/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201223.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 23, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 256
Headlines
6S INC: Bishop Alleges Americans w/ Disabilities Act Breach
7 ELEVEN: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit
ALPHABET INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit in California
AMETEK INC: $3.5-Mil. Settlement in Cox Suit Has Final Approval
ANDREU PALMA: Class Certification Sought in Crowder FDCPA Suit
ARIZONA: Moore's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
BAR 20 DAIRY: Court Vacates Class Certification Dates in Maciel
BAYLOR SCOTT: Medical Professionals Class Certified in Kunze Suit
BB MANAGEMENT: Underpays Building Service Employees, Cid Claims
BERRY CORPORATION: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
BIOGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Jan. 12 Deadline
BIOGEN INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds Investors of January 12 Deadline
BLOOMBERG L.P.: Adams Seeks to Certify Class of Support Reps.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Suit
BURLINGTON COAT: $19.7M Goodman/Kawa Settlement Gets Final Approval
CHANGYOU.COM LTD: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
CHINA: Bid to Certify Class of PBSP Inmates in Stuckey Suit Denied
COOK MEDICAL: Class Action Over Retrievable IVC Filters Certified
COVIA HOLDINGS: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
COVIA HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 8 Deadline
CRICKET WIRELESS: Thomas' Bid to Compel Denied Without Prejudice
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Dismissal of Edwards' Breach Claim Flipped
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NJ: Milbourne's Prelim. Injunction Bids Denied
CURTIS INT'L: Compelled to Reply to Scanlon Suit Interrogatories
DEWEY SERVICES: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Padilla Suit Affirmed
DIETZ & WATSON: Faces Class Action Over Smokey Flavor Labeling
DIVERSITY AT WORK: Court Certifies Delivery Drivers Class
DOMO INC: Exkae Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
DOVETAIL ENERGY: Residents File Class Action Over Noxious Odors
DR. ERROL GAUM: Faces Suit Over Misconduct on Young Patients
FIDELITONE LAST: Caballero Suit Remanded to Alameda Super. Court
FINANCE SYSTEM: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Larkin & Sandri Suits
FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline
FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 24 Deadline
FIRST AMERICAN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 24 Deadline
FLORIDA: Initial Approval of Barnett Suit Settlement Sought
FLUIDIGM CORP: Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel Named in Jermain Suit
FORD MOTOR: $5.3MM Settlement in Kommer Suit Gets Final Approval
FRERES DE SAINT-GABRIEL: Court Okays Sexual Assault Class Action
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Court Revives Homebuyers Taxes Class Action
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Foley & Lardner Discusses Ruling in FACTA Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Takes Up Securities Class Action Appeal
GOLDMAN SACHS: NECA-IBEW Class Counsel May File Letter Under Seal
GOLDMAN SACHS: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Class Action
GREENSKY INC: Wright Class Suit Removed to S.D Florida
HORIZON HEALTH: Proposed Suit Involving Ex Nurse Back in Court
HOSTESS: Faces Fake Flavoring Class Action in California
IGS SOLUTIONS: Faces Mendivil Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Wilson Suit Moved to Los Angeles Super. Court
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 4 Deadline
JAGUAR LAND: George Files Fraud Suit in D. New Jersey
JONES DAY: Class Cert. Bid Under Equal Pay Act Denied as Moot
JONES DAY: Gender Discrimination Class Action Dropped
JONES DAY: Plaintiffs May Drop Gender Pay Discrimination Lawsuit
JOYY INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
JUUL LABS: Wadsworth Schools to Join Vaping Class Action
K12 INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
KANYE WEST: Facing $1MM Lawsuits Over Treatment of Opera Workers
LC3S INC: Odle Files Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS' Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v. LLANY Ongoing
LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Hawkins Suit Seeks Class Certification
MAESTRO CONSULTING: Roberson BIPA Suit to Remain in S.D. Illinois
MAESTRO CONSULTING: Squire Patton Discusses Ruling in BIPA Claims
MASTERCARD: UK Supreme Court Enables $18.5BB Consumer Class Action
MCDONALDS'S RESTAURANTS: California Court Terminates Rocha Suit
MDL 2705: Mayer Brown Discusses Parmesan Cheese Court Ruling
MM879 INC: Court Approves Class Notice Administration in Cruz Suit
MUNDI 910: Responds to Class Action Lawsuit Over Deadly Fire
MY PILLOW: Class of CSRs in Deutch Suit Conditionally Certified
NCAA: Justices to Take on Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
NEOVASC INC: Zhang Investor Reminds Investors of Jan. 5 Deadline
NEW YORK LIFE: Rejects Applicants With Arrest Records, Suit Says
NEW YORK: J.T. Appeals Order in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Circuit
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Chong Class Suit
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Hagens Berman Reminds of February 2 Deadline
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Kendall Is Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
OREGON: Prison Inmates' COVID-19 Class Action Can Proceed
PINTEREST INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Jan. 22 Deadline
PINTEREST INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of January 22 Deadline
PLAINS MARKETING: Henry Price Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
POPULAR INC: Torres Putative Class Action Concluded
QIWI PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Claims on Behalf of Investors
QIWI PLC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Wants Retirement Plan Class Action Dismissed
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 29 Deadline
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS: Summary Judgment in Hinkle Class Suit Affirmed
SASOL LIMITED: Weil Gotshal Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: $525K Settlement in Garcia Has Final Approval
SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Garcia Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
SCHOOL ZONE PUBLISHING: Monegro Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
SECURITY LIFE: Partial Summary Judgment in Zhuo Insurance Suit OK'd
SGS AUTOMOTIVE: Carroll Asks Court to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial
SOLARWINDS CORP: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Carter COBRA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
SP PLUS: Pena Seeks to Certify Class of Parking Attendants
SPLUNK INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 2 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of February 2 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of February 2 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of February 2 Deadline
SUBWAY: Quebec's Court of Appeal Authorizes New Class Action
TALBOTS INC: Court Dismisses Piper's Claim for Unjust Enrichment
TESLA INC: Azealia Banks Subpoenaed in Funding Secured Lawsuit
TRANSUNION: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari Petition in FCRA Suit
TRANSUNION: Supreme Court Grants Review of FCRA Class Action
TURNING POINT: Bid for Class Certification in Reynolds Suit Denied
TURNING POINT: Court Partly Grants Class Cert. Bid in Reynolds Suit
TURNKEY VACATION: Cahill Appeals W.D. Tex. Judgment to Fifth Cir.
TWITTER: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class-Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 2021 Hearing Continued to Later Date
ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP: Class Certification Granted in Suit
UNITED STATES: All Individual Defendants Dismissed From Doe Suit
UNITED STATES: Jones Appeals W.D. Okla. Ruling to Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES: Tita Appeals Fed. Claims Ruling to Fed. Circuit
US BANK: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in McGovern UCL Suit
USP CANAAN: Burroughs, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
USP CANAAN: Hubbard, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
WELLS FARGO: Schall Law Reminds Investors of December 29 Deadline
ZOSANO PHARMA: Zhang Investor Reminds of December 28 Deadline
[*] Epiq Attorneys Discuss GDPR's Influence on Class Proceedings
[*] ONTARIO: Dismissal of Basic Income Class Action for Appeal
[*] Persistent Securities Class Action Presents Risk for D&O
*********
6S INC: Bishop Alleges Americans w/ Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
6S, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 6S, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10604
(S.D. N.Y., Dec. 15, 2020).
6s, Inc. is located in Huntington Beach, CA, United States and is
part of the Health Supplement Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
7 ELEVEN: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
7 Eleven, Inc. failed to provide their California employees
accurate wages or suitable seating conditions. The 7 Eleven, Inc.,
class action lawsuit, Case No. 37-2020-00043637-CU-OE-CTL, is
currently pending in the San Diego Superior Court of the State of
California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here.
The complaint alleges 7 Eleven, Inc. failed to compensate employees
for all the time they were under DEFENDANT's control. Employees
were from time to time interrupted by work assignments during meal
or rest periods. DEFENDANT knew or should have known that PLAINTIFF
and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members were working off the clock and
were not being paid their correct minimum wage and overtime
compensation.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges wrongful termination by the
employer, in violation of public policy and violation of the
California Labor Code for alleged failure to provide seating.
Employees spend the vast majority of their working time behind
counters, which can reasonably be accomplished while using a
seat/stool. In violation of the applicable sections of the
California Labor Code and the requirements of the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order, DEFENDANT
allegedly knowingly failed to provide suitable seating
accommodations.
If you would like to know more about the 7 Eleven, Inc. 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. [GN]
ALPHABET INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNBC reports that online publishers including Genius Media Group
and news website The Nation alleged in a lawsuit seeking
class-action status on Dec. 16 that Alphabet's Google has
unlawfully stifled advertising competition, hurting their
businesses.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California,
resembles an antitrust complaint filed earlier in the day by Texas
and nine other U.S. states against Google.
Genius, which provides song lyrics, and two online magazines the
Nation and the Progressive, said they used Google software to sell
ads but received what they viewed as an unfair split of sales
because the search giant had taken over the market.
