, 2018 through October 24, 2019, inclusive (the Class Period) and were damaged thereby"; 2. appointing the Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as Class Counsel. According to the Complaint, Granite has not filed audited 2019 financials, or any Form 10-Qs for 2020, due to an ongoing Audit Committee investigation into the accuracy of "prior-period reporting for the Heavy Civil Operating Group" and internal control over financial reporting. The deadline for 2019 financials was pushed to June 2020, then pushed again to November 2020, with Granite agreeing to provide monthly statements to creditors. On July 27, 2020, Granite announced that it will restate its Class Period financials stating in a Form 8-K that the 2018 10-K and 10-Q reports for the first three quarters of 2019 "should no longer be relied upon due to misstatements contained in such financial statements" that "were discovered in connection with an investigation of forecasts associated with projects in the Heavy Civil Operating Group." On November 10, 2020, Granite reported that the Audit Committee investigation "is substantially complete," and that Granite is "evaluating the impact of the investigation on its prior period financial statements and implementing appropriate remediation actions." On November 17, 2020, Granite filed a Form 8-K announcing that it had agreed with its lenders to extend the filing deadline to February 28, 2021 for its audited financial statements on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2019 and for its unaudited financial statements for the first three quarters of 2020. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on May 20, 2020. A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VP0M68 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter E. Borkon, Esq. Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. Javier Bleichmar, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: pborkon@bfalaw.com jfonti@bfalaw.com jbleichmar@bfalaw.com HARTFORD FINANCIAL: ABC Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Insurance Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ABC DIAMONDS INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., and HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-07097 (N.D. Ill., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for bad faith breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to provide coverage for, and pay, the Plaintiff's business income losses and extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of its operations, including suspensions resulting from actions of civil authorities, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff purchased a Spectrum Business Owner's commercial insurance policy issued by Hartford to protect its properties and income from the operation of its businesses. The Plaintiff agreed to pay premiums to the Defendants in exchange for promises of coverage for all risks of loss except those specifically and unambiguously excluded. The actions of the Defendants in improperly denying the Plaintiff's claim were a blatant disregard for its contractual rights resulting in a material breach of the Defendants' duties and obligation owed under the Spectrum Policy and deprived it of the benefit of its bargain causing serious financial damages to the Plaintiff. ABC Diamonds Inc. is a diamond dealer in Chicago, Illinois. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is an investment and insurance company, with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa B. Weinstein, Esq. M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq. Adam J. Gomez, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 610-5350 E-mail: lweinstein@gelaw.com egraham@gelaw.com agomez@gelaw.com HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Retail Florist Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- FLOWERS BY ADELAIDE, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., and SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02344-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for bad faith breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to fulfill its contractual obligation to provide coverage for, and pay, the Plaintiff's business income losses and extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of its operations, including suspensions resulting from actions of civil authorities, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff purchased a Spectrum Business Owner's commercial insurance policy issued by Hartford to protect its properties and income from the operation of its businesses. The Plaintiff agreed to pay premiums to the Defendants in exchange for promises of coverage for all risks of loss except those specifically and unambiguously excluded. Under the Spectrum Policy, Hartford promised to cover these losses, and is obligated to pay for them. But in blatant breach of its contractual obligations, Hartford has failed to pay for these losses. The actions of the Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of the benefit of its bargain causing serious financial damages. Flowers by Adelaide, Inc. is a corporation operating as a retail florist with a location in La Jolla, California. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is an investment and insurance company, with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. Sentinel Insurance Company, Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., with its principal place of business located at One Hartford Plaza, Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq. Adam J. Gomez, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. One Market Street Spear Tower, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 293-8210 Facsimile: (415) 789-4367 E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com agomez@gelaw.com HEATH CERAMICS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEATH CERAMICS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10108 (S.D.N.Y., December 2, 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. The case arises from the Defendant's failure 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.heathceramics.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: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; (3) redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and (4) linked images missing alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. 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. Heath Ceramics, Ltd. is a dinnerware manufacturing company based in Sausalito, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal HEAVENLY GODDESS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10168 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Heavenly Goddess Spa Parties -- https://www.heavenlygoddess.com/ -- offers hair tonics, aromatherapy products, and massage and relaxation products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com HEINEKEN: Tecate Beer Masquerading as Mexican, Lawsuit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Post reports that a New York man says he and other consumers have been duped into believing that Tecate beer is Mexican when it's actually made by Dutch company Heineken in Holland, new court papers show. Miguel Schelmetty says the beer is masquerading as Mexican "through the brand name, the traditional Meso-American typeface, the mythical Aztec eagle emblazoned on the product and the statements 'Original' and 'Cerveza,'" on the labeling, according to his Manhattan Federal lawsuit. Also, Tecate's website says "Hecha En Tecata Baja California Mexico" and "Born and brewed in the land we are proud to share our name with: Tecate," the suit points out. Meanwhile, the company only discloses its true origins "in small font on the back of the boxes on the lower left where it states 'Product of Holland'" and "'Brewed and canned by HBBV Amsterdam, Holland . . . Imported by Cervezas Mexicanas, White Plains, NY,'" the court documents note. Schelmetty claims this is deceptive advertisement. And had Schelmetty and other consumers known Tecate is actually made in Holland "they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for them," the court papers say. Tecate sells for "a premium" at around $11.99 for a 12-pack -- which is "higher than the price of the product if it were represented in a non-misleading way," the suit alleges. "Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers," the court documents charge. Schelmetty is asking a judge to allow his suit to be filed as a class action so that other consumers can also seek damages. He is suing for unspecified damages. Heineken did not immediately return a request for comment. [GN] HOMELAND SECURITY: Asks Court to Reconsider Injunction Order ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as P.J.E.S., A MINOR CHILD, by and through his father and NEXT FRIEND, Mario Escobar Francisco, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02245-EGS-GMH (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its order denying a stay of the preliminary injunction issued on November 18, 2020. The Defendants argue the Court's preliminary injunction blocks the Government from implementing a Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Order issued to protect public health in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic that has already infected millions and killed hundreds of thousands in the United States. In adopting a report and recommendation on November 18, the Court provisionally certified a class: "consisting of all unaccompanied noncitizen children who (1) are or will be detained in U.S. government custody in the United States, and (2) are or will be subjected to expulsion from the United States under the CDC Order Process, whether pursuant to an Order issued by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the authority granted by the Interim Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 16559-01, or the Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 56,424-01," Order at 1-2, ECF No. 79, the latter of which HHS promulgated in the midst of briefing before Magistrate Judge Harvey." The Court also ordered "that Defendants, their agents, and any person acting in concert with them are enjoined from expelling the Class Members from the United States under the CDC Order Process, whether pursuant to an Order issued by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the authority granted by the Interim Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 16559-01, or the Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 56,424-01." The CDC Order at issue temporarily prohibits the introduction of certain aliens traveling from Canada and Mexico into the United States because of the serious danger they will introduce COVID-19 into border facilities and the interior of the country. The Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of a putative class seeking to invalidate the order issued by the CDC Director. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mLgzPo at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Esq. John V. Coghlan, Esq. Jean Lin, Esq. Kevin Snell, Esq. Tanya Senanayake, Esq. TRIAL ATTORNEYS FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 514-3716 E-mail: Jean.Lin@usdoj.gov INMUSIC BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against InMusic Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. InMusic Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10150 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. inMusic Brands -- https://www.inmusicbrands.com/ -- is the parent company for a family of brands of varying audio products used in the DJ, music production, live sound, musical instrument, pro audio, software, stage lighting and consumer electronics industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal JERRYS ARTARAMA NC: Thorne Asserts Breach of ADA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Jerrys Artarama N.C. Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jerrys Artarama N.C. Inc. and Jerrys Artarama Of Raleigh, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09913 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020). Jerry's Artarama is an originator of discount art supplies and materials company currently based in North Carolina, United States. The art materials it provides include fine artist paints, canvas and boards, brushes and palette knives, easels, frames as well as extensive custom canvas and frame departments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003 New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal JOYY INC: Vincent Wong Reminds January 19 Deadline -------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Joyy Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Joyy Inc. (NASDAQ:YY) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/joyy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11256&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021 Class Period: April 28, 2016 - November 18, 2020 Allegations against YY include that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) The majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme that Manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or Misleading at all relevant times. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] KRAFT HEINZ: Asks Court to Stay Deadline for Class Cert. Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAREL MAWBY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00827-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Kraft Heinz asks the Court to issue an order staying the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification until a time to be discussed at the upcoming December 17, 2020 scheduling conference. Kraft Heinz states as follows: -- There are currently five putative class action lawsuits pending in federal courts across the country challenging the representation that Maxwell House coffee "Makes Up To__Cups." -- The first-filed of these cases, Ferron v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., was filed on July 24, 2020 and is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff in the Ferron action seeks to certify a nationwide class of Maxwell House consumers. -- Three other sets of plaintiffs then filed similar class actions in other courts, all of which seek to certify a nationwide class of Maxwell House consumers. Kraft Heinz said it has not had an opportunity to serve written discovery on plaintiff and Plaintiff's deadline to respond to any written discovery Kraft Heinz might propound would come weeks after Kraft Heinz's current deadline to respond to her motion for class certification. If Kraft Heinz were forced to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, it would not have a meaningful opportunity to depose Plaintiff and her expert, identify an expert of its own, conduct an appropriate factual investigation, and prepare a response. In other words, this Court would be forced to resolve Plaintiff's motion for class certification with no meaningful factual record and no opportunity to undertake the "rigorous analysis" that [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23 requires, the Defendant contends. Kraft Heinz operates as a food and beverage company. The Company offers sauces, meals, soups, snacks, and infant nutrition products. A copy of the Defendant's motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VxmCeo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher S. Shank, Esq. Stephen J. Moore, Esq. David L. Heinemann, Esq. SHANK & MOORE, LLC 1968 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 100 Mission Woods, KS 66205 E-mail: chris@shankmoore.com sjm@shankmoore.com davidh@shankmoore.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian C. Fries, Esq. LATHROP GPM, LLP 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Telephone: (816) 292-2000 Telecopier: (816) 292-2001 E-mail: bfries@lathropgpm.com - and - Alexander C. Smith, Esq. Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 E-mail: smith@jenner.com dpanos@jenner.com LAS VEGAS SANDS: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Jakubowitz Law announces that securities fraud class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded company who purchased shares within the class period listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation, follow the link below. Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE:LVS) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT LVS: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/las-vegas-sands-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=11257&from=1 Class Period : February 27, 2016 - September 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 21, 2020 The filed complaint alleges that defendants 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. Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] LES MILLS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Les Mills United States Trading, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Les Mills United States Trading, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10183 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Les Mills -- https://www.lesmills.com/ -- offers world class workouts, healthy living advice, fitness gear, exercise equipment, music and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal LINCOLN NATIONAL: Class Certification Sought in COI Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: LINCOLN NATIONAL 2017 COI LITIGATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-04150-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2): 1. certifying these plaintiff classes and sub-classes, and appointing corresponding Class Representatives: -- The Nationwide Class: "all owners of JP Legend 3000, LifeSight 30, LifeSight 31, LifeSight 32, JP UL 101, JP UL 102, JP UL 103, JP UL 130, JP UL 131, and Vision 20 universal life insurance policies issued by Jefferson-Pilot Corporation (now The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company) whose cost of insurance rates were increased or will be increased as a result of the cost of insurance adjustments announced in or around August 2017;" -- The California Sub-Class: "all members of the Nationwide Class whose Policy was issued for delivery in California (Plaintiffs Trinchero and Kesselhaut);" -- The North Carolina Sub-Class: "all members of the Nationwide Class whose Policy was issued for delivery in North Carolina (Plaintiff Tutor). -- The Oklahoma Sub-Class: "all members of the Nationwide Class whose Policy was issued for delivery in Oklahoma (Plaintiff Patterson). -- The Texas Sub-Class: "all members of the Nationwide Class whose Policy was issued for delivery in Texas (Plaintiff Life Partners). -- The California Elder Abuse Sub-Class: "all members of the Nationwide Class who were residents of California and age 65 or older when the COI Increases were imposed on their Policies (Plaintiffs Trinchero and Kesselhaut). Excluded from the foregoing Classes are Lincoln, their officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing. Also excluded from the Classes is any Policyowner with a pending action against Lincoln challenging the COI Increases on an individual basis, including but not limited to LSH CO and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (solely in its capacity as securities intermediary for LSH).; and 2. appointing Jeffrey W. Golan of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine; Daniel C. Girard of Girard Sharp LLP; Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC; Steven G. Sklaver of Susman Godfrey L.L.P.; and Adam M. Moskowitz of The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Classes. The Plaintiffs include Robert L. Trinchero; Marshall Lewis Tutor; Arthur M. Kesselhaut and Warren M. Stanton as Trustee of the Kesselhaut Trust Agreement dated August 24, 1989; William Lin Patterson; Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as nominee of Life Partners Position Holder Trust; and Barry Mukamal, as Trustee of the Mutual Benefits Keep Policy Trust. Lincoln National is a Fortune 250 American holding company, which operates multiple insurance and investment management businesses through subsidiary companies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lEFXoC at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Members of Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, are: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. Kimberly C. Page, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 - and - Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. Robert A. Hoffman, Esq. Julie B. Palley, Esq. Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and - Adam M. Moskowitz Howard Bushman THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM 2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. Jillian Hewitt, Esq. P. Ryan Burningham, Esq. SUSMAN G ODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Scott Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Summary Judgment in Fund Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LABORERS LOCAL NO. 231 PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. RORY J. COWAN; EDWARD A. BLECHSCHMIDT; MICHAEL G. DALLAS; GUY L. DE CHAZAL; SUSAN JANE KANTOR; PAUL A. KAVANAUGH; JACK NOONAN; JAMES A. QUELLA; CLAUDE P. SHEER; H.I.G. CAPITAL, LLC; LBT ACQUISITION, INC.; LBT MERGER SUB, INC.; LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; MARC LITZ, Case No. 20-1844 (3d Cir.), the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed: (i) the District Court's Feb. 7, 2020 Order denying Lead Plaintiff-Appellant Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, leave to amend its Second Amended Complaint; and (ii) the District Court's March 19, 2020 Order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants-Appellees. The case is a securities class action lawsuit relating to allegedly misleading statements arising out of the sale of an entity named Lionbridge Technologies to H.I.G. Capital. The Lead Plaintiff is a former shareholder of Lionbridge, which brought the suit on behalf of itself and all former Lionbridge shareholders. Defendant Cowan was the CEO of Lionbridge. The remaining Defendants are other individuals and entities involved with the Lionbridge sale. In December 2016, Lionbridge's Board of Directors approved a merger agreement for HIG's acquisition of Lionbridge, which was contingent on Lionbridge shareholder approval. On Jan. 31, 2017, Lionbridge issued a proxy statement, by which the Board unanimously recommended that its shareholders vote their shares in support of the buyout. The Proxy included a list of reasons explaining why the Board approved the proposed sale. On Feb. 28, 2017, over 90% of the Lionbridge shareholders voted to approve the company's sale to HIG at the $5.75 per share price. The sale closed shortly thereafter. During this time, Lionbridge had engaged in a strategy to identify and pursue potential buyers of the company and used Union Square to assist it with identifying a potential buyer. It also considered expanding through acquiring other companies. The Board formed an acquisitions committee to evaluate proposals and negotiate with interested parties. In December 2016, the Board participated in a meeting concerning the financial impact of three of Lionbridge's pending acquisitions that the acquisitions committee approved. Three days after HIG acquired Lionbridge, Lionbridge announced that it acquired a company named ExeQuo. The Plaintiff initiated the action on April 27, 2017, and a year later, it filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants made several false and misleading statements in the Proxy. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which the District Court granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court dismissed the action to the extent that the Second Amended Complaint was based on five false statements in the Proxy, but it permitted one other false statement claim to proceed. On July 18, 2018, the Court denied the Defendants' Motion for Reargument on its dismissal ruling. Subsequently, the Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which the Court denied as futile on Feb. 7, 2020. On March 19, 2020, it granted summary judgment to the Defendants. The Plaintiff then filed the appeal in which it disputes the Court's Feb. 7, 2020 Order denying leave to amend, and the March 19, 2020 Order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff first disputes the District Court's order denying it leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint, in which it sought to add allegations of a second material misrepresentation giving rise to additional liability under the same cause of action. The Plaintiff avers that the Proxy's statement regarding the downward revisions made to the Fairness Projections was false and misleading because it caused shareholders to believe the buyout would be more attractive than it was. The Panel opines that the Plaintiff does not allege that the Projections were not provided to those entities; instead, it alleges that the Projections themselves, which were expressly disclaimed, were false and misleading. The Panel's holding in OFI Asset Management v. Cooper Tire & Rubber, (3d Cir. 2016), forecloses the conclusion, and the Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary lack persuasion. Neither is it persuaded by the Plaintiff's contention that the interpretation of OFI would massively expand the carefully crafted safe harbor for forward-looking statements and effectively insulate all statements relating to projections. Accordingly, the Panel affirms the District Court's order and holds that the Plaintiff's intended amendment was futile because even if allowed, it could not affect the result. The Plaintiff next takes issue with the District Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff argues that the first sentence of the Proxy's forecasts falsely implied to the reasonable investor that the Fairness Projections included at least anticipated acquisitions, when in truth, those Projections did not account for any future acquisitions by Lionbridge, even those that were specifically anticipated at the time. Moreover, it argues that even assuming the first sentence is ambiguous as to whether a reasonable investor would believe it impliedly included anticipated acquisitions, such ambiguity must be resolved by a jury. The Panel affirms the District Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Panel finds that the Plaintiff's argument focuses on the first sentence and does not persuasively address how the second sentence expressly undermines its position. Thus, the passage is unambiguous. Further, because the Panel finds that there is no ambiguity, the Plaintiff's argument that the issue must be presented to a jury fails. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y44y6f9h from Leagle.com. Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- David M. Sborz -- dsborz@andrewsspringer.com -- Craig J. Springer -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- of Andrews & Springer, in Greenville, Delaware, represent Appellant Laborers Local No. 231 Pension Fund. Randall Baron -- randyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Joseph D. Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- David T. Wissbroecker -- DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, in San Diego, California, represent Appellant Laborers Local No. 231 Pension Fund. Christopher H. Lyons -- clyons@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, in Nashville, Tennessee, represents Appellant Laborers Local No. 231 Pension Fund. Deborah S. Birnback -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Jennifer B. Luz -- jluz@goodwinlaw.com -- of Goodwin Procter, in Boston, Massachusetts, represent Appellee Rory J. Cowan. David John Teklits -- dteklits@mnat.com -- of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, in Wilmington, Delaware, represents Appellee Rory J. Cowan. Anne S. Gaza -- agaza@ycst.com -- Elena C. Norman -- enorman@ycst.com -- Robert M. Vrana -- rvrana@ycst.com -- of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, in Wilmington, Delaware, represent Appellee LBT Merger Sub. Inc. Adam T. Humann -- adam.humann@kirkland.com -- Kevin R. Powell, II -- ross.powell@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis, in Washington, D.C., represent Appellees HIG Capital, L.L.C. and Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. Joshua Z. Rabinovitz -- joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis, in Chicago, Illinois, represents Appellees HIG Capital, L.L.C. and Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. LOOP INDUSTRIES: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Loop Industries, Inc. investors. Shareholders interested in taking an active role in the case have until the deadline indicated below to petition the court. There is no cost or obligation to you. See below for more information on the case. Loop Industries, Inc. investors (NASDAQ: LOOP); December 14, 2020 Loop Industries, Inc. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. Loop is the subject of a report issued by Hindenburg Research on October 13, 2020. The report, titled "Loop Industries: Former Employees and Plastics Experts Blow The Whistle On This 'Recycled' Smoke And Mirrors Show," alleges that "a former Loop employee told us that Loop's scientists, under pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita, were tacitly encouraged to lie about the results of the company's process internally. We have obtained internal documents and photographs to support their claims." Hindenburg writes that "according to a former employee, Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and industrially impossible.'" The report also alleges that "Executives from a division of key partner Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance agreement' with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on 'indefinite' hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and complexities of its process." Based on this report, shares of Loop fell by more than 31% in intraday trading. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors on a contingency basis in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] LSO LP: Thorne Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LSO LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10079-PAE-SN (S.D.N.Y., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human 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, https://www.lightspeedoutdoors.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: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; (3) redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and (4) linked images missing alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. 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. LSO LP is a company that operates the Lightspeed online retail store, with its principal executive office located at 2245 San Diego Ave., Suite 125, San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal MARTIN SIDOR: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Martin Sidor Farms, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Martin Sidor Farms, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10192 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Martin Sidor Farms Inc. is a farm in Mattituck, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal MCKEE FOODS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKee Foods Corporation. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. McKee Foods Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-10185 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. McKee Foods Corporation -- https://www.mckeefoods.com/ -- is a privately held and family owned American snack food and granola manufacturer headquartered in Collegedale, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal MEDTRONIC MINIMED: Lightner Consumer Suit Goes to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL LIGHTNER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MEDTRONIC MINIMED, INC.; MEDTRONIC, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV44295, was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 1, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-10942 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract, and breach of express warranty. Medtronic Minimed, Inc. is a company that distributes medical equipment, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Medtronic, Inc. is a medical device company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeff E. Scott, Esq. Ginger Pigott, Esq. Richard Tabura, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 E-mail: scottj@gtlaw.com pigottg@gtlaw.com taburar@gtlaw.com - and – Nicole E. Narotzky, Esq. Thomas R. Pack, Esq. MASLON LLP 3300 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140 Telephone: (612) 672-8200 Facsimile: (612) 642-8397 E-mail: nicole.narotzky@maslon.com thomas.pack@maslon.com MIDDLESWARTH IRA: Romero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Middleswarth, Ira, & Son, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Middleswarth, Ira, & Son, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10194-JPO-RWL (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ira Middleswarth & Son, Inc. more commonly referred to as Middleswarth Potato Chips -- http://www.middleswarthchips.com/-- is an American potato chip manufacturer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal MILESTONE AV: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Milestone AV Technologies, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Milestone AV Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10186 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Milestone AV Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.legrandav.com/-- designs, markets, and distributes audio-visual mounting equipment, offering projector mounts, racks, fixed frames, rear projection, manual, and portable screens, as well as carts and furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal MONSANTO COMPANY: Snyder Class Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled LARRY SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, identified as MONSANTO COMPANY, PBI-GORDON CORPORATION, and THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Case No. RG20064807, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-08419 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act including strict liability, failure to warn, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and fraudulent concealment. Monsanto Company is an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, with its principal place of business in Missouri. PBI-Gordon Corporation is a company that provides professional, home and lawn products, with its principal place of business in Kansas. The Dow Chemical Company is an American multinational chemical corporation, with its principal place of business in Michigan. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bruce J. Zabarauskas, Esq. THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 1722 Routh St., Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 969-1700 Facsimile: (214) 969-1751 E-mail: Bruce.zabarauskas@tklaw.com - and – P. Gerhardt Zacher, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. Matthew P. Nugent, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: gzacher@grsm.com ttobin@grsm.com mnugent@grsm.com - and – Pamela M. Ferguson, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-2580 Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 E-mail: Pamela.Ferguson@lewisbrisbois.com NANO: Court OKs Revised Pretrial Schedule in Otto Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEC OTTO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NANO F/K/A RAIBLOCKS F/K/A HIEUSYS, LLC; COLIN LEMAHIEU; MICA BUSCH; ZACH SHAPIRO; TROY RETZER; BG SERVICES, S.R.L. F/K/A BITGRAIL S.R.L. F/K/A WEBCOIN SOLUTIONS; and FRANCESCO "THE BOMBER" FIRANO, Case No. 4:19-cv-00054-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting a proposed stipulated revised class certification and discovery briefing schedule. The Revised Pretrial Schedule is revised as: -- Renewed Motion for Class Certification December 8, 2020 Filed by: -- Opposition to Class Certification February 26, 2021 Filed and Expert Report Rebuttals Filed by: -- Cut off for Discovery from March 26, 2021 Defendants' Experts: -- Reply in Support of Renewed Motion April 9, 2021 for Class Certification Filed by: -- Hearing on Class Certification Motion May 24, 2021 A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JTyc15 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff Alec Otto, are: Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 E-mail: rmah@zlk.com denright@zlk.com - and - David C. Silver, Esq. Jason S. Miller, Esq. Todd R. Friedman, Esq. SILVER MILLER 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 516-6000 E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com TFriedman@SilverMillerLaw.com - and - John A. Carriel, Esq. ZELLE LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 375 Telephone: (202) 899-4111 Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 E-mail: jcarriel@zelle.com Attorneys for Defendants Hieusys, LLC, Colin LeMahieu, Troy Retzer, and Mica Busch, are: Peter Fox, Esq. Peter Scoolidge, Esq. SCOOLIDGE PETERS RUSSOTTI & FOX LLP 2 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 729-7708 tel E-mail: peter@sprfllp.com pfox@sprfllp.com Attorneys for the Defendant Zack Shapiro, are: Shawn Naunton, Esq. Devon Galloway, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 485 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-9600 tel E-mail: snaunton@zuckerman.com dgalloway@zuckerman.com Attorneys for the Defendants Hieusys, LLC, Colin LeMahieu, Troy Retzer, Mica Busch, and Zack Shapiro, are: Paul J. Byrne, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP 351 California St Ste 600 San Francisco CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 357-2094 Facsimile: (415) 655-8238 E-mail: pbyrne@cornerlaw.comx NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lineburg Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSEPH LINEBURG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02675, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-06981 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, breach of express contract, and fraudulent concealment by failing to inform former and current football players at Western New England University, including the Plaintiff, about the risks associated with concussive and sub-concussive blows to the head and failing to develop and implement adequate guidelines and rules regarding return-to-play criteria, and other safety procedures. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes from North American institutions and conferences, with its principal place of business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 Facsimile: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and – Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and – Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com NEW YORK: E.G. Files Suit in New York ------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the city of New York. The case is styled as E. G., individually and as parent and natural guardian of A.I. and L.I., minor children, M. M., individually and as parent and natural guardian of E.H., L.H., Ev.P., and E.P., minor children, O. M., individually and as parent and natural guardian of A.M., a minor child and Coalition For the Homeless, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. City Of New York, New York City Department Of Education, Richard A. Carranza, as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, New York City Department of Social Services, Steven Banks as Commissioner of New York City Department of Social Services, New York City Department of Homeless Services, Joslyn Carter, as Administrator of New York City Department of Homeless Services, New York City Human Resources Administration, Gary Jenkins, as Administrator of the New York City Human Resources Administration, New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications and Jessica Tisch, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09879-AJN (S.D N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Civil Rights: Education filed for Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely populated borough that's among the world's major commercial, financial and cultural centers. Its iconic sites include skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and sprawling Central Park. Broadway theater is staged in neon-lit Times Square.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth Christine Hofmeister, Esq. The Legal Aid Society 199 Water Street New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 577-3496 Fax: (646) 616-4828 Email: bchofmeister@legal-aid.org - and - Kathryn Lynn Kliff, Esq. The Legal Aid Society 260 E. 161st St. Bronx, NY 10451 Tel: (646) 340-1941 Fax: (718) 842-2867 Email: kkliff@legal-aid.org - and - Maria Esperanza Ortiz, Esq. Milbank LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 530-5402 Email: mortiz@milbank.com - and - Susan Joy Horwitz, Esq. The Legal Aid Society 2090 ACP Jr. Blvd., 3rd Fl. New York, NY 10027 Tel: (212) 426-3000 Email: shorwitz@legal-aid.org - and - Grant Richard Mainland, Esq. Milbank LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York City, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 530-5251 Email: gmainland@milbank.com The Defendants are represented by: Sabita Lakshmi Krishnan, Esq. New York City Law Department 100 Church Street Room 6-188 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 442-0588 Fax: (212) 788-1633 Email: skrishna@law.nyc.gov NEXT BIO-RESEARCH: Crescent City Surgical Class Cert. Bid Due May ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRESCENT CITY SURGICAL CENTRE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, v. NEXT BIO-RESEARCH SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02369-NJB-MBN (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown entered an order granting the "Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time for Filing Motion for Class Certification" filed by the Plaintiff. In light of delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Plaintiff has established good cause for an extension of time to move for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(B). The Plaintiff must move for class certification at a time where the motion for class certification may be filed and heard by May 25, 2021. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JYPppz at no extra charge.[CC] NUESKE'S MEAT: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------- Nueske's Meat Products, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nueske's Meat Products, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09897 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020). Nueske's Applewood Smoked Meats is a specialty meat supplier in Wittenberg, Wisconsin. The company produces artisan applewood smoked bacon, ham, sausage and poultry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com OARS + ALPS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oars + Alps LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Oars + Alps LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10160 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oars + Alps LLC -- https://www.oarsandalps.com/ -- provides personal care products offering face wash, eye cream, deodorant, and other skin care products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal OCALA, FL: Certification of Homeless Persons Class Denied --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK MCARDLE, COURTNEY RAMSEY and ANTHONY CUMMINGS, v. CITY OF OCALA, FL, Case No. 5:19-cv-00461-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody Jr., entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude and/or Strike Body Camera Footage; and 2. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification of: "all persons who currently or during the pendency of this litigation (a) are homeless in that they are without fixed housing and lack the financial resources to provide for their own housing; (b) live within the City of Ocala including individuals who sometimes sleep outside the City to avoid arrest; and (c) have been convicted under the City of Ocala ordinance, codified at Sec. 42-10 of the Ocala City Code, that prohibits "lodging in the open" ("open lodging")." The Complaint and motion for class certification allege the Plaintiffs and the putative class members are involuntarily homeless because the number of homeless people in the City exceeds the number of available shelter beds. According to the City of Ocala, even if the shelter beds were available, the Plaintiffs would not be eligible for them because of their criminal background or for being previously trespassed for drugs or alcohol. According to the Court, it is common for homeless shelters to have rules for the safety and protection of those who stay there, including children. The rules ordinarily prohibit fighting, threatening behavior, and the use of alcohol or drugs. The Plaintiffs argue that if there were more shelter beds than the number of homeless individuals, those who are "trespassed" (excluded) for previous infractions still would not have a bed "available." All three named Plaintiffs have been "trespassed" from local homeless shelters. The Plaintiffs contend that this qualifies as having no alternative place to stay. Assuming arguendo this to be true, the named Plaintiffs are not typical of the class as defined because the class is not limited to just those members. Because of the foregoing reasons and because of the presumption against class certification, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit against the City of Ocala alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36UcrHf at no extra charge.[CC] PACIFIC STEEL: Gay Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BRANDON GAY, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG20075009, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-08442 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 overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business practices. Pacific Steel Group is a steel fabrication company based in San Diego, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Tyler M. Paetkau, Esq. Olga Savage, Esq. Clint S. Engleson, Esq. PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP 1117 S California Ave., Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 645-9000 Facsimile: (619) 235-0398 E-mail: tyler.paetkau@procopio.com olga.savage@procopio.com clint.engleson@procopio.com - and – David A. Perkins, Esq. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP 4805 Murphy Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92123 PB HOLDCO: Winegard Files Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pb Holdco LLC. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pb Holdco LLC (doing business as Pursuit Boats), Case No. 1:20-cv-05853 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Pursuit Boats -- https://www.pursuitboats.com/ -- is a manufacturer of luxury sport fishing and cruising boats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Email: msegal@segallegal.com PEABODY ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff had 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. BTU Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/peabody-energy-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11252&wire=1 Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE:BTU) BTU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 3, 2017 - October 28, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/peabody-energy-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11252&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Peabody Energy Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous combustion event; (b) the Company failed to follow its own safety procedures; (c) as a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a heightened risk of shutdown; (d) the Company's low-cost plan to restart operations at the mine posed unreasonable safety and environmental risks; (e) The Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable health and safety standards, the Queensland Mines Inspectorate, would likely mandate a safer, cost-prohibitive approach; and (f) as a result, there would be major delays in reopening the North Goonyella mine and restarting coal production. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] PETHONESTY LLC: Thorne Alleges Violation under ADA -------------------------------------------------- Pethonesty LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pethonesty LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09915 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 24, 2020). Pethonesty LLC markets its products as healthy natural dog treats packed with ingredients backed by science.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Gottlieb & Associates 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003 New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal PHH MORTGAGE CORP: Williams Files Suit under FDCPA -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHH Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Ursula N. Williams, Melbourne Poff and Barbara Poff, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, itself and as successor by merger to OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04018 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 24, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. PHH Mortgage Corporation provides mortgage financing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq. Bailey & Glasser LLP 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Tel: (856) 324-8219 PRETORIUS: Boyd Files Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pretorius, et al. The case is styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tricia Pretorius, Jeremy Jones, Charlene Burkette, Ombudsman Bureau, individually and in their official capacities, Case No. 1:20-cv-03126-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 3, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition for Prisoner Civil Rights. Tricia Pretorius is the Warden of the Indiana Department of Correction.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Derek Boyd 727 MOON ROAD PLAINFIELD, IN 46168 273507 PLAINFIELD - CF PLAINFIELD CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels PRO SE The Defendants appear pro se. RAMADA WORLDWIDE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Won Vision Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- WON VISION, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAMADA WORLDWIDE, INC. d/b/a WYNDHAM HOTELS, Defendant, Case No. CACE-20-020132 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud. Ct., Broward Cty., December 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure 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 through screen-reading software. The Defendant's Website https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/ramada, 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: (1) unidentified language of the document, (2) lack of image alternative text, (3) lack of corresponding form control label, (4) insufficient alternative text, (5) inaccessible event handler, (6) skipped heading level, (7) presence of flash content, (8) absence of text on links, and (9) transfer of adjacent links to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL). 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. Won Vision, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation located in Miami-Dade, Florida. Ramada Worldwide, Inc., d/b/a Wyndham Hotels, is a foreign for-profit corporation that operates hotels in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq. MG LEGAL GROUP 3126 Center Street Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 448-9557 Facsimile: (305) 448-9559 E-mail: ljm@ljmpalaw.com scheduling_ljmpa@comcast.net RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind Raytheon Technologies Corporation investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Company (RTX, RTN) Class Period: 2/10/2016-10/27/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 29, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rtx/ If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About Kahn Swick KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] RCSH OPERATIONS: Dix's Rule 23 Class Certification Bid Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT DIX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MICHAEL PALOMBO, v. RCSH OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00098-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John E. Steele entered an order denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Class Action Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and Facilitation of Court-Authorized Opt-In Notice. The Court said, "the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, it is unnecessary for the Court to address the superiority prong. As the plaintiffs have failed to establish an administratively feasible method of identifying proposed class members, and failed to demonstrate common issues of law and fact, the Court concludes class certification under Rule 23 is inappropriate." On March 1, 2020, the plaintiff filed a four-count Amended Class/Collective Action Complaint against RCSH, alleging violations of the federal Fair Labors Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 24, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VS9PU0 at no extra charge.[CC] RESCARE WORKFORCE: Mills Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RHONDA MILLS, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. RESCARE WORKFORCE SERVICES; RESCARE, INC.; BRIGHT SPRING HEALTH SERVICES; EQUUS WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS; RESCARE HOMECARE; RESCARE RESIDENTIAL SERVICES; RESCARE CALIFORNIA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20-STCV-35384, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-10860 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, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, noncompliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business practices. ResCare Workforce Services is a provider of workforce solutions, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. ResCare, Inc. is a privately-owned home care company, with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky. Bright Spring Health Services is a provider of comprehensive home and community-based health services, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. Equus Workforce Solutions is a provider of workforce development services in North America, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. ResCare HomeCare is a provider of home care services based in Louisville, Kentucky. ResCare Residential Services is a company that provides support to adults and children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. ResCare California, Inc. is a company that provides health care services based in Carmichael, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phil J. Montoya, Jr., Esq. HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1651 Telephone: (213) 486-8000 Facsimile: (213) 486-8080 E-mail: pmontoya@hpylaw.com REXEL USA: Torres Employment Class Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled GERARDO TORRES and TAWNI VANDAGRIFF, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. REXEL USA, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CV-20-004823, was removed from the Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 2, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01697-NONE-BAM to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records, wages not timely paid upon termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, unreimbursed business expenses, and unlawful and unfair business practices. Rexel USA, Inc. is an electrical supply distributor based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Linda Claxton, Esq. Armig K. Khodanian, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: linda.claxton@ogletree.com armig.khodanian@ogletree.com ROSS STORES: Marshall Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terry Marshall, Cindy Rickel, M.M., a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Terry Marshall, v. ROSS STORES, INC dba dd's Discount and DOES 1 THROUGH 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-04703-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on February 22, 2021, to enter an order: 1. certifying these Class and Subclasses: A. The Caucasian/White Class: "all Caucasians/Whites who have been denied restroom access at the dd's Discounts Stores located in Palmdale (266 E Palmdale 27 Blvd, Palmdale, CA 93550) and Lancaster (2038 W Ave J, Lancaster, CA 93536), California (the "Stores") because of their race." The class excludes counsel representing the class and all persons employed by said counsel. B. The Disability Subclass: "all disabled persons who were denied restroom-access at the stores even after informing the stores' employees of their disability and seeking modifications to permit them use the stores' restrooms or in cases where their disability was apparent. The class excludes counsel representing the class and all persons employed by said counsel.; C. The Associate Subclass: "all persons who were with or accompanied Plaintiffs or any other class or subclass member on the day when they were denied restroom access at the stores because of their race;" 2. designating them as class representatives; and 3. designating Kisob Law Firm as counsel for the Class. Ross Stores, operating under the brand name Ross Dress for Less, is an American chain of discount department stores headquartered in Dublin, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qnRVXn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Apemwoyah Kisob Alaric-Lorenzo Esq. KISOB LAW FIRM 3680 Wilshire Blvd Suite P 04-1147 Los Angeles CA 90010 Telephone: (702) 863 4243 Facsimile: (213) 383 8080 E-mail: Alkisob@kisoblaw.US ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Jakubowitz Law announces that securities fraud class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded company who purchased shares within the class period listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation, follow the link below. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE:RCL) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT RCL: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=11257&from=1 Class Period : February 4, 2020 - March 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 7, 2020 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Royal Caribbean misled investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19 was relatively insignificant; (2) the Company falsely assured investors that bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a slowdown; (3) the Company was experiencing material declines in bookings globally due to customer concerns over COVID-19; and (5) the Company's ships were following grossly inadequate protocols that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a substantial risk to passengers and crews. Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] RP ON-SITE: Court Denies Class Certification in Miller Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN MILLER, v. RP ON-SITE, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-02114-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for certification of three classes: -- Disciplinary Infraction Class: "all natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories about whom, from April 19, 2017 continuing through the resolution of this action, the Defendants [sic] prepared a consumer report which included information regarding one or more administrative action undertaken by a department of corrections which the Defendants [sic] reported as a "felony conviction;" -- Antedated Report Class: "all natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories who were subjects of tenant screening reports created by the Defendants [sic] from April 19, 2017 and continuing through the resolution of this action, that contained adverse information other than convictions (including criminal cases that had been expunged, sealed, set aside, or dismissed) that preceded the report by more than seven years;" -- Expungement Class -- abandoned on reply: "all natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories about whom, from April 19, 2017 and continuing through the resolution of this action, Defendants [sic] prepared a consumer report which included information regarding one or more criminal case which had been expunged, sealed, or otherwise removed from public dissemination at the time the report was prepared." The Court denies class certification for two independent reasons. First, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that any putative class is "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable." Second, the Plaintiff is an inadequate class representative. A copy of the Court's order denying motion for class certification dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3giVqJQ at no extra charge.