/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 251 Headlines 3M CO: Faces Securities Class Action 44TH ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Dennis Labor Suit ALLIANZ: Faces Class Action Over Junk Car Insurance Rip-Off ALPHA AND OMEGA: Bid to Dismiss Gray Putative Class Suit Pending ALPHABOW ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Oil Leases AMAZON: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action AMERICAN SECURITY: Hall Sues Over Security Workers' Unpaid Overtime AMERICOLD REALTY: $2.5MM Settlement in Former Employee Suit OK'd APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Blair Class Suit Pending APOLLO GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss Amended Presidio Class Suit Pending APOLLO GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 12 APOLLO GLOBAL: Seeks to Dismiss Patel Derivative Class Suit APPLE INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action ASHFORD INC: Employment Class Action Against Subsidiary Ongoing B COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Tel Aviv BARONE STEEL: Bravo Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA BENELLI U.S.A: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BEZEQ INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Virus, Backup Services BEZEQ: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Tel Aviv Court BIG STAR TRANSIT: Mason Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers BMW AG: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline BMW AG: Scott+Scott Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline BMW AUSTRALIA: Corrs Chambers Discusses Court Ruling in Brewster BMW: Faces Class Action Over Hybrid Battery Problems BOOTY BANDS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York C.F. MARTIN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CABRILLO CREDIT: Faces Cortes Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fees CANADA: Anglican Diocese Sexual Abuse Class Action Pending CELSION CORP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Feb. 5, 2021 Fairness Hearing Set in Urena Suit CERAVE LLC: Gruber Sues Over Mislabeled Skincare Products CHRISTOFLE SILVER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Says CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Barnes Files FDCPA Suit in D. Maryland COZY EARTH: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CREATION ENTERTAINMENT: Prelim. OK of Deal Sought in Christofferson CROWN RESORTS: Faces Inquiry Amid Shareholder Class Action CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Stayed CV SCIENCES: Discovery in Smith Purported Class Suit Ongoing DANIEL DEFENSE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DERA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ixqueptap Suit Says DROPBOX INC: IPO Consolidated Putative Class Suit Tossed EAT CLUB: App Ct Says Orders Appealed From in Frego Not Appealable EDWARD WOLFF: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls FAIRFIELD, OH: Denial of Judgment on Pleadings in Caddell Endorsed FARGO COLONIAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Cota Says FASTLY INC: Hearing on Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Set for Dec. 2 FLUIDIGM CORP: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing FTS INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in Glock Putative Class Suit GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Court Denies in Part Ewalt's Bid to Seal Info GENERAL WIRELESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Begg Alleges GENIE ENERGY: Preliminary Motion to Dismiss Davis Suit Pending GENIE ENERGY: TCPA Class Suit Against IDT Energy Underway GIBSON BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOOGLE LLC: Blumberg Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly GOOGLE LLC: Interlocutory Appeal Cert. in Header Privacy Suit Nixed GOOGLE: Plaintiffs Lawyer Seeks to Create Antitrust MDL GREAT AMERICAN: Faces Key Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Class Suit in California Ongoing GRUBHUB INC: Stockholder Putative Class Action Ongoing in Illinois GULF INTERSTATE: Misclassifies Inspectors, Mosteller Suit Claims HAMAKUA MACADAMIA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HC CARRIERS: Faces Flores Suit Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime HEALTHALLIANCE HOSPITAL: Poyner Spruill Discusses Ruling in Russell HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Ct. Consolidates Clynes, Dahlke Securities Suits HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE: Rodriguez Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 6th Cir. HLD GARI LLC: Altamirano Sues Over Delivery Workers' Unpaid OT HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Blind-Spot Collision-Avoidance Assist IDAHO: Public Defender System Inadequate, Class Action Says INNATE PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 22 Motion Deadline INNATE PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 22 Motion Deadline INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 4 Bid Deadline INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Announces Class Action IRAN: Judge Awards Class Action Carriage to Arsalani Plaintiffs JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Flaherty Sues Over Mislabeled Skincare Products JPMORGAN CHASE: Pomerantz Investigates Securities Fraud Claims JULIET'S GENTLEMEN'S: In Wage Class Action Settlement Talks KANYE WEST: Faces Class Action Over Opera Workers' Unpaid Wages KC HAWAII: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KEVIN INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KYOCERA CORPORATION: Herman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. LAS VEGAS SANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline LAS VEGAS SANDS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Buckmire Says MAINE OXY: Employees' Stock Plan Class Action Can Proceed MAPLE LEAF: Says Owes No Duty of Care to Mr. Sub Franchisees MAYO CLINIC: Faces Class Action over Breach of Patient Records MISTI'S TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Guzman Suit Says MOHU INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MOSSY NISSAN: Beck Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads MULDER FIRE: Ybarra Dismissed from FLSA Suit Without Prejudice NANO-X IMAGING: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing NATERA INC: Putative Class Suit in California Dismissed NATIONAL STEEL: Hood Files Suit in Calif. State Court NAVIENT CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims NEOSTRATA COMPANY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEOVASC INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action NEW ROCHELLE HOTEL: Settlement in Bondi Suit Has Final Approval NEW YORK: Child Welfare Agency Agrees Return of Oversight NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over SOTA Program NIKOLA CORP: Entwistle & Cappucci Announces Class Action NIKOLA CORPORATION: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NORTH CAROLINA: Faces New Suit Over Butner Prison COVID-19 Deaths NORTHERN DYNASTY: Faces Darish Suit Over 50% Drop in Share Price OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit OHIO STATE PHYSICIANS: Nurse Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages OHLER CONSTRUCTION: Acebedo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS: Court Decertifies Trenz TCPA Class Action ORGANIGRAM INC: Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal in Marijuana Case OUTLAW LABRATORY: Tauler Summ. Judgment Bid v. Stores Mostly Denied OVERSEAS FOOD: Shegerian & Associates Announces Class Action PARADIGM HEALTH: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PEAVEY ELECTRONICS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PETERBROOKE CHOCOLATE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHONESOAP LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRESSED JUICERY: Deal in Brooks ADA-UCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval PRISTER'S PECANS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Announces Class Action RAYTHEON TECH: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline REDBARN PET: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RENAL ASSOCIATES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for January 12 REVERA: Class Action Mulled Over Maples Care Home Negligence SCOTTS COMPANY: Underpays Production Employees, Larson Suit Says SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs in Anderson No Standing to Sue SENTINEL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anoop Alleges SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Johnson Settlement Wins Final Approval SUPER MICRO: NY Trades Council & Hotel Association Suit Underway TARGET CORPORATION: Colon Files Labor Suit in Calif. State Court TD BANK NA: Faces Campagna Suit Over Misleading Credit Card Terms TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Livongo Merger Related Suits TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Securities Suit Underway TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit THINK KING: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TONAL SYSTEMS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective DPF System UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Firm Files Additional Class Suits in Australia UNITED STATES: 5fth Cir. Affirms Serrano Suit Dismissal UNITED STATES: Court Rules in Favor of Blue Water Navy Veterans UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Wants Freshman Orientation Fee Suit Tossed US AUTOMOBILE: Certification of Interlocutory Appeal in Spine Nixed US OIL FUND: Lucas, Ephrati, Palacios Securities Suits Consolidated VERB TECHNOLOGY: February 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set VERRA MOBITY: Sued in California Over Unfair Toll Practices VERTAFORE INC: Data Breach Leaks Driver's License Info, Allen Says WABASH COUNTY, IN: Bid to Certify Class in Copeland Suit Denied WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Affirms Belgau Suit Dismissal WAYNE COUNTY: Class-Action Lawsuit Targets Foreclosure Practices WELLS FARGO: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline WELLS FARGO: Schall Law Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline WESTERN FLYER: Beissel Sues Over Fraudulent Employment Scheme WHIRLPOOL: 9th Cir. Vacates $14.8MM Fee Award in Coupon Lawsuit WOLF HALDENSTEIN: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Dec. 28 Bid Deadline X-CART: Store Owners Mull Class Action Over Ransomware Attack ZOSANO PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 28 Deadline [*] Bill to Outlaw Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements [*] Gig Worker Classification Battles Continue Through Covid-19 [*] Potential Lawsuit May Hit Insurers for Pandemic Policy [*] Seyfarth Discusses Workplace Class Action Trends Under Biden ********* 3M CO: Faces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------ PMR recently published a well-researched market study which provides a comprehensive analysis of the global "Electroactive Polymers " market. According to the report, the growth of the "Electroactive Polymers " market is primarily driven by an array of factors including, Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, and Factor 4. The well-curated market research offers a detailed analysis of the leading companies operating in the global "Electroactive Polymers " market wherein the production techniques, market share, revenue analysis, product pricing analysis, and revenue generation of each company is included. The report evaluates the current state of the global "Electroactive Polymers " market in terms of volume (X units), consumption, value (Mn/Bn), production and more. In addition, the study tracks the latest proceedings within the various market segments, end use industries, geographies, and regulatory landscape. Competitive Landscape 3M, one of the world's leading industrial-chemical conglomerate that deals in electroactive polymers, with five lines of business is facing lawsuit. The class action is on behalf of all individuals and entities other than Defendants who bought or acquired publicly traded 3M securities from February 9, 2017 to May 28, 2019. Earlier, business analyst of a leading financial services company declared the 3M business model to be defeated. Due to this, 3M stock price dropped to 18% below recent level only to be rated as underweight. Further, according to the analyst, 3M's woes are beyond simple cyclical fluctuations related to slowing automotive and electronic end users. Instead the problems are structural and puts forth the question if billions spent by the company on recent restructuring will produce material benefits in the forthcoming years. However, realignment announced by the company a couple of months ago will boost impression among consumers for its multiple line of businesses. The new structure will comprise four business segments: Transportation & Electronics, Consumer, Healthcare, and Safety & Industrial. Top companies operating in the global electroactive polymers market include 3M, Konarka Technologies Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Artificial Muscle Inc., and Earnex Corporation. Electroactive Polymers Market - Key Trends In some developed countries worldwide, expanding significance of artificial muscles for solving complex medical conditions has indirectly spawned demand for electroactive polymers. For example, in 2012, researchers at North Carolina University developed an affordable Braille computer display using electroactive actuators. This helped blind people scan web pages. Further, adoption of innovative medical devices has led to spurt in demand for electroactive polymers in some parts of the world. For example, in 2014, government of South Korea announced plans for modernization of the healthcare sector. The involved increasing human and capital investments in R&D for the introduction of new medical devices. This, indirectly, prompted expansion of electroactive polymers market. Among all, conductive polymers held leading share of the electroactive polymers market in the past. Conductive polymers include electromagnetic interference compounds, carbon nanotubes, antistatic additives, and metal fibers. Conducive polymers find use as antistatic materials with applications in transparent displays, commercial sensors, and organic solar cells. In the future, however, demand for inherently dissipative polymers in the electroactive polymers market is predicted to rise significantly over the forecast period. Electroactive Polymers Market - Regional Outlook North America held the leading share of electroactive polymers in the recent past vis-à-vis volume. Vast demand for electroactive polymers for the manufacture of advanced implant devices for medical conditions is a key factor behind the growth of electroactive polymers market in the region. Rising practices of minimally invasive surgeries in the U.S. is another key factor behind growth of electroactive polymers market in North America. Europe is another key market for electroactive polymers. Countries such as Germany and France that are long-established automobiles centers indirectly fuel electroactive polymers. This is because electroactive polymers are used in a large number of engineering and mechanical products that are used in automobiles. What valuable insights does the report provide? -- The market study includes a thorough assessment of the various trends influencing the regional markets -- An in-depth study of the current and projected opportunities for market players active in the global "Electroactive Polymers " market. -- Assessment of top-tier market players and their position in the current market landscape -- Growth prospects of the various market segments -- Product-wise adoption analysis in terms of value, share, and volume -- Important doubts addressed in the report: What are the factors that are expected to define the roadmap of the global "Electroactive Polymers " market over the forecast period? Which region is expected to draw the attention of the stakeholders in the upcoming years? Why are the sales of product 1 outpacing that of product 2? What is the primary area of focus among market players to gain a competitive edge? What does the future hold in store for the global "Electroactive Polymers " market? About PMR PMR is a third-platform research firm. Its research model is a unique collaboration of data analytics and market research methodology to help businesses achieve optimal performance. [GN] 44TH ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Dennis Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LOUISA DENNIS, Plaintiff, v. 44TH ENTERPRISES CORP. and ANTHONY CAPECI, Defendants, Docket No. 153420/2016, Motion Seq. No. 004 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Kathryn E. Freed of the New York County Supreme Court denied the motion filed by the Defendants-Stakeholders, and the cross-motion filed by Defendant-claimant Metro Enterprises Corp. In the putative class action commenced by Plaintiff Dennis pursuant to Labor Law Sections 190 et seq, 652, and 653, Defendants 44th Enterprises, doing business as Lace II Gentlemen's Club, and Capeci ("Defendants-Stakeholders") move: 1) pursuant to CPLR 2221(e), for renewal of the motion by cross-defendants-claimants the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and its Commissioner ("DTF") seeking dismissal of the interpleader complaint, or, in the alternative; 2) pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2), seeking to vacate the decision and order of the Court entered Aug. 13, 2019; 3) to reinstate their interpleader complaint; and 4) for such other relief as the Court deems proper. Defendant-Claimant Metro supported the motion by the club and Capeci and cross-moved, pursuant to CPLR 2215, to reinstate its answer to the interpleader complaint and claim-in-interpleader. In a decision and order of entered Aug. 13, 2019 ("8/13/19 order"), the Court 1) denied the motion by the club and Capeci seeking a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6311; 2) denied the cross motion by Metro seeking a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6311; 3) granted the cross motion by the DTF, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and (a)(7), seeking to dismiss the interpleader complaint filed by the club and Capeci; and 4) denied as moot Metro's motion seeking a temporary restraining order. In dismissing the interpleader complaint, the Court held, inter alia, that the DTF did not violate the constitutional rights of defendants-stakeholders because to the extent that the Defendants-Stakeholders may provide documentation to the DTF that specific scrip transactions constituted gratuities to their dancers, those transactions would not be subject to sales tax payable by the Defendants-Stakeholders. On July 15, 2019, a hearing was conducted before Administrative Law Judge Barbara Russo in connection with an administrative tax appeal taken by Metro and its principal, John Scarfs. At the hearing, the auditor who examined Metro's records testified that all sales of scrip were taxable. However, Capeci testified that the auditor failed to consider the factors set forth in the decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department in Metro Enterprises Corp. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Taxation & Finance ("Third Department order"), in which it held that the DTF was to determine the taxability of scrip based on the relationship between Metro, the dancers and the registered clubs. On Sept. 13, 2019, the club and Capeci filed their instant motion. Metro supported the motion by the club and Capeci and cross-moved. The DTF opposes the motion and cross motion. In support of their motion, the Defendants-sStakeholders argue that they are entitled to renewal of the DTF's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 2221(e) since the hearing testimony establishes that the administrative process is not generating the factual record anticipated by the Court when it dismissed the interpleader complaint. Additionally, they assert that the Court should not have dismissed the interpleader complaint on the ground that they had the opportunity to commence an Article 78 proceeding because they stated in their papers that they could not afford to post the bond necessary for them to do so. Further, they argue that renewal must be granted in the interest of justice. Alternatively, the club and Capeci argue that the 8/13/19 order must be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2) since the hearing testimony constituted newly-discovered evidence which probably would have produced a different result. Finally, they argue that the 8/13/19 order must be vacated pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) in the interest of justice since they face a substantial likelihood that they will be bound by conflicting judgments arising from the conflicting duties imposed upon them under the tax and labor laws. In support of its cross motion, Metro relies on the arguments by the Defendants-Stakeholders. In opposition to the motion and cross motion, the DTF argues, inter alia, that the club, Capeci, and Metro have failed to present any new facts warranting the granting of their motions. It further maintains that, even if the movants had presented new facts, the Court would still be without jurisdiction over the subject tax dispute since the Defendants-Stakeholders failed to exhaust their dministrative remedies. Further, the DTF asserts that the club and Capeci failed to set forth any basis on which to vacate the 8/13/19 order in the interest of justice. In reply, the Defendants-Stakeholders argue, inter alia, that the transcript of Metro's tax appeal hearing constitutes new evidence warranting the granting of their renewal motion. As to the Motions for Renewal of the 8/13/19 Order, Judge Freed declines to grant renewal in the interest of justice since the Defendants-Stakeholders seek to introduce the hearing transcript to establish, among other things, that the DTF conceded that it did not undertake an analysis of the relationship between Metro, the dancers, and the club, as required by the Third Department order. However, they made no such concession. In support of their motion for renewal, the club and Capeci rely, inter alia, on J.D. Structures, Inc. v. Waldbum, in which the Appellate Division held that renewal should have been granted to allow the movant the opportunity to submit evidence which it had reasonably believed was not necessary to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in lieu of complaint. However, the case is clearly distinguishable, since the club and Capeci argue that they are seeking to introduce what they characterize as new facts, and not evidence which they claim was unnecessary to submit in opposition to the DTF's motion to dismiss the interpleader complaint. Finally, although the club and Capeci argue that they are entitled to renewal on the ground that the Court failed to consider the fact that they were unable to post a bond, the contention should have been raised by a motion for reargument. Turning to the Motions to Vacate the 8/13/19 Order, Judge Freed declines to grant the Defendants-Stakeholders and Metro relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2). Initially, the Defendants-Stakeholders did not introduce any newly-discovered evidence. Even if the hearing transcript were to be considered newly-discovered evidence, they fail to establish that it probably would have produced a different result. Although they assert that had the Court been apprised of the insufficiency of the administrative process, and the rigidity of the DTF's policy, it likely would not have dismissed the interpleader, thes contention is utterly conclusory and speculative and fails to warrant relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(2). Finally, although CPLR 5015(a) empowers the Court to vacate an order in the interest of justice, Judge Freed declines to do so since the club and Capeci fail to substantiate their claim that they face a substantial likelihood that they will be bound by conflicting judgments arising from the conflicting duties imposed upon them under the tax and labor laws. The remainder of the parties' contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of the findings. Therefore, in light of the foregoing, Judge Freed denied in all respects (i) the motion by the Defendants-Stakeholders, and (ii) the the cross motion by Metro. The Court ordered the parties to participate in a telephonic compliance conference, unless the parties provide the court with a discovery stipulation by emailing it to jjudd@nycourts.gov to be so-ordered, leaving blank spaces for the compliance conference date and note of issue filing deadline. If the parties cannot so stipulate, then they are to provide the court with a dial-in number and access code or must have all parties on the line and then patch the court in at (646) 386-5655. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Decision + Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4yfvrj7 from Leagle.com. ALLIANZ: Faces Class Action Over Junk Car Insurance Rip-Off ----------------------------------------------------------- Mirage reports that leading law firm Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has launched a new class action against Allianz on behalf of motorists who were sold worthless "add-on" insurance through car dealers. The class action alleges thousands of motorists who arranged finance through car dealerships were upsold several types of worthless Allianz insurance to shamelessly boost profits. The class action alleges the junk Allianz insurance products include: -- "consumer credit insurance" (sometimes called "CCI" or "loan protection insurance"). This purports to insure a borrower's capacity to make repayments under a car loan, including insurance against sickness, injury, disability, death or unemployment; -- "shortfall insurance" (sometimes called "GAP insurance", "guaranteed asset protection insurance", "motor equity insurance", or "value protect insurance"). This is said to cover the difference between what a consumer owes on their car loan and any amount they may receive under their comprehensive insurance policy if the car is a total write off; -- "extended warranty insurance". This purports to cover the cost of repairs and replacement parts beyond the manufacturer's warranty or standard warranty for used cars; -- "tyre and rim insurance". This covers the cost of repairing or replacing damaged tyres and rims from blowouts, punctures or other road damage. Many of these insurance products were complex financial instruments with policy terms that had numerous exclusions and exceptions which severely limited the protections offered. For example, Allianz's Loan Protection Insurance excluded consumers who were self-employed, unemployed, casual employees and those over the age of 64. In other cases, customers were sold CCI add-on insurance for death and disability, despite dealers and Allianz knowing they were employed and therefore likely to have cover for things like accident disability through their superannuation funds. The class action alleges Allianz trained car dealers to promote and sell the add-on insurance products and paid them lucrative commissions. The lead Plaintiff in the class action was 26-year-old casual employee in 2015 when he was hoodwinked into purchasing more than $3000 in unnecessary Allianz insurance products as part of a loan agreement for a $20,000 Ford Falcon XR6. Maurice Blackburn Principal Lawyer Andrew Watson said the sale of add-on insurance through car dealerships was widespread and had been criticised by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission over many years. "Many of these insurance products were unduly expensive and offered no value to customers. The exploitation was compounded when these policies were paid for by the same high interest rate loans that the dealers arranged to finance the purchase of cars." Mr Watson said. "The car dealers sold these products when they were of no or very little value and not only did they keep quiet about that but they added the junk insurance products to loan contracts often without their customer being aware. If customers knew and understood that they were being asked to pay thousands of dollars for these valueless products, they would have rejected the offer without hesitation." The class action alleges Allianz engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and behaved unconscionably. The action claims that Allianz should refund all premiums paid by its add-on insurance customers with interest. [GN] ALPHA AND OMEGA: Bid to Dismiss Gray Putative Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit initiated by Darryl Gray, is pending. On March 19, 2020, Darryl Gray, a stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company and its management members made material misstatements or omissions regarding the Company's business and operations, including its export control practices relating to business transactions with Huawei and its affiliate. The Gray Action asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as well as claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Among other remedies, the Gray Action seeks to recover compensatory and other damages as well as attorney's fees and costs. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff moved for an order appointing him as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act and approving Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the putative class. On July 1, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the Motion and requiring that: (i) Lead Plaintiff file an amended complaint or designate the current complaint as operative within sixty days; (ii) Defendants answer the complaint or otherwise move within sixty days of such filing or designation; (iii) Lead Plaintiff file an opposition, if any, within forty-five days; and (iv) Defendants file a reply, if any, forty-five days thereafter. On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims against the Defendants, and adding the Company's Executive Vice President of Product Line as a defendant on both claims. On October 27, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the action in its entirety. Alpha and Omega said, "The Company believes the claims in the Gray Action are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this litigation. Given the case is in its early stages and still ongoing, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may occur." Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited is a designer, developer and global supplier of a broad portfolio of power semiconductors. The company's portfolio of power semiconductors includes approximately 2,300 products and has grown significantly with the introduction of over 160 new products in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, and over 200 new products in each of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019 and 2018, respectively. ALPHABOW ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Oil Leases ---------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that two Alberta landowners have filed what a lawyer says could be the first class-action lawsuit against an energy company for not making its lease payments. "It's a pretty clear contract," said lawyer Matthew Farrell, who is representing Reinhold and Thyra Kautz of Strathmore, Alta., in their proposed class action against AlphaBow Energy Ltd. of Calgary. "They're supposed to pay every year and now (they're) not. You can't do that.'' In a statement of claim filed in Calgary on Nov. 4, the Kautzes allege AlphaBow has reneged on a lease agreement that compensates them for the oil and gas company's access to and use of two parcels of land. The document quotes a letter in May from AlphaBow, which says: "Due to the severe impact of the COVID crisis that the oil & gas industry is currently facing, AlphaBow Energy Ltd. is hereby advising that AlphaBow is deferring any and all surface rental payments for the time being. "AlphaBow will review all outstanding rental payments in six months and will determine at that time what our plan is to catch up on outstanding rental obligations." A deal's a deal, said Farrell. "If I lose my job, I still have to pay my rent," he said. "When times are good, it's not like (landowners) are given bonuses. If it's OK to treat them that way when times are good, then the oil companies should be (paying) when times are bad.'' The lawsuit's claims haven't been tested in court. No statement of defence has been filed and an AlphaBow spokesperson didn't respond to a request for comment. The Kautzes are the only plaintiffs at this point and aren't owed a large amount of money, Farell said. But he noted that AlphaBow has dealt with hundreds of landowners and he expects damages to add up as others join the class action, which has not been certified by the courts. "It's the kind of injustice class actions are designed to remedy." It's the latest flashpoint for an industry struggling with low oil prices. Earlier this year, many rural municipalities in the province learned that energy companies wouldn't be paying a total of $173 million in municipal taxes. Alberta's United Conservative government has since given industry a three-year exemption from property taxes on new wells or pipelines and has lowered taxes on older wells. Lawyer Keith Wilson, who has worked on similar disputes between industry and landowners, said the lawsuit is groundbreaking. "It's the first time there has been any form of class action against oil companies. It's a real sign of the extent to which the relationship and the normal institutions that have been in place to keep peace between two critical industries are faltering." Alberta's Surface Rights Board does step in to adjudicate disputes and the provincial government has a mechanism for covering unpaid leases. Freedom-of-information documents obtained by The Narwhal magazine show Alberta paid $8 million in such claims last year. Industry repaid about $300,000 of that, the documents say. "It's not right and it's not fair," Wilson said. "We've created a political culture in our province where no politician is prepared to deliver any bad news to an oil company or remind them of their obligations." [GN] AMAZON: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Martin Coulter, writing for Business Insider, reports that Amazon faces a civil rights lawsuit. The class-action lawsuit claims Amazon discriminated against workers of color and immigrants by failing to provide PPE and implement COVID-19 safety measures. [GN] AMERICAN SECURITY: Hall Sues Over Security Workers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES HALL, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SECURITY AND PROTECTION SERVICE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00190-TBR (W.D. Ky., December 3, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practices and policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt security worker, alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him for all hours he worked. The Defendant did not include the time the Plaintiff spent performing pre-shift and post-shift duties which are integral and indispensable part of his other principal activities he performed. As a result, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours he worked over 40 each workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. American Security and Protection Service LLC provides various security services in multiple states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Suite 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 824-5770 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and – Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com AMERICOLD REALTY: $2.5MM Settlement in Former Employee Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Americold Realty Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court approved the $2.5 million settlement in the putative class action suit initiated by the company's former employee. On February 22, 2019, a former employee filed a putative class action against the Company in the San Bernardino County Superior Court asserting that the Company: (1) failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime wages; (3) failed to pay all vacation wages; (4) failed to provide meal periods; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failed to pay wages timely to terminated employees; and (7) violated California unfair business practices. On April 10, 2019, the Company filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the complaint and successfully removed the case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit for civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act in the San Bernardino Superior Court against the Company, Case No. CIV-DS-1913525 based on similar factual allegations that are asserted in the complaint. The Company successfully obtained a dismissal of the San Bernardino Superior Court Action. On June 18, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint in the pending federal court action to add a rest period violation claim and PAGA penalty claims based on similar allegations that are asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel later dismissed the plaintiff's vacation wages claim from his first amended complaint. The Company entered into a settlement agreement in the case for $2.5 million, which was approved by the court on September 21, 2020. Americold Realty Trust is a provider of cold storage services headquartered in Atlanta and is organized as a real estate investment trust. The firm is focused on the ownership, operation, development and acquisition of temperature-controlled real estate. Americold also provides additional services including warehouse handling and value-add logistics services to manage the entire temperature-controlled supply chain. APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Blair Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit initiated by Zachary Blair, is pending. March 12, 2020, AGM Inc. and several investment funds managed by subsidiaries of AGM Inc. were added as defendants in a class action filed by plaintiff Zachary Blair on December 7, 2017, in the Superior Court of California. Plaintiff alleges he is a former employee of Classic Party Rentals, a party equipment rental company previously owned by the Apollo Funds. Plaintiff alleges that Classic Party Rentals failed to comply with California wage and hour and related laws, and also has asserted claims based on various provisions of the California labor code and California’s unfair competition laws. On October 11, 2019, the court certified a class of current and former non-exempt drivers, assistant drivers, and organizer employees of Classic Party Rentals who were paid on an hourly basis and who worked at Classic Party Rentals in California at any time from December 7, 2013, through the date of the class certification order. After being served with the complaint in July 2020, AGM Inc. filed a motion to dismiss all claims against it. That motion remains pending. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss Amended Presidio Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint in the case styled, Firefighters Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, related to the acquisition of Presidio, Inc., are still pending. On October 21, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Presidio, Inc., all of the members of Presidio's board of directors (including five directors who are affiliated with Apollo), and BC Partners Advisors L.P. and Port Merger Sub, Inc. challenging the then-pending acquisition of Presidio by BCP. The action is captioned Firefighters Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL. The original complaint alleged that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation of the Merger and that the disclosures Presidio made in its filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted material information, and that BCP aided and abetted those alleged breaches. On November 5, 2019, the Court of Chancery held a hearing on a motion by plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote and denied that motion. On January 28, 2020, following the closing of the Merger, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding as defendants AGM Inc. and AP VIII Aegis Holdings, L.P. and LionTree Advisors, LLC (Presidio's financial advisor in connection with the Merger). The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, that the filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted material information, that the Apollo Defendants were controlling stockholders of Presidio and breached their alleged fiduciary duties to Presidio's public stockholders, and that BCP, LionTree and the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory relief, class certification, and unspecified money damages. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and filed supporting memoranda April 30, 2020. Oral argument on defendants' motions to dismiss was held on October 29, 2020, and the court took the argument and submissions under advisement with a decision to follow. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Jan. 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the state court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, directing notice to shareholders, and scheduling a final-approval hearing for January 12, 2021. Five shareholders filed substantially similar putative class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018, alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the January 19, 2018 initial public offering of ADT Inc. common stock. The actions were consolidated on July 10, 2018, and the case was re-captioned, In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. On August 24, 2018, the state-court plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming as defendants ADT Inc., several ADT officers and directors, the IPO underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), AGM Inc. and certain other Apollo affiliates. Plaintiffs generally alleged that the registration statement and prospectus for the IPO contained false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about certain litigation in which ADT was involved, ADT's efforts to protect its intellectual property, and competitive pressures ADT faced. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on October 23, 2018, and those motions were fully briefed. On May 21, 2018, a similar shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, naming as defendants ADT, several officers and directors, and AGM Inc. The federal action, captioned Perdomo v. ADT Inc., generally alleged that the registration statement was materially misleading because it failed to disclose ongoing deterioration in ADT's financial results, along with certain customer and business metrics. On July 20, 2018, several alleged ADT shareholders filed competing motions to be named lead plaintiff in the federal action. On November 20, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on January 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint named the same Apollo-affiliated defendants as the state-court action, along with three new Apollo entities. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 25, 2019, and those motions were fully briefed. On July 26, 2019, the state court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, except it reserved judgment on the question whether it has personal jurisdiction over certain defendants, including the Apollo defendants. On September 12, 2019, all parties to the state and federal actions reached a settlement in principle that would resolve both actions. The plaintiffs in the federal action voluntarily dismissed their action on October 28, 2019, and the settlement was submitted to the state court for approval. On October 19, 2020, the state court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, directing notice to shareholders, and scheduling a final-approval hearing for January 12, 2021. The settlement requires no payment from any Apollo defendants. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia, and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Seeks to Dismiss Patel Derivative Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative stockholder derivative and class action suit initiated by Vrajeshkumar Patel, is pending. On May 29, 2020, plaintiff Vrajeshkumar Patel filed a putative stockholder derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Talos Energy, Inc., all of the members of Talos's board of directors, Riverstone Holdings, LLC, AGM Inc., and Guggenheim Securities, LLC in connection with the acquisition of certain assets from Castex Energy 2014, LLC and ILX Holdings, LLC in February 2020. The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and Talos, direct and derivative claims against Apollo, Riverstone, and the individual defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff alleges that Apollo and Riverstone comprise a controlling shareholder group. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification and unspecified money damages. On August 4, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia, and Europe. APPLE INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------- Al Khaleej Today reports that Apple is facing a class action lawsuit proposed by shareholders who accused CEO Tim Cook of hiding the drop in demand for iPhones in China, leading to billions of dollars in losses to investors, and based on a decision issued recently, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said. : "The shareholders led by a retirement fund in the United Kingdom can file a lawsuit due to a comment made by Cook on November 1, 2018, when he said at the time: While Apple was facing sales pressure in some emerging markets, I put China in that category." Apple asked suppliers to limit production a few days after Cook's speech, and on January 2, 2019, it unexpectedly lowered its forecast for quarterly revenue by up to $ 9 billion, and Cook blamed partly on the pressure on the Chinese economy due to trade tensions between the United States and China. The lower revenue forecast was the first for Apple since the iPhone launched in 2007, and Apple's shares fell 10% the following day, wiping $ 74 billion off the market value. Apple and Cook said there was no evidence that they defrauded the plaintiffs or intended to defraud, and the company did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a 23-page decision, Rogers said shareholders reasonably claimed that Cook's statements about China were wrong and misleading materially. Rogers said that although Cook may not have been aware of details about the "worrisome brands" in China the company had begun to see, he naively ignored trade tensions and their potential impact on Apple. Rogers explained that the plaintiffs raised a "strong conclusion" that Cook was aware of the risks when discussing China in his call with analysts, which is a convincing and convincing conclusion that Cook did not act innocently or only negligently. " Rogers, who works in Oakland, California, also rejected the claims about the iPhone demand XS And XS Max. [GN] ASHFORD INC: Employment Class Action Against Subsidiary Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a company subsidiary continues to defend a class action suit alleging violations of certain California employment laws. A class action lawsuit has been filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries alleging violations of certain California employment laws. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of the subsidiary's previous policy requiring employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members are being prepared. Upon receipt, recipients of the notice will have sixty days to opt out of the class. Ashford said, "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because the class size has not yet been determined and there is uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant legal issue, we do not believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably estimable at this time. As of September 30, 2020, no amounts have been accrued." Ashford Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed on April 2, 2014, subsequently reincorporated in Maryland, that provides asset management and advisory services to Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. and Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc. B COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Tel Aviv ------------------------------------------------------------ B Communications on Nov. 13 disclosed that an immediate report is hereby submitted that on November 12, 2020, the Company was notified of a motion for approval of a class action lawsuit that was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court (the Economic Division). The motion was filed by a private individual ("the Applicant"), who claims to be holding Company shares and shares of the controlling shareholder of the Company, B Communications Ltd. ("B-Com"), against the Company, B-Com and 72 additional respondents, including past and present officers in both companies ("the Respondents"). The motion is for approval of a class action claim for compensation of the Applicant and the represented class members (as specified below) in respect of damages caused to them, as claimed in the motion, by the Respondents' acts and omissions when they avoided disclosing to their investors material information they were allegedly required to disclose in accordance with the provisions of the law, with respect to a report by the two companies on November 9, 2020 that in the books of the subsidiary, Bezeq International Ltd. ("Bezeq International") there are unexplained net asset balances (receivables net of payables) amounting to tens of millions of shekels, the bulk of which probably originates in periods more than 15 years ago. The definition of class members under the motion is as follows: Anyone who purchased Company shares from November 8, 2005 until November 9, 2020, except for the Respondents or anyone on their behalf. Anyone who purchased B-Com shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange from November 8, 2007 until November 9, 2020, except for the Respondents or anyone on their behalf. The class action amount specified in the statement of claim is "above NIS 2.5 million (for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction)" while the economic opinion attached to the motion determines that "the estimated decline in the price of the security" due to the information included in the Immediate Report dated November 9, 2020 is 5.26%-5.40% for the Company and 9.07%-9.36% for B-Com. The Company is studying the motion and is unable to evaluate the likelihood of success of the claim at the present stage. [GN] BARONE STEEL: Bravo Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- BRAYAN BRAVO; JOSE LUIS ROLDAN ROMERO; DUMAS ARMANDO ALFARO GODINEZ; JEFFERSON OSWALDO BRAVO HIDALGO; JULIO TIGRE; and ANDERSON ANTONIO CEDENO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BARONE STEEL FABRICATORS INC. (D/B/A BARONE STEEL FABRICATORS); NICK BARONE; RALPH BARONE; and ALEX VERGARA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10244 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.4, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as iron and steel workers. Barone Steel Fabricators Inc. owned, operated, or controlled a structural steel fabricator, located at 128 44th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11232 under the name Barone Steel Fabricators. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BENELLI U.S.A: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benelli U.S.A. Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Benelli U.S.A. Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-10458 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Benelli -- https://www.benelliusa.com/ -- is a manufacturer of quality semiautomatic, pump-action and over under shotguns.