"Through its campaign of anticompetitive conduct, Google has
achieved and maintained a monopoly or near-monopoly in (the)
marketplace by erecting a toll bridge between publishers and
advertisers and charging an unlawfully high price for passage," the
lawsuit stated.
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but
the company repeatedly has responded to similar accusations by
saying that Facebook and other companies offer competitive services
to media companies.
The plaintiffs ask the court to order Google to divest its unit
that makes the ad-selling software and refrain from competing in
that business. They also seek punitive damages.
The complaint is the latest among several antitrust actions brought
against Google by online advertisers or other businesses that say
they have been affected by Google's growing clout. The Texas-led
lawsuit covers many of their concerns, too, and separately at least
36 states plan to sue Google on Dec. 17 over additional
anticompetitive conduct on the web.
Genius last year in a lawsuit accused Google of breaching a
contract by using lyrics data in search results, but a judge
dismissed the case in August. [GN]
AMETEK INC: $3.5-Mil. Settlement in Cox Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAM COX, individually, by and through his durable
power of attorney, VICTOR COX, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; MARIA OVERTON, individually, and on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated; JORDAN YATES, individually,
and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated; Plaintiffs
v. AMETEK, INC., a Delaware corporation; THOMAS DEENEY,
individually; SENIOR OPERATIONS LLC, a limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry A. Burns of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action
settlement, and for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards.
Class Representative Overton owns and lives in a mobile home unit
at Greenfield Mobile Estates in El Cajon, California. Class
Representative Yates is a former resident of a mobile home unit in
the nearby Villa Cajon Mobile Home Estate. Those two mobile home
parks and Starlight Mobile Home Park are adjacent to a
manufacturing facility formerly owned by Ametek, Inc. and later
owned by Senior Operations, LLC.
Overton, Yates, and Cox filed an Amended Complaint in the action
against Ametek, former Ametek officer Deeney, and Senior
Operations. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants contaminated
the groundwater with waste chemicals and then failed to remediate
the resulting plume of polluted water, exposing units and residents
in the Mobile Home Parks to unsafe indoor air concentrations of
richloroethylene. The Amended Complaint asserts causes of action
for negligence, gross negligence, and public nuisance on behalf of
a putative class of current owners and current and former residents
of units in the Mobile Home Parks.
The Parties entered into a Settlement Agreement that, following one
amendment and one modification, would resolve the action and settle
the putative class' claims if the Court certifies the class and
approves the Settlement. On April 14, 2020, the Court entered its
Preliminary Approval Order approving the Settlement, certifying the
Class, appointing the Class representatives and Class the Counsel,
and scheduling a final approval hearing.
The Court conducted two hearings to determine whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, in the best interests of
the Class, and free from collusion, such that the Court should
grant Final Approval of the Settlement, and to consider the
Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and
litigation expenses, and incentives for the Class Representatives.
Under the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Defendants confer a
benefit of $3.5 million on the roughly 7,000-person class, in the
form of medical consultations and remediation and mitigation of the
plume. Of that amount, $1.5 million will be paid into a Medical
Consultation Fund.
Each member of the Medical Consultation Subclass is entitled to one
medical consultation with a doctor selected by the Class Counsel to
receive any or all of the following procedures, according to the
advice of a physician selected at the Subclass Member's discretion:
(i) history and physical examination by board-certified physician;
(ii) blood chemistry, blood count and microscopy urinalysis; (iii)
kidney CT scan (in a follow-up appointment, if deemed necessary);
and (iv) liver ultrasound or MRI (in a follow-up appointment, if
deemed necessary).
Ametek will also pay $1 million into a fund dedicated to
monitoring, remediation, and mitigation activities related to the
plume, including sampling and mitigation in the homes of members of
the Sampling/Mitigation Program Subclass. Those Subclass Members
are each entitled to receive two indoor air samples per year for
two years, to be conducted in a manner consistent with and
according to sampling protocols approved by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
The Amended Settlement Agreement entitles the Class Counsel to
reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the action
and in reaching the Settlement in the amount of $700,000, to be
paid at the time and in the manner provided in the Amended
Settlement Agreement. To compensate the Class Representatives for
the burdens of their active involvement in the action and their
efforts on behalf of the Class, Overton and Yates will get $5,000
each as incentive awards.
Based upon his considerations and the Court's findings of fact and
conclusions of law as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order,
Judge Burns finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, in light of the complexity, expense, and
likely duration of the litigation (including appellate
proceedings), as well as the risks involved in establishing
liability, damages, and the appropriateness of class treatment
through trial and appeal. The Amended Settlement Agreement
provides relief that is meaningful and commensurate to the claims
released by that Agreement.
Accordingly, the Judge granted Final Approval of the Settlement and
certified the Settlement Class. He appointed Overton and Yates as
the Class Representatives, and approved the requested incentive
awards in the Fee Motion. The Law Offices of Baron & Budd are
appointed as the Class Counsel and the attorneys' fees are
approved.
The Court also appointed Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
as the Claims Administrator, and approved the payments to the
Claims Administrato. Epiq will be paid in the time and manner
provided in the Amended Settlement Agreement, according to its
invoices in an amount up to $185,000. Any costs beyond that amount
may be permitted pursuant to further Court order.
The Judge granted the Joint Motion for Consent to Exercise
Jurisdiction by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiffs' claims
are dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the
Order without any award of attorneys' fees or costs except as
provided in the Order. The Court will address the pending
third-party claims by separate order.
The Parties are directed to implement the Amended Settlement
Agreement according to its terms.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Final Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3h3P7KB from Leagle.com.
ANDREU PALMA: Class Certification Sought in Crowder FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN CROWDER,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated class members, v.
ANDREU, PALMA, LAVIN & SOLIS, PLLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00820-SPC-NPM
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), defined as:
"all persons with physical addresses from within this
Judicial District who were sent a similarly worded Demand
Letter by the Defendant within one year of the filing of
this Civil Action (or until Defendant modifies its
conduct) where the creditor was listed as Midland Funding,
LLC, and Defendant's records do not show any meaningful
attorney review of the collection letters prior to their
transmission;"
2. appointing the Plaintiff as Class representative; and
3. appointing James C. Vlahakis as Class counsel.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a form
collection letter from the Defendant that sought to collect a debt
that was purportedly owned by Midland Funding, LLC, one of the
nation's largest debt buyer. The debt was originally incurred in
relation to credit issued by Comenity Capital Bank. The debt was
incurred in relation to laser hair removal services offered by
"Laser Away". The Defendant mailed a form demand letter to the
Plaintiff on October 28, 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the subject collection letter violated
Sections 1692e, 1692e(3), 1692e(10) and 1692f of the FDCPA because
the preparation of the letter did not involve any meaningful
attorney review by any of the attorneys who were listed on the face
of the letter.
The Defendant is a Florida based law firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec.
16, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nuPUXn at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 581-5456
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
ARIZONA: Moore's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as "Maddi" Jeffrey A. Moore,
v. Mark Brnovich, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08318-DLR-MTM (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas L. Rayes entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis;
2. dismissing without prejudice the Plaintiff's complaint
and this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g):
3. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Exception
to the Three Strikes Provision, Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, and Motion to Certify Class and Appoint
Counsel; and
4. directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff may not bring a civil action without
complete prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee and $50.00
administrative fee unless she is in imminent danger of serious
physical injury. 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g)."
If the Plaintiff wishes to reassert these claims in the future, she
must prepay the entire $400.00 filing and
administrative fees when she files her action, rules the Court.
Mark Brnovich currently serves as Arizona's 26th Attorney General.
A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mqG5IP at no extra charge.[CC]
BAR 20 DAIRY: Court Vacates Class Certification Dates in Maciel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JOSE MACIEL and ELVIS BONILLA, on behalf of
themselves, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. BAR 20 DAIRY, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00902-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Sheila K. Oberto approved the parties' joint stipulation and
order to vacate class certification dates.
On Oct. 23, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement without
prejudice. On March 14, 2019, it held a Mandatory Scheduling
Conference and ordered the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class
certification no later than Dec. 13, 2019. Following the Mandatory
Scheduling Conference, the Parties continued their settlement
negotiations and agreed to revise the terms of the settlement.
On Dec. 17, 2019, and by the stipulation of the Parties, the Court
continued the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification to Feb. 26, 2020. On Feb. 18, 2020, and by the
stipulation of the Parties, the Court continued the Plaintiffs'
deadline to file their motion for class certification to April 27,
2020.
The Parties finalized the amended settlement documents on March 24,
2020, and the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement on April 7, 2020. On April 27, 2020, and by the
stipulation of the Parties, the Court continued the Plaintiffs'
deadline to file their motion for class certification to July 27,
2020. It further continued the Plaintiffs' deadline to file a
motion for class certification to Oct. 26, 2020.
On Oct. 13, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval. The Class Notice has now been disseminated.
The motion for class certification is currently set for Feb. 2,
2021. The status conference to set further scheduling dates is
continued from Dec. 29, 2020, to March 30, 2021.
In light of preliminarily-approved Settlement, the Parties request
that the Court vacates the motion for class certification and
status conference.