[CC] SAG-AFTRA HEALTH: Asner ERISA Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD ASNER, MICHAEL BELL, RAYMOND HARRY JOHNSON, SONDRA JAMES WEIL, DAVID JOLLIFFE, ROBERT CLOTWORTHY, THOMAS COOK, AUDREY LOGGIA, DEBORAH WHITE, DONNA LYNN LEAVY, individually on behalf of themselves and the other similarly situated members of the Counts I and III Class and the Counts II and IV Class as defined herein, Plaintiffs v. THE SAG-AFTRA HEALTH FUND; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SCREEN ACTORS GUILDPRODUCERS HEALTH PLAN; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAGAFTRA HEALTH FUND; DARYL ANDERSON; HELAYNE ANTLER; AMY AQUINO; TIMOTHY BLAKE; JIM BRACCHITTA; ANN CALFAS; JOHN CARTER BROWN; DUNCAN CRABTREE-IRELAND; ERYN M. DOHERTY; GARY M. ELLIOTT; MANDY FABIAN; LEIGH FRENCH; BARRY GORDON; J. KEITH GORHAM; NICOLE GUSTAFSON; JAMES HARRINGTON; DAVID HARTLEY-MARGOLIN; HARRY ISAACS; MARLA JOHNSON; ROBERT W. JOHNSON; BOB KALIBAN; SHELDON KASDAN; MATTHEW KIMBROUGH; LYNNE LAMBERT; SHELLEY LANDGRAF; ALLAN LINDERMAN; CAROL A. LOMBARDINI; STACY K. MARCUS; RICHARD MASUR; JOHN T. MCGUIRE; DIANE P. MIROWSKI; D.W. MOFFETT; PAUL MURATORE; TRACY OWEN; MICHAEL PNIEWSKI; ALAN H. RAPHAEL; JOHN E. RHONE; RAY RODRIGUEZ; MARC SANDMAN; SHELBY SCOTT; DAVID SILBERMAN; SALLY STEVENS; JOHN H. SUCKE; KIM SYKES; GABRIELA TEISSIER; LARA UNGER; NED VAUGHN; DAVID WEISSMAN; RUSSELL WETANSON; DAVID P. WHITE; SAMUEL P. WOLFSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-10914 (C.D. Cal., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to conduct a fully informed premerger investigation and analysis to assess the impact of the merger of the SAG Health Plan with the AFTRA Health Fund on the SAG Health Plan and its participants' health benefits and the sustainability of the benefit structure in the merged plan, and whether protections were required to and could be implemented in the merged plan in order for the merger to be advisable and solely in the best interests of the SAG Health Plan and its participants. The SAG-AFTRA Health Plan Trustees knew but did not disclose to the non-health plan trustee members of the union negotiating team or the SAG-AFTRA National Board, or to the membership, in connection with the negotiations and votes to approve the contracts. The withheld material information included the looming peril, the unsustainability of the health benefit structure and the insufficiency of the negotiated terms to sustain the benefit structure. The failure to disclose this information to the Union negotiating team and the voting membership constituted a breach of the SAGAFTRA Health Plan Trustees' fiduciary duty to disclose material information to the plan and the participants, the suit says. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neville L. Johnson, Esq. Douglas L. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP 439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 975-1080 Facsimile: (310) 975-1095 E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com djohnson@jjllplaw.com - and – Steven. A Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com - and – Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Emily L. Skaug, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 E-mail: rjk@chimicles.com els@chimicles.com - and – Edward Siedle, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD SIEDLE 17789 Fieldbrook Circle West Boca Raton, FL 33496 Telephone: (561) 703-5958 E-mail: esiedle@aol.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Cesaletti Suit Claims Sale of Irreparable TVs ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELI CESALETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-08472-JSC (N.D. Cal., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, distribution, and promotion of Samsung plasma television sets without adequately making functional replacement parts available to service the televisions. Consumers in California, like the Plaintiff, experienced a common issue with the Samsung plasma televisions through the appearance of stationary thin vertical lines on the screen. The vertical line failure arises from the failure of the data driver, the bond between the data driver and plasma display panel glass, or electrodes inside the panel. Consumers are left without the option to purchase a new plasma television as other manufacturers had also exited the plasma television market and are unable to repair their Samsung plasma televisions. The Plaintiff and members of the Class could not have known or reasonably discovered that the parts necessary to repair their Samsung televisions would no longer be available until after they attempted to repair a manifested vertical line failure. As a result of the Defendants' unfair business practices, the Plaintiff and the Class are left with plasma televisions that are not able to be repaired. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a company that designs, manufactures, and/or distributes consumer electronics products, with its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a company that designs, manufactures, and/or distributes consumer electronics products, with its headquarters in Seoul, South Korea. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Spitz, Esq. SPITZ LAW GROUP 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 600E Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (424) 273-1126 Facsimile: (424) 273-1119 E-mail: jspitz@spitzlawgroup.com - and – Paul S. Rothstein, Esq. 626 N.E. First Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 376-7650 Facsimile: (352) 374-7133 E-mail: psr@rothsteinorjustice.com SHAKE SHACK: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ware Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON WARE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAKE SHACK ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07071 (N.D. Ill., November 30, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law 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. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee at its location in Oak Brook, New York from November 2017 to October 2020. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC is a limited liability company engaged in the restaurants industry, with its principal place of business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION: Loomis Settlement Has Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANE LOOMIS, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. SLENDERTONE DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-854-MMA (KSC) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. In the class action lawsuit, Loomis brought several causes of action against Slendertone, alleging the Defendant's advertising falsely and misleadingly suggests that consumers of its Flex Belt will gain the health and appearance benefits of traditional exercise. The Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a class settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendant joined in the Plaintiff's motion. Having reviewed the Plaintiff's submissions, Judge Anello granted the Plaintiff's motion. He found on a preliminary basis that the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is within the range of reasonableness. Therefore, he preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement set forth therein, as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class. The Judge conditionally certified, for settlement purposes only, a Class defined as all persons who, while residing in California during the Class Period, purchased the Slendertone Flex Belt for personal or household use, and not for resale, and excludes from the Settlement Class: (a) persons or entities who purchased the Flex Belt for the purpose of resale or distribution; (b) persons who are directors and Officers of Slendertone or its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate companies; (c) governmental entities; (d) persons who purchased the Slendertone Flex Belt for personal or household use, but subsequently received a refund from Slendertone; (e) persons who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class as provided in the Agreement; (f) persons who signed a release of Slendertone for compensation for the claims arising out of the facts or claims asserted in the Action; and (g) and any judge to whom the matter is assigned, and his or her immediate family (spouse, domestic partner, or children). Judge Anello appointed (i) Plaintiff Loomis as the Class Representative, and (ii) The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC as the Class Counsel. He approved RG2 to act as Claims Administrator, and approved the form and content of the Class Notice proposed therein, including the Long- and Short-Form Notices attached thereto. Accordingly, he approved the Notice Plan as set forth in the Declaration of William W. Wickersham and its attached Exhibits. The Judge adopted the schedule proposed by the Plaintiff, as follows: a. Deadline to commence direct notice 7 -- 1 week after preliminary approval date; b. Deadline to complete notice 35 -- 5 weeks after preliminary approval date; c. Deadline to make a claim or opt out 42 -- 6 weeks after preliminary approval date; d. Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Motions for Final Approval, Attorneys' Fees, and Incentive -- 7 weeks after preliminary approval date; e. Awards Deadline for objections -- 9 weeks after preliminary approval date; f. Deadline for replies to objections -- 10 weeks after preliminary approval date; and g. Final approval hearing date -- 13 weeks after preliminary approval date. The Final Approval Hearing is set for March 8, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. All discovery and proceedings in the Action are stayed until further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to implement the settlement or comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyq6mupa from Leagle.com. SPARC GROUP: Cota Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sparc Group LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sparc Group LLC, doing business as: Aeropostale, a Delaware limited liability company and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02296-L-AHG (S.D. Cal., Nov. 24, 2020). Sparc Group LLC is located in Lyndhurst, NJ, United States and is part of the Clothing Stores Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Wilshire Law Firm 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com SRA ASSOCIATES: Faces Mendonez Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- FERDINAND J. MENDONEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SRA ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-17684 (D.N.J., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide statutorily required disclosures on its debt collection letter to the Plaintiff on June 11, 2020. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiff was misled into believing that the law required him to dispute the debt in writing. SRA Associates, Inc. is a receivables management provider, with its principal office in Burlington County, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Rudnick, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RUDNICK, L.L.C. 788 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 204 Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 842-2070 Facsimile: (732) 879-0213 E-mail: jonr@jonrudlaw.com - and – Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com STOREY COUNTY, NV: Yohey FLSA Suit Settlement Has Prelim. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, VICTOR YOHEY, CHRIS TILLISCH, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STOREY COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-00037-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev.), Judge Robert C. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Provisional Certification of the Collective Class. The case is a collective action under the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") wherein the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege that the Defendant did not pay the class members the full amount of compensation required by the FLSA during the period from June 30, 2015, to June 30, 2017. The parties have entered into their stipulation and settlement agreement to resolve the claim, and on Sept. 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Approval. On Oct. 7, 2020, the Defendant filed its Statement of Non-Opposition to the Motion. The Motion was supported by the Joint Stipulation to Collective Action Settlement and Release, the Notice of FLSA Collective Action Settlement and Release, and the Opt-In Form, as well as a Declaration of the Plaintiffs' Counsel. The Stipulation provides that the settlement class is composed of all current and former employees employed by the Defendant between June 30, 2015, and June 30, 2017, and who were subject to the payment practices contained within the 2014-2017 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The named Plaintiffs are fire fighters, currently employed by the Defendant, who were also employed during the relevant time period of June 30, 2015, to June 30, 2017, and were subject to the pay practices of the Defendant during that period. The Stipulation also provides that each class member will receive a settlement amount in the amount allegedly owed to him or her according to the applicable legal theories, based on the relevant time and payroll records, as determined by an agreed upon neutral third-party expert. It further provides that the amounts for administrative expenses and for the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs are added on top of the amounts calculated by the third-party expert and will not cause the settling class members' allocations to be reduced. The Stipulation, along with the Class Notice and Opt-In Form, provide a straightforward and fair process for notifying the class members of the settlement and their options of (1) declining to opt-in; (2) opting-in to receive a settlement payment; or (3) opting-in and objecting. The parties are represented by the counsel. Judge Jones granted the unopposed Motion in full. The Stipulation is preliminarily approved, and the settlement class is provisionally certified under the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) for settlement purposes. The Class Notice described in Section V of the Stipulation is approved. The Judge appointed Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions as the settlement administrator. He directed the Parties to comply with the duties and the deadlines set forth in the Stipulation and specifically: (a) The Defendant will distribute the Class Notice with the Opt-In form within 21 days and pursuant to the manner set forth in Article V of the Stipulation; (b) The Acceptance Period is 60 days from the date of the initial mailing of the Class Notice; (c) The Plaintiffs' counsel will file the motion for attorneys' fees and costs not less than 21 days prior to the deadline for the class members to object to the Stipulation; and (d) The Plaintiffs will file their Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement within 45 days after the close of the Acceptance period. The Final Approval Hearing date is set for April 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. All other proceedings pending final approval are stayed. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 1, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3n2lqnm from Leagle.com. TEACHERS INSURANCE: Haley Suit Wins Class Status ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA HALEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:17-cv-00855-JPO-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order: 1. granting Haley's motion for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3), with Haley as class representative and the firms of Berger Montague PC and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP as class counsel; and 2. granting Haley's motion to amend the complaint and class certification motion. Haley seeks to amend her complaint and class certification motion to add two additional named plaintiffs and class representatives. The Court granted the request, saying Haley was diligent in seeking to add two new plaintiffs, and their addition to the case will not unduly prejudice TIAA. Haley brings this putative class action against TIAA, alleging that TIAA engaged in prohibited transactions with the Washington University Retirement Savings Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). After the Court dismissed several of the claims in an earlier complaint, Haley filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Court then denied TIAA's motion to dismiss the operative complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to strike certain class allegations. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2L9kdEM at no extra charge.[CC] TESLA INC: Court Certifies Class in Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE TESLA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-04865-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all individuals and entities who purchased or sold Tesla stock, options, and other securities from 12:48 p.m. EDT on August 7, 2018 to August 17, 2018 and were damaged thereby" Excluded from the Class are: Defendants; the officers and directors of Tesla, Inc. at all relevant times; members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. 2. appointing Littleton as Class Representative for the Class; and 3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as Class Counsel for the Class. The Parties had stipulated and agreed that: 1. For purposes of class certification only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3), the parties agree that the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class because he seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the same alleged course of conduct. 2. For purposes of class certification only, the parties agree that Plaintiff purchased or sold Tesla, Inc. stock or options during the proposed Class Period of August 7, 2018 to August 17, 2018. 3. For purposes of class certification only, the parties agree that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. 4. Based on the foregoing, this class is certified: "All individuals and entities who purchased or sold Tesla stock, options, and other securities from 12:48 p.m. EDT on August 7, 2018 to August 17, 2018 and were damaged thereby" (the Class). Excluded from the Class are: Defendants; the officers and directors of Tesla, Inc. at all relevant times; members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a controlling interest. 6. Littleton is appointed Class Representative for the Class. 7. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is appointed Class Counsel for the Class. 8. The parties reserve their right to seek alteration or amendment of this order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c). 9. By entering into this Stipulation, the Plaintiff and the Defendants do not waive any substantive defenses, objections, or arguments that otherwise could be asserted in a summary judgment motion, in a Daubert motion, at trial or at any other stage of this litigation. Tesla is an American electric vehicle and clean energy company based in Palo Alto, California. Tesla's current products include electric cars, battery energy storage from home to grid scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, and related products and services. A copy of the stipulation and [proposed] order for class certification dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g773Uq at no extra charge. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36MLaXm at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Lead Plaintiff Glen Littleton and Lead Counsel for the Class, are: Adam M. Apton, Esq. Adam C. Mccall, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com amccall@zlk.com - and - Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Alexander A. Krot III, Esq. 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com akrot@zlk.com - and - Joseph Levi, Esq. Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com ek@zlk.com Attorneys for the Defendants Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk, Brad W. Buss, Robyn Denholm, Ira Ehrenpreis, Antonio J. Gracias, James Murdoch, Kimbal Musk, and Linda Johnson Rice, are: Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Stephen C. Neal, Esq. Patrick E. Gibbs, Esq. Samantha A. Kirby, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 E-mail: nealsc@cooley.com pgibbs@cooley.com skirby@cooley.com - and - Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq. Brian M. French, Esq. Bingxin Wu, Esq. 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001-2157 Telephone: (212) 479-6000 Facsimile: (212) 479-6275 E-mail: slightdale@cooley.com bfrench@cooley.com bwu@cooley.com TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Copaxone-Related Putative Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is facing a putative securities class action suit related to the commercial performance of COPAXONE. On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Teva and certain of its former officers alleging, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint, purportedly filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and August 18, 2020, alleges that Teva and certain of its former officers violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements regarding the commercial performance of COPAXONE, namely, by failing to disclose that Teva had caused the submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva's donations to bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance to patients, which allegedly impacted COPAXONE's commercial success and the sustainability of its revenues and resulted in the above referenced August 2020 False Claims Act complaint filed by the Department of Justice DOJ. The securities class action complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. The case is in its preliminary stages. A motion to approve a securities class action was also filed in the Central District Court in Israel, with similar allegations to those made in the above complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. TURQUOISE HILL: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 14 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadline in the Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. class action lawsuit: Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (TRQ) Class Period: 7/17/2018 - 7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 14, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-trq/ If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Mikale v. DOL -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard G. Kopf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed the case, EAN MIKALE and ALEDIA MIKALE, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR, NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and CITY OF FREMONT, Defendants, Case No. 4:20CV3101 (D. Neb.), in its entirety. Plaintiffs Ean and Aledia Mikale seek money damages from the U.S. Department of Labor, the Nebraska Department of Education, the Nebraska Department of Labor, and the City of Fremont, Nebraska, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act ("WIOA"). The Plaintiffs allege that they were members of the International Drone Federation, an association for the newly federally recognized occupations for Commercial Drone Pilots and Commercial Drone Software Developers. They then allege a flurry of highly detailed and confusing facts suggesting that, as part of their business, they paid and trained three apprentices; their training program ended due to financial hardship and state regulatory issues; and when the Plaintiffs changed their business model, the Nebraska Department of Labor revoked its contract with them. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants (1) conspired to deny them a "Federally recognized Apprenticeship" and to oppress the business of the Plaintiffs; (2) infringed their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freely organize as an association and to peacefully assemble; (3) engaged in negligent misrepresentation when the City of Fremont indicated that the Plaintiffs' Apprenticeship was approved, that the City would assist them in obtaining funding, that it would furnish a letter of support for the JPMorgan Chase Advancing Cities Competition, and it would approve a Drone District around the Methodist Fremont Hospital, and the City's failure to do so negatively affected their opportunity to pursue federal research dollars, attract investment, and deliver a contract as promised, as well as caused them to spend thousands of dollars purchasing equipment and staff, leasing property, and purchasing insurance; and (4) included unconscionable language in the contractual agreement in question, the contents of which are unclear. The Plaintiffs, who are not prisoners, have been given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Judge Kopf conducts an initial review of the Plaintiffs' claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2). The Plaintiffs purport to seek damages as redress as a class. Because pro se litigants may not represent the interests of other parties, the Judge finds that the action cannot proceed as a class action. The Plaintiffs' Complaint also asserts claims for money damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freely organize as an association and to peacefully assemble. To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. First, the Judge holds that states and their agencies are not considered "persons" for purposes of Section 1983. Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages by private parties against a state and its agencies in federal court. Accordingly, Defendants Nebraska Department of Education and Nebraska Department of Labor are not subject to suit under Section 1983. Second, Judge Kopf holds that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims against the United States Department of Labor fail because constitutional tort claims may not be asserted against federal agencies. Third, the Plaintiffs have failed to state constitutional claims against all of the named Defendants. Judge Kopf finds that the Plaintiffs make no allegations of a policy, officially adopted and promulgated by the City of Fremont, or a practice, so permanent and well-settled so as to constitute a custom, that existed and through which" the City acted to destroy their business. Rather, they make factual allegations pertaining to their specific situation, which is insufficient to impose Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) liability. Lastly, allowing the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint would be futile because even if they had named parties against whom constitutional claims could properly be asserted, Judge Kopf opines that he cannot discern any plausible basis for First or Fourteenth Amendment violations. None of the Plaintiffs' allegations suggest a violation of their right to assemble or associate under the First Amendment. Turning to the Plaintiffs' attempt to individually enforce WIOA through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Judge holds that while one court has held that the WIOA confers a right upon a local workforce training organization to enforce WIOA's provisions dealing with the prompt allocation of funds through Section 1983, the court held that an individual worker (like the Plaintiffs in the case) who would benefit from WIOA funding to help secure access to and opportunities for the employment, education, training, and support services, is statutorily barred from suing the Governor to release the WIOA funds. Therefore, the Court rules, the Plaintiffs do not -- and cannot -- state a claim that the Defendants violated their alleged right to funds and support under the WIOA. Because he is dismissing the Plaintiff's federal claims, Judge Kopf also dismisses the Plaintiff's state-law claims without prejudice to reassertion in the proper forum. For these reasons, Judge Kopf dismissed the case in its entirety. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' federal claims are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the Plaintiffs' state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to reassertion in the proper forum. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 2, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2mpyjyz from Leagle.com. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH: Faces Hoelzer Suit Over Wrongful Termination ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARTHA HOELZER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL and RAYMOND FARROW, in his individual and official capacity, BARBARA J. STEPHENSON, in her individual and official capacity, and DANIEL LEBOLD, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01072 (M.D.N.C., December 1, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the North Carolina Persons with Disabilities Protection Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants discharged the Plaintiff from her position as a development officer for University of North Carolina (UNC) Global because of her disability and discriminated against her in violation of the ADA. The Defendants retaliated against her because she took leave and requested a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The Defendants failed to engage in the interactive process with the Plaintiff in a meaningful manner and failed to consider whether other positions were available to her, and imposed terms and conditions on her employment which were unreasonable and designed to be unattainable in order to provide the Defendants with pretextual reason to terminate her. The Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of her rights to both pre-termination and post-termination due process to which she was entitled under State and federal law prior to depriving her of property in violation of her constitutional rights. The Plaintiff was initially hired as a part-time temporary worker for UNC in 2002 and began working at UNC Global as a full-time employee on August 29, 2016 until she was informed about the termination of her employment on February 22, 2019. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is a public research university in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valerie Bateman, Esq. FORREST FIRM, P.C. 406 Blackwell St., Suite 420 Durham, NC 27701 Telephone: (919) 436-3592 E-mail: valerie.bateman@forrestfirm.com - and – Rachel M. Blunk, Esq. FORREST FIRM, P.C. 406 Blackwell St., Suite 420 Durham, NC 27701 Telephone: (336) 663-1052 E-mail: rachel.blunk@forrestfirm.com VF OUTDOOR: Cota Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULISSA COTA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC d/b/a THE NORTH FACE and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02355-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal., December 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The complaint contends that 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, https://www.thenorthface.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: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; (3) redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and (4) linked images missing alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. 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. VF Outdoor, LLC, d/b/a The North Face, is a manufacturer of men's and boy's clothing, headquartered in Alameda, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com VISION SERVICE: Faces Schmidt Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SCHMIDT, on behalf of himself and the Class and Collective members, Plaintiff v. VISION SERVICE PLAN, VSP GLOBAL, INC., MARCHON EYEWEAR, INC., VSP OPTICAL GROUP, INC., and EYEFINITY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-at-01195 (E.D. Cal., December 2, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods, failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, and unlawful business practices. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt Customer Service Representative for the Defendants at a Vision Service Plan location in Rancho Cordova, California from approximately August 2015 to August 2019. Vision Service Plan is a vision care health insurance company based in Rancho Cordova, California. VSP Global, Inc. is a company that provides products and services to eyecare professionals, employers, and members, headquartered in California. Marchon Eyewear, Inc. is a manufacturer and distributor of eyewear and sunglasses based in Melville, New York. VSP Optical Group, Inc. is a vision care company based in California. Eyefinity, Inc. is a provider of computer programming services in the eye care industry, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Scott L. Gordon, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com sgordon@schneiderwallace.com WASTE PRO: Hansen Renews Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL HANSEN and AHMAD YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WASTE PRO OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02654-DCN (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their renewed motion for class certification of: "all day-rate paid Waste Disposal Drivers employed by Waste Pro of South Carolina, Inc., at any time from three years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit (October 2, 2014) to August 1, 2017 who received a half-day rate as shown on their respective pay records." Waste Disposal Drivers contend that the Defendant violated Plaintiffs' rights, and the rights of those similarly situated under the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (SCPWA). The Plaintiffs and other class members in this case were workers who (i) worked as Waste Disposal Drivers for Defendant, and (ii) were paid a day-rate by Defendant for their work, but were subject to illegal deductions from their day-rate under the SCPWA. Additionally, the Defendant failed to give proper notice of these deductions at the time of Waste Disposal Drivers' hiring as required by the SCPWA. A copy of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification dated Nov. 23, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qhYydE at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys in charge for the plaintiffs and putative class members, are: Ben Whaley Le Clercq, Esq. LE CLERCQ LAW FIRM, P.C. 708 S. Shelmore Suite 202 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 722-3523 E-mail: ben@leclercqlaw.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 867-4791 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com pbotros@forthepeople.com - and - Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline --------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the pending deadline in the Wells Fargo & Company securities class action lawsuit: Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) Class Period: 10/13/2017 - 10/13/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 29, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-wfc/ If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About Kahn Swick KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***