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com BEZEQ INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Virus, Backup Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- B Communications on Nov. 16 disclosed that an immediate report is hereby issued, stating that on November 11, 2020, the Company was notified by the subsidiary Bezeq International Ltd. ("Bezeq International") that it had been served at its office with a class action certification motion that was filed against it in the Central District Court ("Motion"). The Motion alleges, inter alia, that Bezeq International charges for the provision of an Anti-Virus service and Backup service, before these services are actually provided. It is further alleged that Bezeq International does not inform the customers at the time of concluding the contract that using the services requires that they first carry out preparatory actions on their own, such as installing special software programs; nor does it apprise them that they are billed for such services as of the contract execution date, and not from the actual date of service provision. The individual claim of each petitioner in the Motion is between NIS 130 and NIS 1,740. While aggregate damages to the Class cannot as yet be determined, the petitioners estimate the amount to be in the tens of millions of shekels at a minimum. Bezeq International is currently studying the Motion, and, at this point, both it and the Company are unable to assess its implications. [GN] BEZEQ: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Tel Aviv Court ------------------------------------------------------- Bezeq - The Israel Telecommunication Corp. Ltd. on Nov. 13 disclosed that it is hereby reported that on November 12, 2020, the Company was served with a claim and a motion for its certification as a class action, filed in the Economics Department of the Tel Aviv District Court. The motion was filed by a private individual claiming to be a shareholder of the Company ("Petitioner") against the Company, as well as the controlling shareholder of the Company - B-Communications Ltd., the Company's CEO and the Company's board members ("Respondents"). The motion is for certification of a class action for compensation of the Petitioner and members of the represented class (as detailed below) in respect of damages which the motion alleges were sustained by them, "as a result of the Company's omissions in its Tel Aviv Stock Exchange ("TASE") filings and the concealment of material information from the investors," in connection with a public report "concerning actions by the Ministry of Communications to eliminate the problem of duplicate subscriptions in ISP services, and the widespread and significant extent of the problem of duplicate subscriptions in the subsidiary Bezeq International ("Bezeq International") and their material adverse effect on the operations of the Company and subsidiary." According to the motion, the class is defined as anyone who purchased the Company's shares between August 17, 2020 and October 30, 2020 and held all or some of said shares on October 30, 2020, with the exception of the Respondents and/or parties on their behalf and/or bodies affiliated with them. The motion claims that the damages sustained by the class members as a result of the events that are the subject of the action total between NIS 55 million and NIS 65 million, based on an expert opinion attached to the motion. The Company is currently studying the motion, and, at this point, is unable to assess its prospects. [GN] BIG STAR TRANSIT: Mason Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- YVONNE MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG STAR TRANSIT, LLC, LATANYA BIGGERS, LARRY C. BIGGERS and LARRY BIGGERS, JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-03566-M (N.D. Tex., December 4, 2020) brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver from on or about September 2018 through December 2018, and again beginning in January 2020. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant misclassified him and other similarly situated current and former drivers as independent contractors. As a result, the Defendant willfully failed to properly pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked more than 40 in a workweek. Big Star Transit, LLC is a non-emergency medical transportation company specializing in efficient and innovative delivery of specialized passenger transportation services. The Individual Defendants exercises significant operation control over Big Star's corporate affairs. Latanya "Tanya" Biggers is the Managing Member, President and CEO of Big Star. Larry C. Biggers is the Chief Operating Officer. Larry Biggers Jr. is the Director of Market Development. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Forester, Esq. Meredith Mathews, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul St., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com mmathews@foresterhaynie.com - and – Adam J. Shafran, Esq. Eric J. Walz, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN, LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com ewalz@rflawyers.com BMW AG: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming December 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW" or the "Company") (OTC: BMWYY) securities between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their BMW investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On December 23, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was investigating whether BMW engaged in "sales punching," a practice in which "a company boosts sales figures by having dealers register cars as sold when the vehicles actually are still standing on car lots." On this news, the price of BMW's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell $1.33, or nearly 7%, to close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019, thereby damaging investors. On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced an $18 million settlement agreement with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the SEC's order, from January 2015 to March 2017, the Company had "used its demonstrator and service loaner programs to boost reported retail sales volume and meet internal targets." It also stated that from 2015 to 2019, BMW kept a reserve of unreported retail vehicle sales, which is used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the actual sale occurred. On this news, BMW's ADR price fell $0.51, or about 2%, to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020, thereby damaging investors further. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) BMW kept a "bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales actually occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures by having dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in inventory; and (3) BMW's key operating metrics were inaccurate and misleading due to the forgoing facts. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages; and (4) 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. If you purchased or otherwise acquired BMW securities, you may move the Court no later than December 28, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] BMW AG: Scott+Scott Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Nov. 11 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Bayerische Motoren Werke AG ("BMW" or the "Company") (Other OTC: BMWYY, BAMXF), its U.S. holding company, and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased BMW securities via the ticker above, between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered losses, you are encouraged to contact Rhiana Swartz for additional information at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. BMW is a German automobile and motorcycle company. The Company's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") trade on the OTC market under the ticker symbols "BMWYY" and "BAMXF." The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) BMW kept a "bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales actually occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures by having dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in inventory; (3) as a result, BMW's key operating metrics were inaccurate and misleading; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about BMW's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On December 23, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was probing BMW's sales practices. On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $1.33 per ADR, or nearly 7%, to close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019. The same day, BAMXF ADRs fell $1.25, or 1.5%, to close at $80.60. Then, on September 24, 2020, the SEC announced a settlement agreement with BMW regarding the investigation, citing BMW's sales-volume manipulation and misclassification of vehicles. On this news, BMWYY ADRs fell $0.51 per ADR, or approximately 2%, to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020; and BAMXF ADRs fell $2.54, or approximately 3.5%, to close at $68.91. What You Can Do If you purchased BMW securities between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is December 28, 2020. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. Contacts: Rhiana Swartz Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (844) 818-6980 rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN] BMW AUSTRALIA: Corrs Chambers Discusses Court Ruling in Brewster ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Pagent, Esq. -- chris.pagent@corrs.com.au -- Brad Woodhouse, Esq. -- brad.woodhouse@corrs.com.au -- Katrina Sleiman, Esq. -- katrina.sleiman@corrs.com.au -- and Thomas Scott, Esq., of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, in an article for Lexology, report that in the NSW Court of Appeal's recent judgment in Brewster v BMW Australia Ltd [2020] NSWCA 272, the Court declined to answer a separate question as to whether the Court has power to make a common fund order (CFO) at a proceeding's settlement or judgment stage. However, it gave a clear indication that such a power may exist -- in the right circumstances. The Full Court of the Federal Court has now weighed in to address the same issue by way of a 'reserved question' in the 7-Eleven class action Davaria Pty Limited v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 183 (per Lee J, Middleton and Moshinsky JJ concurring). The Full Court has adopted a similar position to the NSW Court of Appeal by refusing to answer the reserved question, primarily due to the absence of a concrete settlement proposal being put before the Court. The Full Court also made express reference to the NSW Court of Appeal's judgment and the fact that comity considerations favoured the Full Court adopting the same approach. It also took the view that the High Court's decision of late 2019 (Brewster v BMW Australia Ltd [2019] HCA 45) did not establish that the Court did not have power to make a CFO at the settlement or judgment stage. While the Full Court's judgment covers much of the same territory as the NSW Court of Appeal's, particularly the analysis it offers of the High Court's decision, there are still a number of features which bear mentioning: A new taxonomy: 'Commencement CFOs', 'Settlement CFOs', and 'Judgment CFOs'. A Commencement CFO, made at an early stage in a class action pursuant to s 33ZF(1) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) (or s 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (CPA)), was the type of CFO which the High Court decision ruled impermissible in Brewster (HC). Settlement CFOs and Judgment CFOs are made at the conclusion of proceedings. Given the new taxonomy, query whether we will continue to see the use of the term 'expense sharing order' favoured by several Federal Court judges in recent settlement approval judgments (which Lee J has acknowledged he fashioned to distinguish an order contemplated by the Federal Court's Class Actions Practice Note from an order made pursuant to s 33ZF(1) of the FCA Act at an early stage of a class action). The detailed discussion of 'funding equalisation orders' (FEOs) as an alternative to CFOs. An FEO is a costs spreading mechanism; the funding liability to the funder is not enlarged — instead, the funding costs actually incurred by funded group members are redistributed pro-rata between all group members. The Full Court has questioned the assumption (which some might say is implicit in the High Court's decision) that a FEO always yields a better result for group members than a CFO. Without examining the precise terms of a proposal for a Settlement CFO, any comparison between the amount received on a Settlement CFO and pursuant to a FEO is incomplete. Unsurprisingly, given the contents of the Federal Court's Practice Note, the reminder that the Court has a broad-ranging equitable jurisdiction which could very well have a role to play in justifying the making of a Settlement CFO. This could be done once the relevant 'equities' materialise in a concrete settlement proposal which is put before the Court. So where do these two judgments leave us? Two intermediate appellate courts have now unanimously ruled that, while Brewster (HC) established that there is no power to make a Commencement CFO, it did not establish that there is no power to make a Settlement CFO or Judgment CFO. That latter proposition was not part of the High Court's ratio decidendi. According to the Full Court there was no 'seriously considered dicta' (as that expression is understood in the authorities) by the High Court on the question of whether there is power to make a Settlement CFO or Judgment CFO. According to the Court of Appeal, it was far from obvious that, in its dicta, the High Court was addressing, still less deciding, any question of the power to make a Settlement CFO, and it was not for the Court of Appeal to speculate about that. Two intermediate appellate courts have now unanimously ruled that the question of whether power exists to make a Settlement CFO or Judgment CFO is to be determined on the facts, and cannot be determined in the abstract. Since far more class actions settle than go to judgment (particularly judgment on group member claims), stakeholders in class actions will be paying very close attention to dicta of the Full Court and the Court of Appeal as to the considerations which may be relevant in any given case on the question of whether there is power (statutory or otherwise) to make a Settlement CFO. On the question of whether a Settlement CFO would be 'just' within the meaning of the applicable legislation, Bell P (Bathurst CJ and Payne JA concurring) made this observation: ". . . one can well understand an argument that it is just in all the circumstances for a funder to receive a measure of recompense out of the overall settlement sum for its contribution to the realisation of the settlement pool beyond that which may result from an FEO … A conclusion to that effect may be influenced by the size of the overall settlement sum, the amount proposed to be paid to group members, the number of group members who signed up to the funding agreement, the amount that would be required to be paid to the funder if a FEO were made, the degree of risk involved in funding the action, and the length and complexity of the proceedings" And as to the meaning of the words 'distribution of any money' in the applicable legislation, Bell P observed that nothing said in Brewster (HC) was addressed to the question of whether the phrase 'distribution of money' should be construed to mean "distribution of money as between the claimants in the class action" (i.e. excluding a funder). Moreover, to place such a construction on that wording would be in tension with principles of construction that typically apply to wording which confers powers on courts. Assuming that funders satisfy the new licensing requirements, as a result of these decisions, they may be less reluctant to: -- fund open class actions; -- commence such proceedings without first building a book of claimants sufficient to make their investment commercially palatable, even if they do not obtain a Settlement CFO or Judgment CFO; -- invest in class actions where book building is challenging, either because of the sheer size of the class (such as the bank fees litigation) or because it is difficult to persuade claimants of significance to sign up (such as institutional investors); -- discontinue their involvement in, or invest with less vigour in, existing funded open class actions which have no or small books; Also, we may see funders taking more bullish positions in mediations, now confidently able to reject the notion that Brewster (HC) established that there is no power to make a Settlement CFO or Judgment CFO. Although the decisions will be seen as a victory for funders, in our view they are unlikely to catalyse a significant increase in the number of class action filings, though it is possible we may see a small increase in the number of competing class actions. It will be interesting to see whether, in determining multiplicity hearings, the courts continue to place significance on hypothetical funding terms premised on a Settlement CFO or Judgment CFO being made. Finally, given the comity between the Courts, the decisions are unlikely to have any impact on the decision-making of plaintiff lawyers when it comes to choice of court. [GN] BMW: Faces Class Action Over Hybrid Battery Problems ---------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that BMW hybrid battery problems have caused a lawsuit that alleges serious manufacturing defects caused the automaker to issue warnings about charging the batteries. The class action lawsuit was filed on November 2 and alleges, "[t]here is no recall for the manufacturing defect, nor is there any fix offered by the Defendant." However, BMW issued a recall notification to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on September 30, 2020, for more than 4,500 hybrid electric vehicles equipped with Samsung high-voltage batteries. BMW warned owners not to charge the batteries until repairs were completed because debris may have entered one or more battery cells. This can cause short circuits, and BMW said it was aware of four battery fires but no injuries or crashes. In addition to owners being told not to charge the batteries, BMW also warned against using the shift paddles and warned against driving in manual or sport modes. Although BMW announced the recall, the automaker said it was still working on a repair procedure for the problem. -- BMW Vehicles Affected By Hybrid Battery Problems -- 2020-2021 BMW 530e -- 2020-2021 BMW 530e xDrive -- 2020-2021 BMW 530e iPerformance -- 2020-2021 BMW X3 xDrive30e -- 2020-2021 MINI Cooper Countryman All4 SE -- 2020 BMW i8 -- 2021 BMW 330e -- 2021 BMW 330e xDrive -- 2021 BMW 745Le xDrive -- 2021 BMW X5 xDrive45e The California plaintiff, Adam Kavon, says he entered a lease agreement for a new 2021 BMW X5 in September 2020. On September 30, 2020, the plaintiff was notified by a BMW bulletin that his vehicle had a defect in manufacturing. "Debris may have entered one or more of the hybrid battery cells during their production." - BMW bulletin The BMW notice also said the vehicles were at risk of "a short circuit, increasing the risk of fire or injury." "Until the remedy is available, drivers will be instructed to not charge their vehicles. Drivers will also be instructed to not drive in manual mode, sport mode, and to not use the shift paddles." - BMW The class action says the plaintiff brought his vehicle to a dealer to be repaired, but BMW was "unable to remedy the underlying problem of the defective battery system, for which it stated there was no fix available." The BMW hybrid battery lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Adam Kavon, v. BMW of North America, LLC. The plaintiff is represented by Kazerouni Law Group APC, and the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC. [GN] BOOTY BANDS: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Booty Bands, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Booty Bands, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10398 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Booty Bands -- https://bootybands.com/ -- is a manufacturer of mini rubber loop bands used for guided workouts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (845) 367-7146 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com C.F. MARTIN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. F. Martin & Co., Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. C. F. Martin & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10454 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. C.F. Martin & Company -- https://www.martinguitar.com/ -- is an American guitar manufacturer established in 1833, by Christian Frederick Martin.[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 CABRILLO CREDIT: Faces Cortes Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR CORTES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CABRILLO CREDIT UNION; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02375-GPC-DEB (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2020) alleges violation of the Federal Reserve Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.1. According to the complaint, Regulation E requires that before financial institutions may charge overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions, they must provide a complete, accurate, clear, and easily understandable disclosure document of their overdraft services (opt-in disclosure agreement); they must provide that disclosure as a stand-alone document not intertwined with other disclosures; and they must obtain verifiable agreement of a member's agreement to opt-in to the financial institution's overdraft program. Specifically, in order to purportedly comply with the Regulation E requirements, the Defendants provide its members with an opt-in disclosure agreement that supposedly describes the credit union's Regulation E overdraft service, known as the "Debit Card Option," including "How … the Debit Card Option work[s]". The Defendants' purported Regulation E opt-in disclosure agreement, however, fails to comply with Regulation E's requirements in numerous ways. First and foremost, it provides members with ambiguous and misleading language to describe the circumstances in which the Defendants will charge the member an overdraft fee. Specifically, the opt-in disclosure agreement does not disclose that the Defendants uses an internal artificial account balance to determine if a debit card or ATM transaction will be considered overdrawn (i.e., "available balance"), instead of the official and actual balance of the account. Not only does it not disclose the use of the available balance to assess overdraft fees, it describes an overdraft using language that conveys the Defendants' use of the actual balance instead of the artificial available balance to assess overdraft fees. Cabrillo Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative. The Union provides financial solutions such as personal and business checking, saving account, insurance, investment, loans, security information, ATMs, online banking, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557 1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com - and - Emily J. Kirk, Esq. McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 231 N. Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-6116 Facsimile: (618) 307-6161 E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com CANADA: Anglican Diocese Sexual Abuse Class Action Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Paige Parsons, writing for CBC News, reports that one man was watching TV at a Calgary homeless shelter in February 2016 when the priest's face flashed on the screen. Another was lying in bed in British Columbia when he saw it on the news. Another man, in Manitoba, saw the face he couldn't forget flash up on Facebook. Others were reading the newspaper -- in a living room in downtown Edmonton, at work in Saskatchewan. One by one, the men recognized the Anglican priest from their past. Rev. Gordon Dominey was set to go to trial on 33 charges related to alleged historical sexual offences against 13 teen inmates at the Edmonton Youth Development Centre. Dominey worked at the since-demolished youth jail from December 1985 through July 1990. Known to the teen inmates as Father Gord, it's alleged he repeatedly sexually assaulted a number of boys. The complainants, by then middle-aged, opened up about the alleged assaults at a preliminary hearing held in provincial court in Edmonton to test the evidence against Dominey in 2017. In the courtroom, the men found themselves facing Dominey. He wasn't required to speak, but they were. Crown prosecutors, and later Dominey's defence lawyer, questioned the witnesses about events they'd spent decades trying to forget. "It's been an embarrassment to me my whole life," one man told CBC News. "I've been ashamed my whole life." After the preliminary hearing, a judge committed Dominey to trial. It was set for January 2020. But the men never saw a verdict in the case. At a 2018 hearing, court heard Dominey was in the hospital with cancer. He was 67 when he died on Nov. 7, 2019. A year later, the men are taking another shot at justice by trying to bring a class-action lawsuit against the Alberta government and the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton. In a statement of claim filed in 2017, they allege the diocese and the province are vicariously liable for Dominey's actions. They seek unspecified damages. But in the years since launching their civil suit, progress has stalled. Avnish Nanda, an Edmonton lawyer representing the men, says the church and province have gone to great lengths to delay proceedings. To date, a judge has not certified the lawsuit as a class action. Through an assistant, Edmonton Anglican Bishop Jane Alexander declined an interview because the case is before the court. Alberta Justice Minister Kaycee Madu also declined an interview request. "As this matter is before the courts, we cannot discuss anything related to the case," Madu spokesperson Katherine Thompson wrote in an email. "In addition, due to privacy legislation, we are not able to talk about anyone who may or may not have been a young offender now or in the past." Nanda's clients are poor. They have faced challenges throughout their lives. Some remain incarcerated. In recent interviews, three of the complainants said they want acknowledgement that they were victims. They want the church and province to take accountability for what they say happened. They also want financial compensation for the suffering they believe derailed their lives. At the preliminary hearing, several men testified that while they were at the youth jail, Dominey would take small groups to the pool for evening swims. Some said Dominey groped them in the water. Some said he sexually assaulted them in the locker room. Others said assaults happened behind closed doors when Dominey met with them in one-on-one counselling sessions. The preliminary hearing heard that Dominey was given access to private, sealed rooms where he met with boys. Ronald Strauss, who was the facility's assistant deputy director in 1985, testified that the priest would report back to him if he thought a boy was at risk of hurting himself. "And then he would have free rein of the building in terms of the - you know, running into the young people and spending time there," Strauss testified. A few of the men described one-on-one outings with Dominey. One complainant said Dominey informed him he was taking him for a drive. The priest told him it was a spiritual journey. The man told court Dominey drove to a north Edmonton parking lot and assaulted him in the car. Another man testified Dominey took him to a movie and then drove him to his own house, where he showed him pornography and assaulted him. He said another staff member at the jail once asked him about the excursions with the priest, but he didn't tell her. He said he didn't think he'd be believed. Others said similar things. Some of the men said they felt ashamed and embarrassed. Some said Dominey threatened repercussions if they tried to report what happened. Some were silent until they talked to a police detective decades later. One of the complainants couldn't speak for himself. Instead, the transcript from the preliminary hearing shows that a recording was played in court. On the recording, the 45-year-old described being abused by the priest. Court heard the man killed himself 18 days after he was interviewed by police. 'To hell with it' Months before Dominey's mug shot flashed on the evening news early in 2016, two inmates had decided to report him to police. Longtime friends, the men had known each other for decades. Both had done stints in the Edmonton Youth Development Centre in the late 1980s. They continued to cross paths later on when they were inmates in adult jails. The pair, and all of the other men alleging Dominey abused them, can't be named because of a court-ordered publication on their identities as complainants in a sexual assault case. One of the men, now 49, said the pair took a while deciding if they should come forward. "Because of the way of life that we've lived, it's not OK to rat someone out . . . it's not OK to go to court and sit on a stand and point someone out," he said. "Finally we just said, 'To hell with it.' There's got to be a turning point in life." And so they told detectives their stories. Like others, the 49-year-old said Dominey targeted him following an evening swim. He testified that the priest directed him into the locker room shower and used force as he assaulted him. Afterwards, Dominey threatened him with punishment if he told anyone, he said. Like other men who testified at the preliminary hearing, he said he struggled with shame and trauma. The experience affected his ability to trust others and have healthy relationships, he said in an interview. "I just became angrier and angrier, you know, and I use that to fuel everything I did." While talking about the alleged abuse is hard, he said he thinks it helps. He felt like Dominey had less power when he saw him at the preliminary hearing. "He knew he was going to be convicted, you know. You could see the guilt on his face in the courtroom." He was at CDI College in Edmonton, beginning community service studies, when he got the news that Dominey had died. It tore him apart. "It was almost as bad as telling someone, and them not believing you, and just shrugging it off," he said. As his 50th birthday approaches, he believes he needs counselling to deal with his anger so he can pursue a career where he's able to help others. By his count, he spent 33 to 36 years of his life incarcerated. He said he never learned how to be a dad. He said he'd like to get treatment to help him repair his relationships with his children. "I'd be a liar if I said that the money wouldn't help," he said. "Of course it would. It would change a lot of things in my life. "I'd be able to help my kids. I'd be able to build the things that I want to build, and do something good with my life." 'They're all struggling' Class actions are meant to facilitate access to justice: it's cheaper and saves time for groups of people who have the same or similar claims to go to trial together, rather than one at a time. Avnish Nanda, the Edmonton lawyer representing the men, said there's also a social policy benefit in helping regular people hold larger institutions accountable. "None of these individuals have financial means. They're all struggling and have been struggling since that period of time, since that incident and in many respects because of that incident," Nanda said in a recent interview. He said more men claim they were abused by Dominey than the 13 complainants in the criminal trial. He expects 15 to 20 men will form the class if the class-action proceeds. But Nanda said the case is proving to be one of the most difficult he has ever had. He said the church and the provincial government are "pulling out all the stops" to delay the matter from moving forward. "It's disappointing. It puts marginalized folks, folks who have no money, in a very difficult position to hold people accountable for significant harms that they caused them. "For my clients, some of them are losing hope." Priest transferred from Alberta to B.C. Dominey grew up in St. Catharines, Ont., according to an obituary published by the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster. He became a priest in Ontario in the early 1980s, moving to Alberta to work for the Edmonton diocese. In 1990, he was transferred to the New Westminster diocese in Vancouver. He worked in numerous churches. According to the obituary, he also worked in a correctional facility in Chilliwack, B.C. He was the priest in charge at St. Catherine's Anglican Church in North Vancouver from the summer of 2015 until his arrest in February 2016, when he was placed on administrative leave. After the initial allegations were reported, the New Westminster diocese said there hadn't been a single complaint about Dominey during his 26 years in B.C., and that his criminal record checks, completed every two years, had always come back clean. At the time, one of his parishioners described Dominey as a lovely man. "I'm very sad, very sad because I really liked him," the woman told CBC. Dominey was survived by his husband, according to the obituary. 'It changed the course of my life' A cabin on a friend's farm in central British Columbia has become a refuge for one of the complainants in the case. He got out of custody in March. He said most mornings he wakes up and prays, and then watches the news. He's unemployed, so he usually spends some time looking for odd jobs. Then he makes the nine-kilometre trip into town for methadone treatment for his heroin addiction. "I just come back and watch TV. It's a pretty boring life, which is OK with me, though. It was hectic for a lot of years. Chaos," he said. In and out of the Edmonton youth jail from age 13, he said he was 15 when Dominey assaulted him. "It changed the course of my life. It turned me from a secure, confident pre-teen to a rebellious, no self-esteem, no self-worth child." He said he didn't suspect that other boys had been abused as well. "I didn't at the time because nobody talked about it, right?" He said he was able to hold it together while testifying at the preliminary inquiry. It felt good to finally talk about it. And it felt good knowing there were other people who understood what he'd been through. "I don't know if it's weird but I felt comfort in knowing that I wasn't the only one. I didn't feel alone with it anymore," he said. "There's power in numbers." 'Harder for other people to believe them' Victims who have also been offenders in the criminal justice system often face bias, said Prof. Sandy Jung, a forensic psychologist who teaches at MacEwan University in Edmonton. "It's harder for other people to believe them. There's a stigma attached to them being an inmate, someone who is not trustworthy and lacking in credibility," she said. In a recent interview, Jung said that victims of sexual abuse of any age can experience consequences. Those consequences can be exacerbated for youth in their formative years. "Typically what you're going to find is that they're going to have a hard time coping, so they start engaging in things that are really inappropriate, difficult and sometimes anti-social," she said. That can include drug and alcohol addictions, getting involved in a criminal lifestyle if they weren't already and developing a distrust of adults. For the men who allege Dominey abused them, their experience is even more complex. Jung said that remaining in custody -- in the environment where the abuse took place, either in the youth jail or moving on to other correctional institutions as adults -- would be "awful" for dealing with flashbacks and nightmares. And having an alleged abuser die before going to trial can pose an obstacle to closure, she said. "In this particular situation, you don't even have an offender who is going to deny it or minimize it, so for them to have to cope and struggle without having that person clearly give their account of it, and for you to be able to dispute it — there's nothing to dispute. "And I think that's really unfair and unfortunate in this situation for them." 'A lot of guilt and shame' In Kelowna, B.C., a man is haunted by thoughts that his life might have been different. He had been in a bunch of trouble before he arrived at the youth jail in Edmonton in 1988, court heard during the preliminary hearing. In a recent interview, he said he was 16 or 17 when Dominey assaulted him three times. He didn't tell anyone. Instead, he tried to bury it. The 50-year-old carried it with him as he tried to get on with life. He continued to be in and out of the criminal justice system but has stayed out since 2014. He worked in the oilpatch for a while. These days he works mostly as a house painter. He's uncomfortable dealing with people, even if they're in his own family. "You worry about how you act, and then I eventually had kids and I'm worrying about what they think about how I'm acting around them," he said. "I've felt uncomfortable even being around them in certain situations. It's just a lot of guilt and shame." Those feelings resurfaced when he saw a news report about Dominey being charged, but he decided he needed to tell his story anyway. "I wanted to tell my side to make sure he never did this to anybody again." After speaking to police, he reached out to the Anglican Church in Edmonton. He wanted the church to take accountability for the kind of people they were hiring. He said he was told by the church to contact their lawyer. But he reached out instead to Nanda, who looked into the case. At the time, Alberta had a time limit on suing for sexual abuse: a suit had to be filed within two years of knowledge of the abuse. But Nanda wrote to Alexander, the bishop, anyway. In a letter dated May 3, 2016, he outlined his client's allegations and explained the trauma the man lives with. "Justice for [my client] would include an apology from the Anglican Archdiocese of Edmonton, and financial restitution for the harms he has experienced and is continuing to work through," Nanda wrote. "Our aim is to not litigate this matter. Rather, it is to engage in meaningful dialogue between the parties so that [my client] can heal and move forward with his life." On Aug. 4, 2016, Nanda got a letter from lawyer Peter Gibson, representing the diocese. "I note that at no point do you suggest that the diocese had any involvement in or knowledge of the events [your client] alleges," Gibson wrote. "As you may appreciate, the proposition that the diocese should provide restitution with respect to events it has no knowledge of is decidedly problematic." Dominey was still alive at the time. Gibson said he should be presumed innocent of the assaults until proven otherwise. He said that in the meantime, Nanda could reach out should any further information relating to the assaults arise, particularly any documentation. But in May 2017, the provincial government changed the law about filing civil claims related to sexual abuse, eliminating the two-year time limit. In September of that year, Nanda and his clients filed a statement of claim, seeking to have the group of Dominey's alleged victims declared a class. As the named plaintiff representing the group, the Kelowna man had to testify yet again, this time describing the abuses for the civil case in the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton. Nanda said all his clients' evidence has been submitted, but the province and church have continued to drag their feet. At the latest hearing in September, Court of Queen's Bench Justice John Henderson ordered Nanda's clients to pay for a neutral, third-party lawyer to review all of Dominey's records, Nanda said. Nanda believes that's unnecessary, and that, regardless, the church and province could have sought the information much earlier. The case will be back in front of Henderson on Nov. 10 to determine the next steps. He said these types of administrative delays don't happen in cases between commercial litigants, and that it's unfair that survivors of sexual abuse have a different, more difficult path to justice. "All the survivors have resolve, and they're willing to move forward. But they're of a certain age and they're often of a certain health ... I'm concerned," Nanda said. 'It haunts me' For the Alberta man who was one of the first complainants in the case, there's nothing left to do but wait for justice to be served. "I need this all to come to an end," he said in a text message to a CBC reporter. "I cannot continue to carry this because I have allowed it to consume me and consume my life. "Those around me have suffered for it as well. I just don't know how to get rid of the emotion that is attached to the pain. I feel it is unbearable at times, debilitating to say the least. "I pray every day for some sort of escape from it, but it haunts me so I just want this to be over. Does that make sense? I hope so." [GN] CELSION CORP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against certain officers of Celsion Corporation. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and docketed under 20-cv-015228, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Celsion securities between November 2, 2015 and July 10, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Celsion securities during the class period, you have until December 28, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Celsion is an integrated development clinical stage oncology drug company that focuses on the development and commercialization of directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA-based therapies for the treatment of cancer. Celsion's lead product candidate is ThermoDox, a heat-activated liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase III clinical development for treating primary liver cancer. In February 2014, Celsion announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had reviewed and provided clearance for the Company's planned pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of ThermoDox in combination with radio frequency ablation ("RFA") in primary liver cancer, also known as hepatocellular carcinoma ("HCC"), called the "OPTIMA Study." The trial design was purportedly based on a comprehensive analysis of data from the Company's Phase III HEAT Study, which purportedly demonstrated that treatment with ThermoDox resulted in a 55% improvement in overall survival ("OS") in a substantial number of HCC patients that received an optimized RFA treatment. The OPTIMA Study was expected to enroll 550 patients globally, with up to 100 sites in the U.S., Europe, China and Asia Pacific, to evaluate ThermoDox in combination with RFA. The primary endpoint for the trial was OS, and the statistical plan called for two interim efficacy analyses by an independent Data Monitoring Committee ("DMC"). The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy of ThermoDox; (ii) the foregoing significantly diminished the approval and commercialization prospects for ThermoDox; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 13, 2020, Celsion announced that "it ha[d] received a recommendation from the independent [DMC] to consider stopping the global Phase III OPTIMA Study of ThermoDox® in combination with [RFA] for the treatment of [HCC], or primary liver cancer." According to the Company, "[t]he recommendation was made following the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the DMC on July 9, 2020," which "found that the pre-specified boundary for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an actual value of 0.903." On this news, Celsion's stock price fell $2.29 per share, or 63.97%, to close at $1.29 per share on July 13, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN] CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Feb. 5, 2021 Fairness Hearing Set in Urena Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE URENA, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND GROWERS ASSN., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00517-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California will hold the final approval hearing on Feb. 5, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 (EPG)., in light of the changes made to the class action settlement agreement and the Court's Aug. 25, 2020 order concerning the proposed class action settlement agreement in the case. On Sept. 9, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a declaration providing the Court with the changes made to the settlement agreement and notice of settlement agreement. In light of the ongoing pandemic, the parties, including class members, may appear telephonically. To participate telephonically, each party is directed to use the following dial-in number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909; passcode 1024453. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxt4gezn from Leagle.com. CERAVE LLC: Gruber Sues Over Mislabeled Skincare Products --------------------------------------------------------- JAKE GRUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERAVE LLC; and L'OREAL USA PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-07235 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 7, 2020) is an action alleging fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in intentionally labeling its skincare products with false and misleading claims that they are oil-free when Defendants' products contain numerous oils. According to the complaint, the Defendants manufacture, advertise, market, sell, and distribute skincare products throughout Illinois and the United States under the brand name "CeraVe". During the Class period the Defendants' products were advertised as oil-free when they in fact contained oils. By making false and misleading claims about the qualities of the products, Defendants impaired Plaintiff's ability to choose the type and quality of products he chose to buy. The Plaintiff has been deprived of his legally protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about his consumer products as required by law. As a result, the Plaintiff has been misled into purchasing products he would not have otherwise purchased. Cerave LLC manufactures and markets cosmetic products. [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 Telephone: (877) 619-8966 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Steven G. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (224) 218-0875 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com - and – David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (224) 218-0882 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com CHRISTOFLE SILVER: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOFLE SILVER, INC. d/b/a CHRISTOFLE; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-at-01210 (E.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Website, https://www.christofle.com/us_en/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. Christofle Silver, Inc. d/b/a Christofle is a goldsmith and tableware company. [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 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Barnes Files FDCPA Suit in D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Valmeka Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:20-cv-03578-ELH (D. Md., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aryeh E. Stein, Esq. MERIDIAN LAW, LLC 600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (443) 326-6011 Facsimile: (410) 653-1061 Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com COZY EARTH: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cozy Earth, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cozy Earth, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10463-JMF (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cozy Earth, LLC -- https://cozyearth.com/ -- is a provider of bamboo sheets & bedding.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com CREATION ENTERTAINMENT: Prelim. OK of Deal Sought in Christofferson ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fandom Spotlite reports CSK&D files preliminary approval of class action settlement in Creation Entertainment data breach hack. Back in March 2019, in the Creation Entertainment data breach hack, a number of Creation Entertainment customers reported receiving alerts from their credit card companies or seeing unrecognized charges on their credit cards. If you are unfamiliar with Creation Entertainment, they are the company behind conventions featuring actors from Supernatural, Star Trek, Stranger Things, The Vampire Diaries, and other popular shows, creating opportunities for fans to meet their favorite fandom stars. On November 10, 2020, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP ("CSK&D"), along with co-counsel, filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Creation Entertainment ("Creation") brought on the behalf of all consumers who made purchases through Creation's website, and whose credit/debit card information was potentially accessed and captured from Creation's systems by unauthorized users as part of a data breach. "The proposed settlement would allow those affected by the data breach one of two types of payments: a Basic Settlement Payment of up to $200 regardless of whether any unauthorized charges or fraud were experienced on a credit/debit card used to make purchases from Creation, or Extraordinary Reimbursement Payment of up to $10,000 for anyone who experienced fraud as a result of the breach and incurred specific damages more likely than not caused by the data breach." For more information regarding The lawsuit is titled Christofferson, et al. v. Creation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 19STCV11000, you can read the 27 pages of the case filed on Chimicles website. [GN] CROWN RESORTS: Faces Inquiry Amid Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Anne Davies, writing for The Guardian, reports that the pressure on Crown Resorts to delay the opening of its casino at Barangaroo in Sydney has intensified after a senior state minister said he was "encouraged" the regulator was taking steps to consider the matter. Crown has announced it plans to open the $2bn high roller casino and hotel complex on 14 December, and reaffirmed it two weeks ago at its annual general meeting, despite being midway through a major inquiry into the group's continued suitability to hold a licence. The inquiry is not due to report its findings until 1 February. But New South Wales government ministers and the chair of the inquiry, Patricia Bergin SC, have delivered broad hints that Crown should consider delaying the gala opening – at least of the casino. "I am receiving regular updates from [the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority] and am encouraged that they have now scheduled a special meeting for 18 November to attempt to resolve the conditions of Crown Sydney's opening in December," the minister responsible for gaming, Victor Dominello, said on Nov. 9. "At that meeting ILGA will consider the opening of Crown Sydney's gaming operations, including possible limited or restricted opening scenarios," he said. The premier, Gladys Berejiklian, said she is prepared to do whatever the ILGA recommends, noting that a casino licence carries responsibilities to the community. Bergin has commented during the inquiry that it might be prudent to delay the opening, and counsel assisting, Naomi Sharp SC, has said the steps Crown has taken to remedy the problems identified have been "too little too late". But Crown has shown no signs of backing down on the 14 December date. This is despite final submissions from Sharp asserting that "Crown Sydney is not suitable … to hold the licence and Crown Resorts is not suitable to be a close associate of the licensee". One of the key factors identified is the culture of Crown. "We say that the failure of Crown Resorts to meaningfully act on these longstanding allegations about the junket operators bespeaks both a culture of denial and a culture of arrogant indifference to regulatory compliance," she said on Nov. 6. At its meeting, the ILGA could potentially suspend the licence or direct Crown not to open. Crown already holds a licence and must remain suitable at all times. But this could set the scene for a major showdown – and possible litigation – as Crown has several agreements with the NSW government that purport to limit the regulator's ability to act in a way that would have an adverse economic effect on Crown. Crown has also not yet had an opportunity to rebut the submissions made before the inquiry. Summing up on Nov. 9, Sharp sought to underline the multiple "specific failings and shortcomings" of Crown that had emerged from the inquiry These included: -- The activities in China that culminated in the arrest of 19 staff in 2016 -- The sale of shares to Melco Resorts in 2019, which gave rise to a breach of the Sydney licence -- The relationship with junkets that Crown could not be satisfied were of good reputation -- A failure of the anti-money-laundering systems at Crown Melbourne and Perth -- The relationship with the major shareholder [James Packer], which had a deleterious effect on the company These, she said, were "case studies" that showed the failure of Crown to set a risk appetite and to manage risk. Each demonstrated the board's failure "to exercise active stewardship" of the company, she said. But so far there is no sign of a shift in plans from Crown despite the warning signs that Crown's culture -- and its willingness to make changes to its operations -- will be a key consideration by the ILGA. Crown's counsel, Neil Young SC, said he will not conclude his submissions rebutting the damning allegations against Crown until Nov. 13, which means the ILGA's meeting will take place before he has finished putting his case. Bergin said she would sit longer hours if required. Behind the scenes there has already been a letter from the Crown legal representatives to counsel assisting alleging breaches of due process. Advisers within Crown are split between being more conciliatory toward the ILGA or taking a hard legal approach. Crown is also facing a shareholder class action and action from its staff arrested in China. The inquiry continues with submissions from parties other than Crown. [GN] CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative class action suit initiated by Michelene Colette is still stayed. On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a putative class action complaint in the Central District of California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Colette Complaint. Instead of opposing the company's motion, plaintiffs elected to file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020. On March 11, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended complaint. The portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promulgates rules that govern cannabidiol products. When such FDA Rules are promulgated, the plaintiffs will be allowed to ask the court to reopen the proceeding. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations. CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp. and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. CV SCIENCES: Discovery in Smith Purported Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit initiated by David Smith. On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action complaint in Nevada District Court alleging certain misstatements in the Company's public filings that led to stock price fluctuations and financial harm. Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith Complaint and each of the other suits all arise out of a report published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018, suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection for CVSI-007 had been "finally rejected" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On November 15, 2018, the court consolidated the actions and appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, filed a "consolidated amended complaint". On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and the parties have commenced discovery in the action. Arising out of the same facts and circumstances in the Smith Complaint, on June 11, 2020, Phillip Berry filed a derivative suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging breaches of fiduciary duty against the Company and various defendants, and waste of corporate assets (the "Berry Complaint"). The Company has accepted service of the Berry Complaint and a motion to dismiss is currently pending. In addition to the Berry Complaint, four additional shareholder derivative suits have been filed which are premised on the same event as the Smith Complaint. All four actions are currently stayed. On May 19, 2020, the USPTO issued a patent pertaining to CVSI-007, which the Company believes negates and defeats any claims that the Company and the various defendants misled the market by not disclosing that the USPTO had finally rejected the patent. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations in each of these matters as the result of the issuance of a patent and the failure of the plaintiffs' causes of action on various other grounds. CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp. and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. DANIEL DEFENSE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daniel Defense, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Daniel Defense, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10461 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Daniel Defense -- https://danieldefense.com/ -- owns and operates barrel production cells capable of producing Cold Hammer Forged rifle barrels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com DERA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ixqueptap Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL BAUDILIO IXQUEPTAP, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DERA RESTAURANT, INC. (d/b/a DERA), MOHAMMAD S ULLAH, and OSCAR RIVERA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10254 (E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for their alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately October 2019 until on or about June 2020 as a dishwasher and food preparer at the Defendants' restaurant located at 7209 Broadway, Jackson Heights, New York, 11372. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants of failure to appropriately pay him minimum wage and overtime compensation for all the hours he worked and those hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Instead, the Defendants paid him straight rate pay regardless of the hours he worked. The Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours he worked. Dera Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Dera is a Pakistani restaurant owned and operated by Mohammad S Ullah and Oscar Rivera located in the Jackson Heights section of Queens. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd St., Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com DROPBOX INC: IPO Consolidated Putative Class Suit Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- Dropbox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend. The Company is currently involved in four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws that were filed on August 30, 2019, September 5, 2019, September 13, 2019, and October 3, 2019, in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County, against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, underwriters of its initial public offering, and Sequoia Capital XII, L.P. and certain of its affiliated entities. On October 4, 2019, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed against the Dropbox Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The six lawsuits each make the same or similar allegations of violations of federal securities laws, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting material information from, the Company's IPO registration statement. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On March 2, 2020, the Federal Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On April 16, 2020, the Dropbox Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the federal consolidated class action complaint. On May 11, 2020, the Dropbox Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated state court case based on the exclusive federal forum provisions contained in the Company's amended and restated bylaws. On October 21, 2020, the court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend. The Company believes the cases are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. The Company does not currently believe that this matter is likely to have a material adverse impact on its consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or financial position Dropbox, Inc. designs and develops document management software. The Company offers a platform that enables users to store and share files, photos, videos, songs, and spreadsheets. Dropbox serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Francisco, California. EAT CLUB: App Ct Says Orders Appealed From in Frego Not Appealable ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CRYSTAL FREGOSO, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. EAT CLUB, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. H046724 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Sixth District ruled that the orders from which Eat Club purports to appeal are not appealable and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review them on appeal. The wage and hour putative class action was filed on June 21, 2018 against Defendant Eat Club by its three former or current delivery employees, Fregoso, Truc Bui, and Adrianna Rodriguez, who seek to represent a class of similarly situated employees. The first amended complaint was filed Sept. 21, 2018. Their first amended complaint described Eat Club as a business that provided corporate catering and food delivery services throughout California. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members worked or had worked at "distribution hubs/centers." The Plaintiffs' allegations include claims that Eat Club engaged in systemic violations of Labor Code provisions and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. The amended complaint alleged eight causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wage; (3) failure to provide meal breaks; (4) failure to provide rest breaks; (5) failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements; (6) failure to pay all wages due at discharge in a timely manner (waiting time penalties); (7) unfair practices under the Unfair Competition Law; and (8) violation of Private Attorneys General Act. On March 8, 2019, Eat Club filed a notice of appeal from the two February orders. The first order invalidated the mandatory arbitration agreements that the company had secured from putative class members after the class action lawsuit was filed. The trial court issued the order because it found that in obtaining those agreements, Eat Club had provided insufficient information concerning the lawsuit to the putative class members. The second order required Eat Club to send a "curative notice" that, among other things, informed the putative class members that the arbitration agreements were invalid and that those agreements could not be enforced by Eat Club. Eat Club argues that the trial court's decision to preemptively void hundreds of nonparty agreements far exceeded the boundaries of class action jurisprudence. The Plaintiffs raise a threshold issue of appealability as to both orders. The Appellate Court opines that appellate courts must take care not to overextend the principle of functional equivalency. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed, the right to appeal is wholly statutory. Eat Club has not shown that when the trial court issued the challenged orders in the case, arbitration of any claim raised in the lawsuit was pending in another forum. Those orders did not stay arbitration pending the outcome of the lawsuit; neither did they lift a stay of the action while arbitration was pending. There was no pending petition to compel arbitration. Further, in issuing those orders, the court did not consider arbitrability or decide whether the arbitration agreements were unconscionable, hence unenforceable, under substantive law. The trial court was relying entirely on its authority to manage the conduct of class actions. Under the circumstances, the Appellate Court concludes that neither of the challenged orders was the functional equivalent of an order denying a petition to compel arbitration. Consequently, those orders were not appealable under section 1294(a). It is its conclusion that the orders from which Eat Club purports to appeal are not appealable and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review them on appeal. It declined Eat Club's suggestion that the Court alternatively treat the appeals as extraordinary writ petitions. Accordingly, on its own motion, the Court dismissed the appeals. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxtgbk5n from Leagle.com. EDWARD WOLFF: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT and WILLIAM LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDWARD WOLFF & ASSOCIATES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11009 (C.D. Cal., December 3, 2020) brings this class action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed numerous calls on the Plaintiffs' cellular telephone numbers in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" in placing its unsolicited calls on the Plaintiffs' cellular telephone without obtaining their prior express consent to receive such ATDS calls. Moreover, the Plaintiffs are not customers of the Defendant's services and have never provided any persona information, including their cellular telephone numbers, to the Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. In addition, Plaintiff Fabricant's cellular telephone number has been registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days prior to the Defendant contacting him. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiffs and members of the Class were harmed and damaged by the unlawful conduct of the Defendant causing them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular data for which they previously paid, and invading their privacy. Edward Wolff & Associates, LLC is a business funding company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com FAIRFIELD, OH: Denial of Judgment on Pleadings in Caddell Endorsed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANSELM CADDELL, Plaintiff, v. JOYCE CAMPBELL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-91 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, recommended that the Court denies (i) Defendant Joyce A. Campbell's motion to dismiss; (ii) Defendant Richard Jones' motion for judgment on the pleadings; and (iii) Defendant City of Fairfield's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On Feb. 12, 2020, Magistrate Judge Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that: Defendants City of Fairfield and Campbell's motions to dismiss be denied; (2) Defendant Jones' motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; and (3) denying the Plaintiff's motion to strike. The parties timely filed objections to the R&R. The R&R remains ripe for review and pending before the District Judge. Thereafter, on July 23, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to file a second amended class action complaint adding Caleb Lawson as an additional named Plaintiff and class representative. The second amended class action complaint was filed that same day. Other than adding Mr. Lawson, the second amended complaint introduces no new legal issues and the theory of the Plaintiffs' case remained unchanged. Defendant Campbell then filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, incorporating all arguments previously set forth in her Motion to Dismiss, as well as her Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, and her objections to the Magistrate's R&R. The Plaintiffs' responded to Defendant Campbell's second motion to dismiss by also incorporating their arguments in opposition to her prior motion as set forth in the Response in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss as well as the Omnibus Response to Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Plaintiffs assert that all of the arguments previously raised apply equally to Defendant Campbell's current motion and support its denial. Defendant Jones and Defendant City of Fairfield also filed motions for judgment on the pleadings as to the Plaintiffs' second amendment class action complaint. Defendant Jones' motion incorporates the same arguments set forth in his prior Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and associated filings, and renews that Motion as to the original Plaintiff Anselm Caddell and asserting the same arguments as to the newly added Plaintiff Caleb Lawson. As set forth in those filings, Defendant Jones argues that the claims of both Plaintiffs should be dismissed for purely legal reasons that should be decided on the pleadings. The City of Fairfield seeks judgment on the pleadings as to all of Plaintiff Caddell's claims asserted in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The motion incorporates all dispositive arguments it previously made seeking relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) against the First Amended Class Action Complaint. It includes all arguments asserted in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and its Reply in support thereof. These arguments only address the claims of Plaintiff Caddell. Defendant City of Fairfield is not now seeking dismissal of the claims of newly identified PlaintiffLawson whose claims are the only difference between the First and Second Amended complaints. The Plaintiffs responded to Defendant Jones' and Defendant City of Fairfield's second motions for judgment on the pleadings by also incorporating their prior arguments in opposition to Defendants prior motions as set forth in the Omnibus Response in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Campbell and City of Fairfield as well as the Omnibus Response to the Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Bowman recognizes that the filing of an amended complaint generally moots a pending motion to dismiss. Although the prior R&R is technically moot due to the filing of the second amended complaint, the same issues are ripe for review based upon the refiled motion to dismiss and motions for judgment on the pleadings, all of which raise the same arguments raised in their initial motions. Therefore, the analysis in the prior R&R also applies to the newly filed motions directed to the second amended complaint. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the pending R&R, she recommended that: (i) Defendant Campbell's motion to dismiss be denied; (ii) Defendant Jones' motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; and (iii) Defendant City of Fairfield's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied. Additionally, based on the agreement of parties reached during a Sept. 9, 2020 phone conference, no objections will be filed to the R&R, thus making it immediately ripe for review. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Report & Recommendation Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3o3b9mw from Leagle.com. FARGO COLONIAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Cota Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FARGO COLONIAL LLC d/b/a NINE-TEN; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-02382-H-BGS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Website, https://www.nine-ten.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. Fargo Colonial LLC was founded in 1998. The company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels. [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 FASTLY INC: Hearing on Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Set for Dec. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fastly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the hearing on the lead plaintiff motion in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re Fastly, Inc. Securities Litigation, is set for December 2, 2020. On August 27, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Marcos Betancourt v. Fastly, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:20-cv-06024-PJH) naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers. On September 15, 2020, a substantively identical complaint was filed against the same defendants in the same court, captioned Rami Habib v. Fastly, Inc., et al. The complaints assert that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making materially false or misleading statements between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020 regarding the company's business and financials, while not disclosing the identity of one of its largest customers. The plaintiffs also allege that certain of the company's officers violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On September 27, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases into one putative class action, captioned In re Fastly, Inc. Securities Litigation. Motions for lead plaintiff were filed on October 26, 2020 and the hearing on the lead plaintiff motion is set for December 2, 2020. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, regarding these same or other matters and also naming as defendants the Company and our officers and directors. Fastly, Inc. provides infrastructure software. The Company offers cloud computing, image optimization, security, edge computer technology, and streaming solutions. Fastly serves customers in the United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California. FLUIDIGM CORP: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ:FLDM) Investors Affected: February 7, 2019 - November 5, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Fluidigm Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles; (2) as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/fluidigm-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=10871&from=1 Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE:ACB) Investors Affected: February 13, 2020 - September 4, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Aurora Cannabis Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets, including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the Company's purported “business transformation plan” and cost reset failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=10871&from=1 HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ) Investors Affected: November 6, 2015 - June 21, 2016 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in HP Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) HP's channel inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies to customers that did not need or want the product in order to artificially increase revenues and profits; (b) HP's channel inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies to customers outside of designated regions at unsustainable discounts in order to artificially increase revenues and profits; (c) HP's channel inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies at steep discounts to customers to encourage those customers to sell the supplies further down the supply channel, out of HP's inventory management metrics; and (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, defendants' statements about HP's business condition and prospects were materially false and misleading when made. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hp-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=10871&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] FTS INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Reached in Glock Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ FTS International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the purported securities class action suit initiated by Carol Glock. On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of its officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the underwriters of our initial public offering (IPO) of common stock. The complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities who purchased the company's common stock in or traceable to its IPO, and purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, damages in an amount in excess of $1.0 million, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. After removing the case from state to federal court in the Southern District of Texas, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on deficiencies in the pleadings on September 18, 2020. Prior to a hearing on the motion, the parties settled the case on October 16, 2020. The settlement is on a class-wide basis, and is, therefore, subject to both trial court and bankruptcy court approval. FTSI has insurance coverage on this matter, but several of FTSI's co-defendants tendered requests for indemnification not covered by FTSI's insurance. FTSI agreed to indemnify the IPO underwriter co-defendants. FTS said, "We believe the settlement should resolve both the insured and uninsured portions of this matter. We do not expect the ultimate resolution of this case to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements." FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies (E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Court Denies in Part Ewalt's Bid to Seal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN EWALT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDING II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-4262 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to seal the information contained in the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants GateHouse Media, LLC's and Gannett Co., Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss.. The case concerns the Defendants' alleged deceptive trade practices that damaged subscribers to the Columbus Dispatch. According to the Plaintiffs, the GateHouse Defendants advertise and offer term subscriptions to The Dispatch for specific prices, and their customers enter into these agreements reasonably expecting that the GateHouse Defendants will provide The Dispatch for the number of weeks stated in those Subscription Agreements. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege that the GateHouse Defendants reduce their customers' term subscriptions by sending their customers unsolicited 'premium editions' and decreasing the length of those subscriptions based on the value the GateHouse Defendants arbitrarily assign to these premium editions. After Defendants Gannett Co., Inc. and GateHouse Media, LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion pursuant to the parties' Protective Order, requiring that the parties file a motion to seal when using the opposing party's Confidential information in the body of any filing and giving the opposing party 14 days to file a response supporting the motion to seal. In their Motion, the Plaintiffs requested that they be permitted to file an unredacted version of their Memorandum in Opposition to that Motion to Dismiss and its accompanying exhibits. The Defendants filed a response, arguing that the Plaintiffs should be permitted to file only a redacted version of the same on the public docket. The parties' dispute concerns a series of the Defendants' internal emails and the Plaintiffs' use of those emails in their Opposition. The Defendants contend that portions of the Plaintiffs' Opposition and Exhibit C containing those emails should be redacted because they contain trade secrets. The Plaintiffs disagree. In their Opposition, they quote a number of emails from the Defendants' employees, including employees at the Columbus Dispatch. Generally, they discuss the number of premium editions to be issued, the price of those premium editions, Dispatch subscribers' frustration with the premium-edition policy, and Dispatch employees' opinions regarding the same. Magistrate Judge Jolson opines that the Defendants have not demonstrated that the information contained in the Plaintiffs' Opposition is a trade secret. And, because it is a purported class action concerning central Ohio's primary newspaper, the public has at least a moderate interest in viewing the information in question. The relevant portion of the Plaintiffs' Opposition contains information regarding the Dispatch's subscription policies and Dispatch employees' opinions regarding the same. On the record before the Court, there is no reason for the Court to prevent the public from viewing that information. Less definite, in the Magistrate Judge's view, is whether portions of Exhibit C contain trade secrets. In a few limited instances, the emails contained in Exhibit C appear to contain information regarding Defendants' internal processes and strategy that potentially could be considered trade secrets. Because she does not have the necessary information to make that determination at this time, the Magistrate Judge grants the Defendants 14 days in which to submit a supplemental brief accompanied by affidavits or declarations addressing whether specific portions of Exhibit C contain trade secrets under Ohio's six-factor test, Handel's Enter., Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Jolson denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion. Specifically, she denied the Motion with respect to the request to seal the information contained in the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants GateHouse Media, LLC's and Gannett Co., Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. After the Defendants submit a supplemental brief accompanied by affidavits or declarations addressing whether specific portions of Exhibit C contain trade secrets, the Court will then issue an Order regarding unsealing the relevant information. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3szzf5h from Leagle.com. GENERAL WIRELESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Begg Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE BEGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL WIRELESS OPERATIONS INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-08688 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 8, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Website, www.radioshack.com,, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. General Wireless Operations Inc. (dba RadioShack) provides retail consumer electronic products and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Stieglitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 GENIE ENERGY: Preliminary Motion to Dismiss Davis Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Genie Energy Ltd. (GRE) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the preliminary motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit initiated by Danelle Davis, is pending. On February 18, 2020, named Plaintiff Danelle Davis filed a putative class action complaint against Residents Energy and GRE in United States District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C Section 227 et seq. Residents Energy denies allegations in the complaint which it to be meritless and plans to vigorously defend this action. Based upon the Company's preliminary assessment of this matter, a loss is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss, nor is the amount of loss if any, estimable as of September 30, 2020. On or around October 9, 2020, Residents Energy filed a preliminary motion to dismiss one of the counts in the complaint, and to dismiss GRE as a named defendant. Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. GENIE ENERGY: TCPA Class Suit Against IDT Energy Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Genie Energy Ltd. (GRE) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that IDT Energy continues to defend a putative class action suit. On October 5, 2018, two named plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against IDT Energy alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. in connection with its telemarketing practices. IDT Energy denies the allegations in the complaint, which it believes to be meritless and is vigorously defending this action. On October 31, 2019, the court granted IDT Energy's motion to bifurcate individual and class claims (staying class discovery) to expedite discovery and dispositive motions related to the named plaintiffs. On January 9, 2020, the Court granted IDT Energy's motion for summary judgment to dismiss one of the named plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction. The remaining named plaintiff filed a motion to compel class discovery which was denied by the Court. On July 14, 2020, IDT Energy filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the remaining named plaintiff. Based upon the Company's assessment of this matter, a loss based on the merits is not considered probable, nor is the amount of loss, if any, estimable as of September 30, 2020. Genie Energy Ltd., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retail energy provider; and an oil and gas exploration company. The company operates through three segments: Genie Retail Energy; Genie Energy Services; and Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. Genie Energy Ltd. was incorporated in 2001 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. GIBSON BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gibson Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gibson Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10448 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gibson Brands, Inc. -- https://www.gibson.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of guitars, other musical instruments, and professional audio equipment from Kalamazoo, Michigan, and now based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GOOGLE LLC: Blumberg Alleges Android Mobile App Market Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- BENJAMIN BLUMBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03557 (D.C., Dec. 7, 2020) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Play Store's dominance over app distribution on Android devices has enabled Google to effectively become the middleman between app developers and their customers by mandating use of its own in-app payment system -- Google Pay -- for transactions accomplished using the Play Store. Google's requirements in this regard have evolved over time to require more app developers to use Google's payment tool. In 2014, for example, only certain categories of applications were required to use Google Pay. Recently, however, Google has begun insisting that a broader category of apps will be required to use Google's in-app payment tool exclusively, no longer permitting the option of a third-party payment processor. Similarly, Google uses a series of anticompetitive covenants in agreements to maintain its monopoly in the Android Mobile App Market and charge supra-competitive prices for apps and in-app purchases. Google's Mobile Application Distribution Agreement requires manufacturers seeking to license the Android operating system to agree to preinstall select apps, including the Google Play Store, on the device, alongside other rotating apps to be selected by Google. If a manufacturer refuses these restrictive terms and conditions, it loses access to the Android operating system. As a result of the Mobile App Agreement's terms and conditions, Google has successfully prevented competition in the Android Mobile App Market, allowing it to charge supra-competitive prices for apps and in-app purchases, and harming the Plaintiffs and the Class members by limiting consumer choice, the suit says. Google LLC is a global technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products. The Company is primarily focused on Web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware. Google serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 640-1160 Fascimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 12870 US Highway 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Interlocutory Appeal Cert. in Header Privacy Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE GOOGLE REFERRER HEADER PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case No. 10-cv-04809-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied Google's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the Court's June 5, 2020 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss. The case is a consumer class action against Defendant Google arising out of Google's popular internet search engine. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' allegations is that the Defendant transmits its users' search terms to third parties without their consent. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant does it by including a "referrer header" in the "Uniform Resource Locator" ("URL") it generates for each search result. The URL is the address for a webpage; as such, it is transmitted to the owner of the destination page. A referrer header is a field in a URL that contains the address of the webpage the user left when it clicked on the link -- i.e., the page that "referred" the user to the destination page. According to the Plaintiffs, Google includes the search terms in the URL for the corresponding search results page. As a result, when a Google user clicks on a link on the search results page, the search terms are contained in the referrer header and thus transmitted to third-party website owners. Based on the foregoing, the operative Consolidated Complaint asserts six claims: (1) violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) breach of contract implied in law; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) declaratory judgment and corresponding injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-2202. Originally filed in October 2010, the suit has now traveled to the Supreme Court and back. When the case was before the Supreme Court, the issue on appeal was the propriety of the parties' class settlement, which had been reached in 2013. The Supreme Court did not decide that issue, however. Instead, it remanded the case to the courts below to consider whether the Plaintiffs had Article III standing in light of its opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, which was decided after the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit then received briefing from the parties as to whether it should decide the standing question or remand the case to the Court. The Defendant asked for remand to the Court, and the Ninth Circuit agreed. On June 5, 2020, after full briefing and oral argument, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently established their standing to assert all six claims in the Consolidated Complaint and therefore denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. In particular, it rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs had failed to identify a concrete injury in fact as to each of their claims, as necessary under Spokeo. The Defendant now seeks certification to appeal the Court's June 5, 2020 Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). It contends that there is an intra-circuit split regarding whether to use a one-step or a two-step test to determine standing, and that it followed the former. But there is no material intra-circuit split, Judge Davila finds. Whether framed as one step or two, he says the ultimate question in the Ninth Circuit's cases is whether the specific statutory violation pleaded in a complaint actually harmed or presented a material risk of harm to the Plaintiff. The Court squarely addressed the question and found that Count 1 pleaded real harm to the Plaintiffs' substantive privacy interests by claiming that Google violated 18 U.S.C. Section 2702 when it disclosed their search terms to third parties without authorization. That Defendant disagrees with the Court's application of the relevant precedents is not a ground for interlocutory appeal. Judge Judge Davila also rejects the Defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's ruling in Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A., casts doubt upon the Court's decision. In Thole, the Supreme Court held that the participants in an ERISA defined-benefit plan did not have standing to challenge alleged plan mismanagement because they had received all of their monthly benefit payments and would continue to do so, regardless of the outcome of the suit. Beyond the fact that the case also concerned the injury in fact requirement for Article III standing, Thole sheds little light upon the specific injuries asserted by the Plaintiffs. The Judge therefore concludes that the Ninth Circuit precedents it relied upon were unaffected by Thole -- a conclusion already reflected in its June 5, 2020 ruling. The Defendant's remaining efforts to show that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists as to the Court's standing analysis -- including its analysis of the breach of contract claims (Counts 2 and 3), quasi-contract claims (Counts 4 and 5), and request for injunctive relief (Count 6) -- are simply a reiteration of the arguments already rejected by the Court in the June 5, 2020 Order. Thus, the requirement that "a substantial ground for difference of opinion" is not met. Nor would immediate appellate review materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Based on the foregoing, Judge Davila concludes that an immediate appeal from its June 5, 2020 Order would not materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Accordingly, because the Defendant has not carried its high burden of justifying interlocutory appeal, he denied the Defendant's motion for certification of interlocutory appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y582q5qx from Leagle.com. GOOGLE: Plaintiffs Lawyer Seeks to Create Antitrust MDL ------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against Google could end up getting some company, after a plaintiff's lawyer sought to coordinate 11 other lawsuits with the case. Plaintiffs lawyer Jonathan Cuneo, who brought his own antitrust class action in October against Google, has sought to create an MDL that would include his own case and 10 others, including the Justice Department's lawsuit, which is pending before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, of the District of Columbia. Most of the other cases are in the Northern District of California. [GN] GREAT AMERICAN: Faces Key Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL KEY, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GREAT AMERICAN FOODS CORPORATION, Case No. 9:20-cv-00241 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 8, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to properly compensate its non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff, for all the work they performed. The complaint contends that the Defendant violated the FLSA and state law by knowingly and willfully permitting the Plaintiff and Class members to perform work and/or remain on duty without paying them any wages. The Defendant further violates the FLSA because of the mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Plaintiff and the Class members, be paid for all work hours and be paid at one and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a single week. Plaintiff Key has worked for the Defendant from approximately June of 2011 as a waitress. Great American Foods Corporation operates a restaurant in Livingston, Texas known as "The Catfish King." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Class Suit in California Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the company and two of its officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding our business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding the company's customer acquisition strategy and its impact on its financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. On February 18, 2020, a shareholder derivative suit and securities class action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No. 20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit avers purported breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis of the same wrongdoing alleged in the first lawsuit described above. The suit does not define the purported class allegedly damaged. These cases have been related. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in these matters. Green Dot said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena, California. GRUBHUB INC: Stockholder Putative Class Action Ongoing in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ Grubhub Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 19 Civ. 7665. On November 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, Chief Executive Officer Matthew Maloney, and President and Chief Financial Officer Adam DeWitt in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 19 Civ. 7665. The complaint, which was amended on July 24, 2020, asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on its allegation that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's growth, competitive landscape, and strategy. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. Pursuant to a court scheduling order, the matter is expected to be fully briefed by March 2021. The defendants believe that the lawsuit is without merit and that a material loss is not probable. However, given the early stage of the proceedings, a reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Grubhub Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a leading online and mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders, which the Company refers to as takeout. The Company connects more than 300,000 restaurants with hungry diners in thousands of cities across the United States and is focused on transforming the takeout experience. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. GULF INTERSTATE: Misclassifies Inspectors, Mosteller Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT MOSTELLER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GULF INTERSTATE FIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04162 (S.D. Tex., December 4, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective action arising from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately November 2017 up until March 2019 as a pipeline inspector performing welding inspections on pipelines and facilities owned and operated by the Defendant's customers. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated inspectors as exempt from overtime. Although they commonly work in excess of 12 hours each day or more than 40 hours each week, the Plaintiff and other inspectors were not paid by the Defendant their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc. provides inspection services for the energy industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com HAMAKUA MACADAMIA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hamakua Macadamia Nut Company, Incorporated. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hamakua Macadamia Nut Company, Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-10465 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hamakua Macadamia Nut Co Inc. -- https://hawnnut.com/ -- was founded in 1994. The company's line of business includes manufacturing salted and roasted nuts and seeds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com HC CARRIERS: Faces Flores Suit Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ GUSTAVO FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HC CARRIERS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00212 (S.D. Tex., December 4, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act seeking damages for its alleged failure to pay overtime. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on or about July 2020 as a vacuum truck driver transporting wastewater from oilfield wellsites in Southern Texas to disposal sites in Southern Texas. The Plaintiff claims that he was not paid by the Defendant at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 during each and every workweek. Specifically, the Plaintiff often worked a schedule of approximately 80 hours of work per week on average and he is supposed to be entitled to premium pay for weeks in which he worked overtime. However, the Defendant paid him straight time hourly pay for all hours he worked without receiving overtime premium pay at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the FLSA. HC Carriers LLC provides wastewater hauling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net HEALTHALLIANCE HOSPITAL: Poyner Spruill Discusses Ruling in Russell ------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Fisher, Esq., of Poyner Spruill LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in the wake of the 2019 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights ("OCR") enforcement actions against Bayfront Health St. Petersburg ("Bayfront") and Korunda Medical, LLC ("Korunda") pursuant the HIPAA and HITECH Right of Access Initiative—for violations of the rights of patients to obtain access to their medical records promptly, without being overcharged, and in the readily producible format of their choice - private lawsuits have been on the rise to enforce patients' right to access. Of most recent note, the matter Russell v. Healthalliance Hospital Broadway Campus, and Ciox Health, LLC, 1:20-cv-01204 (USDC No. Dist. of NY), seeks not only monetary damages for failing to grant access to the medical records of the deceased husband of the Plaintiff, but also certification of a class action on behalf of those similarly situated. The Plaintiff claims that the hospital (Healthalliance) and its medical records management provider (Ciox) engaged in a pattern of information blocking by refusing to provide medical records to the Plaintiff widow who sought the records for the purpose of a potential wrongful death / malpractice claim. These actions included: refusing to provide any electronic health records; charging an excessive amount for paper records they were willing to provide; and for being intentionally unresponsive and obstructionist in their dealings with the Plaintiff. On top of these direct claims, the plaintiff seeks certification of a class action for similarly situated individuals -- a group alleged to include thousands of potential members. Given the fact that 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1320d-5 provides for penalties of $50,000 per violation and up to $1,500,000 in fines per calendar year, the prospect of class actions under this law are to be taken very seriously. While this case is only in its early stages, it will definitely be one that healthcare and legal observers will be watching closely. [GN] HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Ct. Consolidates Clynes, Dahlke Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the cases MICHAEL CLYNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., ANYUAN SUN, and CHANGJUAN LIANG, Defendants, and EDWARD A. DAHLKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., ANYUAN SUN, and CHANGJUAN LIANG, Defendants, Case Nos. 20 Civ. 4420 (PAE), 20 Civ. 4746 (PAE) (S.D. N.Y.). In June 2020, the two putative class actions were filed, under the federal securities laws, on behalf of purchasers of certain Hebron securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive. The Plaintiffs in each case allege that Hebron and the Individual Defendants (each an officer of Hebron) made false and misleading statements about, and/or failed to disclose, the involvement of related parties in several of Hebron's recent acquisitions, and failed to maintain adequate disclosure controls regarding related-party transactions. As a result, the Plaintiffs allege, Hebron's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. But, on June 3, 2020, after news broke exposing the involvement of related parties in various transactions, Hebron shares fell more than 37%, and another 18% the following day. Hebron is a British Virgin Islands corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in the People's Republic of China. It conducts equipment and engineering operations focusing on the research, development, and manufacture of fluid equipment, including valves and pipe fittings; since 2019, it has also provided financial services. Hebron's Class A common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "HEBT." At all relevant times, Defendant Anyuan Sun was Hebron's CEO and Defendant Chanjuan Liang was its CFO. On May 22, 2020, Hebron announced its plans to acquire Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd. for approximately $25 million. In addition, the Plaintiffs allege, Hebron made other acquisitions, including of a company called Beijing Hengpu, but the Complaints do not specify when those transactions occurred. On June 3, 2020, Siegfried Eggert, the CEO of Grizzly Research, presented a report at a streaming virtual investor conference, which concluded that Hebron is an insider enrichment scheme without economic basis. According to a later article describing the report, Eggert stated during the presentation that Hebron's controlling shareholder, Bodang Liu, owned both Beijing Hengpu and Nami, along with other acquired companies, making their acquisitions undisclosed related-party transactions. The conference, which began at 10:25 a.m., was open only to paying attendees, but the news of Eggert's statements quickly began to spread. By 10:26 a.m., after Hebron's share price fell more than 10% from its prior closing price the day before, the SEC's short-sale rule went into effect. Between 10:26 a.m. and 10:32 a.m., Hebron's share price then briefly recovered. But, over the next hour and for the rest of the day, Hebron's share price continued to decline amid "unusually heavy trading volume." By market's close, Hebron's share price had fallen nearly 37%; the next day it fell another 18%. On June 9, 2020, Clynes filed a Complaint and published a notice of this action on BusinessWire, a widely circulated national business-oriented wire service. On June 19, 2020, Dahlke filed his Complaint. Both the Plaintiffs allege that, throughout the class period, Hebron and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about Hebron's business, operations, and prospects, causing its securities, at all relevant times, to be overvalued. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions were ineffective; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The Plaintiffs each allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. On Aug. 7, 2020, Dahlke moved to consolidate the two cases and for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action. On Aug. 10, 2020, Clynes did the same. On Aug. 26, 2020, each Plaintiff filed an opposition to the other's motion to serve as the Lead Plaintiff. On Sept. 2, 2020, with leave of the Court, Clynes filed a reply, and on Sept. 4, 2020, Dahlke did the same. Both Plaintiffs seek consolidation, and consolidation is clearly merited. Both actions sue Hebron under the Exchange Act on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hebron securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. Both center on the same alleged facts: that Hebron violated the Exchange Act by failing to disclose acquisitions involving related parties; that Hebron's disclosure controls regarding related-party transactions were ineffective; and that these violations led to artificially inflated share prices, which, once the truth was revealed, collapsed to the financial detriment of the proposed class. In fact, the majority of each Complaint contains the exact same allegations, generally verbatim. The Defendants in the two suits are also identical: They include Hebron and two officers, Sun and Liang. The lawsuits, therefore, are overwhelmingly similar. Courts routinely consolidate securities class actions arising from the same allegedly actionable statements. All relevant factors support consolidation. Accordingly, Judge Engelmayer consolidated these actions. Next, Judge Engelmayer finds that both Clynes and Dahlke would be adequate class representatives as they both satisfy the PSLRA's preliminary assessment of Rule 23's adequacy requirement. However, as the debate between Clynes and Dahlke aptly illustrates, there is a real risk that the idiosyncrasies of Clynes' purchases would become just such a distraction at trial, were Clynes appointed the Lead Plaintiff, with his trading serving as a proxy for the class. In the District, a person that increases his holdings in a security after revelation of an alleged fraud involving that security is subject to a unique defense that precludes him from serving as a class representative. Dahlke has adduced proof -- i.e., non-speculative evidence -- that Clynes is subject to that arguable defense. Without resolving any of the disputes at this early stage of the litigation, Judge Engelmayer finds that the cottage industry of issues surrounding Clynes' purchase of Hebron shares would saddle, or at least potentially saddle, his claims with unique defenses. Thus, the Court holds that Dahlke has successfully rebutted Clynes's presumptive status as the Lead Plaintiff. Because the only other lead-plaintiff movant is Dahlke, whom he has already found to satisfy the Rule 23 factors for purposes of the PSLRA analysis, Judge Engelmayer finds that Dahlke is the "most adequate Plaintiff" and appointed him the Lead Plaintiff. The most adequate plaintiff may retain counsel to represent the class, subject to the Court's approval. Clynes has selected the law firm of Pomerantz LLP. Having reviewed the firm's submissions as to its pertinent background and experience, including its experience litigating securities class actions, the Judge finds that the firm is qualified to serve as the Lead Counsel. Accordingly, Judge Engelmayer appointed Pomerantz as the Lead Counsel. To summarize, Judge Engelmayer consolidated these two cases for all purposes, and will proceed under the name, In re Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. Securities Litigation, and under the case number 20 Civ. 4420. Dahlke's motion seeking appointment as the Lead laintiff is granted. Clynes' motion to serve as the Lead Plaintiff is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y53sm5mj from Leagle.com. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at dockets 5 and 9 in No. 20 Civ. 4420. In light of the consolidation, the Clerk of Court is also directed to close the original Dahlke case, 20 Civ. 4746. The Judge directed the parties promptly to meet and confer, and to submit a joint letter proposing an efficient schedule for next steps in the case -- including proposed dates for the filing of (1) a consolidated amended complaint; and (2) the Defendants' response. If the Defendants anticipate that their response will take the form of a motion to dismiss, the parties will include proposed dates for the opposition and reply briefs as well. HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE: Rodriguez Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 6th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kathryn Rodriguez filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated June 25, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Kathryn Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-00240, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Ms. Rodriguez seeks a review of the court's order denying motion to reopen case. The appellate case is captioned as Kathryn Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp., Case No. 20-2184, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Dec. 4, 2020. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KATHRYN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Curtis Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 5 E. Market Street, Suite 250 Corning, NY 14830 Telephone: (888) 551-8685 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal Defendant-Appellee HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE CORP. is represented by: Kathleen Helen Klaus, Esq. MADDIN, HAUSER, ROTH & HELLER 28400 Northwestern Highway, 2nd Floor Southfield, MI 48034 Telephone: (248) 354-4030 E-mail: kklaus@maddinhauser.com HLD GARI LLC: Altamirano Sues Over Delivery Workers' Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- CELESTINO ALTAMIRANO LUCAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HLD GARI LLC (D/B/A SUSHI OF GARI/UPPER EAST SIDE); MASATOSHI SUGIO; TAKABUMI HORIKAWA; AYAKO HORIKAWA; MASAHARU HORIKAWA; MASATAKA HORIKAWA; ROGER DOE; EMI DOE; and YUMI DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10314 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Altamirano was employed by the Defendants as delivery worker. Hld Gari LLC owns and operates a Japanese restaurant, located at 402 East 78th Street, New York, NY 10075 under the name Sushi of Gari. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Blind-Spot Collision-Avoidance Assist -------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Hyundai Ioniq class action lawsuit includes SE, SEL and Limited trims that are allegedly missing their Blind-Spot Collision-Avoidance Assist and Rear Cross-Traffic Collision-Avoidance Assist systems. According to Hyundai, an Ioniq with the Rear Cross-Traffic Collision-Avoidance Assist system has "[r]adar sensors in the rear bumper [that] monitor cross traffic approaching from left and right side of the vehicle during reverse maneuvers, and if necessary appl[ies] emergency braking to prevent from [sic] collision." Additionally, an Ioniq with Blind-Spot Collision-Avoidance Assist has "[r]adar sensors in the rear bumper [which] are used to warn the driver of approaching vehicles in the blind spot area and activate[s] the brakes when there is a collision risk in lane changing maneuvers." Model year 2020 Hyundai Ioniq cars were allegedly advertised as including the safety features to assist drivers with avoiding crashes. But the Ioniq class action alleges this causes safety problems as customers may rely on non-existent safety features. The Owner Who Filed The Hyundai Ioniq Class Action Lawsuit The Hyundai Ioniq Limited owner who filed the class action says he purchased a 2020 Ioniq in June 2020, but in August a letter from Hyundai arrived and informed the owner his car did not have Blind-Spot and Rear Cross-Traffic Collision-Avoidance Assist systems. Instead, the Ioniq was equipped with Blind-Spot Collision and Rear Cross-Traffic Collision Warning systems. The Ioniq class action lawsuit says the warning systems will only warn the driver of approaching vehicles and vehicles in the Ioniq's blind spots, but will not automatically apply the brakes to avoid a crash. The plaintiff alleges the window sticker (Monroney label) specifically says the Ioniq features include "Blind-Spot Collision-Avoidance Assist" and "Rear Cross-Traffic Collision-Avoidance Assist" systems, not just the "warning" systems. The Ioniq owner says he repeatedly contacted Hyundai and the dealership concerning the letter and the missing safety features, but the plaintiff claims nothing did any good and Hyundai offered no solutions or relief. According to the Ioniq class action, Hyundai deceptively marketed, advertised, sold and leased the 2020 Ioniqs to customers nationwide. And those customers allegedly had no safe or practical method of confirming if the cars were equipped with the systems or verify if the systems functioned properly. The plaintiff says whether before purchasing the Ioniq or after driving it off the lot, a customer would need to simulate a crash "involving cross traffic during reverse maneuvers and vehicles approaching their Vehicles' blind spots." The Hyundai Ioniq class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Barnett, et al., vs. Hyundai Motor America. The plaintiff is represented by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, the Murphy Law Firm, and the Law Office of David H. Abrams. [GN] IDAHO: Public Defender System Inadequate, Class Action Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Keith Ridler, writing for The Associated Press, reports that an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho on Nov. 6 asked the Idaho Supreme Court to declare the state's public defender system inadequate under the U.S. Constitution and order the state to fix it. Liz Lockwood told justices that the state's justice system doesn't ensure adequate funding and representation for poor people tried for crimes as required by the Sixth Amendment. The class-action lawsuit seeks "to force the state of Idaho to live up to its responsibilities," she said. Lockwood said the current system contains "structural systemic deficiencies." She noted that public defenders in 2018 in Idaho spent only 3.8 hours per felony case. But Idaho Deputy Attorney General Leslie Hayes told justices that lawmakers have approved about $30 million in recent years to improve the system, and that the state is meeting its requirements to adequately defend people who can't afford an attorney. She said the changes happened so fast it could make the litigation meaningless because there is no longer a problem needing to be addressed. "The improvements are so vast and so quick that there's no purpose for us continuing to be in court unless a problem is actually happening," she said. The court took the case under advisement. It's not clear when a ruling will be issued. The case stems from a 2015 lawsuit the ACLU filed against Idaho, contending the state wasn't meeting its Sixth Amendment obligations that guarantee the assistance of counsel for those charged in state court. The group said public defenders had so many cases they couldn't mount good defenses, among other problems. A district court judge dismissed the case in 2016. But the Idaho Supreme Court in 2017 ruled the lawsuit could continue. The case was turned into a class-action lawsuit in 2018. In 2019, 4th District Court Judge Samuel Hoagland declined to issue a ruling and recommended both sides ask the Idaho Supreme Court to examine the issue and help determine what standards the state needs to meet so as not to violate the constitution. [GN] INNATE PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Dec. 22 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Innate Pharmaceuticals. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA) Class Period: March 10, 2020 - September 8, 2020 Deadline: December 22, 2020 For more info: www.bgandg.com/ipha The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innate touted the results of their various Phase 2 trials as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure investors that they were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely disclose their renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment into two $50 million payments, to be partially contingent on performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) 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. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) Class Period: February 23, 2016 - September 23, 2020 Deadline: December 23, 2020 For more info: www.bgandg.com/jpm The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) traders at the Company, with the knowledge and consent of their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by "spoofing," or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of market demand; (2) the Company had insufficient controls and compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the misconduct; (3) the Company's earnings in the physical commodity market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) the Company provided misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the investigation into the misconduct; (6) resolution of the governmental investigation into the Company would result in a record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) 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. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] INNATE PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 22 Motion Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming December 22, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Innate Pharma SA ("Innate" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IPHA) securities between March 10, 2020 and September 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Innate investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On October 23, 2018, Innate and AstraZeneca plc ("AstraZeneca") announced an expansion of a pre-existing collaboration agreement, whereby AstraZeneca acquired 9.8% equity stake in Innate and obtained full oncology rights to monalizumab, a first-in-class humanized anti-NKG2A antibody. As part of this agreement, Innate would receive $100 million in milestone payments at the start of the first Phase 3 clinical trial for monalizumab. On September 8, 2020, Innate announced that it had amended its collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca. Innate "will now receive a $50 million payment upon AstraZeneca's dosing of the first patient in the Phase 3 trial, and a $50 million payment after the interim analysis demonstrates the combination meets a pre-defined threshold of clinical activity." On this news, the Company's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $1.62 per share, or 26.6%, to close at $4.45 per ADS on September 8, 2020. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Innate touted the results of their various Phase 2 trials as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure investors that they were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely disclose their renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment into two $50 million payments, to be partially contingent on performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) 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. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Innate securities, you may move the Court no later than December 22, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 4 Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Intercept" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ICPT) from September 28, 2019, through October 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Intercept securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Intercept Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating NASH were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "has notified Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA] for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested by the FDA that the company intends to submit." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or 12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020. On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. According to that press release, "[t]he CRL indicated that, based on the data the FDA has reviewed to date," the FDA "has determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH." The press release further advised, among other things, that the "[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or 39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020. Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was "facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or 8.05%, to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 4, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Intercept securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/interceptpharmaceuticalsinc-icpt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-331/apply/ or contact Joseph R. Seidman Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 Seidman@bernlieb.com [GN] INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICPT) securities between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 4, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Intercept's lead product candidate is Ocaliva (obeticholic acid ("OCA")), a farnesoid X receptor agonist used for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), a rare and chronic liver disease, in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid in adults. The Company is also developing OCA for various other indications, including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"). On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "has notified Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA] for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested by the FDA that the company intends to submit within the next week." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or 12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020. On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or 39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020. Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was "facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or 8.05%, to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020. The complaint, filed on November 5, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating NASH were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Intercept securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Announces Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Intercept" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ICPT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-05377, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Intercept securities between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Intercept securities during the class period, you have until January 4, 2021, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Intercept is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases in the U.S. Intercept's lead product candidate is Ocaliva (obeticholic acid ("OCA")), a farnesoid X receptor agonist used for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), a rare and chronic liver disease, in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid in adults. The Company is also developing OCA for various other indications, including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"). In 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") granted accelerated approval of Ocaliva for treating PBC. Then, in late 2017, both Intercept and the FDA issued warnings concerning the risk of overdosing patients with the drug, and multiple reports of severe liver injuries and deaths linked with its use. Despite these concerns, Defendants continued to tout Ocaliva sales and purported benefits, and its potential indication for treating various other medical conditions. For example, just two years later, in September 2019, Intercept submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the FDA for OCA to treat patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating NASH were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "has notified Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA] for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested by the FDA that the company intends to submit within the next week." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or 12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020. On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. According to that press release, "[t]he CRL indicated that, based on the data the FDA has reviewed to date," the FDA "has determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH." The press release further advised, among other things, that the "[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or 39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020. Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was "facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or 8.05%, to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN] IRAN: Judge Awards Class Action Carriage to Arsalani Plaintiffs --------------------------------------------------------------- Litigation Finance Journal reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has awarded carriage of the proposed class action to the Arsalani Plaintiffs. On January 8, 2020, UIA Flight PS752 took off hours after the IRGC fired and struck US bases in Iraq. Minutes after takeoff, IRGC missiles struck Flight PS752, causing it to crash to the ground. There were no survivors. The proposed class action is on behalf of the passengers and the passengers' families. It alleges the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (collectively the Iran Defendants) and Ukraine International Airlines PJSC (UIA) are liable in negligence: the Iran Defendants continued to operate and control the airport, aircraft and airspace in exchange for flyover fees after it launched missiles at the US military bases in Iraq and the UIA did not ground the Aircraft. Regarding state immunity of the Iran Defendants, the Court agreed that state immunity is not absolute, it can be lifted in this case through the commercial activity exception. In a lengthy and well reasoned decision, the Court reviewed the numerous carriage factors that favoured the Arsalani Plaintiffs. The Honourable Court awarded carriage to the Arsalani Plaintiffs finding "it is in the best interests of the class, having regard to access to justice, judicial economy, and behaviour modification." "We are grateful for this important court decision as we seek justice and compensation for our loved ones" said Omid Arsalani, whose sister, brother-in-law and niece perished on Flight PS752. "With the help of our team, we will continue to work through the courts to seek justice and compensation" said Tom Arndt, of TWA Law, a leading class action lawyer representing the class members. The Court found that third party litigation funding and indemnity were the most important factor favouring carriage to the Arsalani Action. The court previously approved the Galactic Funding Agreement in a decision released on September 21, 2020. "We are prepared to go the distance with TWA Law as they prosecute the Arsalani Action to completion" said Fred Schulman, Chairman and CEO of Galactic Litigation Partners LLC. Members of the proposed class action are encouraged to consult the case specific website regarding progress of the litigation: www.flightps752.ca [GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Flaherty Sues Over Mislabeled Skincare Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ NORAH FLAHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07255 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 8, 2020) is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies for the Defendant's violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, resulting from the illegal actions of intentionally labeling its skincare products with false and misleading claims that they are oil-free, when the products contain numerous oils. The complaint contends that the Defendant impaired the Plaintiff's ability to choose the type and quality of products she chose to buy by making false and misleading claims about the qualities of the products. Therefore, the Plaintiff has been deprived of her legally protected interest to obtain true and accurate information about her consumer products as required by law. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and distributes skincare products throughout Illinois and the United States under the brand names "Neutrogena" and "Clean & Clear." [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 Telephone: (877) 619-8966 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Steven G. Perry, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (224) 218-0875 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com - and - David B. Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (224) 218-0882 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Pomerantz Investigates Securities Fraud Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("JPMorgan" or the "Company") (NYSE: JPM). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980. The investigation concerns whether JPMorgan and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On November 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced in a press release that former JPMorgan precious metals trader John Edmonds had pled guilty to commodities fraud and spoofing conspiracy -- i.e., placing larger orders with no intention of executing, thereby creating an artificial impression of high demand or supply of the commodity in question. Then, on August 20, 2019, the DOJ announced that another JPMorgan employee, Christian Trunz, pled guilty to spoofing charges, admitting that he had learned to spoof from more senior traders and had engaged in spoofing with the knowledge and consent of his supervisors. On September 23, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the Company was nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges, stating that JPMorgan was "poised to pay close to $1 billion." On this news, JPMorgan's stock price fell $2.04 per share, or 2.15%, to close at $92.74 per share on September 23, 2020. Finally, on September 29, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission formally announced that it had ordered JPMorgan to pay $920 million to settle spoofing and market manipulation charges. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] JULIET'S GENTLEMEN'S: In Wage Class Action Settlement Talks ----------------------------------------------------------- Ed Palattella, writing for Erie Times-News, reports that the naked truth about the wage system at an Erie strip club might never be revealed in federal court in Erie. Juliet's Gentlemen's Club is working on a possible deal to end the lawsuit that one of its former exotic dancers filed against it on Sept. 1. "The parties are presently conducting settlement negotiations," the club's lawyer wrote in a filing. The plaintiff, Roxanne Kincaid, is claiming Juliet's wrongly classified its exotic dancers as independent contractors, rather than employees. Kincaid claims Juliet's as a result failed to pay the dancers for all of the hours they worked, including overtime, at a rate at least equal to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Kincaid filed the civil complaint as a class-action suit on behalf of herself and more than 50 other dancers who worked at Juliet's, 2022 W. Eighth St., from September 2017 through the present. The lawyer for Juliet's had been scheduled to file a response to the suit by Nov. 2. The lawyer, Andrew Horowitz, of Pittsburgh, got an extension that sets the new deadline for Dec. 2. In a filing on Nov. 2, Horowitz wrote that Juliet's had postponed responding to the suit because the parties are holding settlement talks. If the case does not settle, he also wrote, Kincaid plans to file an amended suit that Juliet's would then have to answer in court. Kincaid is claiming that the club and its owner, Juliet Wright, violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania law by paying the exotic dancers through a tip-based system and with no wages. Kincaid worked 20 hours to 30 hours a week at Juliet's from March 2016 to March 2020, according to the suit. The three-count suit demands that Juliet's pay the plaintiffs unpaid minimum wages, with the amounts determined at trial, as well as damages, legal fees and other costs. U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, based in Pittsburgh, is assigned the case, docketed in the Erie division of U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Butler lawyer Max Roesch represents Kincaid. [GN] KANYE WEST: Faces Class Action Over Opera Workers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Brad Nash, writing for GQ, the employees from the Nebuchadnezzar performances of 2019 have filed a class-action lawsuit against rapper Kanye West. Remember Nebuchadnezzar? The surrealist opera epic, adapted by Kanye West for a series of shows at the Hollywood Bowl late last year, feels like an absolute age ago now that the rapper has played such a prominent part of the pop culture conversation of 2020. The Vanessa Beecroft-directed opera, chronicling the life of the legendary Babylonian king, came at a time when Kanye West was just re-emerging back into the public consciousness after a long period of silence. Something of a culmination of the Sunday Service shows that Kanye held throughout much of 2019, the opera was something of a self-reflection on Kanye's former hubris and newfound sense of religion, with the artist drawing parallels between his 'Yeezus' persona from years back, and the god-like figure the protagonist of the opera saw himself as. It was exclusively released on Jay-Z-owned streaming service Tidal. However capping off a characteristically erratic 2020 for the rapper, the well-received opera now threatens to leave a problematic legacy for 'Ye, with many of those involved in the show now claiming that they haven't been paid. In fact, according to a new class-action lawsuit filed against the rapper, West stands responsible for more than $1 million USD in unpaid wages. According to lawsuit documents obtained by The Blast, West "failed to properly compensate [them] and many dozens of other persons who performed services on the production, including the background actors, performing as audience members. "The lawsuit goes on to note that the "defendants oversaw, controlled and ran the production, and the aggrieved employees worked many hours on the production and were not timely paid for their work, or paid at all." Other workers claim that West "failed to provide pay stubs, failing to pay minimum wage and overtime," for the event. Kanye West and his team are yet to respond to the claims or the lawsuit. [GN] KC HAWAII: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KC Hawaii. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KC Hawaii, Case No. 1:20-cv-10466 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KC Hawaii -- https://www.kchawaii.com/ -- is a distributor for authentic Hawaii souvenirs and gifts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com KEVIN INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kevin, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kevin, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10459 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kevin Inc. -- https://www.kitterytradingpost.com/ -- operates as a bicycle shop.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com KYOCERA CORPORATION: Herman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kyocera Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Albert Herman, Amy Stone Lamborn, Harriet Herman, Robert Reese, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kyocera Corporation, Goro Yamaguchi, Hideo Tanimoto, Hiroshi FDure, John Sarvis, Koichi Kano, Shoichi Aoki, Case No. 2020-1047-SG (Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 10, 2020). The case alleges breach of fiduciary duties. Kyocera Corporation -- https://global.kyocera.com/ -- is a Japanese multinational ceramics and electronics manufacturer headquartered in Kyoto, Japan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Telephone: (302) 504-4957 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 - and - Craig J. Springer, Esq. David Sborz, Esq. Telephone: (302) 504-4957 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 - and - Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Telephone: (212) 554-1408 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 - and - Joel E. Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey M Gorris, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS PA 222 Delaware Ave Ste 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3508 Facsimile: (302) 573-3501 Email: jgorris@friedlandergorris.com. LAS VEGAS SANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Las Vegas Sands Corporation (NYSE: LVS), Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), and First American Financial Corporation (NYSE: FAF). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Las Vegas Sands Corporation (NYSE: LVS) Class Period: February 27, 2016 to September 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 21, 2020 Las Vegas Sands was founded in 1988 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops, owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the U.S., which offer various amenities. Las Vegas Sands' properties include, among others, the Marina Bay Sands resort in Singapore, which operates a casino. On July 19, 2020, Bloomberg News reported that Las Vegas Sands had settled a lawsuit brought by a former patron, Wang Xi ("Xi"), meeting his demand for a S$9.1 million ($6.5 million) payment. Xi reportedly sued the Marina Bay Sands casino in 2019 to recover S$9.1 million of his funds that the casino allegedly transferred to other patrons from his casino deposit accounts in 2015 without his approval, which triggered a probe into the casino by local authorities. Bloomberg News also reported that the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") "is also scrutinizing whether anti-money laundering procedures had been breached in the way the Singapore casino handles high rollers." On this news, Las Vegas Sands' stock price fell $1.41 per share, or 2.9%, to close at $47.28 per share on July 20, 2020. Then, on September 16, 2020, Bloomberg reported that Marina Bay Sands "has hired a law firm to conduct a new investigation into employee transfers of more than $1 billion in gamblers' money to third parties[.]" The article quoted the Singapore Casino Regulatory Authority ("CRA") as stating that "there were weaknesses in [Marina Bay Sands'] casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers[.]" On this news, Las Vegas Sands' stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 4.2%, to close at $49.67 per share on September 16, 2020. The complaint, filed on October 22, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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. For more information on the Las Vegas Sands class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LVS Innate Pharma S.A. (NASDAQ: IPHA) Class Period: March 10, 2020 to September 8, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 22, 2020 On September 8, 2020, the Company submitted to the SEC a Form 6-K containing a press release summarizing the results of the first half of 2020, ended June 30, 2020 (the "1H2020 Results"). In the 1H2020 Results, defendants abruptly announced a change in the long-touted payment scheme with AstraZeneca. On this news, Innate's American Depositary Share ("ADS") prices dropped $1.62, or over 26.6%, from closing at $6.07 on September 4, 2020, the previous trading day, to open at $4.82 on September 8, 2020, and declined throughout the trading day to close at $4.45. The complaint, filed on October 23, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Innate touted the results of their various Phase 2 trials as being within expectations; (2) Innate continued to reassure investors that they were eligible for the $100 million payment upon first dosing of Phase 3 trials; (3) Innate failed to timely disclose their renegotiations with AstraZeneca to split the $100 million payment into two $50 million payments, to be partially contingent on performance during the Phase 3 trials; and (4) 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. For more information on the Innate Pharma class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/IPHA JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) Class Period: February 23, 2016 to September 23, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 23, 2020 On November 6, 2018, the Department of Justice announced in a press release that former JPMorgan precious metals trader John Edmonds pled guilty to commodities fraud and a spoofing conspiracy. On August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice announced that another JPMorgan employee, Christian Trunz, pled guilty to spoofing charges, and had done so with the knowledge and consent of his supervisors. On September 23, 2020, Bloomberg reported that the Company was nearing a settlement to resolve the spoofing charges. On this news, shares of JPMorgan stock fell $2.04 per share, or 2%, to close at $92.74 per share on September 23, 2020. On September 29, 2020, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") formally announced that it had ordered JPMorgan to pay $920 million to settle the spoofing and manipulation charges. According to the order, the Company failed to monitor its employees and ignored multiple red flags. The Company also provided the CFTC with misleading information. The complaint, filed on October 24, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) traders at the Company, with the knowledge and consent of their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by "spoofing," or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of market demand; (2) the Company had insufficient controls and compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the misconduct; (3) the Company's earnings in the physical commodity market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) the Company provided misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the investigation into the misconduct; (6) resolution of the governmental investigation into the Company would result in a record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) 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. For more information on the JPMorgan securities class action case go to: https://bespc.com/cases/JPM First American Financial Corporation (NYSE: FAF) Class Period: February 17, 2017 to October 22, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 24, 2020 On May 24, 2019, KrebsOnSecurity.com ("KrebsOnSecurity"), a noted cybersecurity blog, reported a massive data exposure by First American in which approximately 885 million customer files were exposed by First American. On this news, shares of First American fell $3.46, or over 6%, to close at $51.80 per share on May 25, 2019. On October 22, 2020, First American filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, announcing that the Company had received a Wells Notice regarding its massive security breach. On this news the price of First American shares fell approximately $4.83 per share, or 9%, to close at $46.75 per share on October 22, 2020. The complaint, filed on October 25, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to implement basic security standards to protect its customers' sensitive personal information and data; (2) the Company faced a heightened risk of cybersecurity failure due to its automation and efficiency initiatives; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the First American Financial class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FAF About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] LAS VEGAS SANDS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 21 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming December 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Las Vegas Sands Corp. ("Las Vegas Sands " or the "Company") (NYSE: LVS) securities between February 27, 2016 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Las Vegas Sands investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/las-vegas-sands-corp/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On July 19, 2020, Bloomberg reported that Las Vegas Sands had settled a lawsuit brought by a former patron for $6.5 million. The lawsuit against the Company's casino in Singapore, Marina Bay Sands, alleged that the casino transferred funds from his casino deposit accounts without his approval, which triggered a probe by local authorities. The article reported that the U.S. Department of Justice "is also scrutinizing whether anti-money laundering procedures had been breached in the way the Singapore casino handles high rollers." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.41, or approximately 3%, to close at $47.28 per share on July 20, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Then, on September 16, 2020, Bloomberg reported that Marina Bay Sands "has hired a law firm to conduct a new investigation into employee transfers of more than $1 billion in gamblers' money to third parties." The article also stated that Singapore's Casino Regulatory Authority had identified "weaknesses in [Marina Bay Sands'] casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.18 per share, or 4%, to close at $49.67 per share on September 16, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that weaknesses existed in Marina Bay Sands' casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers; (2) that 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; (3) that the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by regulatory authorities; (4) that Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures; (5) that, consequently, all the foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (6) that, as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Las Vegas Sands securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than  December 21, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] LASERSHIP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Buckmire Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANDERSON BUCKMIRE; and JUSTIN NARDONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LASERSHIP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01493 (E.D. Va., Dec. 4, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as driver. Lasership, Inc. provides courier services. The Company offers pickup and delivery of letters, small packages, and documents. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Facsimile: (202) 296-9600 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Michelle Cassorla, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mcassorla@llrlaw.com MAINE OXY: Employees' Stock Plan Class Action Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- Sun Journal reports that a group of Maine Oxy Acetylene Supply Co. employees meet the criteria to proceed with a class action suit against the company, a federal judge has ruled. The ruling, made Nov. 5, clears the way for more than 100 workers to continue their legal action on claims that the company owner breached the Employee Stock Ownership Plan by misrepresenting the value of stocks. The ruling comes 18 months after the suit was first filed and just two months after the federal government filed its own civil action against Maine Oxy based on the same allegations. In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Torresen found that employees met federal criteria that governs class actions. Specifically, she found there are an adequate number of workers involved in the suit and that they have a common complaint. The judge also found there was no conflict of interest arising from the fact that the suit, originally filed in April 2019, involves current and former employees. Additionally, lawyers representing the company had argued that attorneys representing the workers "lack the experience to adequately represent the proposed class." Judge Torresen found that claim invalid, as well. The U.S. Department of Labor filed its action in U.S. District Court in Portland in September, naming as defendants Maine Oxy owners Daniel Guerin and Bryan Gentry, along with Carl Paine, the business development manager and trustee of the company stock plan. According to the suits, after he assumed ownership of the company in 2013, Guerin told the Employee Stock Ownership Plan committee that Maine Oxy could no longer afford the plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan would have to be dissolved, its shares sold back to the company. The stock option had been offered to employees since 2004. By 2006, employees had acquired 49 percent of the company. The suit alleges that Guerin began a scheme to buy back the employee shares, threatening, harassing and otherwise intimidating employees who would not go along. According to the suit, the harassment included "phone calls at work and at home as well as face-to-face meetings with defendant Mr. Guerin. During these confrontations, Mr. Guerin harassed and verbally harangued the employee to sell his stock back to the company post haste. The same employee was lobbied by other agents of the owner and bluntly informed that if he did not sign the stock over Mr. Guerin would find a reason — any reason — to fire him. One employee who initially refused to sell his stock back to the company was informed by defendant Mr. Guerin that he would 'ruin' the employee's life and that the company would 'write him a check' and cash him out of the company." According to the suit, when Guerin took on ownership of the company, he refused to reveal the cost of the acquisition to employees participating in the Employee Stock Ownership Plan, preventing them from determining the value of their shares. "All told, the employee-owners were collectively offered $134 a share for the 24,500 minority interest shares comprising 49% of the total number of shares — approximately $3.3 million in total," according to the suit. However, according the court document, former owner Bruce Albiston later revealed the terms of the sale, although by then, many of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan participants had already sold back their shares. "In May or June of 2016, an (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) participant met with Mr. Albiston," according to the suit. "During this meeting, Mr. Albiston revealed that he had received 43 million dollars for his 51% share of the company. This was the first time that any of the (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) participants learned that they may have unwittingly sold their shares back to the company at a steep discount." According to the suit, while Guerin insisted that the value of the employees' stock shares was frozen, the value had actually risen roughly $1,000 a month in the period following Guerin's acquisition of the company. The suit claims that Guerin is personally liable to the employees and that he should be required to compensate them for all losses resulting from his "breach of fiduciary duty" and to restore any profits through the use of Employee Stock Ownership Plan assets. "At a minimum," according to the suit, "the members of the class are entitled to receive the difference between the amounts paid by Maine Oxy to buy back their shares and the true value of these shares, as established by the sale of the company or otherwise." Shortly after the class action suit was filed, the allegations were vigorously denied by the company. "During Maine Oxy's 90-year history, our employees have always been our biggest asset and the reason behind our greatest achievements," Marketing Manager Diana Picavet said at the time. "It is disheartening to learn that these four former employees felt they weren't treated fairly during their time with the company. We will vigorously defend against this lawsuit and look forward to presenting our facts in court." Maine Oxy, founded in 1929, operates 16 locations in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont and three in Canada. [GN] MAPLE LEAF: Says Owes No Duty of Care to Mr. Sub Franchisees ------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Raymer, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that Maple Leaf Foods does not owe a duty of care for pure economic loss to Mr. Sub franchisees resulting from tainted meat sales during a 2008 listeriosis outbreak, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Nov. 6. In a 5/4 decision in 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., the Supreme Court upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal's finding that a duty of care to supply a product fit for human consumption was owed to the franchisees' customers rather than to the franchisees. Historically, the common law has not allowed for recovery for losses in negligence that were not consequences of physical injury or property damage, and the Supreme Court's majority decision was consistent with this. "Tort law will protect . . . the bodily integrity or the personal safety of consumers, or property damage," says Elizabeth Bowker, a partner at Stieber Berlach LLP in Toronto who, with Steve Stieber, represented the respondents in the case. "But tort law is not necessarily going to [protect] the economic interests of other people in the marketplace where there's no undertaking to look out for those economic interests." This decision "is continuing [the] emphasis of the courts on protecting bodily integrity and property under tort law, and being reluctant to extend that too much into the economic loss realm." To determine whether a duty of care is owed in tort law, the court must decide whether there is sufficient foreseeability of harm, and sufficiently close and direct proximity in the relationship between a plaintiff and defendant. In this case, the majority found that there was insufficient proximity between the franchisees and Maple Leaf Foods to result in a duty of care. Maple Leaf Food's contract to supply meats was with the franchisor Mr. Sub, and not with Mr. Sub's franchisees. The majority "applied a more restrictive approach towards a determination of proximity and found that . . . the test was not met in the circumstances of this case," says Peter Kryworuk, a partner at Lerners LLP in London, Ont., who represented the appellant Mr. Sub franchisees. "The four-judge minority would have found that Maple Leaf owed a duty of care to the franchisees who relied upon Maple Leaf to supply safe products to conduct their businesses, but the five-judge majority . . . basically said the franchisees could have protected themselves by contract or insurance." In May 2005, Maple Leaf Foods entered into a contract with the Mr. Sub chain, which agreed to buy its food items from Maple Leaf. The appellant is a franchisee of Mr. Sub, bound by the terms of its franchise agreement to buy exclusively from suppliers to Mr. Sub. The franchisees purchased the meat through the distributor, and there was no direct relationship between the franchisees and Maple Leaf. In 2008, Maple Leaf learned of a listeria outbreak that contaminated its products, and issued a recall. Mr. Sub and other chains were affected by the publicity surrounding this, and claimed their sales were badly affected both during the outbreak and afterwards. A class action was then commenced against Maple Leaf on behalf of franchisees, who claimed to have suffered reputational and economic loss, and sought compensation for loss of past and future sales, profits, and good will. Maple Leaf brought motion for summary judgment and said it owed franchisees no duty of care. The motion judge found that Maple Leaf owed a duty of care to the franchisees, to supply a product fit for human consumption. The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision. To prove negligence a plaintiff must show there is a foreseeability of injury, meaning that one can foresee one's action will produce a certain negative outcome, and must show proximity: that a relationship is so close that one would expect one party to provide for the safety of the other. The appellate court found that any duty to supply a product for human consumption was owed to the customers, not to the franchisees, so there was no proximity between the franchisees and Maple Leaf. It found that the motion judge did not consider that Maple Leaf's undertaking of responsibility was not to protect the reputational interests of the franchisee, but to ensure customers did not fall ill. So, there was no foreseeability. Established categories where pure economic loss is recoverable include negligent representation and a negligent supply of shoddy goods. In this case the Supreme Court looked to its 1995 decision in Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co., which recognized that recovery for economic loss in cases of negligent supply of shoddy goods or structures is founded on the defendant's negligent interference with a right to be free from injury to one's person or property. "Whether . . . one is considering defects in a building structure or a good, it is the feasibility of discarding the thing as the means of averting the danger which will determine whether the plaintiff's loss is recoverable," wrote Justices Russell Brown and Sheilah Martin for the majority. "We reiterate that a breach of the duty recognized in Winnipeg Condominium exposes the defendant to liability for the cost of averting a real and substantial danger, and not of repairing a defect per se." No one became ill from eating contaminated meat at a Mr. Sub restaurant, and just two of the meats affected by the recall were used by Mr. Sub shops. "The court in this case makes it clear that in some circumstances a plaintiff might be entitled to the cost of fixing a dangerous product, but if you can easily throw away the product, then there's really no damages," says Bowker. "It does show that Winnipeg Condominium is still good law for economic loss that could cause danger to property or to persons' bodily integrity." The minority of the court, in reasons written by Justice Andromache Karakatsanis and agreed in by Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justices Rosalie Abella and Nicholas Kasirer, indicated that while the traditional test for pure economic loss was based on a relationship between parties - or proximity - it was appropriate to create a new category of claim where a duty of care exists, says Kryworuk. "Maple Leaf submits that imposing a tortious duty of care in this case would have a negative impact on the Canadian marketplace," wrote Justice Karakatsanis for the minority, "in that manufacturers would be liable for the economic losses of anyone in their supply chain upon a recall and thereby risk indeterminate potential loss. I disagree that this duty would so disrupt the marketplace and raise the spectre of indeterminate liability for manufacturers. The value and temporal scopes of the franchisees' damages are limited to economic losses caused by reasonably foreseeable consumer responses to an identifiable safety concern about a particular type of product during a particular period of time. In my view, such a narrowly defined duty of care would remove the time and value indeterminacy that might otherwise arise for this type of claim. And, importantly, the class indeterminacy here is virtually eliminated. The duty does not capture any down-the-line merchant of Maple Leaf products, but rather a branded Mr. Sub restaurant in a context where Maple Leaf contracted with Mr. Sub. Put more generally, it captures franchisees bound to use an exclusive supplier for a product on which their business and identity is predicated." The minority opinion addressed the "power imbalance and loss of control that exists in a franchise context," says Kryworuk, and held that a new category for a duty of care for pure economic losses was established. Franchisees are small business owners, often in business for themselves for the first time. The majority doesn't disagree that franchisees were vulnerable, says Bowker, but franchisees realized benefits from their position, including discounted prices on products through the franchisor, the Mr. Sub chain. Other options for the franchisees, says Stieber, were to ensure that their franchisor would be responsible for them - to compensate them in such circumstances - and for the franchisor to itself have obtained protection from Maple Leaf Foods. Based on this decision, there will have to be greater consideration given by franchisees in negotiating contracts with larger franchisors "to create additional protections for them, or alternatively, [to] find insurance to cover this kind of loss, which is probably not available for very many of the small businesses here," says Kryworuk. "So, it will have a profound impact on product liability and franchise law in Canada moving forward, in my view." [GN] MAYO CLINIC: Faces Class Action over Breach of Patient Records -------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Jercich, writing for HealthcareITNews, reports that patients filed class-action complaints against the Mayo Clinic. They are accusing the system of violating the Minnesota Health Records Act. Mayo Clinic said in a news release in October that a former employee had inappropriately accessed the health records of more than 1,600 patients. Now, multiple patients are seeking to have a class-action case declared against the clinic. According to a complaint filed in Olmsted County District Court, Mayo Clinic told plaintiff Olga Ryabchuk that the potentially accessible data included her name, demographic information, birth date, medical record number and clinical notes. Mayo Clinic also said that images of "private parts" of Ryabchuk's body had been accessed, the suit said. "This is particularly troublesome because it's pretty intimate photographs of people," said Ryabchuk's lawyer, Marshall Tanick, in an interview with Healthcare IT News. Situations like these, said Tanick, "cry out for better controls [over] who has access to this data." An additional complaint filed in Olmsted County District Court also seeks class-action status. Plaintiffs in that suit, Amanda Bloxton-Kippola and Chelsea Turner, said the breach included "nude photographs taken by Mayo Clinic in connection with the health care Plaintiffs received from Mayo Clinic," according to reporting from KROC. Mayo Clinic representatives said that the system does not comment on pending litigation. WHY IT MATTERS Ryabchuk is alleging a violation of the Minnesota Health Records Act, which forbids accessing a record locator or patient information service without authorization. She is also accusing the Mayo Clinic, and the resident in question, of a common law invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Ryabchuk "was extremely distraught to learn of this unlawful access of her health records," read the complaint. "She was told that Mayo Clinic did a full investigation and interviewed the former employee and came to the decision that he was in [Ryabchuk's] medical chart with no business reason." In addition to asking for a class certification, Ryabchuk's suit seeks damages in excess of $50,000 for her and other class members. Tanick, a Minneapolis-based lawyer, told Healthcare IT News that he's seen an increase in cases involving unauthorized record access. "Some of them are external hacking, but many of them are internal employees snooping into medical records," he said. "I think it's because these records are relatively easily accessible to internal people if there's not appropriate control on access," he added. THE LARGER TREND As Tanick said, hospitals have faced increasing threats to patient data from external sources, such as hackers. But snooping employees have presented problems too. In January 2015, nearly 850 patients were notified after an EHR audit that a pharmacist employee had been inappropriately accessing their medical data. Sometimes it's not the employees themselves doing the snooping, but those who take advantage of security gaps. In 2018, West Virginia-based Coplin Health Systems notified 43,000 patients of a potential data breach due to the theft of a laptop from an employee's car. Though the laptop was password-protected, the data on it was unencrypted. ON THE RECORD "I think this is a significant case because of the breadth of the access," said Tanick. "And of course, Mayo is a leading facility, so I think how this plays out could affect other cases." [GN] MISTI'S TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Guzman Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, PABLO GUZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISTI'S TRANSPORT, INC., ENORAB, INC., and MANUEL YANES, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-10156 (S.D.N.Y., December 3, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendants from 2015 and until on or around October 24, 2019. The Plaintiff claims that although he worked approximately 67 hours each week during his employment with the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay him for all hours he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant failed to pay him overtime premium equal to one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for the hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to maintain sufficient payroll an time records, and failed to provide the Plaintiff with a written notice of his pay rate and with an accurate paystub or wage statement. Enorab, Inc. was a subcontractor that provided delivery services for the U.S. Parcel Services. It became Misti's Transport, Inc. when it was bought by Misti's owner Manuel Yanes, who is also a part-owner of Enorab, 6 years ago before the filing of this complaint. Misti's Transport is a successor employer of Enorab. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan El-Hag, Esq. EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 777 Westchester Ave., Suite 101 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 218-6190 Facsimile: (914) 206-4176 E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com MOHU INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mohu, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mohu, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10436 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mohu -- https://www.gomohu.com/ -- is a manufacturer of HDTV antenna and cord cutting products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal MOSSY NISSAN: Beck Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEX BECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOSSY NISSAN OCEANSIDE and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02358-DMS-LL (S.D. Cal., December 3, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant began sending him unsolicited messages on his cellular telephone number ending in -6870 in or about September 22, 2020 for the purpose of sending spam advertisements and/or promotional offers of its automobile business. Although the Plaintiff replied "STOP" during the Defendant's initial message, it continued sending similar unwanted text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided the Defendant his express consent to receive unsolicited text messages because he was never a customer of the Defendant and never provided his cellular telephone, which was registered on the National Do-Not Call Registry. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the ATDS Class were harmed and damaged by the Defendant's unsolicited text messages causing them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular data for which they previously paid. The Defendant's unsolicited text messages have also invaded the privacy of the Plaintiff an the ATDS Class members. Mossy Nissan Oceanside is a company engaged in the marketing and sale of automobiles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MULDER FIRE: Ybarra Dismissed from FLSA Suit Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANIEL YBARRA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; et al., Plaintiffs, v. MULDER FIRE PROTECTION, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil No. 5:19-CV-01302-JKP-RBF (W.D. Tex.), Judge Jason Pulliam of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, (i) granted Plaintiff Ybarra's Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiff in Case, and (ii) dismissed the action against the Defendants without prejudice as to him. Plaintiff Ybarra seeks to dismiss his case against the Defendants without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. The other Plaintiffs simply notify the Court that they have accepted the Defendants offer of judgment presented to them under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. Three plaintiffs commenced the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Four other Plaintiffs have filed notice of their intent to join the collective action. After Plaintiff Ybarra moved to withdraw from the action, the remaining Plaintiffs filed their acceptance of the Defendants' offer of judgment. But nothing in the acceptance or offer addresses the Court's duty to approve private resolution of FLSA claims. Because private resolutions of FLSA claims generally require court approval and because the current filings do not present circumstances that eliminate the need for such approval, Judge Pulliam directed the parties to file an affidavit or other documentary proof of a bona fide FLSA dispute over hours worked and compensation owed or an unambiguous verified or sworn statement that the plaintiffs are obtaining everything to which they are entitled under the FLSA. The parties will make their submissions/filings by Sept. 30, 2020. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), Judge Pulliam granted Plaintiff Ybarra's Motion to Withdraw and dismissed the action against the Defendants without prejudice as to him. As to the remaining Plaintiffs, the Judge directed the Clerk of Court to withhold entry of judgment despite the filing of the acceptance of the Defendants' offer of judgment. No judgment will be entered absent further order of the Court after it has had an opportunity to consider whether the circumstances require court approval of the private resolution of the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y66vhk6z from Leagle.com. NANO-X IMAGING: Gross Law Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of the Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX) Investors Affected: August 21, 2020 - September 15, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Nano-X Imaging Ltd. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nanox System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images with images from competitors' machines; (3) Nano-X's submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration admitted the Nanox System was not original; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=10857&from=1 Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT) Investors Affected: December 7, 2017 - April 21, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's orally administered chemotherapy agent, tesetaxel, was not as safe or well-tolerated as the Company had led investors to believe; (ii) consequently, tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/odonate-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10857&from=1 GoHealth, Inc. (NASDAQ:GOCO) The GoHealth lawsuit is on behalf of all purchasers of GoHealth Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering. A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in GoHealth, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn, which had begun in the first half of 2020; (ii) GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer churn as a result of its unique business model and limited carrier base; (iii) GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer persistency and retention as a result of elevated industry churn, vulnerabilities that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier business model, and GoHealth's efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier partnerships and worsening product mix; (iv) GoHealth had entered into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with its external sales agents; and (v) these adverse financial and operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to continue and worsen following the initial public offering. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/gohealth-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=10857&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] NATERA INC: Putative Class Suit in California Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the purported class action suit filed before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, has been dismissed by stipulation of the parties. On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Among other relief, the complaint sought statutory and other damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. An amended complaint was filed on April 23, 2020. The case was dismissed by stipulation of the parties effective November 2, 2020. Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NATIONAL STEEL: Hood Files Suit in Calif. State Court ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, et al. The case is styled as Tyon Hood An Individual, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Persons Similarly Situated v. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, a Corporation; Does 1 through 50, Inclusive; Case No. 2020-00045498 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Dec. 10, 2020). National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, commonly referred to as NASSCO, -- https://nassco.com/ -- is an American shipbuilding company with three shipyards located in San Diego, Norfolk, and Mayport.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 551-1223 Fax: (858) 551-1232 NAVIENT CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Navient Corporation ("Navient" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NAVI). The New Jersey Attorney General has sued Navient alleging that the Company used "deceptive" and "misleading" practices to service student loans in violation of the state's consumer protections law. When this news broke, Navient stock fell over 5% on substantial volume. If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Navient Corporation stock or options and would like to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/NAVI or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner James Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). There is no cost or obligation to you. [GN] NEOSTRATA COMPANY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Neostrata Company, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Neostrata Company, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10467 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Neostrata Company, Inc. -- https://www.neostrata.com/home -- develops and markets skin care products. The Company offers acne, peel treatments, cleansers, toners, moisturizers, masques, and other skin care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com NEOVASC INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Gonzalez v. Neovasc Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:20-cv-09313) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc Inc. ("Neovasc" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NVCN) securities between November 1, 2019 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Neovasc investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/neovasc-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. Neovasc is a specialty medical device company that develops, manufactures and markets products for cardiovascular diseases, including the Tiara technology and the Reducer. The Company's Reducer is a medical device that treats refractory angina by altering blood flow in the heart's circulatory system. In December 2018, the Company filed a Q-Sub submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") that contained safety and efficacy results from Neovasc's clinical studies, as well as supporting data from peer-reviewed journals. On February 20, 2019, Neovasc announced that, despite "Breakthrough Device Designation," the FDA review team recommended that the Company collect further pre-market blinded data prior to submitting a Pre-Market Approval ("PMA") application. On November 1, 2019, the Company announced that it would submit a PMA application for the Reducer without gathering further evidence, against the FDA's recommendation. Neovasc claimed that "the clinical evidence already available will be sufficient to not further delay the availability of this Breakthrough medical device for the treatment of U.S. patients." On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company announced that an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against the safety and effectiveness of the Reducer. The panel noted concerns with the Company's clinical data, including "that the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret." As a result, the panel reached a consensus "that additional premarket randomized clinical data was necessary." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.77, or 42%, to close at $1.06 per share on October 28, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the results of COSIRA, Neovasc's clinical study for the Reducer, contained imbalances in missing information present in the control group versus the treatment group, including significant missing information for secondary endpoints but none for the primary endpoint; (2) that the imbalance in missing information indicated that control subjects were aware of their treatment assignment (not blinded) and less inclined to participate in additional data collection; (3) that blinding is critical when studying a placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) that the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably likely to require additional premarket clinical data; (6) that, as a result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely to be approved without additional clinical data; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Neovasc securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.   This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] NEW ROCHELLE HOTEL: Settlement in Bondi Suit Has Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANASTASIA BONDI, MARIA CAPORALE, JASMIN HERNANDEZ, JESSICA SARFATY, MONIQUE MAZZEI, MATT CAM, NOEL PUGLIESE, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiffs, v. NEW ROCHELLE HOTEL ASSOCIATES D/B/A NOMA SOCIAL, MICHAEL DEFALCO, COLBY BROCK GUALANO, AND PETER BROCK, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-CV-05681 (KMK)(LMS)(S.D. N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, Motion for Approval of Service Awards, and Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses. On Aug. 31, 2020, the named Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Service Awards and Motion for Fees and their Motion for Final Approval with respect to the proposed Class Settlement Agreement and Release. After reviewing the papers in support of the Motions for Final Approval, Service Awards, and Fees, and supporting declarations and exhibits, the arguments of the counsel during the Sept. 16, 2020 Fairness Hearing, and all other materials properly before the Court, Judge Karas finds he Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved on a final basis. He approved certification of the Settlement Class and certified the following class for settlement purposes: All individuals who worked as tipped food service employees in Defendant New Rochelle Hotel Associates' restaurant from July 26, 2011 through May 13, 2020, plus Plaintiffs Anastasia Bondi, Maria Caporale, Jasmin Hernandez, Jessica Sarfaty, Monique Mazzei, Matt Cam, and Noel Pugliese. The Judge granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement as the product of contested litigation to resolve bona fide disputes. He approved the requested Service Awards in the amount of $10,000 each to Named Plaintiffs Jessica Sarfaty, Matt Cam, and Noel Pugliese, and $2,000 to Named Plaintiff Monique Mazzei for their service and assistance in the prosecution of the litigation. The Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses in the action is approved. Accordingly, the Class Counsel is awarded $65,083.33, or one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, for attorneys' fees and $750 for reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, which the Court finds were reasonably incurred in prosecution of the litigation. The Settlement Claims Administrator will distribute the Settlement Checks, including the Service Awards, and the Class Counsel's Fees and Costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Claims Administrator is ordered to provide verification to the Class Counsel and the Defendants' Counsel that it has distributed the Settlement Checks and made proper withholdings, and to retain copies of all endorsed Settlement Checks. The litigation is dismissed with prejudice, as are all Released Claims asserted in the litigation, including the claims of all Class Members who did not opt out. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Final Order & Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/y59joog7 from Leagle.com. NEW YORK: Child Welfare Agency Agrees Return of Oversight --------------------------------------------------------- Eileen Grench, writing for The City, reports that New York City's child welfare agency has agreed to the return of some federal oversight of its Bronx juvenile detention center, a court filing shows. The Horizon Juvenile Center, which largely houses teens being held pre-trial, lost its independent federal monitor in July after the city Administration for Children's Services took over operations from the Department of Correction. The monitoring had been required as part of the so-called Nunez lawsuit settlement between the city and feds following findings of abuse by Department of Correction officers. As THE CITY reported in February, the original class-action suit focused on abuses by adult guards, so oversight ended when the last teens overseen by the DOC left Horizon during the summer. If the Nov. 6 agreement is accepted by a judge, federal oversight at Horizon is poised to go on for at least another year and a half, but only for 16- and 17-year olds accused or convicted of a felony. As of Nov. 6, there were 107 kids total in lockup across both Horizon and Brooklyn's Crossroads Juvenile Center, which is not overseen by the monitor, according to figures from the state Office of Children and Family Services. After negotiations with the monitor and plaintiffs in the Nunez suit, the Administration for Children's Services agreed to let the the federal overseer reenter the facility, but focused on a narrower set of issues than in the original settlement. Federal monitor Steve Martin's eye will be on promoting safe physical restraints, sufficient social programming, consistent staffing levels, and the preservation of video recordings of incidents, according to the agreement. ACS is expected to be held accountable for efforts to quell high levels violence between staff and detainees at Horizon. "Our top priority is the safety and well-being of youth and staff in our juvenile detention centers," said an ACS spokesperson of the agreement. 'We Can't Slip Back' In 2018, teenagers jailed at the notoriously violent Rikers Island were transferred to more separate youth detention centers due to the state's groundbreaking Raise the Age reforms that passed the year before. Initially, DOC employees — and what the monitor and critics call their violent punishment approach — accompanied the teens. But corrections officers were slowly replaced by youth development specialists from ACS. The difficult transition and ongoing pandemic-related hurdles has caused unrest at Horizon, according to monitor reports. In what was to be the final watchdog report on the juvenile center, federal monitor Martin said there was an "encouraging" decrease in use of force -- albeit from limited data -- but that "unsafe practices" and "hyper-confrontational conduct" persisted under ACS staff. "The culture of disorder at [Horizon] must be transformed," Martin concluded, adding later that he was "anxious" to resolve the question of whether oversight would continue. Martin's May report was more severe -- calling the facility "plagued by disorder", with violence rising 54% compared to the previous six months. The union representing ACS staff could not be reached for immediate comment. "We can't slip back," said Christine Pahigian, executive director of nonprofit Friends of Island Academy, which serves youth in the criminal justice system. "We have to keep pushing ourselves to do better. As long as we have one kid in jail, we need to make sure that they are perpetually on somebody's radar," said Pahigian. Oversight by the federal monitor will continue through June 2022 in the form of three separate reports, or until ACS is in full compliance with the federal monitor, according to the Nov. 6 agreement. If, at the end of that period, issues persist, the city may discuss the possibility of an extension. 'Harmful Stuff' Whenever the federal monitoring ends, the state Office of Children and Family Services would become the last layer of oversight aside from the City Council. "There's nothing wrong with OCFS oversight, just, it's a state function up in Albany, a distant thing," said Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Columbia Justice Lab, and former city probation commissioner. Before July, corrections officers at Horizon were under the additional eyes of the Board of Corrections, which watchdogs city jail, as well as the City Council's Juvenile Justice Committee. A possible future solution could be the creation of a permanent independent oversight agency or branch to watch over youth in lockup, Schiraldi said. "I strongly believe in independent oversight of locked facilities, regardless of who runs them," said Schiraldi. "The day you lock a kid in, the day you lock doors at facilities, you're always in jeopardy of harmful stuff happening." [GN] NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over SOTA Program ---------------------------------------------- CBS New York reports that here's a major update on CBS2's award-winning investigation into the "Forgotten Families." In 2019, we started uncovering some New York City families who were moved out of homeless shelters and into dilapidated homes in New Jersey. Now, a new class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those families and others, CBS2's Lisa Rozner reported on Nov. 15. It was not once, but twice, that New York City managed to move Shakira Jones and her young children out of a city shelter and into unsafe apartments in Newark. Jones has since asked CBS2 to conceal her face, but in February 2019 she said, "My heat would go out. I was in here for days with my children for days with no electricity." Jones, like others CBS2 profiled, was relocated through the New York City Special One-Time Assistance program or "SOTA". New York City's Department of Homeless Services, or DHS, paid landlords across the river one year's rent up front to house eligible working homeless families. The idea was, after the year, families could pay their own rent. But because the homes were uninhabitable, Jones moved back to a New York City shelter. She is now the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed by the Legal Aid Society and law firm Lowenstein Sandler against New York City and Newark. It cites CBS2 reporting. "We represent people who have already moved there and we represent people who would like to move there," Legal Aid Society attorney Joshua Goldfein said. Legal Aid estimates one-third of the nearly 54,000 people in New York City shelters qualify for SOTA, but Newark is not allowing them to move there. "Newark is unfairly stigmatizing people who have lived in New York City shelters," Goldfein said. "People have a right to move wherever they want to move and here they have a group of people who are working and anxious to get on with their lives and they would be great citizens of Newark and Newark doesn't seem to get that." The lawsuit also calls on New York City to put in writing the new SOTA inspection rules, which were announced after the city's Department of Investigation found multiple flaws last December. A New York City spokesperson said the city has made substantive improvements to the SOTA program, including its apartment review process and shifting to paying landlords monthly instead of yearly. The spokesperson said the challenge does not have merit and the city will defend against it. No one from Newark got back to CBS2. [GN] NIKOLA CORP: Entwistle & Cappucci Announces Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Entwistle & Cappucci's ongoing investigation has led to the filing of a class action complaint against Nikola and certain of its officers and directors. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:20-cv-02123. The complaint updates a number of issues that have recently been made public, including fraudulent misstatements regarding Nikola's products, processes and technology. In addition, the complaint includes allegations regarding the disclosure that Nikola's planned agreement with General Motors Company may be renegotiated or terminated. A copy of the complaint may be found on the Firm's website. Investors that wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this matter must have purchased Nikola securities during the period from March 3, 2020 through October 15, 2020, inclusive, and file a motion with the Court no later than November 16, 2020. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or they may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the Class. About Entwistle & Cappucci Entwistle & Cappucci is a national law firm providing exceptional legal representation to clients in the most complex and challenging legal matters. Our practice encompasses all areas of litigation, corporate transactions, bankruptcy, insurance, corporate investigations and white-collar defense. Our clients include public and private corporations, major hedge funds, public pension funds, governmental entities, leading institutional investors, domestic and foreign financial services companies, emerging business enterprises and individual entrepreneurs. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nikola Corporation. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nikola Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-10447 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Nikola Corporation operates as an integrated zero emissions transportation systems provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal NORTH CAROLINA: Faces New Suit Over Butner Prison COVID-19 Deaths ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Critchfield, writing for North Carolina Health News, reports that John Dailey tried to sue over COVID-19 conditions at his prison, but he died before his case could be filed. Butner Correctional Complex, a sprawling facility about an hour outside Raleigh, is North Carolina's only federal prison. More prisoners have died of COVID-19 at Butner than at any other prison run by the federal government nationwide. That's what prompted a long-awaited lawsuit, which seeks safer conditions for prisoners inside of what it calls "the deadliest of all federal facilities during this pandemic." It alleges actions taken by prison leadership endanger the lives of people incarcerated inside. The complaint, filed in late October, will not include Dailey, a 62-year-old who died of COVID-19 in July. Justin Long, spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons, said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. 'No getting away from it' Butner Federal Correctional Complex is a large, five-unit prison in Butner, North Carolina operated by the federal Bureau of Prisons. Because one of its buildings is a medical center, federal inmates from across the country are transferred to Butner for later-in-life or advanced health care. COVID-19 entered the prison early on in the pandemic. By late March, a mass outbreak was spreading throughout the facility, killing its first prisoner by April 9 and infecting over 900 incarcerated people to date. The prison experienced a relative tapering of cases during August and September. But outbreaks inside Butner have renewed in recent weeks, with more than 100 current active cases inside the facility's medical unit, which houses prisoners in need of complex care. The increasing caseload mirrors the spread in North Carolina's general population, as the state reported a record-breaking highest daily totals for new COVID-19 cases. "We think of prisons as closed environments, but they're really not," Maria Morris, attorney at the ACLU National Prison Project. "They're closed for the people who are incarcerated there, but there are people who are going into the prison from the community every single day. "If there's COVID in the community, there's likely going to be COVID in the prison," she added. "And once it's in the prison, there's no getting away from it. Twenty-six incarcerated people have died of COVID-19 in Butner prison. That's a little more than double the number of prisoners who have died in Federal Medical Center Fort Worth, a smaller federal prison in Texas with the second-largest death toll. Suit refiled with more research One of the prisoners who died was Dailey, a podiatrist serving a 27-month sentence for Medicaid fraud. Back in May, he and several other prisoners at Butner joined with the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocates to file a class action lawsuit seeking immediate relief from COVID-19 conditions in the facility. "He was very helpful in helping us understand what was going on, among other things," said Morris. "He was a doctor, so he thought about things in a particular way." They sought a preliminary injunction, a court order which would have mandated the federal government take immediate action to rectify current conditions and prevent further spread of the virus. This order was denied. "The court made it clear, in its denial of that early relief, that it saw problems in the lawsuit that were going to make it very difficult to prosecute at that time," said Maria Morris, attorney at the ACLU National Prison Project. "We chose to dismiss the lawsuit and conduct further investigation." Morris declined to elaborate on what those issues were but alleged their research over the last few months suggested that the concerns they raised in the original complaint were far from anecdotal, one-time incidents. "The things that have happened at Butner are pretty shocking," alleged Morris. "We are not willing to give up on trying to get relief for the people who are incarcerated there." Time played a large role in the plaintiffs' decision, according to Morris. The original case was filed early on in the pandemic when federal and local agencies of all types were attempting to coordinate and develop appropriate responses to the spread of COVID-19. This complaint comes eight months into the pandemic. "There is a difference between not doing something for a week, and how much culpability there might be for that, versus not doing something for months and months," said Morris. "The amount of COVID-related deaths there made it important for us to continue with this." Ideal candidate for release In the interim, Dailey attempted to obtain early release through other means. Butner officials had announced the prison's first case of COVID-19 in late March, in a staffer who tested positive for the virus. The same day, Attorney General William Barr issued a memo to federal prisons urging them to send medically vulnerable, low-risk inmates home, or let them serve out the remainder of their sentence in home confinement. Keep up with the latest news Dailey, who had lived with his wife in Las Vegas prior to entering Butner in 2019 on conviction for Medicaid fraud he committed in the 1980s, was an ideal candidate. He was serving a sentence for a non-violent crime, at a higher risk for severe COVID-19 illness because of his age, and had recently undergone chemotherapy for lymphoma, a type of cancer that cripples the immune system. He'd first filed for compassionate release after he arrived in Butner last year due to his cancer, according to his attorney Carter Law. When it was denied, he appealed to Michael Carvajal, the director of the Bureau of Prisons, in March, but his appeal was automatically rejected because of a paperwork error. He filed for compassionate release due to the coronavirus pandemic in early April through the federal court in Missouri's Eastern District, where he was sentenced, according to court documents. The district denied his request, urging him to first re-apply with the Bureau of Prisons. "The BOP should have the opportunity to consider Dailey's case before judicial intervention," the denial stated. Law refiled a compassionate release request to Butner wardens on his behalf on April 13. She said he never received a reply. Dailey contracted COVID-19 and died on July 3. "He remained, until my last conversation with him, totally optimistic that he would return home," said Law. "One of our current plaintiffs, who was in the same housing unit with him, said that even while Mr. Dailey was sick, he was helping people get their papers together to request compassionate release," said Morris. "By the time he was taken out to get medical care, even though he was getting sicker and sicker, they had to take him to the hospital by ambulance. "What happened to him was terrible," she added. Inconsistent practices alleged The new complaint, which was filed on Oct. 26, alleges Butner's housing conditions make it impossible to physically distance. It also states that the prison's policies for screening for COVID-19 have been inconsistent, varying widely across its units and failing to contain the spread of the virus. "Whether a person incarcerated at Butner will be removed from other incarcerated people due to potential COVID status appears to be determined solely by whether the person has a high temperature," it states. "Staff at Butner occasionally have checked the temperatures of all people in a housing unit, but even then, Defendants inconsistently asked questions about other COVID-19 symptoms." If an incarcerated person suspects he may be running a temperature, the complaint says, Defendants generally have required the person to pay the $2.00 for a "sick call" out-of-pocket. Though the BOP declined to comment on specific allegations raised in the complaint, in an emailed statement, the agency said inmates do not have to pay a copay for COVID-related sick calls. "There is a waiver in place for this," said Long. The prison also inconsistently enforces its mask wearing requirement, plaintiffs allege, among both guards and inmates. The complaint accuses the BOP of other forms of negligence, such as requiring prisoners to stand in long lines in which it is impossible to keep 6 feet apart to obtain needed daily medications or meals, ordering prisoners to clean units that housed COVID-positive individuals as part of their mandated prison jobs, and waiting until August to inform inmates that they needed to wait 10 minutes before using a communal phone once it's been sprayed with disinfectant. The disinfectant, according to court filings, has been used in Butner since March. These allegations were derived from documents filed by the BOP in their role as defendants in the original complaint in May, according to Morris, as well as ongoing conversations with about 20 to 30 people incarcerated inside Butner. Ten of them are named plaintiffs in the complaint. The complaint also alleges other types of medical care and necessary treatments have been "severely curbed" at Butner due to outbreaks at the facility. Charles Hallinan, one of the plaintiffs in the case, has allegedly not received needed care to monitor his bladder cancer in Butner FMC since January. Hallinan, who is 79, is in remission for both bladder cancer and prostate cancer. Email correspondence from a doctor who reviewed Hallinan's medical records in September, which NC Health News obtained from plaintiffs, suggests he needs ongoing, routine care. "The bigger concern is the bladder cancer which has a much higher recurrence rate and requires frequent cystoscopy to be sure it is not recurring," the physician wrote in an email from Sept. 14. Ninety-four percent denied Plaintiffs are seeking a reduction in the number of people incarcerated inside the facility. "The overall goal is to keep people safe," said Morris. "It's clear that the single most important thing for that is reducing population density." By the end of May, the federal government had granted the requests of just 29 of the 524 prisoners at Butner who applied for compassionate release due to the coronavirus pandemic, according to data obtained by the Marshall Project. Dailey was among the 94 percent who were denied. One percent of the prison's population have been transferred to home confinement since late March, according to a June 11 court document. Studies have shown older prisoners are far less likely to reoffend than younger prisoners after their release, and federal prisoners in particular have lower recidivism rates than their state counterparts. "Butner has a large medium-and-low-security population. And it has a high-risk population in terms of people with medical conditions," said Morris. "So it seems like it should be a place that they could get people into home confinement." Plaintiffs are also seeking better prevention and spread-reduction actions at the prison through the litigation. "With whatever population they do maintain at Butner, they need to be thinking through ways of making it possible for people to keep a distance," said Morris. "They need to be implementing better testing, contact tracing, quarantine and isolation strategies. Because what they're doing right now is woefully inadequate." The original lawsuit sought an order mandating immediate intervention actions within the prison; this time, plaintiffs have not requested such an injunction. "Though that may change, particularly given what's going on [with rising cases] at the FMC," said Morris. [GN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Faces Darish Suit Over 50% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEIL DARISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN DYNASTY MINERALS LTD.; RONALD WILLIAM THIESSEN; MARK C. PETERS; MARCHAND SNYMAN; and TOM COLLIER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05917 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class who purchased the publicly traded securities of Northern Dynasty from December 21, 2017 through November 25, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, on December 21, 2017, Northern Dynasty announced in a press release that it was submitting a permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project comprising 2,402 mineral claims that covers an area of approximately 417 square miles located in southwest Alaska. On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Army released a statement concerning the Pebble Project, stating that it would result in "significant degradation of the environment and would likely result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic system or human environment." The U.S. Army further found that "the project, as currently proposed, cannot be permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act." The U.S. Army requested that the Company submit a mitigation plan in response to this finding. On this news, Northern Dynasty's stock price fell $0.55 per share, or 37.9%, to close at $0.90 per share on August 24, 2020. On September 21, 2020, the Environmental Investigation Agency released a recording between investigators and Company executives that demonstrated that Northern Dynasty, contrary to previous public statements, actually planned to build a mine that would last up to 180 years. On November 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty reported that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had rejected its permit applications related to the Pebble Project. On this news, Northern Dynasty's stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 50%, to close at $0.40 per share on November 25, 2020, damaging investors. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. explores for gold, copper, and molybdenum in Alaska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in Consolidated Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the consolidated class action suit spearheaded by Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT. On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class action lawsuits against the company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB). On July 24, 2018, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff. On October 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the company and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The underwriters from our initial public offering have also been named as defendants in this case and we have certain obligations under the underwriting agreement to indemnify them for their costs and expenses incurred in connection with this litigation. On September 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section 11 claims entirely, without leave to amend, and accordingly dismissed the underwriters and certain directors from the case. The Court also dismissed certain statements from the Section 10 claims. On June 16, 2020, the parties reached a settlement of the securities class action, and they intend to submit a final settlement agreement for court approval. The settlement provides for a payment of $3.15 million to the plaintiffs, and provides that the defendants continue to deny the allegations and claims asserted by the plaintiffs, and are entering into the settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation. The Company expects that any amounts due as part of the settlement will be covered by the Company's insurance policies. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices to treat people who are obese and overweight. The company offers the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Carlsbad, California. OHIO STATE PHYSICIANS: Nurse Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Szilagy, writing for The Lantern, reports that a nurse is suing Ohio State Physicians, Inc. for violating labor and wage laws, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in the Southern District Court of Ohio on Nov. 11. Alice Daniels, the plaintiff, claimed Ohio State Physicians, Inc. failed to pay her and other eligible employees overtime wages, despite consistently working more than 40 hours per week. She also said mandatory unpaid lunch breaks were often cut short or interrupted with work responsibilities. Ohio State Physicians, Inc. is a not-for-profit outpatient care system with about 30 offices and clinics throughout central Ohio, according to its website. It is part of the Ohio State College of Medicine's practice plan as designated by the Board of Trustees. Daniels has worked as a licensed practical nurse for the outpatient care system since October 2019. During her time, she claims Ohio State Physicians, Inc.'s policies violated multiple labor laws, including the Federal Labor Standards Act. Specifically, the lawsuit states Daniels and other nurses — including licensed practical nurses, registered nurses and nurse practitioners — were expected to arrive at work 15 to 30 minutes before their scheduled shifts to "engage in work duties that are integral and indispensable to their job duties prior to clocking in." Such duties included turning on computers, checking messages and fax machines, and reviewing prescription refill requests, according to the lawsuit. Despite starting work early, employees could not clock in more than four minutes before their scheduled shift. Consequently, the lawsuit states, employees were not paid for required work. A university spokesperson said the university does not comment on pending lawsuits. In addition to expecting employees to work before their shifts began, the lawsuit claims managers required some employees, including nurses, to clock out for one-hour meal breaks while still requiring them to perform work duties. In several instances, Daniels claims managers instructed her to take extended breaks off-the-clock. "While off-the-clock they were still required to have 'lunch meetings' with their manager, stay at the facility to receive a provider's call, and assist other employees and patients because [the outpatient care system] was understaffed," the lawsuit states. Daniels claimed she was reprimanded for not answering the phone during her meal break and other employees "regularly do not take a full, uninterrupted 60-minute meal break." The lawsuit states that under federal and state labor laws, Ohio State Physicians, Inc. is required to pay Daniels and other hourly, non-exempt health care employees time-and-a-half for all hours worked beyond 40. With work duties expected to be done before work and during mandatory breaks, Daniels claims the hospital system knowingly and willfully withheld wages and, because of its company-wide policies, does not have appropriate and required records of the uncompensated labor. Daniels filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of all former and current hourly, non-exempt hospital system employees who "were scheduled to work 40 or more hours in any workweek" in the past two years. Class-action lawsuits are civil suits made up of multiple plaintiffs seeking relief against the same person or organization. At the time of publication, Tiffany Malizia and Julie Henderson joined Daniels as opt-in plaintiffs. Malizia worked for the outpatient care system from October 2019 to November 2020, and Henderson worked for the system from July 2019 to January 2020, according to the lawsuit. Daniels seeks compensation for unpaid labor and overtime wages, compensation for legal fees, and damages in the amount of $200 per violation or six percent of all unpaid overtime compensation, according to the lawsuit. Daniels also seeks an injunction against the hospital system to ensure no further labor act violations occur. [GN] OHLER CONSTRUCTION: Acebedo Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ACEBEDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OHLER CONSTRUCTION, LLC and JASON OHLER, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-01534-TAD-KLH (W.D. La. December 3, 2020) bring this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practice of not paying overtime to their employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt construction worker for approximately four months, beginning in April and ending in about August 2020. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of 65 hours per week but he never received an overtime compensation at an overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Allegedly, the Defendants willfully and improperly avoided paying overtime to many other employees. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of unpaid wages, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief to make the Plaintiff and those construction workers similarly situated to him become whole for the damages they have suffered due to the Defendants' violations of law and to ensure that the Defendants will avoid violating the rights of the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons under the FLSA in the future. Ohler Construction, LLC is a company that provides construction services throughout the greater Monroe area and elsewhere in Louisiana. It is owned by Jason Ohler, who implemented the policy of not paying overtime to certain employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall E. Estes, Esq. Daniel B. Davis, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 4465 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite A Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS: Court Decertifies Trenz TCPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Daly, Esq. -- michael.daly@faegredrinker.com -- and Matthew Morrissey, Esq. -- matthew.morrissey@faegredrinker.com -- of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the Central District of California recently decertified a class of TCPA plaintiffs because consent issues were so individualized that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance requirement. Trenz v. On-Line Administrators, Inc., No. 15-8356, 2020 WL 5823565 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). The case highlights that a defendant can defeat certification by showing that class members provided their numbers in different "transactional contexts," which can give rise to individualized issues regarding the existence and scope of consent. In 2008, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("Volkswagen") launched its Target and Retain Aftersales Customers ("TRAC") program. Id. at *1. Through this program, it paid for over 900 dealerships across the country to retain Peak Performance Marketing Solutions, Inc. ("Peak") to place service reminder calls to their customers. Id. A class action alleging the use of autodialers and automated voices to make calls without the plaintiff's consent eventually followed. Id. The court denied plaintiffs' first motion for class certification. Nonetheless, plaintiffs amended their pleading and ultimately succeeded in certifying two classes. Id. at *2. The court's certification order expressed "reservations" regarding whether the proposed classes satisfied the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement. Id. at *3. Ultimately, however, it found that the defendants would need to produce "significantly more" evidence to show that customers had provided "actual consent to be contact by an autodialer" such that "individualized inquiries actually predominated over the common questions." Id. The defendants eventually moved to decertify one of the classes, which was defined as follows: All persons within the United States who received any telephone call from Defendants or their agents to said person's wireless number through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system, as part of Defendant Volkswagen Group of America's 'Target and Retain Aftersales Customers' program, from October 26, 2011 until October 15, 2013. Id. at *2-3. The defendants argued that they had developed the "requisite . . . evidence of consent" that the court's certification order had found lacking. Id. Specifically, the defendants asserted that certification was improper because "records obtained from just forty-eight" of the dealerships showed "a variety of circumstances across the [c]lass bearing on whether individual class members consented to receiving phone calls under the TRAC program." Id. at *6. The defendants argued that "the individual transactional context in which the class member's phone number was provided, and therefore the inquiry into whether they consented under the TCPA, would vary depending on whether the class member (1) was provided free service plans or warranties pursuant to which they would expect to be contacted about future servicing of their vehicle; (2) was provided with varying Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLBA") disclosure forms, in connection with vehicle financing, notifying the class member of dealer use of their contact information; and (3) was provided with additional, varying privacy notices and contracts, . . . wherein the class member consented to being contacted about future vehicle servicing, for 'marketing' purposes, and for the sale of additional 'products and services.'" Id. at *3, 7 (emphasis added). In light of these varying factual circumstances, the defendants argued, the consent issue would have to be litigated "on a class member-by-class member basis, meaning that individual questions predominate." Id. The court agreed with the defendants and decertified the class because the defendants had now "provided evidence" to establish "the lack of predominance." Id. at *7. Based on that evidence, the court held that "[t]he necessity of individual inquiries is a clear bar to class certification in TCPA matters." Id. at *8. It concluded that the defendants correctly identified factual circumstances relevant to "whether any individual [c]lass [m]ember provided consent . . . and if they did, the scope of that consent." Id. at *7. It also noted that the plaintiffs could not establish predominance because of the '"nearly endless' permutations of the transactional contexts" under which consumers had "provided prior express consent to the receipt of TRAC calls." Id. at *8. The court held that "[g]iven the individualized nature of the consent inquiries required in this matter," no "degree of sub-classing" would bring the class "into compliance with Rule 23(b)(3)." Id. The Trenz decision demonstrates that TCPA defendants should carefully consider whether consumers provided their numbers in different "transactional contexts." Even subtle differences in the circumstances surrounding the provision of a number may give rise to individualized issues regarding the existence and scope of consent. The decision also serves as a helpful reminder that defendants should still pursue these procedural defenses even if a court initially certifies a class. As in Trenz, a court's certification order may provide insight regarding the information a defendant needs to convince a court to revisit its decision. [GN] ORGANIGRAM INC: Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeal in Marijuana Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Magee at CBC New reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal of a Nova Scotia court decision that reduced the scope of a class action lawsuit against Organigram Inc. over medical marijuana tainted with pesticides. The case stemmed from allegations that marijuana grown and sold by the Moncton-based company contained pesticides not approved for use that made its users sick. The class-action lawsuit was filed after two large recalls in late 2016 and early 2017 of medical cannabis produced between Feb. 1 and Dec. 16, 2016 after testing found "trace" amounts of bifenazate, malathion and myclobutanil. The pesticides are authorized for agricultural use but not for cannabis. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ruled in April that the plaintiff failed to present enough evidence that the cannabis caused illness. As a result, members of the class can't claim damages for health effects. Dawn Rae Downton of Halifax is the representative plaintiff in the case represented by lawyer Ray Wagner. Downton said she experienced nausea, dizziness and headaches, symptoms that subsided after she stopped consuming Organigram's cannabis. They sought to appeal the Nova Scotia decision at the country's highest court. The Supreme Court selects only a small number of appeals to hear. The court announced it won't hear the Organigram case. That upholds the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision. As is standard, it didn't say why it declined to hear the case. "She's obviously very disappointed, but thankful that we did our best to do what we could to try to bring this to the light of day and to compensate people for the harm that's been caused to them," Wagner said in an interview about his client. The Nova Scotia court had ruled that there wasn't a workable methodology to determine that the proposed adverse health-effects claims have a common cause. What remains in the case relates to reimbursement of payments to customers who purchased cannabis in 2016. Organigram declined to comment. In a statement earlier this year, the company said it would continue to defend itself. "Organigram will continue to defend what remains of the class action as it has already voluntarily reimbursed many of its customers for this recall via a comprehensive credit and refund program," the company said following the appeal court decision. [GN] OUTLAW LABRATORY: Tauler Summ. Judgment Bid v. Stores Mostly Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP LITIGATION, Case No.: 18-cv-840-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part Tauler Smith, LLC's motion for summary judgment. Three San Diego area convenience stores -- Defendant Roma Mikha, Inc. and Third-Party Plaintiffs NMRM, Inc. and Skyline Market, Inc. -- have brought a putative class action by means of a counterclaim against Plaintiff Outlaw, a company whose primary business is the sale of male enhancement products and other supplements. The Stores allege the existence of a Racketeer Influences Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") association-in-fact enterprise involving, among others, Outlaw's former law firm, Tauler Smith, and Outlaw's two-part owners, Mr. Michael Wear and Mr. Shawn Lynch, which operates a scheme to defraud small businesses through the mailing of fraudulent, baseless demand letters that threaten liability in excess of $100,000 unless a quick settlement can be reached. The demand letters accused the recipient of selling "illegal" products which could subject the store to liability through legal action for racketeering and unfair business practices under RICO and the Federal Lanham Act. The letters further stated that Outlaw would be "entitled" to "profits from the sale" of the products dating back four years, attorney's fees, punitive damages, and triple damages. The letter estimated liability upwards of $100,000 and then offered a much smaller sum ($14,000 in the case of Skyline Market) to settle and stop selling the products. It further threatened that the offer would "double" if Outlaw were forced to file a formal lawsuit, and the offer would be withdrawn if litigation exceeds one motion in duration. The letters threatened that recipient stores had two weeks to respond or Outlaw would file suit. The demand letters were also typically accompanied by a draft complaint. The draft complaint that Skyline Market received alleged that Outlaw sold TriSteel at storefront retail locations across the United States. Lastly, the demand letters were also typically accompanied by photographs of the storefront and the store's packages as well as FDA warnings about the allegedly illicit products and their health risks to consumers. On Aug. 20, 2019, the Stores filed the operative, second amended counterclaims ("SACC"). The SACC added as third-party Defendants Tauler Smith, Mr. Wear, and Mr. Lynch. To obtain the "new information" necessary to allege their involvement in the Outlaw Enterprise, the Stores' counsel relied on information collected through discovery and a Vice Media news investigation. At the time, Mr. Poe filed a declaration noting that he was interviewed by a Vice Media reporter, had communicated with him via email 36 times, as a result learned new information regarding the involvement of Outlaw's partners and Tauler Smith in the Enterprise, and ultimately incorporated those facts into the newly amended complaint. The Stores also included the referenced discovery. On July 22, 2020, Tauler Smith filed a motion for summary judgment against the Stores. In the motion, Tauler Smith argues that the undisputed facts show no such "Outlaw Enterprise" exists, that Tauler Smith has not directed the conduct of the Enterprise in providing routine legal services, and that one of the Stores' claims were extinguished via its Settlement Agreement. It relies on the declarations of Mr. Robert Tauler, and its counsel, Mr. David A. Sergenian. On Aug. 14, 2020, the Stores filed an opposition to Tauler Smith's motion. The opposition included among its attachments four declarations put forward by Stores' counsel Mr. Mark Poe, Outlaw Principal Mr. Michael Wear, Outlaw Principal Mr. Shawn Lynch, and former Tauler Smith accountant Mr. Joseph Valerio. On Aug. 21, 2020, Tauler Smith filed a reply. The Court held a hearing on the motion on Sept. 11, 2020. Judge Curiel denied Tauler Smith's motion for summary judgment, except as to the unavailability of injunctive relief under RICO. First, there are genuine disputes of material fact as to the "conduct" and "enterprise" elements of RICO. Judge Curiel finds that (i) there are several genuine disputes of fact, and that (ii) those disputes are material because, when viewed from the light most favorable to the Stores, they support an inference that Tauler Smith knowingly engaged in fraudulent conduct and did not merely provide professional services. The Court further finds genuine issues of disputed fact on the existence of the Outlaw Enterprise. Tthe facts show that the Enterprise proceeded with a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. Next, the evidence also shows that the coordinated effort reflects an "ongoing organization" to the Enterprise. Lastly, that the Enterprise's members operated as a continuing unit is not in dispute. Tauler Smith was engaged by Outlaw no later than November 2017 and terminated no earlier than January 2019, worked with JST Distribution from at least July 2017, and provides evidence that Outlaw obtained some default judgments as recently as January 2020. Hence, the Enterprise's various associates functioned as a continuing unit. Consequently, summary adjudication on the RICO causes of action is inappropriate. Second, Judge Curiel finds that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Skyline Market's release extends to its RICO counterclaim, and whether the Release is void for fraudulent non-disclosure. He finds that the Stores are correct that there is sufficient evidence for the "factfinder" to conclude the Settlement Agreement is subject to rescission based on fraud. While Outlaw's admission occurred about nine months after Skyline Market settled, it nonetheless provides for circumstantial evidence supporting Skyline Market's argument. This evidence creates a genuine dispute issue of material fact as to whether Outlaw failed to disclose a material fact that it knew to be true and had a duty to disclose because Skyline Market could not have reasonably discovered it at that time or because Outlaw offered a misleading "half-truth." Consequently, summary adjudication on Skyline Market's rescission remedy is also inappropriate. As to the settlement, Judge Curiel does summarily adjudicate one issue in the Order: Skyline Market's settlement agreement was not the product of economic duress. He finds that the Stores' conclusory allegations of economic hardship are insufficient to show economic duress threshold. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy7gw4eu from Leagle.com. OVERSEAS FOOD: Shegerian & Associates Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ A California-based company has been slapped with a class-action lawsuit alleging among other claims that it fraudulently mislabeled some of its products in an effort to sway consumers to purchase its products. Manigeh Monfared's ('Monfared') lawsuit alleges that Overseas Food Distribution, LLC, dba Golchin, manufactures, sells and distributes a variety of flavors of rolled fruit products called Fruit Rolls which contain a variety of labels that read, "Product of the U.K.," "Product of Turkey," and "Product of Iran." According to the complaint, in so doing, the defendants advertised and misrepresented its products because the fruit roll products are not products of the United Kingdom, but in fact products of Turkey and/or Iran. "Defendant's strategy to misrepresent the origin of its Fruit Roll Products is not accidental," the lawsuit asserts. "For instance, the political turmoil in Turkey has prompted American consumers to launch campaigns to boycott Turkish products. As a result, Defendant has placed 'cover-up' labels on top of existing labels to hide that its Fruit Roll products are from Turkey and mislead customers into purchasing these products, especially those who have elected to boycott them." The suit alleges that Monfared purchased the product at issue on November 2, 2020, and read its packaging which specifically reflected that it was a "Product of the U.K." In making her purchasing decision, she relied on the misrepresentation, but came to learn that the product had an identical label beneath that read, "Product of Turkey," the suit explains. The suit alleges that plaintiff and members of the class have been and will continue to be deceived or mislead by Defendant's deceptive advertising claims. The lawsuit has been filed by the Dordick Law Corporation and Shegerian and Associates on behalf of Monfared and all class members. About Shegerian & Associates Shegerian & Associates has won clients over $300 million in employment-based disputes and maintains a 98% success rate. We have offices in LA, SD, Riverside and New York: https://www.shegerianlaw.com/. [GN] PARADIGM HEALTH: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paradigm Health & Wellness, Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Paradigm Health & Wellness, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10399 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Paradigm Health & Wellness Inc. (PHW) -- https://www.paradigmhw.com/ -- located in Southern California, is a supplier to the fitness, health, and wellness industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (845) 367-7146 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com PEAVEY ELECTRONICS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peavey Electronics Corporation. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Peavey Electronics Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-10455 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Peavey Electronics Corp. -- https://peavey.com/ -- is a supplier of musical instruments, amplifiers & professional audio systems worldwide.[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 PETERBROOKE CHOCOLATE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peterbrooke Chocolate Factory, LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Peterbrooke Chocolate Factory, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10437 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Peterbrooke Chocolate Factory, LLC -- https://peterbrooke.com/ -- is a chocolate 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 PHONESOAP LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PhoneSoap LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PhoneSoap LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10440 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. PhoneSoap -- https://www.phonesoap.com/ -- develops a cell phone charger intended to sanitize phones using UV light.[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 PRESSED JUICERY: Deal in Brooks ADA-UCRA Suit Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRESSED JUICERY, INC.; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01687-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PRESSED JUICERY, INC.; and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the parties' joint motion for the preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditional certification of settlement classes, and class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23. Ms. Brooks alleges that Defendant Pressed Juicery violated the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code Sonect 51 ("UCRA"), by not maintaining its website in a manner that allowed access to those with visual disabilities. Ms. Brooks, the representative plaintiff, is a citizen of California and legally blind. She alleges she was unable to access the Defendant's website due to her visual impairment despite her use of visual-impairment-aid programs. The Defendant is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Santa Monica, California. It produces a variety of goods such as juices, cleanses and probiotics. Part of its marketing strategy is the production and maintenance of a website meant to promote and sell its products to consumers, both in California and elsewhere. On Aug. 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed suit in the Court, alleging first that the construction of the Defendant's website fails to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently, thereby failing to comply with the accessibility requirements placed on "public accommodations" by the ADA. Second, she alleges that same conduct also constitutes a violation of the UCRA. On Feb. 20, 2020, the parties indicated they had reached a settlement in principle, and on April 8, 2020 they filed the instant motion for preliminary settlement authorization and class certification. On July 24, 2020, the Court heard oral argument on the motion, with the counsel from both sides reiterating their clients' support for the settlement. After hearing argument, the Court took the matter under submission for resolution by written order and resolves the motion. The Plaintiff's original filing identified two classes: a national and California class. While the definitions for each are identical, each class is constructed to correspond to the Plaintiff's claims: the ADA claim corresponds to the national class, and the Unruh act claim to the California class. The national class is defined as: All legally blind individuals who have attempted to access the Defendant's website by the use of a screen reading software during the applicable limitations period up to and including final judgement in the action. The California class is defined the same way, but within the geographical boundaries of California. In the settlement agreement, the parties request the Court preliminarily approve two broader classes, defined by the same geographical designations, but expanded to: All individuals nationally or in the State of California who (a) have a disability, as that term is defined under the ADA and similar state and local disability laws, and (b) have accessed the Website and Mobile Applications, and (c) have been denied equal access as a result of their disability. The Plaintiff provides calculations with respect to the California class, on the assumption that if the California class satisfies numerosity requirements then the national class does as well. She estimates that, of the 71,400 legally blind Californians that use the internet, they would access defendant's website at the same rate as internet users as a whole: 0.6%. That results in 43 monthly visitors, which spread over the year-long class period, yields an estimated class of 516 individuals. The estimate is undisputed. The parties propose the following terms: First, the Defendant will diligently bring its website into compliance with WCAG 2.0 Level. Second, after making these modifications, the Defendant will stay abreast of legislative changes to applicable accessibility laws and maintain proper compliance. Third, it will pay $2,500 to the named Plaintiff as an "enhancement award." Fourth, it will pay $35,000 in attorney's fees to the Class Counsel. The Defendant will bear the costs of notifying the class through an advertisement in the publications of several disability associations and foundations within fourteen days of preliminary approval. Judge Mueller finds that (i) adequate numerosity is satisfied; (ii) the common contention is that visually impaired people have not been able to access the Defendant's website, sufficient to satisfy commonality; (iii) the classes are defined as those who have been unable to access the Defendant's website due to their disability, and the claims are entirely based on inability to access the website, thereby satisfying the typicality requirements; (iv) both attorneys representing the class have extensive experience in the field, and do not have apparent conflicts of interest; and (v) the primary remedy sought in the complaint is class-wide, homogenous, injunctive relief. In determining whether the proposed settlement is fair and equitable, as required for preliminary certification, Judge Mueller finds no impediment to preliminary approval of the settlement. Generally, the settlement appears to be a compromise that saves the Defendant from escalating attorney's fees and provides the Plaintiff with the core relief requested: The Defendant's future compliance with WCAG 2.0. She finds the proposed settlement is sufficiently fair and equitable to the non-representative members of the class such that preliminary approval is warranted. At first glance, two factors cause Judge Mueller some hesitation: the $2,500 individual award to the Plaintiff and the $35,000 in attorney's fees awarded to the Plaintiff's counsel. First, she finds that the incentive payment of $2,500 to the Plaintiff at this juncture is reasonable on its face, and not an impediment to preliminary certification. However, for final certification, the Plaintiff should submit evidence, such as a declaration, describing in detail her contribution to the case to ultimately justify the incentive award. Second, the Plaintiff has not offered a detailed calculation at this stage, opting instead to simply present a lump sum figure. Given the facial reasonableness of the figure, and the near-optimal result obtained for the class, Judge Mueller accepts the figure for the purposes of preliminary certification. However, prior to final certification, the Plaintiff should submit a "lodestar estimate," supporting the appropriateness of the payment requested. Given the logistical difficulties of identifying the class members, Judge Mueller accepts the publication of the notice regarding the proposed settlement reviewed above as sufficient. The notice submitted is also adequate for notifying class members of the existence and details of the settlement. Finally, in light of the relevant experience of the class counsel, Judge Mueller preliminarily appoints Babak Saadian and Thiago Coelho, and the Wilshire Law Firm as the class counsel. Based on the foregoing, Judge Mueller granted the motion for preliminary certification of the class settlement. Notice was scheduled for distribution to the class members last Sept. 25, 2020, with any opposition to the settlement due 35 days after the distribution of notice. The Judge had also set a final settlement hearing for the Court's civil law and motion calendar falling after the 75 days contemplated by the parties, for Dec. 11, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3p2hzhm from Leagle.com. PRISTER'S PECANS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Priester's Pecans, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Priester's Pecans, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10443 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Priester's Pecans -- https://www.priesters.com/ -- is a family-owned company specializing in Southern delights like fresh nuts, candies, gift baskets, 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 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Announces Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The San Bernardino employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that Quest Diagnostics Incorporated failed to provide accurate wages and legally required breaks. The Quest Diagnostics Incorporated class action lawsuit, Case No. CIVDS2018707, is currently pending in the San Bernardino Superior Court of the State of California. The class action lawsuit against Quest Diagnostics Incorporated alleges PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were periodically denied proper rest periods by DEFENDANT. They were from time to time, allegedly, required to work in excess of four (4) hours without being provided ten (10) minute rest periods. Allegedly, PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were also from time to time unable to take off-duty meal breaks or were not fully relieved of duty for meal periods. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges DEFENDANT intentionally and knowingly failed to reimburse and indemnify PLAINTIFF and the other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members for required business expenses incurred by the PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members in direct consequence of discharging their duties on behalf of DEFENDANT. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their employment. If you would like to know more about the Quest Diagnostics Incorporated lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims, contact one of their attorneys today. [GN] RAYTHEON TECH: Hagens Berman Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Feb. 10, 2016 - Oct. 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Dec. 29, 2020 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/RTX Contact An Attorney Now: securities@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Raytheon Technologies (RTX) Securities Fraud Class Action: The lawsuit challenges the accuracy of Raytheon's financial statements pertaining to its missile defense business and compliance with applicable accounting rules and criminal laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants misled investors about Raytheon's disclosure and financial reporting controls over the company's core missiles and defense business segment. According to the complaint, as a result of Raytheon's faulty financial accounting, the company misreported the segment's costs since 2009. This in turn exposed Raytheon to increased scrutiny from regulators, including potential criminal liability. Investors allegedly began to learn the truth after the markets closed on Oct. 27, 2020, when Raytheon announced it received a criminal subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice. The company disclosed the DOJ seeks information and documents relating to financial accounting, internal controls over financial reporting, and cost reporting by the missiles and defense business segment. This news drove the price of Raytheon shares sharply lower. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Raytheon intentionally misrepresented its financial results over the last several years," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein. If you are a Raytheon investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation and prosecution of this matter, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Raytheon should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email securities@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN] REDBARN PET: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redbarn Pet Products, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Redbarn Pet Products, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10397 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Redbarn, a family-owned business since 1996, is a manufacturer or natural treats, chews, and food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com RENAL ASSOCIATES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for January 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. (ARA) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the settlement fairness hearing in Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-09074-ES-MAH, is scheduled on January 12, 2021. On March 28, 2019 and April 19, 2019, putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. Both complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form 8-K and certain prior filings. The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ARA's securities from August 10, 2016 to March 27, 2019. On July 3, 2019, the complaints were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed for the putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-09074-ES-MAH. On November 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The amended complaint asserts federal securities laws claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form 8-K and certain prior filings. On January 17, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 24, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On February 26, 2020, the parties participated in a mediation. On March 11, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On June 25, 2020, the parties signed a definitive settlement agreement and filed with the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which sets forth the terms and conditions for settlement. On September 3, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, subject to further consideration at a hearing to be held on January 12, 2021. The principal terms agreed upon by the parties contemplate a settlement payment of $5,775, which will be made by the Company's insurer, in exchange for a release of claims. The settlement will resolve the claims asserted against all defendants in the action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them, and the defendants continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in this action. American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. is a national provider of kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end-stage renal disease, or ESRD. As of March 31, 2017, the Company owned and operated 217 dialysis clinics treating 14,735 patients in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The Company's operating model is based on shared ownership of its facilities with physicians, known as nephrologists, who specialize in treating kidney-related diseases in the local market served by the clinic. Each clinic is maintained as a separate joint venture, or JV, in which the Company has a controlling interest and its local nephrologist partners have noncontrolling interests. REVERA: Class Action Mulled Over Maples Care Home Negligence ------------------------------------------------------------ Amber McGuckin, writing for Global News, reports that Ethel Lewsey was three days away from her 100th birthday when she died due to complications of COVID-19 at the Maples Personal Care Home. Her family laid her to rest on Nov. 10, broken-hearted by what they call a failed system. "She was a good mother and had been a good mother to me, you know. But she's gone now and if it wasn't for COVID and what was going on in that facility, she would still be here today. I don't know for how much longer but at the end of the day she would be here," said her son, Lawrence Lewsey. Lewsey said he found out in the middle of October that there was a COVID-19 positive case in the facility and his mom had tested positive on Oct. 29. "She lost her appetite. She stopped eating. I do remember a couple of nurses telling me she was cold to touch. Basically she became lethargic and ended up passing away on the second of November," he said. Lewsey believes the staff at the facility tried their best but he thinks Revera, the company running Maples, failed staff and residents. "This nurse came to give me an update and the poor thing her voice was cracking stating how short staffed they were, what they had to go through because of COVID and they weren't getting any help," he said. "COVID's been around since February. How can you not be prepared for something that's been around? You know it hits, you know it spreads when it does get in there. You have to have a plan. And there was no plan." Lewsey knows it's too late for his mother but he wants justice for her and the other residents who died at the care home. "It's terrible. The remorse, sadness. The remorse — I feel guilty because I put her in that place. I trusted them you know." "I blame the leaders in Revera and the government and they need to stand up and hold themselves accountable for the lack of support for both staff and the elderly." Lewsey is in the process of formalizing a class action lawsuit against Revera and potentially the Province of Manitoba over the handling of the facility. "I need someone here to be held accountable, OK. Because there's no one standing up for these residents, these elderly. Revera has obviously not been supporting their staff, which in turn hurts families and hurts the residents," he said. "I'm trying to get the families and members of families who have loved ones in either Parkview or Revera and go after Revera for their lack of support that turned to neglect and killed some of these residents." Revera issued a statement on Nov. 9, apologizing and saying they're doing everything they can to control the spread of COVID-19 in the facility. The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority says there are teams in place to provide support to Maples staff -- the Rapid Response Team and the Canadian Red Cross. [GN] SCOTTS COMPANY: Underpays Production Employees, Larson Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KEVIN LARSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06237-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, December 4, 2020) challenges the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant on or about January 3, 2018 as an electrician in maintenance and remained in maintenance until his separation from the company on or about May 26, 2020. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as non-exempt under the FLSA and OMFWSA. The Defendant required them to clock in approximately 10 minutes prior to the start of their shift to attend a "turn over meeting". However, the Defendant did not pay them based on the times they clock in and out of the timekeeping machine. Instead, the Defendant required them to record heir scheduled shift in a written log as a basis for their pay calculation. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective and class action seeking all available relief under the FLSA and OMFWSA. The Scotts Company LLC operates a production facility in Marysville, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 614 West Superior Ave., Ste. 1148 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com - and – Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@olaborlaw.com sdraher@laborlaw.com SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs in Anderson No Standing to Sue ----------------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Court in Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW ruled that the remaining plaintiffs have no standing to sue and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW. The putative class consisted of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint as amended alleged causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California Consumers Legal Remedy Act (CCLRA). The complaint sought restitution, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs did not file a motion for class certification. The case was prosecuted by certain plaintiffs for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the plaintiffs' standing to sue and the merits of their claims. Before the first phase of the trial, plaintiff Anderson dismissed all claims against the Company. The standing trial with regard to the remaining plaintiffs took place in March of 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Court ruled that the remaining plaintiffs have no standing to sue and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs have until November 13, 2020 to appeal the Court's order. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. SENTINEL MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anoop Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAPAUL ANOOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENTINEL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; and ROBERT BUSER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05987 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Anoop was employed by the Defendants as fire guard. Sentinel Management Group Inc. provides full-service professional security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naresh Gehi Esq. GEHI & ASSOCIATES 74-09 37 th Ave. Ste. 205 Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (718) 263-5999 SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Johnson Settlement Wins Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS JOHNSON, et al., v. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02004-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order: 1. granting the motion of Peter Rukin, Jessica Riggin, Valerie Brender, and Rukin Hyland & Riggin LLP (collectively RHR), to withdraw as counsel for SCI California Plaintiff Anthony Aranda; and 2. granting the SCI California Plaintiffs' motion for settlement approval, and RHR's motion to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Aranda, subject to Civil Local Rule 11-5(b)'s conditions. The Plaintiffs seeks to approve a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement and release of Plaintiffs' FLSA and other wage and hour claims against Defendants SCI California Funeral Services, Inc. (SCI California) and Service Corporation International (SCI) (collectively SCI Defendants), as well as a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff Anthony Aranda. The Defendants have not filed an opposition to either motion. After careful consideration, the Court determined that oral argument is unnecessary, vacated the December 10, 2020 hearing, and granted the motions to approve the settlement and withdraw as counsel. According to the Court, because the motion was not accompanied by the simultaneous appearance of substitute counsel for Mr. Aranda, RHR shall continue to be served for forwarding purposes unless and until Mr. Aranda appears by other counsel or pro se. When Civil Local Rule 11-5(b)'s "condition is imposed, counsel must notify the party of this condition." Therefore, RHR must additionally provide Mr. Aranda with notice, to fullest extent possible, that papers will continue to be served on counsel for forwarding purposes. Any filed consent by the party to counsel's withdrawal under these circumstances must include acknowledgment of this condition. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KiuY7o at no extra charge.[CC] SUPER MICRO: NY Trades Council & Hotel Association Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Super Micro Computer, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit led by New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund. On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00838 and United Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00850). The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public statements regarding recognition of revenue. The court subsequently appointed New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint naming the Company's Senior Vice President of Investor Relations as an additional defendant. On June 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint naming the Company's former Senior Vice President of International Sales, Corporate Secretary, and Director as an additional defendant. On July 26, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 23, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave for lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. On April 22, 2020, lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint. On June 15, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the further amended complaint, the hearing for which was calendared for September 23, 2020; however, the Court held a conference on September 15 to discuss how the Court could efficiently address the recent SEC settlement agreement. The parties stipulated to allow plaintiffs to further amend the complaint solely to add allegations relating to the SEC settlement. On October 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2020, defendants filed a supplemental motion to dismiss. The Court has not set a new date for the motion to dismiss hearing, but expects the hearing will be set in late 2020 or early 2021 following completion of supplemental motion to dismiss briefing. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Super Micro Computer, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and manufactures high-performance server and storage solutions based on modular and open architecture. Its solutions range from complete server, storage, modular blade servers, blades, and workstations to full racks, networking devices, server management software, server sub-systems, and support and services. It sells its products through direct sales force, distributors, value-added resellers, system integrators, and original equipment manufacturers. The company has operations primarily in the United States, Europe, Asia, and internationally. Super Micro Computer, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. TARGET CORPORATION: Colon Files Labor Suit in Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation. The case is styled as Nestor Colon, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010383 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 10, 2020). The case arises from employment-related issues. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation and is a component of the S&P 500 Index.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Larry W. Lee, Esq. TD BANK NA: Faces Campagna Suit Over Misleading Credit Card Terms ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE CAMPAGNA; and GLORIA DEVAULT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-18533 (D.N.J., Dec. 8, 2020) is an action seeking monetary damages from TD Bank arising from its improper business practices in connection with consumer credit card accounts. The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that in TD Bank's contractual document, and the promotional Webpage that incorporates the contractual document, TD Bank informs consumers that, if they use and maintain their secured credit card and keep it in good standing for seven consecutive billing cycles, they can "graduate" to an unsecured TD Bank Credit Card. Graduating to an unsecured TD Bank Credit Card allows consumers to regain control of the funds in the TD Simple Savings account that had previously been held as security. In accordance with TD Bank's terms, shifting to an unsecured card also entitles consumers to a prorated refund of the annual fee that they were charged for having a secured credit card. Other benefits of moving from a secured to an unsecured account include a boost to the consumer's credit score after the change is reported to the credit reporting agencies by TD Bank. However, TD Bank refuses to allow consumers to graduate to an unsecured TD Bank Credit Card even when they keep their secured credit card in good standing for the requisite seven consecutive billing cycles. By doing so, TD violates the terms set forth in TD's contractual documents. TD Bank's conduct also results in TD continuing to exercise control over the collateral funds in the TD Simple Savings account and its refusal to refund the annual fee paid by consumers for the secured credit card. TD Bank's scheme robs consumers of several of the benefits of the bargain. This practice also gives TD Bank an unfair advantage over competitors, which do not promise to upgrade accounts in seven months, and therefore lose business to TD Bank. TD Bank, N.A. provides banking services. The Company offers online banking, mortgages, loans, insurance, and investment management services. TD Bank serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com - and - E. Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq. WEBB KLASE LEMON, LLC 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-9325 E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com Matt@WebbLLC.com Franklin@WebbLLC.com TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Livongo Merger Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend several complaints including class action suits related to its merger with Livongo Health, Inc. On August 5, 2020, Teladoc Health announced that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Livongo Health, Inc., which represents a transformational opportunity to improve the delivery, access and experience of healthcare for consumers around the world. The merger closed on October 30, 2020. Several complaints have been filed to date in connection with the merger between Livongo and the Company. Three purported class action complaints were filed under the captions: Kent v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01213 (D. Del.); Raheja v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06406 (N.D. Cal.); and Hart v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01222 (D. Del.). Seven additional complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Livongo under the captions: Kubus v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07579 (S.D.N.Y.); Jones v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-04362 (E.D.N.Y.); Anthony v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07706 (S.D.N.Y.); Banner v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-06758 (N.D. Cal.); Vea v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08230 (S.D.N.Y.); Ormesher v. Livongo Health Inc., et al., 5:20-cv-07105 (N.D. Cal.); and O'Connor v. Livongo Health Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-07281 (N.D. Cal.) (collectively with the purported class action complaints, the “Merger Litigations”). As of November 5, 2020, the Raheja, Kubus, and Banner complaints have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The Merger Litigations generally name as defendants Livongo and the members of its board of directors. The Kent complaint, Raheja complaint, and Hart complaint also assert claims against the Company and Tempranillo Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. The Merger Litigations generally allege that the registration statement and/or the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the merger between Livongo and the Company omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, rendering the statements false and misleading. The Raheja complaint and the Kubus complaint also alleged that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger. The Merger Litigations seek, among other things, an order enjoining the merger; rescinding the merger, to the extent it closes, and recovering damages; and awarding costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company believes that the claims asserted are wholly without merit. Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections, cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Securities Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------- Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported securities class action suit entitled, Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al. On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint (Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and a former officer. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the period March 3, 2016 through December 5, 2019. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the alleged misconduct of one of the Company's previous Executive Officers. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that the claims against the Company and its officers are without merit, and the Company and its named officers intend to defend the Company vigorously, including filing a motion to dismiss the complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections, cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Best Doctors, Inc., a company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc. On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to plaintiff and certain other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit and any potential loss is currently deemed to be immaterial. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections, cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York. THINK KING: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Think King LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Think King LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10396 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Think King -- https://think-king.com/ -- offers stroller and wheelchair travel accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com TONAL SYSTEMS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tonal Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tonal Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10444 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Tonal Systems, Inc. -- https://www.tonal.com/ -- produces, designs, and distributes fitness equipment. The Company offers handles, ropes, bars, benches, rollers, and workout mats.[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 TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective DPF System ---------------------------------------------------------- 9News reports that an independent report has found that 250,000 Toyota vehicles have been sold with a defective system in place, as a class action continues against the manufacturer. The referee found that the diesel particulate filter (DPF) system in all Toyota Hilux, Prado and Fortuner diesel vehicles sold between October 2015 and April 2020, were defective. They also found that countermeasures attempted by Toyota during the same period were ineffective or even made the problem worse. Bannister Law is carrying out a class action against Toyota on behalf of customers. "This is an important step towards obtaining compensation for all of those people who were sold defective cars they were told were 'unbreakable,'" Bannister Law principal Charles Bannister said. "Many of these people missed days off work while their cars were at the mechanics and sat at traffic lights in clouds of foul-smelling white smoke. "We want to hear from owners of these vehicles so we can ensure that they have the best possible chance of receiving compensation for purchasing vehicles that are not fit for purpose." A Toyota spokesperson said the company had worked "tirelessly" to find the best response for customers. "Toyota has been proactive about the fact that some customers have experienced a DPF issue and we have implemented a number of customer-focused and technical remedies to assist," the spokesperson said. "We are confident that the most recent countermeasure will remedy the DPF issue, as supported by the Independent Expert's Report recently adopted by the Federal Court. "We have an existing customer service exercise (CSE) underway for DPF. A CSE involves proactively contacting all owners of potentially affected vehicles and giving them the opportunity to present their vehicle at their convenience and have the CSE performed free of charge. "This means that, all customers with potentially affected vehicles have been contacted by letter and are requested to make contact with their closest/preferred Toyota dealer." [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Firm Files Additional Class Suits in Australia ----------------------------------------------------------------- Uber Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the same Australian law firm that initiated a class action suit in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, has commenced three additional class action lawsuits alleging the same claim. In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against us and certain of our subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in the taxi, hire-car, and limousine industries. The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against transport legislation by UberX Drivers in Australia. The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and damage to the class representative and class members, including lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses. In March, April and October 2020, the same Australian law firm filed four additional class action lawsuits alleging the same claim. Uber said, "We deny these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit." Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary technology applications that enable independent providers of ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies, Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. UNITED STATES: 5fth Cir. Affirms Serrano Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GERARDO SERRANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE 1-X; JUAN ESPINOZA; KEVIN McALEENAN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-50977 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss and denying as moot Serrano's motion to certify the class. On Sept. 21, 2015, Gerardo Serrano, a U.S. citizen and resident of Tyner, Kentucky, was driving his 2014 Ford F-250 pickup truck to Mexico to meet with his cousin when he was stopped at the Eagle Pass, Texas, Port of Entry. While still in the United States, Serrano began to take pictures of the border crossing with his cell phone. Two U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") agents objected to Serrano photographing the border facility and, after stopping his truck, physically removed him from it, took possession of his phone, and repeatedly demanded the password to unlock his phone. Invoking his constitutional rights, Serrano refused to provide the password to his phone. The agents searched his vehicle, finding a .380 caliber magazine and five .380 caliber bullets in the truck's center console. The agents handcuffed Serrano and detained him for several hours, consistently attempting to obtain the password for his phone without success. After being detained for about three hours, Serrano was released, but CBP agents seized his vehicle and its contents, including the magazine and the bullets. Serrano left the detention facility on foot. On Oct. 1, 2015, CBP mailed Serrano a notice of seizure, informing him that the truck, magazine, and bullets were seized and subject to forfeiture because there was probable cause to believe that Serrano had attempted to export "munitions of war" from the United States. On Oct. 22, 2015, Serrano responded to the notice by letter, demanding the immediate return of his truck or a hearing in court. Along with the letter, he sent a check for $3,804.99 to satisfy the bond requirement. According to Serrano's bank records, CBP promptly deposited the check on Oct. 30, 2015. On Dec. 19, 2016, Serrano submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to CBP asking for information about the seizure and forfeiture of his truck. As of the date of the filing of the complaint, CBP had not responded. For 23 months, defendants failed to institute forfeiture proceedings and Serrano was deprived of his property without a hearing to challenge the seizure or the continued retention of his vehicle. On Sept. 6, 2017, Serrano filed a complaint for return of property, compensatory damages, and class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief, naming as Defendants the CBP, the United States, Kevin McAleenan in his official capacity as the Acting Commissioner of CBP, Juan Espinoza in his individual capacity, and John Doe 1-X (unidentified responsible CBP agents). Serrano sought the return of his truck and all its contents, his magazine, five bullets, and the $3,804.99 that he posted as bond under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), alleging that the seizure and continued retention of his property violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (Count I). Serrano also asserted an individual Bivens claim for damages against Espinoza and other unknown and unserved agents acting in their individual capacities for the violation of his Fourth (Count II) and Fifth (Count III) Amendment rights. Additionally, he sought injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a putative class against CBP's policy or practice of holding seized vehicles without providing a prompt, post-seizure forfeiture hearing, in violation of the class's due-process rights (Count IV). Serrano simultaneously moved to certify a class consisting of all U.S. Citizens whose vehicles are or will be seized by CBP for civil forfeiture and held without a post-seizure hearing. The following month, on Oct. 19, 2017, CBP returned Serrano's truck. However, the remainder of Serrano's property was not returned for several more months: Serrano filed a notice on Feb. 26, 2018, notifying the Court that his $3,804.99 in bond money had been returned and another notice on May 29, 2018, that his seized bullets and magazine were returned without apology or explanation. On Dec. 13, 2017, Defendants United States, CBP, and the CBP Commissioner (Class Defendants) moved to dismiss Serrano's individual and class claims as moot and for failure to state a claim, arguing that the claims are moot because Serrano's property was returned, and, in any event, due process does not require a post-seizure hearing. Class Defendants also filed a response in opposition to the motion to certify. The same day, Espinoza filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Serrano's Bivens claim, seeking dismissal because Serrano failed to allege a viable Bivens claim under existing law and contending that no Bivens claim is available in this new context. Alternatively, Espinoza argued that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established constitutional right. Serrano conceded that the return of his property mooted his individual claim for return of property (Count I), but otherwise opposed both motions to dismiss. On July 23, 2018, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation. The magistrate judge concluded that Serrano's remaining claims were not moot, but recommended dismissal because Serrano failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Serrano filed written objections to the report and recommendation. On Sept. 28, 2018, after de novo review of the report's factual findings and legal conclusions, the district court overruled Serrano's objections and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations. The district court dismissed Serrano's class-wide and individual claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Additionally, the district court dismissed Serrano's Bivens claims, concluding that both of Serrano's claims (under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments) arise in a "new context" that is significantly different from any of the three Bivens claims the Supreme Court has recognized in the past. It further concluded that special factors counseled against expanding the Bivens remedy in the case. The district court denied as moot Serrano's motion to certify the class. Serrano timely appealed. On appeal, Serrano contends that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint and should be reversed for three reasons: (1) he properly stated a class claim that Defendants must provide prompt, post-seizure hearings when they take property for civil forfeiture based on Mathews v. Eldridge; (2) he properly stated a class claim that it is unconstitutional to condition a forfeiture hearing on the property owner posting a bond; and (3) he has a cause of action for damages under Bivens, because his claims do not arise in a new context, nor are there factors counselling against allowing his damages claims to proceed. The main focus of Serrano's due process challenge is to the Government's continued retention of seized property without a prompt judicial hearing to determine whether the government can retain possession of the seized property pending judicial forfeiture proceedings. Because he claims the district court erred in concluding that CBP's practices do not violate due process as a matter of law, Serrano maintains that the district court erred both in dismissing Count IV for failure to state a claim and denying as moot his motion for class certification. Given the broad allegations in the complaint and our balancing of the Mathews factors, the Fifth Circuit concludes that Serrano has failed to state a claim for a procedural due process violation. As identified in the CBP's seizure notice, a claimant is notified of the seizure and provided options for challenging the CBP's action, both administratively and judicially. Serrano has not sufficiently alleged the constitutional inadequacy of the existing procedures, nor has he shown that the available processes are unavailable or patently inadequate. Accordingly, Serrano's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As to Serrano's second argument, the 5th Circuit holds that Serrano failed to object to the magistrate judge's findings with regard to his class claims challenging the bond requirement to institute judicial forfeiture proceedings. Reviewing for clear error, the district court found none and adopted the magistrate judge's report in full. Because Serrano failed to object, the 5th Circuit's review is limited to plain error. It finds that the district court did not plainly err in holding that Serrano failed to state a claim that the bond requirement violates due process. The bond serves to deter the claimants with frivolous claims and to cover the costs and expenses of the proceedings. Additionally, to ensure that the bond requirement does not deny indigent claimants an opportunity to contest the forfeiture in court, CBP provides by regulation that the bond requirement will be waived upon satisfactory proof of financial inability to post the bond. Because it affirms the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of Serrano's due process class claims for failure to state a claim, the 5th Circuit also affirms the denial of his motion for class certification as moot. As to Serrano's final argument, the 5th Circuit finds that at minimum, Serrano failed to plausibly allege that any individual federal defendant has violated clearly established law sufficient to overcome qualified immunity. Espinoza is entitled to qualified immunity. Serrano fails to set forth any facts specifically identifying what Espinoza or any unnamed Customs officers did to violate his rights. Instead, Serrano concedes that the individual defendants were following the relevant statutes governing the seizure of his truck. Even if the Court assumes that the Constitution required CBP's employees to follow additional or more expedited procedures, there is no existing precedent clearly establishing as much, and thus, the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. For the reasons stated, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4z5vd2v from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Court Rules in Favor of Blue Water Navy Veterans --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Wilson, writing for The Lawton Constitution, reports that U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of thousands of so-called Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and their survivors Nov. 5. The ruling was in response to a motion filed by attorneys from the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) to enforce the 29-Year Old Class Action Consent Decree in Nehmer v. U.S. Department of Veterans Administration. The Court ordered the VA to automatically readjudicate thousands of benefits claims that the Court found had been wrongly denied under the Consent Decree. The Court also ordered the VA to pay retroactive compensation if it finds the veteran served in the territorial seas of Vietnam. "We applaud the Court's recognition that Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and their survivors have been wrongly denied retroactive disability and death benefits ever since 2002, when VA reversed its prior position and denied the presumption of Agent Orange exposure to veterans who served in the territorial seas of Vietnam," said National Veterans Legal Services Program Executive Director Bart Stichman. "These veterans and their surviving family members have already been waiting years for benefits to which they are entitled under the Consent Decree simply because they did not set foot in the land mass of Vietnam." The 1991 Consent Decree applies to a class consisting of hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans and their survivors who applied to the VA for service-connected disability and death benefits due to exposure to Agent Orange, the toxic herbicide used by the U.S. government during the Vietnam War. That Decree required the VA, whenever it recognized an additional disease is associated with exposure to Agent Orange, to identify and readjudicate all prior VA denials of benefit claims filed for that disease and pay benefits retroactive to the date of the claim that led to the prior denial. On July 10, 2020, NVLSP, which has served as counsel for the class since 1987, filed its fourth motion for enforcement to obtain compliance with the 1991 Consent Decree. The District Court had granted all three prior enforcement motions. As a result of the prior three successful enforcement actions, VA conceded that it paid billions of dollars in retroactive benefits to Vietnam veterans and their survivors. The VA's 2002 change in policy challenged in the fourth enforcement motion was that these "Blue Water" Vietnam veterans were not covered by the language of the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which provided that veterans who "served in the Republic of Vietnam" during the Vietnam era "shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service" to Agent Orange. But in 2019, in Procopio v. Wilkie, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected VA's interpretation of that language and ruled that Congress intended that all Vietnam veterans who served on ships in the territorial sea of Vietnam—within 12 nautical miles of the coast—be entitled to the presumption of exposure. NVLSP filed its enforcement motion after VA refused to redecide the post-2002 claims of "Blue Water" Vietnam veterans and their survivors that were denied under the VA policy rejected in the Procopio decision. The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 (BWN Act) codified the presumption of herbicide exposure for Blue Water Vietnam veterans. However, the BWN Act does not automatically require the VA to assess if any Blue Water Vietnam veteran or survivor is eligible for retroactive compensation. The BWN Act requirement to pay retroactive compensation is triggered only if a Blue Water Vietnam veteran affirmatively files a claim after January 1, 2020 and the veteran specifically identifies the Agent-Orange related disease that was the subject of the earlier claim. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Wants Freshman Orientation Fee Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Nelson, writing for The Gainesville Sun, reports that the University of Florida is arguing on procedural grounds for the dismissal of a year-old lawsuit over excessive fees charged over several years for a student orientation program. The motion, filed in Alachua County court, marks the first official response from the university since the suit was filed in 2019. The Gainesville Sun investigated the UF Preview program and reported in September 2019 that for more than a decade UF billed students hundreds of dollars for a costly and mandatory version of the university's new-student orientation when state law caps orientation fees at $35. A state audit report released earlier this year criticized UF for the practice, which has been corrected, but not before raking in $4.1 million more than it should have The mother of a UF student filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of the excessive fees. Four other UF students have since joined the suit in hopes of bringing the case to class action status. They argue the university Board of Trustees, former Student Affairs officials and the state's university system breached their contract with the Preview attendees. In three separate motions filed Oct. 30, all defendants deny any contract was breached because they did not have one with students. Legal counsel for the Board of Trustees also said the Florida Legislature did not provide for lawsuits as a remedy when it created the cap on orientation fees. Attorneys for the Florida Board of Governors said the complaints against the state university system's leaders are faulty and simply bring the board into the legal battle because of its oversight responsibilities. The students' attorneys, the motion states, have failed to make a direct link between how much UF charged for orientation fees and the state. Defense attorneys also contend there isn't a direct connection between former Vice President of Student Affairs David Parrott and the Preview overcharges, arguing the plaintiff's involvement of Parrott is "simply another method of suing UF." "The entire gist of their lawsuit appears to be 'you were a UF administrator, therefore we are entitled to sue you personally,'" the 13-page motion reads. Parrott was terminated from UF in April 2019, and Associate Vice President of Student Affairs Norbert Dunkel resigned after a UF internal investigation found "improper financial administration" within Student Affairs, which oversees Preview. The attorneys argue the students do not have evidence of any specific transaction, communication, conversation or other interaction with Parrott regarding the fees. The plaintiffs, if the case reaches class action status, hope to bring refunds for anyone who paid a nonrefundable application fee between April 2014-2019 and anyone who paid the extra Preview cost between August 2014-2019. A hearing to weigh UF's dismissal will be heard by Circuit Court Judge Monica Brasington on Feb. 10, 2021, at 1 p.m., according to court records. The hearing could decide whether the case can become a class action suit. Paul Rothstein, the attorney representing the students, said his staff is reviewing the multiple documents filed by the defendants, making it too early to comment on the claims. [GN] US AUTOMOBILE: Certification of Interlocutory Appeal in Spine Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SPINE CARE DELAWARE, LLC Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants, C.A. No. N18C-01-253 EMD CCLD (Del. Super.), Judge Eric M. Davis of the Superior Court of Delaware denied the Defendants' Application for Certification of an Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Order. Spine Care filed its Motion for Class Certification on July 29, 2019. The Motion centered on the Defendants' alleged untimely payment of covered medical expenses to Spine Care and other healthcare providers. Spine Care contends that the statutory interest owed on overdue PIP-related medical expenses is owed to Spine Care and others in the class. On Oct. 7, 2019, the Defendants filed their Defendants' Answering Brief in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. On Nov. 13, 2019, Spine Care filed its Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Class Certification. The Court held a hearing on the Motion, the Answer and the Reply on Jan. 29, 2020. After the hearing, the Court took the Motion under advisement. On June 18, 2020, the Court issued the Opinion, granting the relief requested in the Motion and certified a class under Civil Rule 23. The Defendants moved to reargue the Opinion. They contended that reargument was necessary because: (i) they wished for further clarification on whether the certified class is limited to facility fee bills that they allegedly were precluded as a matter of law from disputing because they had deemed the underlying anesthesia bills to be compensable; and (ii) the class was improper as it is founded upon a misapprehension of the Defendants' data systems and ability to identify those claims. The Court denied reargument holding that the Defendants were merely rehashing arguments already asserted and previously determined by the Court. The Court noted that the class definition was proper for: All persons or entities who, since Sept. 25, 2014, submitted claims for medical-expense-related Personal Injury Protection (or PIP) benefits under Delaware auto policies issued by United Services Automobile Association, USAA General Indemnity Company, USAA Casualty Insurance Company or Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, where (i) the claim was not disputed by the insurer on grounds of insufficient documentation within 30 days of receipt; (ii) the claim was not paid by the insurer within 30 days of receipt; and (iii) though ultimately paid in whole or part, the insurer made no payment of statutory interest on the claim. For the purposes of the class definition requiring that the claim was not disputed by the insurer on grounds of insufficient documentation within 30 days of receipt, the Court held that instances identified by the parties where a bill for a facility fee was disputed for lack of documentation to determine medical necessity can be considered undisputed and compensable in the absence of any other reason for denying coverage. The Court allowed Spine Care to be included in the class because the Defendants were "precluded" from contesting the compensability of a portion of Spine Care's claim on a basis previously found to be improper by the Court. On Aug. 25, 2020, the Court entered an order implementing the Opinion. The Defendants assert that the Application meets the criteria set forth in Rule 42(b)(iii)(A), (C), (G) and (H). They claim that (i) the Opinion decides an issue unresolved in Delaware because the (a) the Supreme Court has never address an "interest class" before and (b) Delaware courts have not addressed a situation where class membership can be determined only by an individualized resolution of the merits of each class member's claim; (ii) the Opinion relates to the interpretation and application of a statute, 21 Del. C. Sectin 2118, which has not been, but should be, settled by the Supreme Court in advance of an appeal from a final order; and (iii) an interlocutory review of the Opinion may terminate the civil and action and thus serves the considerations of justice. Spine Care opposes interlocutory appeal of the Opinion. In the Response, it argues that none of the rulings in the Opinion are questions of first impression in Delaware. It also contends that interlocutory review cannot possibly terminate the civil proceeding because, even without class certification, Spine Care could proceed with its individual claim against the Defendants. Finally, Spine Care claims that piecemeal litigation of its claim and the class claims will not serve the considerations of justice. Judge Davis agrees with the arguments made in the Response. He may be viewing it too simplistically but, in rendering the Opinion, he finds that the Court did not seem to address any questions of first impression. True, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the specific issues of the civil action, but it had and so had other jurisdictions. As noted in the Response, the Court has previously addressed class certification of statutory interest claims under Section 2118. Moreover, while there may be individual questions for certain claimants as to whether they meet Spine Care's class definition, the Court found that these individual questions did not predominate over whether Defendants failed to pay statutory interest on PIP claims that were paid late. That is because the individual factual determinations that must be made, including the amount of interest to which each claimant is entitled, can be made by reference to records and objective criteria -- objective criteria and mathematical calculations applied to undisputed records. Judge Davis understands that the Defendants disagree with the conclusions made in the Opinion. In addition, the specific facts of the case may differ from other cases. However, it does not mean that the question is novel. The propriety of class certification for statutory interest claims under Section 2118 has been addressed by the Court and by other trial courts. Interlocutory review will not result in a termination of the civil action. Interlocutory review could only possibly terminate the class claims but not the individual claims of Spine Care. Judge Davis does not feel that interlocutory review will otherwise serve the considerations of justice. The Defendants just reiterate that the class is unascertainable because factual determination of the merits of claims will predominate. Judge Davis also does not find that the benefits of interlocutory appeal outweigh the probable costs such that interlocutory review is in the interests of justice. Judge Davis does not believe that the Defendants have demonstrated that interlocutory review of the Opinion is warranted. At the very least, a balancing of the considerations is uncertain. He, therefore, refused to certify the interlocutory appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8st22md from Leagle.com. US OIL FUND: Lucas, Ephrati, Palacios Securities Suits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the cases, ROBERT LUCAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP, UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUNDS LLC, JOHN P. LOVE, and STUART P. CRUMBAUGH, Defendants. MOSHE EPHRATI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP, UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUNDS LLC, JOHN P. LOVE, and STUART P. CRUMBAUGH, Defendants. DANNY PALACIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP, UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUNDS LLC, JOHN P. LOVE, and STUART P. CRUMBAUGH, Defendants, Case Nos. 20 Civ. 4740 (PGG), 20 Civ. 6010 (PGG), 20 Civ. 6442 (PGG) (S.D. N.Y.). U.S. Oil is an exchange traded fund designed to track daily changes in the spot price of West Texas Intermediate light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma. On Feb. 25, 2020, it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") a prospectus on Form 424B3, which incorporated and formed part of an earlier filed registration statement on Form S-3 to register it shares. On March 19, 2020, U.S. Oil filed with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-3 to register its shares. The February and March Statements did not disclose alleged risks to the Fund resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and an oil price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia that began in "early March 2020." The Lucas Complaint was filed on June 19, 2020; the Ephrati Complaint was filed on July 31, 2020; and the Palacios Complaint was filed on August 13, 2020. The Ephrati and Lucas Complaints define the class period as March 19, 2020 to April 28, 2020. The Palacios Complaint defines the class period as Feb. 25, 2020 to April 28, 2020. Pending before the Court are three motions to appoint the Lead Plaintiff, approve the Lead Counsel, and consolidate the three putative class actions brought under federal securities laws by shareholders of U.S. Oil. Judge Gardephe holds that consolidation is plainly appropriate. All three cases arise from alleged omissions and misrepresentations in U.S. Oil's February and/or March Registration Statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and an alleged Russia-Saudi oil price war. The Plaintiffs assert similar claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all three complaints name the same four Defendants. Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 42(a), these three actions -- as well as any other related U.S. Oil class actions filed in or transferred to the Court -- are consolidated. The actions will be referred to collectively as In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, No. 20 Civ. 4740 (PGG). The Clerk of Court will file a copy of the Order in the separate file for each of the U.S. Oil class action cases. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, future filings in any U.S. Oil class action case consolidated will be filed and docketed only under docket number 20 Civ. 4740 (PGG). All the counsel who have entered appearances in the class action cases will be deemed to have entered an appearance in the Consolidated United States Oil Class Action under the docket number 20 Civ. 4740 (PGG). All motions for admission pro hac vice and all orders granting such motions in the actions will also be deemed filed in the Consolidated United States Oil Fund Class Action under the docket number 20 Civ. 4740 (PGG). The Counsel is directed to alert the Clerk of Court to the filing or transfer of any case that might properly be consolidated as part of the litigation. Any class action involving substantially related questions of law and fact filed in or transferred to the Court will be consolidated under the master file number assigned to the case. Every pleading filed in the Consolidated U.S. Oil Class Action under the docket number 20 Civ. 4740 (PGG) will bear the following caption: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: UNITED STATES OIL FUND, LP SECURITIES LITIGATION 20 Civ. 4740 (PGG). The consolidation order does not make any person, firm, or corporation a party to any action in which the person or entity has not been named, served, or added as such in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are three applicants for the Lead Plaintiff status. As an initial matter, movants Joseph A. O'Connor Trnst and Aljun Bhartia have not opposed the motions submitted by Heritage Investment Corp. and Nutit, A.S., and therefore have not rebutted the largest financial interest" presumption. Accordingly, the Trust and Bhartia will not be considered for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff, and their motion to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff is denied. As for the two remaining applicants, Nutit -- a Czech Republic-based joint stock company -- alleges losses of approximately $13.5 million, while Heritage -- a Nevada-based S Corporation -- alleges losses of $6.2 million. Nutit is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff because it suffered the largest financial loss. And because Nutit has demonstrated that it will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative class, has retained competent and experienced counsel, and has pleaded a loss suggesting that it will have a strong interest in advocating on behalf of class members, it is appointed the Lead Plaintiff. Nutit has selected Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the class counsel, and seeks Court approval of that selection. Robbins Geller is a national law firm with 200 attorneys that specializes in complex securities litigation. The Court has previously described Robbins Geller as competent and experienced counsel in the securities class action area. Judge Gardephe concludes that Robbins Geller is qualified to serve as the Lead Counsel in the matter and, accordingly, approved Nutit's selection of Robbins Geller as the Lead Counsel. For the reasons set forth, Judge Gardephe consolidated the cases under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, and the files of these actions will be maintained in one file under Master File No. 20 Civ. 4740 (PGG). The consolidation is for all purposes, including, but not limited to, discovery, pretrial proceedings, and trial. Nutit's motion to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff is granted, as is Nutit's motion to consolidate related actions and to approve Robbins Geller as the Lead Counsel. All other motions are denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, any amended or consolidated complaint was to be filed by Nov. 16, 2020. The Defendants will answer or otherwise move with respect to the amended or consolidated complaint by Jan. 15, 2021. In the event that any Defendant files a motion to dismiss, the Lead Plaintiff will file an opposition by March 16, 2021. The Defendants will file any reply by April 15, 2021. The initial pretrial conference currently scheduled for Oct. 22, 2020, is adjourned sine die. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y58watwk from Leagle.com. VERB TECHNOLOGY: February 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Nov. 11 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Verb Technology Corporation, Inc. (NASDAQ: VERB): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED VERB TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC. ("VERB") COMMON STOCK FROM JANUARY 3, 2018 THROUGH MAY 2, 2018, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that a hearing will be held on February 18, 2021, at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, First Street Federal Courthouse, 350 W. First Street, Courtroom 9D, 9th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or by telephonic or videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $640,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $25,000, and an award of no more than $1,000 to Plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated September 17, 2020 ("Stipulation"). If you purchased Verb common stock during the period from January 3, 2018 through May 2, 2018, inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Verb common stock. If you have not received a postcard providing instructions for receiving a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: Verb Technology Company, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later than February 4, 2021, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion in the manner and form explained in the Notice to the Claims Administrator so that it is received no later than January 28, 2021. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the Notice and received no later than January 28, 2021, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Central District of California First Street Federal Courthouse 350 W. First Street, Suite 4311 Los Angeles, CA 90012 LEAD COUNSEL: Jacob A. Goldberg The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS Steven M. Schatz Catherine E. Moreno WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Jacob A. Goldberg The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel.: 215-600-2817 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. [GN] VERRA MOBITY: Sued in California Over Unfair Toll Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- TneNewspaper.com reports that Verra Mobility told investors that it had finally returned to profitability in the wake of the virus scare that sunk its toll road and red light camera business. Now the Arizona-based firm, formerly known as American Traffic Solutions (ATS), could lose all of the financial progress it has made thanks to a new class action lawsuit filed in a Los Angeles, California, federal courthouse. The suit claims Verra Mobility has been engaged in unfair practices that harm consumers through the 2018 ATS acquisition and merger with Highway Toll Administration, which created Verra Mobility. "This acquisition substantially lessened competition, tended to monopolize, and resulted in monopolies by Verra in the relevant markets and sub-markets for third-party administration of electronic tolls for rental cars," the lawsuit filed by rival toll operator PlusPass stated. "The consolidation of these companies into one supplier has excluded PlusPass from competition in these markets and inflated prices for rental car companies, and in the downstream markets for car renters', use of electronic toll services." PlusPass asserts that Verra Mobility now has a near monopoly on tolling services in the rental car market, resulting in higher prices for consumers. Verra Mobility has locked in exclusive deals with all of the major agencies that consumers use to rent a car. "By locking rental car companies into Verra's costly exclusive dealing and tying contracts, and preventing them from instead using PlusPass' alternative technologies and/or its lower cost services, consumers who rent cars are also harmed because these inflated costs are passed on to them," PlusPass lawyer Joanna M. Fuller explained. "Verra is using these illegal contracts to lock out the 'other vendors' and 'new technologies or financial models' Verra has identified as competitive risks in its most recent annual report." PlusPass insisted that Verra Mobility's contracts with major rental car firms include clauses that prohibit any deals with competitors like PlusPass, which offers the same service at a lower rate. "Verra has extracted monopoly rents from rental car companies and their renters by eliminating competition," Fuller wrote. As a back office operation, Verra Mobility's costs for administering the PlatePass service are low. In the second quarter of 2020, the firm's $2.2 million cost of sales converted into $62 million in revenue. This is a profit margin that is between ten and twenty times greater than "high end" data processing companies enjoy, PlusPass alleged. Verra Mobility's rental car toll fees peaked at $25 per day -- including rental days where no toll roads were used, sparking in numerous lawsuits, including one filed by the state of Florida. PlusPass says a typical customer might pay $58 for Verra Mobility toll charges in a Dollar car rented from Logan Airport that could have cost just 31 cents using PlusPass. The suit calls for reversal of the merger between ATS and Highway Toll Administration as well as compensation for lost profits. [GN] VERTAFORE INC: Data Breach Leaks Driver's License Info, Allen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEREK ALLEN; LEANDRE BISHOP; and JOHN BURNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VERTAFORE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-04139 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 4, 2020) alleges violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that their private and confidential information, including Texas driver's license numbers, as well as names, dates of birth, addresses and vehicle registration histories was knowingly stored by the Defendants on unsecured external servers and accessed by and disclosed to unauthorized third parties, leading to data breach. As a result of the said data breach, the Plaintiffs' and Class members' highly sensitive driver's license information was disclosed to criminals. Vertafore, Inc. provides enterprise software solutions. The Company offers management systems, content management and workflow, sales tools, compliance, rating, and comprehensive agency solutions. Vertafore serves insurance agencies, carriers, and MGA markets. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cory S. Fein, Esq. CORY FEIN LAW FIRM 712 Main Street, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (281) 254-7717 Facsimile: (530) 748-0601 E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 6060 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com seh@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com WABASH COUNTY, IN: Bid to Certify Class in Copeland Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JERRY COPELAND, JOHN WHITT, and JAMES DUTTON, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. WABASH COUNTY, INDIANA; and the WABASH COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-154-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Jon E. DeGuilio of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Feb. 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking to enjoin the practices of Wabash County Jail and the Wabash County Jail Sheriff in his official capacity. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, have sued Wabash County and the Wabash County Sheriff, alleging that the conditions of confinement resulting from the overcrowded and understaffed Wabash County Jail violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Collectively, the Plaintiffs claim that the overcrowding of the jail produces dangerous conditions, which results in the denial of basic human needs and minimal civilized measures of life's necessities amounting to punishment. Disputes and violence commonly arise among prisoners due to the lack of secure areas for inmates housed in the day room to store their property, due to disputes over use of the single cell-block shower, and general tensions due to the large number of people being held in a very small space. The Plaintiffs also alleged that, due to overcrowding, inmates have decreased access to the indoor recreation room, which is the only recreational space in the facility. Lack of recreation, in turn, exacerbates tensions in the jail and assaults between prisoners are frequent. The Plaintiffs further claim that there is insufficient staff at the jail to adequately monitor the prisoners, and inmates with medical and mental health conditions are not seen in a timely manner. On Feb. 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and define the class as all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the Wabash County Jail. They ask, on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, the Court to enter an injunction requiring the Defendants to take all steps necessary to ensure the conditions of confinement at the Wabash County Jail comply with the United States Constitution. The County Defendants in their response opposed the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In particular, they argue that the commonality and typicality requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) are not satisfied. The Defendants also argue that Plaintiff Dutton is not within the proposed class he seeks to represent and also challenge his standing to seek injunctive relief. Judge DeGuilio holds that a party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule -- that is, he must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc. Merely alleging that each inmate suffers from a constitutional violation, or merely claiming that overcrowding the jail facility potentially violates inmates' constitutional rights, without pinpointing how the violation affects all potential class members, is not enough. Thus, having considered the parties' arguments and having reviewed the record of the case up to this point, the Judge denied the Motion for Class Certification without prejudice to refiling and the submission of additional evidence. He does it recognizing that an order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment. But a court that is not satisfied that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met should refuse certification until they have been met. If the Plaintiffs can provide sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a), they are encouraged to file that evidence with a renewed motion for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3up6kos from Leagle.com. WASHINGTON: 9th Cir. Affirms Belgau Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, MELISSA BELGAU; DONNA BYBEE; MICHAEL STONE; RICHARD OSTRANDER; MIRIAM TORRESPL; KATHERINE NEWMAN; GARY HONC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JAY ROBERT INSLEE, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Washington; DAVID SCHUMACHER, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Washington Office of Financial Management; JOHN WEISMAN, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Washington Department of Health; CHERYL STRANGE, in Her Official Capacity as Director of the Washington Department of Social Health and Services; ROGER MILLAR, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Washington Department of Transportation; JOEL SACKS, in His Official Capacity as Dir. of Washington Department of Labor and Industries; WASHINGTON FEDERATION OF STATE EMPLOYEES, (AFSCME, Council 28), Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-35137 (9th Cir.). The Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 was a game-changer in the world of unions and public employment. In Janus, the Supreme Court concluded that compelling nonmembers to subsidize union speech is offensive to the First Amendment. Public employers stopped automatically deducting representation fees from nonmembers. In the putative class action, the named Plaintiffs ("Employees") work for Washington state and belong to a bargaining unit that is exclusively represented by the Washington Federation of State Employees, AFSCME Council 28 ("WFSE"). Washington employees are not required to join a union to get or keep their jobs, though around 35,000 of the 40,000 employees in the bargaining unit are WFSE members. The Employees became union members within three months of starting work. They signed membership agreements authorizing their employer, Washington state, to deduct union dues from their bi-weekly paychecks and transmit them to WFSE. At the time Employees signed the membership cards, union dues were between 1.37% and 1.5% of base wages. They had the option of declining union membership and paying fair-share representation (or agency) fees, which were approximately 65% to 79% of union dues. Agency fees covered the cost incurred by the union in representing the interests of all employees -- members and nonmembers alike -- in the bargaining unit over the terms of employment. The monies could not be used for First Amendment activities that were not germane to the union's duties as collective-bargaining representative. Based on the authorization in the membership agreements, Washington deducted union dues from Employees' paychecks. Article 40 of the 2017-2019 collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between Washington and WFSE required Washington to deduct the membership dues from the salary of employees who request such deduction on a Union payroll deduction authorization card, and to honor the terms and conditions of these membership cards. Washington law also directed Washington to collect the dues on behalf of WFSE from union members who authorized the deductions. In 2017, WFSE circulated a revised membership agreement. A series of voluntary authorizations followed. The signatory agreed that the "voluntary authorization" will be "irrevocable for a period of one year." The signatory reiterated and confirmed these voluntary authorizations above the signature line. The Employees were not required to sign the revised cards to keep their jobs or remain as WFSE members. They signed the revised cards. After the Supreme Court decided Janus in June 2018, Washington and WFSE promptly amended the operative 2017-2019 CBA. These July 2018 and August 2018 Memos of Understanding removed Washington's authority to deduct an agency shop fee, non-association fee, or representation fee from nonmember paychecks. However, the updated provision did not change Washington's obligation to collect "membership dues" from those who authorized the deduction and to "honor the terms and conditions of each employee's signed membership cards." After the Janus decision, the Employees notified WFSE that they no longer wanted to be union members or pay dues. Per that request, WFSE terminated Employees' union memberships. However, pursuant to the terms of the revised membership agreements, Washington continued to deduct union dues from Employees' wages until the irrevocable one-year terms expired. The dues were last collected from Employees when the one-year terms expired in April 2019. In August 2018, the Employees filed a putative class action against the state Defendants -- Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, and state agency directors and secretaries David Schumacher, John Weisman, Cheryl Strange, Roger Millar, and Joel Sacks ("Washington") -- and WFSE alleging that the dues deductions violated their First Amendment rights and unjustly enriched WFSE. The Employees sought injunctive relief against Washington from continued payroll deduction of union dues, and compensatory damages and other relief against WFSE for union dues paid thus far. The district court granted summary judgment for Washington and WFSE and dismissed the case. The gist of the Employees' claim against the union is that it acted in concert with the state by authorizing deductions without proper consent in violation of the First Amendment. The fallacy of the approach is that it assumes state action sufficient to invoke a constitutional analysis. To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Employees must show that WFSE deprived them of a right secured by the Constitution and acted "under color of state law. The Supreme Court has long held that merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful, falls outside the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state action inquiry boils down to whether the challenged conduct that caused the alleged constitutional deprivation is "fairly attributable" to the state. The Ninth Circuit's answer is simple: no. First, it finds that the source of the alleged constitutional harm is not a state statute or policy but the particular private agreement between the union and the Employees. Second, as a private party, the union is generally not bound by the First Amendment, unless it has acted "in concert" with the state in effecting a particular deprivation of constitutional right. The state's role was to permit the private choice of the parties, a role that is neither significant nor coercive. WFSE and Employees entered into bargained-for agreements without any direction, participation, or oversight by Washington. At best, Washington's role in the allegedly unconstitutional conduct was ministerial processing of payroll deductions pursuant to Employees' authorizations. Nor did Washington insinuate itself into a position of interdependence with WFSE. At bottom, Washington's role was to enforce a private agreement. Because the private dues agreements do not trigger state action and independent constitutional scrutiny, the district court properly dismissed the claims against WFSE, rules the Ninth Circuit . The Employees' sole remaining claim against Washington is for an injunction prohibiting the continued deduction of dues despite signed deduction authorizations. The challenged action -- continued payroll deduction of union dues after an employee objects to union membership -- is capped at a period of one year, which is too short for the judicial review to "run its course." Because Washington continued to deduct union dues until the one-year terms expired, other persons similarly situated could be subjected to the same conduct. For these reasons, the Court exercises jurisdiction over the Employees' claim against Washington. Finally, the Employees do not claim that joining a union was a condition of their job; they chose to join WFSE. They do not offer a serious argument that they were coerced to sign the membership cards; they voluntarily authorized union dues to be deducted from their payrolls. The Employees do not argue they were later required to sign the revised union cards; they signed those documents and made the commitment to pay dues for one year. These facts speak to a contractual obligation, not a First Amendment violation, the Court concludes. Their First Amendment claim for prospective relief against Washington state fails because they affirmatively consented to deduction of union dues. Neither state law nor the collective bargaining agreement compels involuntary dues deduction and neither violates the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit noted that there is an easy remedy for Washington public employees who do not want to be part of the union: they can decide not to join the union in the first place, or they can resign their union membership after joining. The Employees demonstrated the freedom do so, subject to a limited payment commitment period. In the face of their voluntary agreement to pay union dues and in the absence of any legitimate claim of compulsion, the district court appropriately dismissed the First Amendment claim against Washington. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case in its Sept. 16, 2020 Opinion, a full-text copy of which is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4q3x8al from Leagle.com. James G. Abernathy (argued) -- jabernathy@freedomfoundation.com -- Olympia, Washington, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Matthew J. Murray (argued) -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com -- Scott A. Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- and P. Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California; Edward E. Younglove III, Younglove & Coker PLLC, Olympia, Washington; for Defendant-Appellee Washington Federation of State Employees, (AFSCME, Council 28). Alicia Orlena Young (argued), Senior Counsel; Kelly M. Woodward, Attorney; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Olympia, Washington; for Defendants-Appellees Jay Robert Inslee, David Schumacher, John Weisman, Cheryl Strange, Roger Millar, and Joel Sacks. WAYNE COUNTY: Class-Action Lawsuit Targets Foreclosure Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott McClallen at The Center Square reports that a Detroiter filed a class-action lawsuit against Wayne County, claiming officials foreclosed on her home, sold it at less than half the market value, and then pocketed the proceeds. Philip L. Ellison, an attorney at Hemlock-based Outside Legal Counsel, and others filed the lawsuit in the U.S. Eastern District Court on behalf of Tonya Bowles, who lost her East State property to foreclosure in 2017. Bowles owned a property with a fair market value of $36,600 that Wayne County Treasurer Sabree foreclosed in 2017, and according to the lawsuit, sold for $14,000 and pocketed the rest. The lawsuit doesn't say how much Bowles owed in taxes. It targets Sabree's office for "gross governmental abuse." Michigan law allows counties to foreclose properties to fulfill outstanding property taxes, but in Metro Detroit, city officials have been known to foreclose and seize houses for small amounts of unpaid taxes, and selling them for far more than the taxes owed. For example, Oakland County seized Uri Rafaeli's home in 2014 over $8.41 of initial overdue property taxes and sold the property for $24,500 – more than $35,000 less than Rafaeli paid for it – and then pocketed $24,214. "Defendants have taken Plaintiffs' and the class members' property interests in the form of Equity – that is, the value of their properties to the extent they exceed the properties' Tax Delinquencies – and have appropriated this property for public use without the payment of just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution," the suit says. The lawsuit claims Wayne County officials "abuse" the foreclosure process. "They do not foreclose on the parcel, sell it, keep the amount of outstanding taxes plus reasonable fees, and return the rest to the property owner," the lawsuit says. "Rather, they foreclose, sell the property at a reduced amount, and keep all of the proceeds and excess/surplus equity for itself. As a result, property owners lose the entire value of their property, which is often orders of magnitude more than the outstanding tax bills." The lawsuit seeks to have the Wayne County officials' conduct declared "unconstitutional under the federal and state constitutions, even if being undertaken consistent with the General Property Tax Act." [GN] WELLS FARGO: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC) common stock between October 13, 2017 and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wells Fargo investors have until December 29, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On April 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced its first quarter 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company announced a $4 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies, including $940 million in net charge-offs on loans and debt securities and a $3.1 billion reserve build. On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell $4.54, or 14%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.89 per share on April 16, 2020. On May 5, 2020, the Company filed its quarterly report with the SEC for first quarter 2020, in which it stated that Wells Fargo's collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs") investments fell 9% and that the Company suffered $1.7 billion in unrealized losses on its CLO investments during the quarter. On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell $1.74, or 6%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020. On June 10, 2020, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, John Shrewsberry, presented at the Morgan Stanley Virtual US Financials Conference, during which he stated that the second quarter reserve build would be even "bigger than the first quarter" due to continued deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio. On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell $5.84, or 18%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.79 per share on June 11, 2020. On July 14, 2020, the Company announced its second quarter 2020 financial results in a press release, disclosing a $9.5 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell $1.16, or 5%, to close at $24.25 per share on July 14, 2020. On October 14, 2020, the Company announced a $769 million provision expense for third quarter 2020, but the Company's CFO stated that further deterioration of the credit portfolio had been forestalled due to short-term customer accommodations provided since the start of the pandemic. On this news, Wells Fargo's stock price fell $1.49, or 6%, to close at $23.25 per share on October 14, 2020. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Wells Fargo had systematically failed to follow appropriate underwriting standards and due diligence guidelines in issuing billions of dollars' worth of commercial loans, including by inflating the net income and future expected cash flows of its commercial clients to justify issuing excessive loan amounts; (2) a materially higher proportion of Wells Fargo's commercial loans were to customers of poor credit quality and/or at a substantially higher risk of default than disclosed to investors; (3) Wells Fargo had failed to timely write down commercial loans, CLOs and CMBS on its books that had suffered impairments; (4) Wells Fargo had materially understated the reserves needed for expected credit losses in its commercial portfolios; (5) Wells Fargo had systematically misrepresented the credit quality and likelihood of default of the loans it packaged and securitized into CLOs and CMBS, including by artificially inflating the net income and expected cash flows of its commercial clients in loan and securitization documentation; (6) the CLO and CMBS-related loans issued and investment securities held by Wells Fargo were of lower credit quality and worth far less than represented to investors; (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements regarding the credit quality of its commercial loans, its underwriting and due diligence practices, and the value of its CLO and CMBS books were materially false and misleading; and (8) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was exposed to severe undisclosed risks of financial, reputational and legal harm, in particular in the event of significant and sustained stress in the commercial credit markets. If you purchased Wells Fargo securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of Wells Fargo & Company shareholders. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:WFC) WFC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 13, 2017 - October 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 29, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form-2?prid=10725&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wells Fargo & Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) although defendants reassured investors that Wells Fargo's commercial credit portfolios were of exceptional credit quality and the product of robust, industry-leading underwriting and due diligence policies and procedures, Wells Fargo actually fueled its rapid commercial loan growth by lending to businesses that posed a heightened risk of default; 2) Wells Fargo systematically concealed these credit risks by artificially inflating the incomes generated by borrowing businesses, relaxing or failing to follow applicable underwriting procedures, and circumventing applicable risk controls; and 3) Wells Fargo exacerbated the threat posed by its defective commercial debt by packaging the loans into CLOs and CMBS and widely distributing these securitized products throughout the financial system. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Schall Law Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or "the Company") (NYSE: WFC) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 13, 2017 and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before December 29, 2020. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, pls contact us. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Wells Fargo failed to maintain appropriate underwriting standards and accepted due diligence practices in offering billions of dollars' worth of commercial loans. The Company made a high proportion of its loans to customers with poor credit and a higher risk of default than it disclosed to the market. The Company failed to write down commercial loans that suffered impairments in a timely manner. The Company understated the reserves it required to balance expected losses in its portfolios. The Company inflated the net income and expected cash flows of its commercial clients in loan and securitization documents related to CLOs and CMBS. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Wells Fargo, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN] WESTERN FLYER: Beissel Sues Over Fraudulent Employment Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW BEISSEL; and J&B ENTERPRISES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTERN FLYER EXPRESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00638-JED-JFJ (N.D. Okla., Dec. 7, 2020) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant arising out of its "lease-purchase" business opportunity program whereby certain of its truck drivers leased trucks from Western Flyer's affiliate, R.W. Timms Leasing, LLC and simultaneously contracted with the Defendant to provide it driving services. According to the complaint, when selling the business opportunity program to truck drivers, the Defendant made uniform factual misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts about the economics of the driving opportunity, the income, and the miles the driving opportunity did and would provide in order to induce drivers to purchase the said opportunity. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant defrauded the drivers into paying for the bulk of the expenses of transporting goods for the Defendant's customers including such items as truck rental payments, gas, maintenance, computers, a variable mileage payment, and other expenses associated with the driving opportunity. After paying such expenses, the drivers often had little or no compensation or sometimes even owed the Defendant money despite the long hours they worked as drivers. Western Flyer Express, Inc. provides transportation services. The Company offers trucking terminal facilities, hauling, logistics, and satellite tracking services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Lawrence, Esq. RACHEL LAWRENCE MOR, P.C. Michael J. Blaschke, Esq. MICHAEL J. BLASCHKE, P.C. Landmark Towers West, Suite 1000 3555 N.W. 58th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Telephone: (405) 562-7771 Facsimile: (405) 285-9350 E-mail: rmor@thelawgroupokc.com mblaschke@thelawgroupokc.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. David Leimbach, 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 - and - Robert S. Boulter, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER 1101 5th Ave Suite310 San Rafael, CA 94901 Telephone: (415) 233-7100 E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com WHIRLPOOL: 9th Cir. Vacates $14.8MM Fee Award in Coupon Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that a new decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, vacating a $14.8 million fee award to class counsel in a case alleging that Whirlpool dishwashers were prone to overheat, seems likely to discourage plaintiffs' lawyers from agreeing to settlements in which a big chunk of the relief can be characterized as a coupon. Under the settlement agreement at the heart of the 9th Circuit case, class counsel's fees were to be paid directly by Whirlpool rather than coming from the class recovery. But the two sides could not agree on an amount. The company and plaintiffs' lawyers had widely divergent views on the value of the settlement, which included cash payments to dishwasher owners who had to repair or replace their appliances as well as rebates discounting the price of future dishwasher purchases. Plaintiffs' lawyers from Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith; Rifkind Weiner Livingston; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Cohon and Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher claimed the entire deal was worth as much as $116.7 million to the class. Whirlpool said that the actual class recovery would be more like $4.2 million, based on the 3.7% claims rate and deficient documentation by most of the owners seeking a cash payout. Rather than award fees based on a percentage of the settlement, U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin of Los Angeles based his fee award on class counsel's lodestar billings of nearly $9 million, applying a 1.68 multiplier for the "impressive" results and novelty of the case. Whirlpool, represented by Mayer Brown, appealed the fee award. Objectors represented by the Bandas Law Firm, Lang Hanigan & Carvalho, the Law Office of Sam Miorelli and Scott & Cain also appealed, protesting approval of the settlement as well as the fee award. The 9th Circuit panel – Judges Richard Clifton, Kenneth Lee and U.S. District Judge Frederic Block of Brooklyn – ruled in an opinion written by Judge Lee that 9th Circuit precedent in 2013's In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation and 2018's Easysaver Rewards Litigation precluded Judge Olguin from basing the fee award only on class counsel's lodestar billings. Those decisions held that the Class Action Fairness Act does not allow trial judges to award lodestar fees for coupon settlements. (Plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the rebates in the Whirlpool settlement were not coupons, but the 9th Circuit said they were because class members would have to lay out additional money to receive the credit, which applied only to the future purchase of a Whirlpool dishwasher within a limited timeframe.) When judges are setting fees for a "mixed" settlement that includes both cash and coupon components, the 9th Circuit said, the preferable method is to disaggregate the value of the cash and coupon components and add together separate calculations of appropriate fees for the two components. Fees for the non-coupon piece of the deal can be based on lodestar billings. The award for the coupon component should be a percentage of the value of the coupons to the class. Alternatively, the 9th Circuit said, a trial judge can base the entire fee award on lodestar billings, but only if he or she applies a multiplier to reflect redemption of the coupons. If class members don't actually use the coupons, the appeals court said, then trial judges should discount the lodestar. That gets complicated in a settlement like the Whirlpool deal, when dishwasher owners have a relatively long timeframe to use their rebate. But the 9th Circuit said judges can award fees on a staggered basis. The appeals court made clear that the adjusted lodestar method should only be used when it's too difficult to untangle the value of the two settlement components and that trial judges must provide an explanation when they adopt the disfavored approach. In this case, the 9th Circuit said, Judge Olguin should attempt on remand to figure out the redemption value of the coupons and the value of the cash relief. For the second component, the appeals court said, "the record provides ample evidence (including) evidence on the likely deficiency rate of the dishwashers, the value of coverage for future deficiencies and other relevant factors." (The 9th Circuit also said that its review of the record suggested that plaintiffs had overestimated the value of the deal, failing to account for deficient cash claims and projecting that future overheating claims per year would outstrip the total number of claims over the last decade.) I'm not sure, though, how trial judges can realistically segregate lodestar bills for the non-coupon portion of the deal from billings on the coupon component. Discovery and briefing isn't conducted on those two separate tracks, after all. In a case like this one, with high lodestar bills, relative to the class recovery, and an agreement that the defendant would pay class counsel's fees, plaintiffs lawyers might have been better off if the deal had not included a coupon component. As things stand, they can't claim their entire lodestar billings. Class counsel Steven Schwartz of Chimicles, who argued for plaintiffs' lawyers at the 9th Circuit, did not respond to my email query. Whirlpool said in an email statement that it was pleased with the decision. "The original fee awarded in this case was grossly disproportionate to the amount plaintiffs' lawyers recovered for their own clients, the class," the statement said. "The 9th Circuit's decision provides important guidance for determining a fee award that will be fair and reasonable to the class, plaintiffs' lawyers, and Whirlpool." Objectors' counsel Rob Clore of the Bandas firm, who urged the 9th Circuit to overturn approval of the settlement, said the ruling helps only Whirlpool, not class members. "Parties shouldn't be able to contract their way around the (CAFA) statute by segregating fees," Clore said by email. [GN] WOLF HALDENSTEIN: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Dec. 28 Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW" or the "Company") ( BMWYY, BAMXF) on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's") between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased ADR's of BMW and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of BMW, you may, no later than December 28, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the ADR's of BMW. On December 23, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was investigating whether BMW engaged in "sales punching," a practice in which "a company boosts sales figures by having dealers register cars as sold when the vehicles actually are still standing on car lots." On this news, the price of BMW's ADRs fell $1.33, or nearly 7%, to close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019. On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced an $18 million settlement agreement with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the SEC's order, from January 2015 to March 2017, the Company had "used its demonstrator and service loaner programs to boost reported retail sales volume and meet internal targets." It also stated that from 2015 to 2019, BMW kept a reserve of unreported retail vehicle sales, which is used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the actual sale occurred. Subsequently, BMW's ADR price fell $0.51, or about 2%, to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN] X-CART: Store Owners Mull Class Action Over Ransomware Attack ------------------------------------------------------------- Catalin Cimpanu, writing for ZDNet, reports that e-commerce software vendor X-Cart suffered a ransomware attack at the end of October that brought down customer stores hosted on the company's hosting platform. The incident is believed to have taken place after attackers exploited a vulnerability in a third-party software to gain access to X-Cart's store hosting systems. "We have identified what we believed to have been the vulnerability but do not wish to disclose the name until its confirmed by our security firm," Jeff Cohen, VP of Marketing for Seller Labs, the company behind X-Cart, told ZDNet in an email. Cohen said the attackers gained access to a small number of servers, which they encrypted, effectively bringing down X-Cart stores running on top of the impacted systems. Some stores went down completely, while others reported issues with sending email alerts. "The outage impacted a small percentage of our infrastructure, mainly those on our shared hosting servers. "Our core systems were not impacted," Cohen said. In the meantime, Cohen said that "all customer websites have since been restored." Nevertheless, the outage, which lasted for a few days, rubbed some store owners the wrong way, with a few trying to organize a class-action lawsuit against the store hoster. CLASS-ACTION LOOMING? In response to this initiative, Cohen said the company's "first priority" during the ransomware attack "has been to get every customer back online and ensure we have a stable and secure system." The Seller Labs exec said they are keeping communication channels open with any customer affected by the recent ransomware attack and encouraged them to reach out for help or discussions. Asked if Seller Labs paid the ransomware gang to recover its files, Cohen said they chose to restore from backups, and that payment couldn't be made either way because "the hackers didn't provide any way to communicate." X-Cart's free/downloadable e-commerce CMS isn't believed to have been impacted or tainted following the X-Cart ransomware incident. X-Cart joins a long list of ransomware incidents that have impacted web hosting and data center providers. The list also includes Equinix, CyrusOne, Cognizant, A2 Hosting, SmarterASP.NET, Dataresolution.net, and Internet Nayana. PortSwigger's The Daily Swig first reported on the X-Cart ransomware incident. ZDNet reported independently from a different source. [GN] ZOSANO PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 28 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued a statement for purchasers of Zosano Pharma securities: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Zosano Pharma Corporation ("Zosano") (NASDAQ: ZSAN) between February 13, 2017 and September 30, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/zosano-pharma-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=10724&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's clinical results reflected differences in zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects receiving different lots; (2) pharmocokinetic studies submitted in connection with the Company's New Drug Application included patients exhibiting unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan; (3) as a result of the foregoing differences among patient results, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was reasonably likely to require further studies to support regulatory approval of the Company's lead product candidate, Qtrypta; (4) as a result, regulatory approval of Qtrypta was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you suffered a loss in Zosano you have until December 28, 2020 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] [*] Bill to Outlaw Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that Joe Biden's ascendance to the presidency not only spells doom for many of the Trump administration's business-friendly employment policies, it also puts key tenets of federal labor law that have been in place for more than a half-century on the chopping block, experts say. Biden won the presidential race with his apparent victory in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, and though President Donald Trump is fighting the results in court, the former vice president said he was moving forward with his transition plans. Biden will bring with him to the White House an ambitious pro-labor platform aimed at giving workers and unions a leg up after four years in which the Trump administration moved the legal needle sharply in employers' direction. That includes his stated support for passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, a sweeping overhaul of federal labor law that Cameron Fox of Paul Hastings LLP said "will be the biggest change in labor law that we've seen in more than 75 years" if Democrats are able to get it passed. But Biden's platform during the campaign went well beyond just the PRO Act, with the president-elect having advocated for a wide range of policies that would turn an array of Trump's policies on their heads, including what workers' advocates have perceived to be lax enforcement of workplace safety rules as the coronavirus has spread. "The Trump administration has made numerous changes in the employment and labor law space that have largely favored employers -- including the federal government -- by rolling back Obama-era rules and by implementing policies and enforcement priorities that have limited protections for workers," said Michael Filoromo, a partner at plaintiffs firm Katz Marshall & Banks LLP. "Among other things, a Biden administration would almost certainly seek to reestablish Obama-era, pro-worker rules while expanding employer liability for unsafe working conditions as the pandemic continues." Here are four areas that labor and employment lawyers should be keeping an eye on after Biden moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The Gig Economy One of the Biden administration's biggest priorities will likely be to stymie the Trump administration's push to make it easier for businesses that operate in the so-called gig economy to classify their workers as independent contractors who enjoy fewer legal protections and benefits than employees. Just weeks before the election, the Trump Labor Department issued a long-awaited proposed rule that offers an expansive view of independent contracting under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The U.S. Department of Labor's proposal, which is still a long way from being finalized, reshuffled the existing worker classification test to emphasize employer control and worker entrepreneurship. Given that the rule came so late in the last year of Trump's term, it could be a prime target for the incoming Biden administration and congressional Democrats who may seek to impose a tougher classification standard either through the regulatory process or through legislation. "I would suspect . . . they'll pursue it via regulation immediately to try to effectuate some change or at the very least withdraw some of the pronouncements that have been out there by the DOL," said Ron Holland, a California-based partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP. The Trump administration's rule stands in stark contrast to a law passed last year in California known as A.B. 5, which enshrined a stringent legal standard for assessing whether workers in the Golden State are employees or independent contractors, known as the ABC test. The law has drawn intense scorn from the gig economy companies, which backed a successful ballot measure to overturn it. Independent contractors generally aren't protected by wage, discrimination and other laws that apply to employees. "California is … often on the cutting edge -- at least from the plaintiffs' perspective -- of employment protections," Filoromo of Katz Marshall said, highlighting the Golden State's efforts to rein in independent contractor misclassification as a notable example. Seizing on California's move and in response to the DOL's proposal, Democrats in Congress introduced expansive legislation during the Trump administration that would codify a version of the ABC test into federal law — a goal Biden has supported during his campaign — and have it apply to a wide swath of employment laws on top of the FLSA. Those legislative efforts may be kicked into overdrive after Inauguration Day passes, depending on the final makeup of Congress. As of Nov. 6, two Senate races in Georgia appear headed for a runoff election that may determine which party controls the upper chamber. "If independent contractors are going to become employees because of the ABC test, you should see a spike in union organizing and you should see a bump in the percentage of organized labor from where we are now," Holland said, but cautioned that he believes "there'll be constitutional challenges" to the new laws should they pass. About-Face at the NLRB On the labor law side of the ledger, the Biden administration will have a chance to quickly remake the National Labor Relations Board, an agency that is known for engaging in dramatic policy shifts depending on which party controls the White House. Under Trump, the board's Republican majority wiped out dozens of Obama-era decisions and initiatives, both through cases that came before it and through regulation. Among its moves, the Trump board issued regulations rewriting how affiliated businesses can be deemed joint employers of the same workers under the National Labor Relations Act and sought to overturn parts of an Obama-era rule meant to streamline the union election process. The Trump NLRB has also proposed a rule that limits unions' access to worker contact information and makes college teaching assistants ineligible to form unions, while also issuing decisions that made it easier for employers to limit access to their property and made it simpler to fire workers for offensive or profane outbursts. Early in his term, Biden will have an opportunity to nominate a new NLRB general counsel, a key role in which the officeholder functions as the agency's prosecutor, oversees its nationwide network of regional offices, and handles day-to-day financial and personnel matters. The president-elect may also quickly tap someone to fill an existing vacancy on the five-person labor board, and he will be able to create a Democratic majority on the board when Trump appointee William Emanuel's term expires in August 2021. "There has been a strong effort under the Trump administration to return federal labor law to what it looked like before the Obama administration had come in and, in many ways, changed labor law in favor of workers," said Fox, the Paul Hastings attorney, whose practice includes a heavy focus on traditional labor law. "That is a top priority for the Democrats to remedy if they take power. So traditional labor issues will be, I think, top of the list of issues that they want to address quickly." Beyond just reconstituting the NLRB so that it takes a more worker-friendly approach to key issues, the Biden administration's backing of the PRO Act signals that key tenets of labor law that have been in place in the post-World War II era may be up for revision, according to Fox. The bill, which cleared the House of Representatives nearly a year ago and enjoys widespread Democratic support, would make it easier for workers to form unions, defang states' so-called right-to-work laws, outlaw the use of class action waivers in arbitration agreements and codify into federal law a more worker-friendly joint employer test than what the Trump NLRB adopted through regulation. Biden has touted the PRO Act as a central pillar of his labor and employment agenda and has indicated in campaign literature that he'd support provisions that go even further that what is included in the current bill. "If the PRO Act passes the Senate, it will very quickly usher in a new era that changes the balance . . . very strongly for unions and worker protections in a way that we've never seen," Fox said. Narrowing the Pay Gap A tertiary effect of the Trump administration having pursued a range of policies perceived as being favorable to employers is that Democratic states and municipalities became even more aggressive in addressing workplace issues that received short shrift on the federal level. One of those areas was pay discrimination, where states like California and New York were among the leaders in making fair pay laws "more robust," according to Felicia Davis of Paul Hastings. With Biden winning the White House and if Democrats ultimately obtain a majority in the Senate, Davis said she expects the Biden administration to seek to strengthen federal fair pay laws, either through new legislation or through regulatory actions. "I would expect a Biden administration to certainly focus on pay issues," Davis said. "It's in the forefront of a lot of people's minds." Exactly how those efforts will work, however, "is an open question," according to Davis, who noted that Vice President-elect Kamala Harris floated an "aggressive pay equity proposal" when she sought the Democratic nomination that would have penalized employers who didn't make progress on the issue. "I don't know if she or Biden would attempt to push more legislation if elected, but I certainly would expect that under a Biden administration, pay equity would again become a focus of the federal agencies as well," Davis added. Diversity Training: A 'Minute One' Priority Another move that Trump made late in the game that will likely draw a quick rebuke from Biden was his executive order banning federal contractors from conducting certain types of diversity training that the outgoing president deemed to be "anti-American." The controversial executive order issued Sept. 22 said federal contractors couldn't conduct any workplace training that "inculcates in its employees any form of race or sex stereotyping or any form of race or sex scapegoating," such as trainings that espouse views that "an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously." The DOL's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which was tasked with enforcing the mandate, asked contractors in October for information about diversity training programs that may run afoul of Trump's directive. Business groups, however, quickly urged the Trump administration to roll back the executive order, arguing that the restrictions are unclear and will sow confusion into what diversity programs contractors are allowed to implement. Holland, for one, said the incoming Biden administration will see the executive order as low-hanging fruit that can be quickly discarded as soon as the new administration officially takes power. "I don't know that Biden needs to issue his own identical executive order or opposite executive order, but the Trump executive order regarding training . . . is going to be withdrawn," Holland said. "It wouldn't surprise me if that was withdrawn minute one by a Biden administration." [GN] [*] Gig Worker Classification Battles Continue Through Covid-19 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dori Goldstein and Ricard Pochkhanawala, writing for Bloomberg Law, report that gig worker classification battles have continued through Covid-19 and are spreading to new fronts. Beyond private class action lawsuits, the central question of whether gig workers are employees or independent contractors is giving rise to state litigation against companies, new labor regulations, and an epic state ballot initiative campaign. These trends will play out over the next few years, but Covid has already intensified the fight by raising the stakes for worker classification. Driven largely by the ride-sharing industry, the swelling gig economy and workforce are comprising increasing shares of the overall U.S. economy and labor market. If gig workers are not employees, it means that, amid Covid, they are without basic protections like unemployment insurance and leave benefits. But gig companies caution that if the extra costs of providing benefits to workers cause their business models to collapse, even more people will lose their livelihoods. New Court Battles The lengthy struggle between gig drivers who try to keep their claims in the courts and companies that try to divert those cases into arbitration is heading into a new phase, as federal appeals courts take up the issue. Conflicting decisions could prompt one or both sides to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve any circuit split. The overall number of new federal class action filings in 2020 are lower than those at the same point in 2019. This might be due, at least in part, to the pandemic. But it might also be true that drivers are starting to rely on states to bring classification suits against companies. In California v. Uber, the nation's most populous state has a high-profile enforcement action against ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft to compel their compliance with Assembly Bill 5, which makes it harder to treat drivers as contractors as opposed to employees. This enforcement action poses a potent threat to rideshare companies in two ways that private class actions do not. First, the companies cannot delay and divert enforcement actions away from the courts and into arbitration, as they do when workers bring class actions, which are bound by arbitration agreements. Second, when a state files suit, small confidential settlements are impossible. The lawsuit's success in the courts has so far been affirmed on appeal, as the case moves up the state judicial system. Separately, the Supreme Court of California is considering, in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising, whether its strict test for classifying workers as contractors, later codified in A.B. 5, applies to companies retroactively. California's Uber suit has already prompted Massachusetts to bring a similar classification action against a wider set of gig companies. A trend toward more states litigating worker classification against gig companies is likely to result. All In on Proposition 22 Uber has hinted that the worker classification fight represents an existential threat to its business, so it's not surprising that it and other gig companies went all in on a California ballot measure that sidesteps A.B. 5 and avoids those court battles. Proposition 22, which was successfully passed by California voters Nov. 3, turned out to be the most expensive ballot initiative in the state's history. As of Oct. 15, gig companies spent an astounding $188.9 million supporting the measure, outspending opponents of Proposition 22 by nearly 12:1. Despite its high cost, the passage of Proposition 22 is a huge victory for gig companies. The few worker concessions written into the proposition, like a weak minimum wage and a health care stipend, are far less expensive than the benefits workers would have been entitled to as employees under California law. And even those weak benefits aren't exactly guaranteed: The measure lacks any enforcement mechanism. The measure also prohibits California cities and counties from applying their own worker protections to independent contracts. It forecloses on any hopes of amendment by requiring that any changes be consistent with the intent of the measure and supported by an unprecedented seven-eighths majority in the California legislature. And, if gig companies are sued under Proposition 22, the law requires state officials to represent or to fund the representation of the companies, not the workers. Taking Proposition 22 on the Road? Uber said that it intends to push for similar laws in other states, but has signaled that it's hoping to do so with union buy-in -- something it didn't have in California. Although a deal with union support would likely be much cheaper for the company, getting that support will be a challenge. Uber has been trying to find a compromise with unions in New York for several years, and, now with an incoming administration that's more friendly to workers, the unions may have little reason to budge. DOL Weighs In While gig companies have been waging war in California, the U.S. Labor Department has been working on its own worker classification regulation. The regulation hasn't been finalized, but the proposed version presents a much more business-friendly approach than existing federal law. Despite Uber's best efforts to endear itself to the Biden administration, that approach isn't likely to be well-received by the incoming administration. Even if the DOL rule is finalized before President Trump leaves office, it's vulnerable to the Congressional Review Act and could be rescinded or replaced with a more worker-friendly version by the incoming DOL. Future Still in Doubt While the Proposition 22 victory in California and a business-friendly federal regulation may suggest that gig companies are marching toward victory, that's not the full story. Gig workers have won in the courts, are starting to mobilize, are getting support from state governments, and, despite gig companies' efforts, can expect to see support from the incoming administration. The worker classification war is far from over. [GN] [*] Potential Lawsuit May Hit Insurers for Pandemic Policy ---------------------------------------------------------- insidetucsonbusiness.com reports that insurance companies continue to deny business-interruption claims during the pandemic, business owners across the country - and Pima County - may get a chance to join a potential class-action lawsuit taking on the coverage providers. A South Florida law firm is attempting to get their lawsuit against an Arizona-based reinsurance company nationwide class-action certification, which could lead to devastating financial losses for the insurance industry as a whole if the firm is victorious. Steven C. Marks, counsel for Actors Playhouse Inc. who operates the Miracle Theatre in Coral Gables, Florida, said his client suffered tremendous losses when forced to shut down amid virus concerns back in March. When Miracle Theatre attempted to file a business-interruption claim with their provider, General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona, the claim was promptly denied. The reason: The all-risk policy only covers incidents involving physical damage or loss to the insured property. "It seems if the business didn't have an explicit agreement about pandemic coverage, the insurance companies don't think they're entitled to pay," Marks said. "Certainly (insurance companies) have coordinated responses because they've all taken the same stance." Marks firm Podhurst Orseck also represents numerous theaters, restaurants, salons and other businesses affected in the South Florida area. They claim their all-risk coverage policies did not have a virus exclusion clause when they bought their policy and wouldn't think to ask about it since insurers covered claims made during the 2003 SARS epidemic. Back then, providers "never made arguments that you have to establish property damage or physical property loss," said Marks. "The only reason we're seeing the refusal of insurers to pay these claims is largely because of the scope," said Marks. "If the economic losses were not as significant, I think you would find a lot of these insurers would have bit the bullet and honored these claims." While the case is currently limited to South Florida, Marks' team is trying to receive class action certification, which would allow businesses throughout the country to join the suit against the insurance industry as a whole. But first, they'll have to survive procedural challenges by the insurers' counsel. Then Marks' team will have to establish insurance companies knew pandemics were assumed covered when selling all-risk policies before gaining certification. "We will be taking depositions, obtaining documents and trying to establish that these policies are uniform and they were underwritten with the knowledge that (a pandemic) was a covered risk," Marks said. "Insurance companies charged a higher premium under the assumption there was coverage for a pandemic. Once we establish commonality among all of these various insurers, we can move forward with class action certification." This could be good news for local business owners like Micah Blatt, who owns The Drunken Chicken and Mr. Head's Art Gallery and Bar on Fourth Avenue. Blatt purchased two different policies from two different insurers, both with business-interruption coverage, but when he inquired about filing a claim, the answer was the same-your all-risk coverage doesn't cover pandemics. "I never got to the point of sending in a claim. They basically told me 'Don't waste your time,'" Blatt said. "We're getting told business-interruption insurance only covers things like if the building catches on fire or if we get robbed and they steal our property. Then insurance will kick in." So far, the owner estimates he's lost "20 percent of our income for 2020" that won't be recovered. He fears another shutdown could be looming with the holiday season right around the corner. If businesses like his are shuttered again, he wonders what the future of his bar and restaurant will be, especially as he still continues to pay on a worthless-yet required-policy? "There's always this potential for the rest of the year that two weeks after each holiday we could get closed down with no notice if cases spike. This is disastrous for bars and restaurants that tend to carry thousands of dollars of perishables on hand," Blatt said. "Insurance companies are shady and they expect their money every month while they do their part not to pay you. It just seems they always find a loophole not to pay people." [GN] [*] Seyfarth Discusses Workplace Class Action Trends Under Biden ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Jennifer A. Riley, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP report that with the final election results in (or nearly in…), and the White House set to turn "blue" for the next four years, employers can expect the change to bring shifts to the workplace class action landscape. Employers should anticipate that, while leadership of the EEOC will remain in place through the short term, Mr. Biden will bring policy changes on other fronts that may take shape through legislative efforts, agency action and regulation, and enforcement litigation. Contrary to the pro-business approach of the Trump Administration, many of these efforts may be intended to expand the rights, remedies, and procedural avenues available to workers and, as a result, have the potential to shake up the workplace class action landscape. Employers should expect that, as the Biden Administration takes charge, multiple trends may take shape on the workplace class action front. 1. Continued Refocus Away From Systemic Litigation At The EEOC: President Trump appointed three Republican commissioners to the EEOC whose terms solidify a Republican majority through at least July 2022, irrespective of which party holds the White House. As a result, it is likely that the EEOC will continue its shift away from systemic litigation as a priority at least through the first few years of the Biden presidency. That being said, a future Democratic chair at the EEOC – operating in the minority – may seek to turn the Commission's agenda (even if ever so slightly), or influence it in a way that aligns more closely with the agenda of the Biden Administration. Significant for employers, during the past year, the EEOC has undertaken multiple initiatives that reflect a shift away from systemic litigation as a priority. First, on February 4, 2020, Chair Janel Dhillon announced five priorities for 2020, none of which included a systemic litigation focus. Although the Chair acknowledged that the Commission will continue to pursue litigation as vigorous advocates, she opined that "litigation is truly a last resort and not an appropriate substitute for rule-making or legislation." (Read more here.) Second, on March 10, 2020, the EEOC released its Resolution Concerning the Commission's Authority to Commence or Intervene in Litigation whereby, in short, it removed authority over EEOC litigation activities from the General Counsel and reassigned the authority to commence or intervene in systemic discrimination litigation solely to the Commissioners. To the extent that Republic appointed Commissioners – who hold the majority – are the decision-makers of last resort when it comes to initiation of agency litigation, employers may see less rather than more government enforcement lawsuits. (Read more here.) Third, on October 8, 2020, the EEOC released a notice of proposed rule-making that overhauled the conciliation process with the goal of improving its transparency and effectiveness. The EEOC stated that its proposed amendments will establish "basic information disclosure requirements that will make it more likely that employers have a better understanding of the EEOC's position in conciliation and, thus, make it more likely that the conciliation will be successful." (Read more here.) The agency's filings over the past year reflect this trend and a continued shift away from litigation. For instance, after more than doubling its inventory of systemic filings between FY 2016 and FY 2018 (with 18 in FY 2016, 30 in FY 2017, and 37 in FY 2018), the EEOC's systemic filings dropped to 17 in FY 2019. Total filings followed a similar trajectory, with 136 in FY 2016, 202 in FY 2017, 217 in FY 2018, but only 149 in FY 2019 and 101 in FY 2020. (Read more here.) 2. A Resurgent Plaintiffs' Class Action Bar: Because the EEOC's leadership likely will remain in place through at least mid-2022, it is likely that the EEOC will remain on its current trajectory into a Biden Presidency. But, as forces of change are apt to be in play, employers can expect other factors to fill the void if the Commission is not aligned with the Biden Administration in terms of a pro-worker litigation focus. Over the past decade, the plaintiffs' class action bar has been both innovator and activist in finding its way around defense-centric legal precedents -- such as the more rigorous class action standards established in Wal-Mart-Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). Emboldened by a new public policy focus on workers' rights, the plaintiffs' class action bar is apt to ramp up its case-filings and efforts to stretch the legal envelope in workplace litigation. The bottom line is that employers can expect to see the void of government enforcement litigation filled by private employment-related litigation. 3. Renewed Efforts To Change The Arbitration and Class Action Waiver Landscape: As the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of rulings culminating in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), which validated the enforceability of mandatory workplace arbitration agreements with class action waivers, lawmakers launched efforts to modify that landscape. Employers should expect a Biden Administration to reinvigorate those efforts, particularly if accompanied by a shift in the landscape of leadership and compromise in the Senate. On February 28, 2019, for instance, U.S. Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) and U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced "The Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act" (the "FAIR Act"). The FAIR Act would have prohibited pre-dispute arbitration agreements that forced employees and other individuals, such as applicants or independent contractors, to arbitrate future disputes and prohibited agreements that restricted such persons from participating in class or collective actions related to employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights matters. Similar efforts took the form of the "Restoring Justice for Workers Act," introduced in the House on October 30, 2018, and the "Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act of 2017," introduced in the Senate on December 6, 2017. Employers should expect similar efforts during a Biden presidency, particularly if the balance of power shifts closer to a Democratic majority in the Senate. During the past several years, many employers large and small have adopted mandatory arbitration programs to manage disputes with their prospective hires and existing workforces. As a result, if taken up for a vote and signed into law, employers should anticipate that such measures would work a sweeping change in both the forums and procedural mechanisms available for dispute resolution in that they would redirect litigation to the courts and reintroduce class and collective action devices into the toolkits of the plaintiffs' bar. 4. An Uptick In Wage & Hour Litigation: As a key element of Biden's platform, he decried "wage theft" and claimed that employers "steal" billions each year from working people by paying less than the minimum wage. As a candidate, Biden represented that he would push for enactment of legislation that makes worker misclassification a substantive violation of law and build on efforts by the Obama Administration to drive an effort to dramatically reduce worker misclassification. Such statements, among others, signal that the Biden Administration will take efforts to reverse pro-business measures of the Trump Administration's Department of Labor ("DOL") that arguably narrowed application of minimum wage and overtime requirements. On March 16, 2020, for instance, the Trump DOL adopted a final rule narrowing the definition of "joint employer" thereby limiting the circumstances under which multiple companies could be deemed to "employ" the same workers. On September 22, 2020, the Trump DOL proposed a rule broadening the "independent contractor" test thereby making it easier for companies to classify workers as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Employers can expect the Biden administration to shift these efforts, which may include abandoning defense of the joint employer rule (although a federal district judge struck down portions of the rule on September 8, 2020, he subsequently permitted business groups to intervene in the lawsuit) and may include new rulemaking to rescind the independent contractor rule or adoption of new regulations that provide more worker-protective interpretations of employee status under the FLSA. By expanding the group of workers who qualify as "employees" under the FLSA, such measures may expand the application of minimum wage and overtime requirements and, in turn, broaden the scope of litigation and raise the stakes for employers. 5. A Narrowing Of Exemption Defenses: Along a similar line, employers may see renewed efforts to narrow exemption defenses. Although the FLSA requires employers generally to pay minimum wage and overtime, DOL regulations identify several exceptions, including multiple categories of workers who are exempt from such requirements due to their duties and salary. In May 2016, the Obama DOL issued new rules that increased the minimum salary required to qualify for white collar exemptions. After a district judge halted their implementation, however, and found that the DOL exceeded its authority, the agency dismissed its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Biden Administration, however, may pick up the reigns on these issues and renew efforts to increase the minimum salary test. Such efforts, if successful, may increase the value of potential litigation over the proper classification of workers, making such suits more attractive to the plaintiffs' class action bar. 6. A Potential Litigation Shift Away From Federal Courts: Perceiving that President Trump's judicial selections have tilted the federal courts, employers may see the Plaintiffs' bar file and attempt to pursue more lawsuits in state court. As of November 4, 2020, the Senate has confirmed 220 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including three associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, 53 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, and 162 judges for the United States District Courts. Trump's appointees account for approximately 25% of all active judges in the federal court system. Given perceived changes to the federal judiciary by President Trump, particularly at the appellate level, employers may expect to see the plaintiffs' class action bar opting where possible for a state forum or tailoring their complaints to avoid jurisdictional thresholds. Conclusion The workplace class action landscape is anything but static. As the Biden Presidency begins, employers are likely to see shifts. If Mr. Biden pursues an expected agenda, those shifts may enhance the scope and value of workplace class action litigation. [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 ***