Pursuant to the Parties' stipulation and the Plaintiffs' intention
to file their Motion for Final Approval on March 29, 2021, which
will be heard on April 12, 2021, the Court vacates the Feb. 2, 2021
hearing date for the motion for class certification, which was due
to be filed on Oct. 26, 2020, and the status conference set for
March 30, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ugh4kr from Leagle.com.
ERIC B. KINGLSEY -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- KELSEY M. SZAMET
-- kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com -- KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC, in
Encino, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Elvis Bonilla.
DAVID G. SPIVAK -- david@spivaklaw.com -- CAROLINE TAHMASSIAN --
caroline@spivaklaw.com -- THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM, in Encino,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Jose Maciel.
S. BRETT SUTTON -- brett@suttonhague.com -- JARED HAGUE --
jared@suttonhague.com -- SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C., in
Fresno, California, Attorneys for Defendant Bar 20 Dairy, LLC.
BAYLOR SCOTT: Medical Professionals Class Certified in Kunze Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN KUNZE, et. al.,
v. BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE HEALTH, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01276-N
(N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying a class consisting of:
"past or present employees of the Defendants Baylor Scott
& White Health (BSWH) and/or HealthTexas Provider Network
(HTPN) who work or worked as Advance Practice Providers
(physician assistants, nurse practitioners or other
clinical nurse specialists) for the Defendants BSWH and/or
HTPN at any time from April 6, 2017 until the present;"
2. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with
the name, last known physical address, and email address
for each individual falling within the conditionally
certified class ("The Employee Information"). The
Defendants shall provide the Employee Information in an
electronic format, or in written format if not available
in electronic form, within 14 days of the date of this
Order. The Plaintiffs shall use the Employee Information
only to mail or email notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs;
3. approving the notice letter and consent form included with
the Plaintiffs' motion;
4. authorizing the Plaintiffs to email or mail, at the
Plaintiffs' cost, a copy of the notice letter and consent
form, along with a self-addressed, postage-paid return
envelope, to each potential class member;
5. directing the Plaintiffs to mail or email these materials
within seven days after the Defendants turn over the
Employee Information (the Mailing Date). The Potential
plaintiffs shall have 90 days from the Mailing Date to
file a consent form opting-in to this litigation (the Opt-
In Period), unless the parties agree to permit late
filings.;
6. directing the parties to conduct additional class
certification discovery for 90 days after the Filing Date;
and
7. directing the Defendants to file a motion for
decertification within 30 days after the close of class
certification discovery, at which time the Court will
apply the more stringent review required under Lusardi's
second-step analysis.
This Order addresses the Plaintiffs Benjamin Kunze, Ashley Agura,
Jacqueline Beeler, Alexandra Bewley, Vilasben Bhut, Ryan
Bialaszewski, Nancy Cloud, Ryan English, Tasha Hudson, Stephen
Krivan, Tyler Lemm, Cindy Lin, Charity Mugadza, Michelle
Nickelatti, Sandeep Palikhel, Taylor Vaughn, Kara Wilhite, and
Katie Ziliak's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") motion for conditional
certification. Because the Plaintiffs satisfy the
requirements of the lenient first step of the two-step Lusardi
conditional certification process, the Court grants the motion.
Most courts employ a two-step process adopted from Lusardi v. Xerox
Corp. 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). In the first step, "the
district court makes a decision -- usually based only on the
pleadings and any affidavits which have been submitted -- whether
notice of the action should be given to potential class members."
The second step consists of a "decertification" analysis conducted,
upon a defendant's motion, after the close of discovery. Based on
the evidence obtained during discovery, a court "makes factual
determination on the similarly situated question" in the second
step.
The Plaintiffs in this case are medical professionals known as
Advanced Practice Professionals (APPs). The Plaintiffs brought
claims against Defendants Baylor Scott and White Health (BSWH) and
HealthTexas Provider Network (HTPN) (collectively, the Defendants)
to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants have
paid the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees at straight
time for on-the-clock hours regardless of the hours actually
worked. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not pay them for
certain off-the-clock hours worked in violation of FLSA.
A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oWMI7c at no extra charge.[CC]
BB MANAGEMENT: Underpays Building Service Employees, Cid Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL CID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. BB MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK CORP., Case No. 1:20-cv-10054-GBD
(S.D.N.Y, Dec. 2, 2020) arises from the unlawful labor practices of
the Defendant in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated current and former building service employees of
the Defendant since December 2017 who are deprived of their lawful
minimum wages. Mr. Cid further alleges that the Defendant failed to
provide wage statements with each wage payment that contained all
required information, such as hourly pay rates, hours worked and
the employer's address, etc.
BB Management of New York Corp. is a domestic business corporation
doing business within the state and City of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Wims, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WIMS
1430 Pitkin Ave., 2nd Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11233
Telephone: (646) 393-9550
BERRY CORPORATION: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Berry Corporation ("Berry" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ:BRY) investors that acquired securities traceable
to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about July
26, 2018, between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email lesley@portnoylaw.com, or click
https://portnoylaw.com/berry/ to join the case.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary
disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing
their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Berry
made materially misleading and false statements regarding the
Berry's compliance, operational, and business policies.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Berry made misleading
and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Berry
had materially overstated its operational stability and efficiency;
(2) Berry's operational instability and inefficiency would
foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would
increase Berry's costs and disrupt Berry's productivity; (3) the
foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact Berry's revenues; and
(4) the Offering Documents and the Berry's public statements were
materially misleading and/or false and failed to state information
required to be stated therein, as a result.
On November 3, 2020, post-market, Berry reported its operating and
financial results for 2020's third quarter. Berry reported non-GAAP
EPS and revenue that both fell short of estimates, among other
results. In addition, Berry reported that during this quarter, "the
Company undertook certain operational improvements that caused
temporary reductions in our production. Notably, we performed some
plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in the temporary
shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam management
reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water disposal and
well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight decrease in
production."
Berry's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 5.28%, on this news,
to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020, which represented
an 80.78% decline from the IPO price.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
BIOGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Jan. 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 12, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Biogen, Inc. ("Biogen" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BIIB) securities between October 22, 2019 and November 6,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Biogen 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/biogen-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 to
learn more about your rights.
Biogen develops therapies for treating neurological and
neurodegenerative diseases. One of its product candidates is
aducanumab (BIIB037), an investigational human monoclonal antibody
studied for use as a treatment for early Alzheimer's disease.
On October 22, 2019, the Company announced that it would seek
regulatory approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for aducanumab "based on a new analysis, conducted by
Biogen in consultation with the FDA, of a larger dataset from the
Phase 3 clinical studies that were discontinued in March 2019
following a futility analysis." According to Biogen, the new
analysis "show[ed] that aducanumab is pharmacologically and
clinically active as determined by dose-dependent effects in
reducing brain amyloid and in reducing clinical decline as assessed
by the pre-specified primary endpoint Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum
of Boxes (CDR-SB)."
On November 6, 2020, Reuters reported that an FDA panel found it
"cannot ignore unsuccessful trial data on Biogen Alzheimer's drug."
The panel had also "voted that an earlier-stage study does not
offer supportive evidence of Biogen's application for the drug,
aducanumab."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $92.64 per share, or
28%, to close at $236.26 per share on November 9, 2020, thereby
injuring investors.
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) the larger dataset did not provide necessary data
regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not
and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's
effectiveness; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the FDA's Peripheral and Central Nervous
System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of
aducanumab; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Biogen securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 12, 2021
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.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
BIOGEN INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds Investors of January 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law announces that securities fraud class action lawsuit
has commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the class
period listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the
class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the link below.
Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ:BIIB)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BIIB:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11538&from=1
Class Period: October 22, 2019 - November 6, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the larger dataset did not provide necessary data regarding
aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not and would
not provide necessary data regarding the effectiveness of
aducanumab, Biogen's investigational human monoclonal antibody
studied for the treatment of early Alzheimer's disease; (3) the
PRIME study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding
aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data provided by the Company to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Peripheral and Central
Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding
efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
BLOOMBERG L.P.: Adams Seeks to Certify Class of Support Reps.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SHEENA ADAMS, both
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons,
v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-07724-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. allowing the case to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards
Act collective action on behalf of:
"all similarly situated Customer Support Representatives;"
2. authorizing the Plaintiffs to issue the Notice with the
Consent to Sue form to similarly situated
Customer Support Representatives by mail and email;
3. issuing a reminder notice to those Customer Support
Representatives that have not responded within 30 days;
4. requiring Bloomberg to provide the Plaintiffs with the
Class Members' names, last known addresses, and email
addresses in manipulable electronic format;
5. requiring Bloomberg to provide dates of birth and partial
social security numbers for Class Members whose Notices
are returned without a forwarding address; and
6. requiring Bloomberg to provide employee identification
numbers in order to avoid confusion between class members.
Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and
media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It
was founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981, with the help of Thomas
Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, Charles Zegar, and a 12% ownership
investment by Merrill Lynch.
A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion for class certification
dated Dec. 18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/34zLqHM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Artemio Guerra, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN PLLC
260 Fair St.
Kingston NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: aguerra@getmansweeney.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 2 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
Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the
"Company") (NYSE:BSX) from April 24, 2019 through November 16, 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 Boston Scientific securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Boston
Scientific Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E.
Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's product delivery system
was dysfunctional and threatened the continued viability of the
entire product line; (2) as a result, the Company had materially
overstated the continued commercial viability and profitability of
the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System; and (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On November 17, 2020, pre-market, Boston Scientific announced a
global recall of all unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System due to "complexities associated with the product
delivery system." Boston Scientific also announced that "[g]iven
the additional time and investment required to develop and
reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to
retire the entire LOTUS product platform immediately."
On this news, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00 per share,
or 7.89%, to close at $35.03 per share on November 17, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 2, 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 Boston Scientific securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/bostonscientificcorporation-bsx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-341/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in Boston Scientific Corporation securities class
action lawsuit:
Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX)
Class Period: 4/24/2019 - 11/16/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-bsx/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston
Scientific" or "BSX" or the "Company") (NYSE: BSX) and certain of
its executives.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(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, and is brought by plaintiff on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased the publicly traded securities of Boston
Scientific during the period April 24, 2019 through November 16,
2020, inclusive ("Class Period").
If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than February 3, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
proposed Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants represented that the
Company's LOTUS Edge transcatheter aortic valve replacement device
was a source of revenue growth, that medical centers were using the
device consistently, and the number of accounts/medical centers
using the device was growing; however, unknown to investors,
Defendants' representations were materially false and misleading
because: 1) that the LOTUS Edge required additional product
development work, an enhanced delivery system, reduced training and
case support; 2) the Company was facing increases in both
manufacturing complexity and the investment required for clinical
scalability of the LOTUS Edge; and 3) as a result of material
manufacturing and product delivery difficulties, the Company's
commercial efforts to expand LOTUS Edge market share were
unsustainable and failing. The Complaint further alleges that
Defendants Michael F. Mahoney, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer; Joseph M. Fitzgerald, the Company's Executive Vice
President and President - Interventional Cardiology; and Daniel J.
Brennan, the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
President, collectively sold over 500,000 shares of Boston
Scientific securities at artificially inflated prices for proceeds
of over $19 million.
Then, on November 17, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
announced that "it initiated a global, voluntary recall of the
unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System due to
complexities associated with the product. The Company further
disclosed that "[g]iven the additional time and investment required
to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company
has chosen to retire the entire LOTUS product platform
immediately." As a result of this disclosure, Boston Scientific
shares declined from a closing price on November 16, 2020 of $38.03
per share, to close at $35.07 per share on November 17, 2020, a
decline of $2.96 per share, or approximately 8%, on heavier than
usual volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and is represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com). Our firm, with offices in New York, Oakland,
Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving violations
of the Federal securities laws.
If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the complaint,
please visit our website (www.kaplanfox.com) or e-mail attorneys
Jeff Campisi (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com), or Larry King
(lking@kaplanfox.com), or contact them by phone, regular mail, or
fax:
Jeffrey P. Campisi
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 329-8571
Fax: (212) 687-7714
E-mail address: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
Laurence D. King
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4704
Fax: (415) 772-4709
E-mail address: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]
BURLINGTON COAT: $19.7M Goodman/Kawa Settlement Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Joel Schneider entered final approval and judgment
in two lawsuits filed against Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
Corporation, Burlington Coat Factory Investment Holdings Inc., and
Burlington Coat Factory Holdings, Inc. The cases are:
-- STEVEN GOODMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE
CORPORATION, BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., and
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:11-cv-04395-JHR-JS (D.N.J.); and
-- BARBARA KAWA, THERESA MASSEY and DANIELLE SOLECKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, v.
BURLINGTON STORES, INC., BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE
CORPORATION, BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, INC., and
BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY HOLDINGS, LLC f/k/a BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-2787-JHR-JS.
Under the final order and judgment, the Court approved a
$19,613,900 settlement of the class and collective actions. Judge
Schneider also:
1. finally certified the following Settlement Classes for
purposes of the Settlement only:
a. Individuals who worked for Burlington in California as
an Assistant Store Manager at any time between May 1,
2010 through August 24, 2020;
b. Individuals who worked for Burlington in Illinois as an
Assistant Store Manager at any time between May 1, 2011
through August 24, 2020; and
c. Individuals who worked for Burlington in New York as an
Assistant Store Manager at any time between May 1, 2008
through August 24, 2020; and
2. appointed the Kawa Named Plaintiffs (Barbara Kawa,
Theresa Massey, and Danielle Solecki), as Representatives
of the Settlement Class (Class Plaintiffs) as they meet
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) for the
purposes of settlement and Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP,
Locks Law Firm LLC, and Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn
Wikstrom & Sinins, P.C. as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class as they meet the requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(g) for the purposes of settlement.
Under the Settlement Agreement:
-- The Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the
amount of $6,537,966.67 which the Court finds to be
fair and reasonable, and $348,000 in reimbursement of
reasonable expenses incurred in prosecuting the
Actions. The attorneys' fees and expenses awarded
shall be paid from the Total Maximum Settlement Amount
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
these sums are to be paid to Klafter Olsen & Lesser
LLP to be distributed to the other Class Counsel.
-- The Court directs payment as provided under the terms
of the parties' Settlement Agreement from the Total
Maximum Settlement Amount to Named Plaintiffs Steven
Goodman, Barbara Kawa, Theresa Massey, and Danielle
Solecki of $10,000 to each, as Incentive Payments.
-- The Court finds that the Settlement Administrator's
fees and expenses are reasonable and approves the
payment of $35,000 to the Settlement Administrator
from the Total Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Kawa Action and Goodman Action are dismissed with prejudice,
rules the Court.
A copy of Court's final order and judgment dated Dec. 15, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mvsfol at no
extra charge.[CC]
CHANGYOU.COM LTD: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") filed a securities class
action lawsuit against Changyou.com Limited (NYSE:CYOU) ("Changyou"
or the "Company") and certain of its executives, as well as its
acquirer Sohu.com Limited (Nasdaq Ticker: SOHU) (collectively,
"Defendants"). The action asserts claims under Sections 10(b),
13(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b-5 and 13e-3
promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all former owners of Changyou
stock and American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") who sold shares, and
were damaged thereby, during the period between February 14, 2020
and April 23, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").
On February 14, 2020, Changyou, Sohu.com Limited, Sohu.com (Game)
Limited, and Changyou Merger Co. Limited jointly filed a Rule 13E-3
Transaction Statement under Section 13(e) of the Securities
Exchange Act (the "Transaction Statement"). The Transaction
Statement contained false and misleading information regarding the
existence of dissenters' rights (also known as appraisal rights)
pursuant to Cayman Islands law.
For instance, The Transaction Statement stated in no uncertain
terms:
No Dissenters' or Appraisal Rights
As the Merger is a short-form merger under section 233(7) of the
Cayman Islands Companies Law, and the vote of holders of the
Company's Shares (including ADSs) is not required to complete the
Merger, the Unaffiliated Security Holders will not be able to
exercise dissenters' rights such as are afforded to shareholders of
Cayman Islands companies pursuant to Section 238 of the Cayman
Islands Companies Law with respect to mergers for which a
shareholder vote is required. A copy of Section 238 of the Cayman
Islands Companies Law is attached as Exhibit (f)(2) to this
Transaction Statement for the information of the Unaffiliated
Security Holders.
The Transaction Statement is false and misleading because it
provided no support for such conclusion and it is at odds with the
text of the relevant Cayman Islands statute regarding appraisal
rights. Moreover, the Transaction Statement failed to disclose
other rights that may be available to Changyou shareholders under
Cayman Islands law, in clear violation of the federal securities
laws.
On April 17, 2020, the Merger closed without the truth being
revealed. Changyou ADS shares were exchanged for the cash
consideration on April 23, 2020.
If you sold Changyou stock or ADSs during the Class Period, you are
a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
no later than February 8, 2021. The Lead Plaintiff is a
court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You
do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any
Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there
is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an
absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in this action.
If you wish to learn more about your rights, please contact David
J. Schwartz using the toll-free number (800) 321-0476 or via email
at dschwartz@labaton.com.
About the Firm
Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
http://www.labaton.com.[GN]
CHINA: Bid to Certify Class of PBSP Inmates in Stuckey Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, et al., Plaintiffs v.
PEOPLE['S] REPUBLIC OF CHINA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-07344-YGR (PR) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California:
(i) denied Plaintiff Stuckey's motion for certification of a
class action;
(ii) dismissed the additional named Plaintiffs, who are all
inmates at Pelican Bay State Prison ("PBSP") without
prejudice; and
(iii) dismissed the federal civil rights action without
prejudice.
On Oct. 20, 2020, Plaintiff Stuckey, a state prisoner currently
incarcerated at PBSP, filed the present pro se prisoner class
action complaint on behalf of himself and additional Plaintiffs,
who are also inmates at PBSP, purporting to represent all
incarcerated inmates in the State of California for damages and
equitable relief suffered as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic,
against the Defendants, the People's Republic of China.
Plaintiff Stuckey's request is construed as a motion for
certification of a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b). However, pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not
adequate class representatives able to fairly represent and
adequately protect the interests of the class. Therefore, the
action cannot proceed as a class action. Accordingly, Judge Rogers
denied Plaintiff Stuckey's motion for certification of a class
action. She dismissed the additional named Plaintiffs, who are all
inmates at PBSP, as Plaintiffs from the action without prejudice.
The Judge now turns to whether Plaintiff Stuckey, the only
remaining named Plaintiff and a repeat filer in the Court, may
proceed with the action. On Oct. 20, 2020, which is the same date
the action was filed, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice to the
Plaintiff, informing him that his action could not go forward until
he paid the filing fee or filed a completed prisoner's in forma
pauperis application. The Clerk sent him a blank in forma pauperis
application and told him that he must pay the fee or return the
completed application within 28 days or his action would be
dismissed.
More than 28 days have passed and the Plaintiff has neither paid
the filing fee nor returned the in forma pauperis application.
Instead, the record shows that he has only submitted his
Certificate of Funds and his six-month prison trust account
statement. However, he has not complied with the Clerk's notice to
either file a complete IFP application or pay the filing fee.
Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the federal civil rights action
without prejudice. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, the
Plaintiff may move to reopen the action. Any such motion must
contain a complete IFP application (or full payment for the $400
filing fee). The Clerk will terminate all pending motions and
close the file.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3haNAm7 from Leagle.com.
COOK MEDICAL: Class Action Over Retrievable IVC Filters Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP on Dec. 16 disclosed that on January 8,
2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal certified this proceeding to move
forward as a class action.
Inferior vena cava ("IVC") filters are devices designed to filter
blood clots which may otherwise travel to the heart and/or lungs.
Optionally retrievable IVC filters are a type of filter that may be
removed if medically advisable to do so after a patient is no
longer at risk of a pulmonary embolism. This class action lawsuit
has been initiated in Ontario alleging that the Defendants marketed
and sold IVC Filter Products without properly warning of alleged
increased risks of complications and injuries. The class action
seeks, among other things, damages, including for personal
injuries, related to this alleged failure to warn as well as
consequential damages suffered by family members. The Defendants
deny the allegations, deny that the warnings were insufficient and
stand by their products.
On January 8, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal certified this
proceeding to move forward as a class action on behalf of all
residents of Canada who were implanted with an IVC filter product,
namely: the Cook Gunther Tulip Vena Cava Filter Set, the Cook
Celect Vena Cava Filter Set, and the Cook Celect Platinum Vena Cava
Filter Set, at any time on or before January 8, 2020.
Class Members who want to participate in the class action are
automatically included and need not do anything at this time. The
Class Proceedings Act provides that no Class Member, other than the
representative class member, will incur liability for legal costs
if the action is dismissed. Each Class Member who does not opt out
of the class action will be bound by the terms of any judgment or
settlement and will not be allowed to pursue or continue an
independent action with respect to these issues. If the class
action is successful, Class Members may be entitled to share in the
amount of any award or settlement recovered.
For further information: Siskinds LLP, Toll Free Tel:
1.800.461.6166, Email: IVCFilters@siskinds.com; McKenzie Lake
Lawyers LLP, Toll Free Tel: 1.844.672.5666, Email:
noble@mckenzielake.com; Koskie Minsky LLP, Toll Free Tel:
1.800.764.7717, Email: ivcfiltersclassaction@kmlaw.ca [GN]
COVIA HOLDINGS: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Covia Holdings Corporation ("Covia" or
the "Company") (OTHER OTC: CVIAQ) to determine whether the Company
engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE SECURITIES OF
COVIA BETWEEN MARCH 15, 2016 AND JUNE 29, 2020, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN
$250,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES
CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215)
792-6676, EXT. 804, MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES
INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covia, f/k/a
Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc., in United States District Court,
seeking to recover damages on behalf of Covia investors.
According to the class action complaint, the Covia Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
(1) Covia's proprietary "value-added" proppants were not
necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; (2) Covia's
revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary "value-added"
proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3) when Covia insiders
raised this issue, defendants did not take meaningful steps to
rectify the issue; and (4) as a result, the Covia Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.
This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]
COVIA HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Reminds of February 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Covia Holdings Corporation f/k/a
Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Covia") (OTC: CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA)
(NYSE: FMSA) between March 15, 2016 to June 29, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=covia-holdings-corporation&id=2519
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=covia-holdings-corporation&id=2519
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Covia's proprietary "value-added" proppants were not
necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; Covia's revenues,
which were dependent on its proprietary "value-added" proppants,
was based on misrepresentations; when Covia insiders raised this
issue, defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the
issue; and 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. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 8, 2021.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
CRICKET WIRELESS: Thomas' Bid to Compel Denied Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JERMAINE THOMAS, et al. v. CRICKET WIRELESS,
LLC, Case No. 19-cv-07270-WHA (AGT) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Alex G. Tse issued an order denying without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel documents responsive to RFP No. 57.
The request is the parties' joint discovery letter in which the
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the Defendant to produce its
litigation hold notices and related correspondence. Judge Tse rules
that the Plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied without prejudice
to renewal, if warranted, after completion of the upcoming
deposition of Cricket's Rule 30(b)(6) representative on document
retention.
In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that between
2012 and 2014, Cricket sold 4G/LTE devices and service plans to
customers nationwide by falsely advertising its 4G/LTE coverage.
The Plaintiffs contend that Cricket admittedly failed to preserve
key evidence that would substantiate these allegations, including
custodial accounts of C-level executives and 4G sales data, and
based on the preliminary evidence of spoliation, the Plaintiffs
sought written, documentary, and oral discovery regarding Cricket's
document retention practices.
Cricket acknowledges that some legacy databases and documents of
questionable relevance from the 2012-2014 time period were not
retained but maintains that no spoliation has occurred because it
was not under a duty to preserve the missing information. It
asserts that it has been transparent about what documents were not
retained and has agreed to (1) produce documents sufficient to show
which databases were sunset (and when), (2) tell the Plaintiffs
when it stopped retaining the custodial documents of particular
legacy Cricket officers and employees that the Plaintiffs have
identified, and (3) provide a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition about the
retention of legacy Cricket data.
Cricket has not agreed, however, to produce documents responsive to
the Plaintiffs' narrowed RFP No. 57, which seeks Cricket's:
litigation hold notices and correspondence related to the release
of those hold notices that relate to Cricket's 4G/LTE advertising,
sales, or network from 2012 through 2014 or were made in connection
with four cases: (1) the case; (2) Thomas v. Cricket Wireless, LLC,
No. 4:16-cv-1065-FJG (W.D. Mo.); (3) Barazza v. Cricket Wireless,
LLC, No. 3:15-cv-2471-WHA (N.D. Cal.); and (4) Bond v. Cricket
Communications, LLC, No. 1:15-cv-923-GLR (D. Md.). Cricket claims
that these documents are irrelevant and privileged and has refused
to produce them (or a privilege log).
As an initial matter, Cricket's objections as to relevance are
overruled, Judge Tse holds. He explains that the requested
litigation holds and related correspondence are relevant to the
Plaintiffs' examination of Cricket's document preservation
practices and efforts and whether Cricket spoliated relevant
evidence.
As to the privilege objections, however, the Judge says Cricket is
correct that litigation hold notices, if prepared by counsel and
directed to the client, are protected by the attorney-client
privilege, citing Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-cv-05314 JST
(SK) (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018).
The Plaintiffs do not dispute that litigation holds like the ones
they seek here are normally considered privileged and generally are
not discoverable. Instead, citing to Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf,
No. 17-cv-02366 BAS (KSC) (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2020), they argue
that a "preliminary showing of spoliation" can overcome the
privilege, and does so in the case, given Cricket's admission that
certain information from the class period was not retained. The
Plaintiffs emphasize that the question currently before the Court
is not whether Cricket had a duty to preserve the missing
information, or whether plaintiffs are prejudiced by the failure to
preserve; but rather, the question is whether the Plaintiffs should
be allowed to take the 'initial step' of discovering the content of
the litigation hold notice so that they can 'investigate and
possibly prove spoliation,' citing Al Otro Lado.
Judge Tse notes that the Plaintiffs have offered no convincing
reason why the Court should deviate from the Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition-first approach, and he declines to do so in the case.
The Plaintiffs will have the opportunity to get answers about
Cricket's document preservation efforts at the upcoming Rule
30(b)(6) deposition.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of
documents responsive to narrowed RFP No. 57 is denied without
prejudice at this time. The Plaintiffs may renew their request to
compel, if warranted, after the upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
and after they have met and conferred with Cricket. If Cricket
withholds any responsive documents on the basis of attorney-client
privilege or attorney work product doctrine, it must provide a
privilege log that complies with Judge Alsup's requirements.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yakt6x4j from Leagle.com.
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Dismissal of Edwards' Breach Claim Flipped
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and
reversed in part the district court's dismissal of each of the
Plaintiffs' claims in the case, JIMMY EDWARDS; ROBERT HUNT; DOLORES
HUNT; CLIFFORD McKELLAR, JR.; EMMA MCKELLAR; ANTOINETTE MOORE; WEST
LUMBERTON BAPTIST CHURCH; CURRIE CHAIN SAW, INCORPORATED; C.J.M.
VENTURES, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM LOCKLEAR, d/b/a Stricklands's
Barbershop; TBL ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, INCORPORATED; SAMMY'S
AUTO SALES, INCORPORATED; LINDA SAMPSON; ERIC CHAVIS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
19-1782 (4th Cir.).
In the putative class action, residents and businesses of
Lumberton, North Carolina, allege that CSX Transportation caused
their property to be flooded during Hurricanes Matthew and
Florence. Lumberton straddles the Lumber River, which flows from
northwest to southeast. In the 1960s, a group of local, state, and
federal authorities came together to build a levee system.
Construction began in 1975 and concluded two years later.
As devised, the levee system contains a glaring vulnerability:
since the 1850s, CSX and its forebearers have operated a rail line
that parallels the river south of the earthen barrier. I-95
crosses over the rail line and an adjacent road via an overpass,
creating an unobstructed "gap" through which trains--and
waters--may run. According to the Plaintiffs, the gap is low and
wide enough "to act as a drain or funnel" during heavy storms,
"pulling" floodwaters into southwest Lumberton and rendering the
levee system ineffective.
To address this problem, the City of Lumberton entered into a
licensing agreement in 1978 with Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co.
(CSX's predecessor) and Robeson County Drainage District No. 1.
Pursuant to that "Tri-Party Agreement," the City and the Drainage
District are permitted to construct and maintain portions of an
earthen dike on the easterly and westerly portions of the
railroad's right of way through the gap. Further, the City may
close said dike across the railroad's track whenever Lumberton is
in imminent danger of flooding, so long as it gives at least 12
hours' notice prior to such closing.
In 1979, the City published a set of Operational Procedures,
affirming its intent to provide flood protection to South and West
Lumberton" by sandbagging the gap during major weather events.
However, on Oct. 8, 2016, the City notified CSX that it sought to
construct an emergency sandbag dam at the gap in response to
Hurricane Matthew, which had just made landfall and threatened to
bring severe flooding. But CSX refused to allow access to its
right-of-way. Predictably, the Lumber River coursed through the
gap. The resulting damage was catastrophic.
Then, in September 2018, Hurricane Florence threatened to cause
major flooding in the area. As before, the City invoked its right
to close the gap. CSX initially rebuffed the request, but it
complied after the Governor issued an emergency order. At that
point, however, there was only time to hastily construct a
makeshift berm, which ultimately failed. South and West Lumberton
flooded for the second time in as many years.
The Plaintiffs initiated three putative class actions against CSX
in the fall of 2018. The district court consolidated their cases
in January 2019. At bottom, they allege that CSX breached its
obligations under the Tri-Party Agreement, unduly prevented the
City from closing the gap, and failed to take other necessary steps
to prevent flooding. They assert four causes of action--one in
contract, three in tort--and seek both monetary damages for
flood-related losses and an injunction requiring CSX to no longer
pose a threat to Plaintiffs or the class.
On CSX's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court dismissed all
four claims. As to the contract claim, the court concluded that
the Plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege that they are
intended third-party beneficiaries of the Tri-Party Agreement
between the railroad, the City, and the Drainage District, and,
accordingly, that they lack the power to enforce any alleged
breach. And as to the tort claims, it found that each was
preempted by a federal railroad statute--the Interstate Commerce
Commission Termination Act.
The Plaintiffs timely appealed.
The Fourth Circuit largely agrees with the district court's
determination. However, it concludes that dismissal of one
claim--for breach of contract--was premature. It opines that the
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the Tri-Party Agreement was
intended to directly benefit the class of persons to which they
belong--the residents and businesses of South and West Lumberton
left vulnerable to flooding through the gap. Dismissal of that
claim was, therefore, premature.
The Fourth Circuit opines, however, that the district court rightly
dismissed the Plaintiffs' tort claims as expressly preempted by
federal statute. While it sympathizes with those seeking to end
predictable flooding via the gap, the court may not grant relief on
a state-law claim that Congress has expressly preempted.
The Fourth Circuit notes that it is hard to view the Plaintiffs'
claims as anything other than direct attempts to "regulate"
railroading. Far from "incidentally" affecting rail construction
and operation, the claims go to the heart of the Surface
Transportation Board's exclusive jurisdiction: whether CSX should
have allowed its tracks to be barricaded; whether CSX should have
built a permanent floodgate over its tracks at the gap; and whether
CSX should have used different materials in constructing its track
bed. Because all three tort claims may reasonably be said to have
the desired effect of 'managing' or 'governing' rail
transportation, the district court rightly concluded that they are
preempted.
Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part,
and remanded for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/3nCfPg3 from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: William Franklin Cash, III -- bcash@levinlaw.com -- LEVIN
PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A., in Pensacola,
Florida, for Appellants.
April N. Ross -- aross@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP, in
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Theodore J. Leopold, Martha Geer --
martha@whitfieldbryson.com -- Adam Langino, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
& TOLL PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina; Daniel K. Bryson --
dan@whitfieldbryson.com -- Matthew E. Lee --
matt@whitfieldbryson.com -- Jeremy R. Williams --
jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Gregory F. Coleman, GREG COLEMAN LAW PC,
Knoxville, Tennessee; Mark R. Sigmon, SIGMON LAW, PLLC, in Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellants.
Henry L. Kitchin, Jr. -- hkitchin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGUIREWOODS
LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina; Scott L. Winkelman --
swinkelman@crowell.com -- Amanda Shafer Berman, Rachel P. Raphael,
CROWELL & MORING LLP, in Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NJ: Milbourne's Prelim. Injunction Bids Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies the
Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunction in the lawsuit
styled MONTY P. MILBOURNE v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 20-8264 (D.N.J.).
The Plaintiff's application were first filed on the docket as
letters to the Court and subsequently docketed as motions.
The Plaintiff has filed suit against the Cumberland County
Department of Corrections and Richard Smith. The Plaintiff is
currently in the custody of the Cumberland County Jail. He alleges
he was in direct contact with officers at the Cumberland County
Jail, who tested positive for COVID-19. He contends that Defendants
Cumberland and Smith failed to follow proper guidance and protocol
directions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
Department of Health, Gov. Philip Murphy, and Pres. Donald Trump.
There is a related class action before the Court, Archie v. Smith,
No. 20-7907, which seeks only injunctive relief on behalf of "all
persons confined or to be confined in the Cumberland County
Department of Corrections." The Archie class action is focused on
the Cumberland County Department of Corrections' actions and
inactions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks the following injunctive relief:
(1) immediate release of the Plaintiff-Petitioners and proposed
class members who has or have been subject to direct contact with
anyone with COVID-19 and who test positive and have underlying
health issues (2) to get proper adequate medical relief from their
own doctor or physician; and (3) for the prison to exercise social
distancing correctly by CDC guidelines.
District Judge Noel L. Hillman opines that there are two
fundamental issues with the Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary
Injunction that each individually requires the Court to deny the
Motions. First, the Judge finds the Plaintiff's Motions for
Preliminary Injunction are deficient because they do not include
any explanation as to why the Plaintiff is entitled to a
preliminary injunction.
Second, and more importantly, the Plaintiff is currently a member
of a proposed class in the Archie class action, which seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of "all persons confined or to be
confined in the Cumberland County Department of Corrections." The
Archie class action is focused on the Cumberland County Department
of Corrections' actions and inactions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff has not opted out of the Archie class action and
courts have barred individual suits for injunctive and equitable
relief from allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions where
there is an existing class action," Judge Hillman says, citing
Young v. Kelly, No. 88-0511 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2013).
The injunctive relief the Plaintiff seeks is equitable relief
within the subject matter of the Archie class action, which focuses
on Cumberland County Department of Corrections' actions and
inactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is evident through the
Motions for Preliminary Injunction themselves, which seek
injunctive relief for the Plaintiff-Petitioner and the proposed
class members.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction
will be denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y79amx9v from Leagle.com.
Plaintiff Monty P. Milbourne, at the Cumberland County Department
of Corrections, in Bridgeton, New Jersey, appears pro se.
CURTIS INT'L: Compelled to Reply to Scanlon Suit Interrogatories
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROMAN SCANLON, on behalf of himself, the general
public, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CURTIS
INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00937-NONE-SKO
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and
denied in part Plaintiff Scanlon's Motion to Compel, filed Nov. 4,
2020.
The Plaintiff initiated the action by filing a class action
complaint on May 3, 2019, against Defendants Curtis and Technicolor
SA in the Merced County Superior Court. Based upon his allegation
that the Defendants misrepresented to him and others similarly
situated that they were purchasing digital home theater projectors
with specific brightness ratings, the Plaintiff asserts causes of
action for: 1) fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; 2) breach
of contract; 3) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act; 4) violation of California's False Advertising Law; 5)
negligent misrepresentation; 6) unjust enrichment; and 7) unfair,
unlawful, and/or deceptive trade practices.
The Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.
The Defendants timely removed the case to the federal court on July
9, 2019.
In the operative complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Curtis manufactures and distributes consumer electronics, which
Curtis sells under the "RCA" trademark through a licensing
agreement with Technicolor SA. Curtis has marketed and sold
projectors that purportedly have a brightness of 2,000 lumens or
more. It induced the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to
purchase RCA-brand home-theater projector models (i) RPJ116; (ii)
RPJ129; and (iii) RPJ136 by misrepresenting the projectors' lumens
ratings as higher than their actual lumens output.
According to the Plaintiff, had he and those similarly situated
been adequately informed and not intentionally deceived by Curtis,
he would have acted differently by, without limitation, not
purchasing (or paying less for) the Accused Products. The
Plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of a proposed class
defined as "all persons, natural or otherwise, who, while residing
in California, purchased an Accused Product.
The Plaintiff moves to compel Curtis to (1) conduct a diligent
search and 'substantially complete' its document production, (2)
amend the Third Amended Interrogatory Responses to provide
"complete" responses to Interrogatories No. 2, 4, 5, and 7, and to
indicate it is not withholding any documents or information on the
basis of any general or specific objections, and (3) produce an
"adequate" privilege log. The Motion to Compel also seeks $15,431
in the Plaintiff's attorney's fees as sanctions under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A).
Interrogatory No. 2 asks Curtis to state the "specific lumens
claims" appearing on the boxes or other outer packaging of the
Relevant Products, the "method of measuring lumens used" for each
claim, and, where more than one lumens claim appeared on any of the
Relevant Products' packaging during the putative class period, the
dates when each claim appeared. Curtis' response includes a chart
organized by model number of the Relevant Products, the "advertised
lumens" for each model, and the dates of the advertisements, where
applicable.
Interrogatory No. 4 asks Curtis to identify by Bates numbers "all
boxes" used for the Relevant Products and, if more than one version
of the box was used for any Relevant Product, the dates of use for
each box. Curtis responds by identifying six documents
(CURTIS0000113-114; CURTIS0000117; CURTIS0000118; CURTIS0000119;
CURTIS0000120; and CURTIS0000153-161) from which it contends the
Plaintiff "can locate information that is responsive" pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d).
In Interrogatory No. 5, the Plaintiff seeks the total number of
Relevant Products sold in California during the putative class
period and the revenue obtained therefrom. In response, Curtis
identifies four records (CURTIS0000115; CURTIS0000121;
CURTIS0000151; and CURTIS0000152) pursuant to Rule 33(d). The
Plaintiff complains that the documents do not provide clear
information sufficient to answer the interrogatory.
Interrogatory No. 7 requests information pertaining to testing of
the lumens of the Relevant Products, including the date, type and
standards applied, and results. After interposing an objection
that the interrogatory requires Curtis to obtain and produce
information that is not within Curtis' possession, custody, or
control, Curtis again invokes Rule 33(d) and identifies five
records (CURTIS0000001-44; CURTIS0000045; CURTIS0000116;
CURTIS0000122-148; and CURTIS0000149-150) in response to the
interrogatory.
Curtis responds that, despite its counsel's unexpected family
medical emergencies, it has produced what it reasonably believes is
the remainder of its documents in response to the Plaintiff's first
set of document requests and its responses to Interrogatories No.
2, 4, 5, and 7 are sufficient in that they comply with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33(d). It further responds that its Third Amended Interrogatory
Responses need not specify whether it is withholding any responsive
information on the basis of its asserted objections, and that it
has complied with its obligation to produce its Privilege Log.
Conclusion and Order
Magistrate Judge Oberto granted in part and denied in part. She
denied without prejudice the Motion to Compel further production of
documents by Curtis.
She granted the Motion to Compel further a response by Curtis to
the Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 2. By no later than 10 days from
the date of the order, Curtis will serve an amended answer that
specifies (1) the lumens claim(s) appearing on the packaging of
model number RPJ104 between Aug. 7, 2018, and Aug. 27, 2019, and
(2) the lumens claim(s) appearing on the packaging of model number
RPJ116+ between Aug. 7, 2018, and December 2018.
The Motion to Compel further a response by Curtis to the
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 4 is granted. By no later than 10
days from the date of the Order, Curtis will serve an amended
answer that specifies, for each of the images of boxes contained in
the five documents identified, the Relevant Product(s) to which the
image pertains. Further, to the extent that more than one of the
boxes pictured in the documents was or will be used for a single
Relevant Product, Curtis' amended answer will provide the dates on
which each box was or will be used during the putative class
period.
The Magistrate Judge denied the Motion to Compel further a response
by Curtis to the Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 5. The information
called for by Interrogatory No. 5 can be readily ascertained from
the document.
The Motion to Compel further a response by Curtis to the
Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 7 is granted. By no later than 10
days from the date of the Order, Curtis will serve an amended
response that fully answers, after a reasonable effort, the
interrogatory without reference to documents other than
CURTIS0000001-44.
The Motion to Compel Curtis to amend its Third Amended Responses to
the Plaintiff's interrogatories to indicate that it is not
withholding any documents or information on the basis of its
objections is granted in part. By no later than 10 days from the
date of the Order, Curtis will either (1) serve a declaration
signed under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer or director
attesting that it is not withholding any information responsive to
the Plaintiff's interrogatories on the basis of the objections
raised in its Third Amended Responses, or (2) if it determines that
there is information that has been withheld, serve amended Third
Amended Responses to so state and to specify the nature of the
withheld information.
The Motion to Compel Curtis to produce an amended privilege log is
also granted in part. By no later than 10 days from the date of
the Order, Curtis will serve an amended privilege log that
corrects, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A), the deficiencies
identified in the two entries reproduced in the Joint Statement.
Finally, the Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied. The
Magistrate Judge finds that, under the circumstances presented,
each party should bear its own fees and costs incurred in
connection with the Motion to Compel.
The Court holds Settlement Conferences on Tuesdays and Thursdays at
10:30 a.m. The Counsel are to discuss the advantages of and
possibilities for settlement with their respective clients, and
each other, and propose a date on which a Settlement Conference
will be set. By no later than Jan. 15, 2021, the parties will file
a joint statement 1) confirming that they have met and conferred,
and 2) setting forth three to four proposed Settlement Conference
dates in accordance with the Court's calendar.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2KKFYdK from Leagle.com.
DEWEY SERVICES: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Padilla Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GUILLERMO PADILLA, Plaintiff and Respondent v. DEWEY
SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. B302920 (Cal.
App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District,
Division Four, affirmed the trial court's order denying Dewey's
motion to compel arbitration.
Mr. Padilla was employed by Dewey from June 2018 to November 2018.
At the start of his employment, Padilla (like all employees of
Dewey) was required to sign agreements to arbitrate all disputes
with Dewey. As a result, Padilla was subject to Dewey's written
"Mutual Arbitration Policy" ("MAP") throughout his employment. The
MAP, which requires mandatory, binding arbitration of disputes,
states that it "applies to Company employees, regardless of length
of service or status, and covers all disputes relating to or
arising out of an employee's employment with the Company or the
termination of that employment.
In May 2019, Padilla filed in the superior court a class action
complaint for damages and for enforcement under Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, alleging violations of various
wage-and-hour laws. He subsequently filed a first amended
complaint alleging only a representative claim on behalf of the
State of California and other aggrieved employees under PAGA, and
seeking only civil penalties.
On Sept. 30, 2019, Dewey filed a motion to compel arbitration and
to stay the action pending arbitration, making essentially the same
arguments it makes in the appeal. Padilla opposed the motion,
relying on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian)
that a claim for civil penalties under PAGA belongs to the State of
California, with the plaintiff acting as a proxy for the state. As
such, Padilla's lawsuit involved a dispute or claim between the
state and Dewey, rather than between Padilla and Dewey, and the
state did not agree to arbitrate its claim. In addition, Padilla
argued that the court should decide the issue of arbitrability
because the parties did not clearly and unmistakably delegate that
question to the arbitrator.
The trial court denied the motion, noting that several courts of
appeal have decided the issue and uniformly have held that an
employee's predispute agreement to arbitrate PAGA claims is not
enforceable without the state's consent. The court specifically
rejected Dewey's assertion that Correia v. NB Baker Electric, Inc.
(2019), and the cases it relied upon no longer were applicable in
light of the recent Supreme Court case of ZB, N.A. v. Superior
Court (2019), concluding that ZB did not change the result.
Dewey timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's order
denying its motion to compel arbitration. Dewey's primary
contention on appeal--that it is error to find an employee cannot
be compelled to arbitrate PAGA claims based upon the employee's
predispute agreement to arbitrate--is one that has been rejected by
several courts of appeal, including the instant case. Dewey argues
that those cases, all of which relied upon the reasoning of the
Supreme Court in Iskanian in reaching their conclusions, were
wrongly decided because the courts misread the holding in Iskanian,
which holding Dewey asserts was "reaffirmed and clarified" in the
subsequent case of ZB.
The Court of Appeals finds the reasoning of the prior appellate
court cases sound, and that ZB has no effect on that reasoning. It
also finds that neither of the remaining arguments Dewey
raises--that the trial court's ruling conflicts with and is
preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act, and that the trial court
erred by failing to find that the parties' arbitration agreement
delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator--has
merit.
Since Padilla entered into the arbitration agreement in the case
before he was given the authority to act as an agent or
representative of the state to bring a PAGA claim, he was not a
party to the agreement in his capacity of agent of the state. Even
where an arbitration agreement unambiguously provides that the
arbitrator is to determine arbitrability, California case law is
clear that an arbitrator has no power to determine the rights and
obligations of one who is not a party to the arbitration agreement.
The question of whether a nonsignatory is a party to an
arbitration agreement is one for the trial court in the first
instance.
Because Padilla was acting in his capacity as agent of the state in
bringing the PAGA claim, and he was not a party to the arbitration
agreement in that capacity, the trial court properly determined the
arbitrability of the PAGA claim, the Appellate Court opines.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying
Dewey's motion to compel arbitration. Padilla will recover his
costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/3mBi1TI from Leagle.com.
Hill, Farrer & Burrill, James A. Bowles -- jbowles@hillfarrer.com
-- and Elissa L. Gysi -- egysi@hillfarrer.com -- for Defendant and
Appellant.
KJT Law Group, Vache A. Thomassian -- vache@kjtlawgroup.com --
Caspar Jivalagian -- caspar@kjtlawgroup.com; Adams Employment
Counsel and Christopher A. Adams for Plaintiff and Respondent.
DIETZ & WATSON: Faces Class Action Over Smokey Flavor Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that a proposed class of cheese buyers is suing Dietz &
Watson Inc. in New York federal court, claiming that its smoked
provolone cheese is falsely advertised because the cheese is made
with "smoke flavor" instead of actually smoking the cheese in
burning wood chips. Plaintiffs allege that the Dietz & Watson
labels are not in compliance with FDA's flavor labeling
regulations, which state the following:
If the food is commonly expected to contain a characterizing food
ingredient and the ingredient is present in a sufficient amount to
independently characterize the flavor of the product (regardless of
whether the food contains any added natural flavors), the name of
the ingredient should simply accompany the product name.
However, if the product contains any artificial flavors simulating,
resembling or reinforcing the characterizing flavor, the name of
the food on the PDP must also be accompanied by the words
"artificial" or "artificially flavored."
If, on the other hand, the food contains only added natural flavor
derived from the characterizing ingredient, the product identity
statement must include the name of the characterizing flavor and
the word "flavored," and may include a description of the flavor as
"natural."
If none of the natural flavor used in the food is derived from the
product whose flavor is simulated (i.e., if all of the natural
flavor is from another source), the food in which the flavor is
used must either be labeled with the name of the product from which
the flavor is derived or be described as "artificially flavored."
21 CFR 101.22.
The Dietz & Watson label states that the product is "piquant & full
flavor," but does not appear to disclose that flavoring is used in
the product to provide the smokey flavor. The class pointed to a
2017 FDA Warning Letter that stated foods using added flavors
instead of the smoking process must declare that fact on the front
label, while descriptions of the smoking process should not be in
the ingredient list.
The proposed class intends to represent buyers from New York and
the other 49 states who bought the cheese. The suit brings claims
under New York's consumer protection statutes, as well as for
negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied
warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks
unspecified money damages and an injunction barring Dietz & Watson
from continuing to label its smoked provolone as it currently does.
[GN]
DIVERSITY AT WORK: Court Certifies Delivery Drivers Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT SUTTON, on behalf
of himself and others similarly-situated, v. DIVERSITY AT WORK
GROUP, INC. d/b/a UNITED COURIER, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00682-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black
entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying the following class of:
"all current and former United Courier delivery drivers who
worked within three years prior to the date of the Court's
order approving Notice;"
2. directing the Defendant, within 30 days of this Court's
Order, to identify all Putative Class Members by providing
a list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
addresses, and all known e-mail addresses;
4. authorizing the Plaintiff to send the Notice to Putative
Class Members by postal mail and e-mail to putative class
members;
5. denying as moot the Defendants' motion for extension of
time to file a response/reply as to Plaintiff's motion to
certify a conditional class.
The Court said, "Mr. Sutton has demonstrated that he is similarly
situated to all current and former delivery drivers of United
Courier, not only those with independent contractor agreements. The
Court finds that Sutton has not inappropriately included all
delivery drivers. Discovery may ultimately show otherwise, but
Sutton has satisfied his modest burden of showing all delivery
drivers should be included at this initial stage."
Mr. Sutton was employed by United Courier from May 2017 until
August 2019. Mr. Sutton's duties consisted of completing deliveries
scheduled through United Courier. Sutton alleges that he regularly
worked over 40 hours per week but was not paid time and half his
regular rate for his overtime hours.
Mr. Sutton brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and related state wage laws, on behalf of a putative class of
similarly situated individuals seeking to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime wages, reimbursable expenses, and liquidated
damages.
Diversity at Work operates a delivery and courier service across
Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere. The Defendant
Lynn Myers is the President of United Courier and Director of
Diversity at Work. Her husband, Defendant Jim Meyers, is the Vice
President of United Courier. Her son, Defendant Scott Laminack, is
the General Manager of United Courier.
A copy of the Court's order granting conditional class
certification dated Dec. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WmGjpN at no extra charge.[CC]
DOMO INC: Exkae Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EXKAE LTD., Lead Plaintiff, and JARETT PATTON, MARISA
ELLIS, JOHN MARBACH, and LISA DAVIS, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. DOMO, INC., JOSHUA G.
JAMES, BRUCE FELT, FRASER BULLOCK, MATTHEW R. COHLER, DANA EVAN,
MARK GORENBERG, NEHAL RAJ, and GLENN SOLOMON, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-CV-781-DAK-DAO (D. Utah), Judge Dale A. Kimball of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah granted:
(i) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws; and
(ii) the Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice and
Consideration of Documents Incorporated By Reference in
the Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs brought the securities fraud class action on behalf
of persons who purchased Domo common stock between June 28, 2018,
and Sept. 5, 2019, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. They challenge 58 statements as
being fraudulent: 18 statements in Domo's initial public offering
documents and 40 made by the company, Defendant James, and
Defendant Felt in quarterly press releases, earnings calls, and SEC
filings during the Class Period.
Founded in 2010, Domo is a software company with one product: a
cloud-based platform that provides employees in an organization
with real-time access via their smartphones to the organization's
business data, systems, and people. On June 1, 2018, Domo filed a
registration statement on Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which was amended and declared effective by the SEC on
June 28, 2018. The effective date marks the beginning of the Class
Period.
On June 29, 2018, Domo filed a Prospectus with the SEC on Form
424B4 and commenced its IPO. Once Domo commenced its IPO, Domo's
Class B common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market.
Domo's IPO closed on July 3, 2018. The Plaintiffs allege that in
Domo's Registration Statement and Prospectus, the Defendants touted
Domo's billings growth, its focus on enterprise customers, and its
opportunity for international growth, but failed to disclose the
weaknesses of its sales strategy, international marketing, and
billings growth.
The Plaintiffs' confidential witnesses claim that Domo struggled to
grow its business with large enterprises due to an unfocused sales
effort, failure to open up its platform to integrate with
companies' existing data warehouses, concerns over data security,
and a misdirected marketing pitch that targeted executives instead
of the data analysts focused on the business intelligence of the
companies. The Plaintiffs also claim that Domo oversold its
ability to grow internationally when it knew its international
marketing efforts were struggling. They further claim that Domo
made false and misleading statements during the Class Period in
financial statements and earnings calls.
Approximately 14 months later, on Sept. 5, 2019, Domo reported
billings growth of 9% year over year instead of the 17% that had
been expected. In response, analysts issued reports downgrading
Domo, citing the disappointing report and guidance and weakness in
Domo's enterprise business. Analysts blamed the Defendants'
misstatements for causing incorrect optimism as to the enterprise
and international businesses. The next day, Sept. 6, 2019, Domo's
stock price fell 37.45% to close at $15.77 per share, which was
24.9% below the IPO price of $21.
Domo ultimately reported achieving $189.2 million in billings for
FY20, well in excess of its revised FY20 forecast of $172 million.
With the sole exception of fiscal 2Q20, which ended July 31, 2019,
Domo met or exceeded its quarterly billings forecast from fiscal
3Q19 through the end of the Class Period. Also, Domo ultimately
reported achieving $173.4 million in revenue for FY20, exceeding
its revised FY20 forecast of $168 million to 169 million and
squarely within its original FY revenue forecast of $173 million to
174 million.
In connection with their Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants request
that the Court considers certain documents incorporated by
reference into the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint and
documents of which the court may take judicial notice. The
Plaintiffs noted in their opposition to the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss that the latter had not asked the Court to take judicial
notice of exhibits 12, 14, or 15.
While the Defendants did not assert that these exhibits were
incorporated by reference in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint,
Judge Kimball holds that the Defendant's clearly requested the
Court to take judicial notice of these exhibits. The exhibits are
publicly released press releases and a filing with the SEC. He
concludes that all of these exhibits meet the criteria for taking
judicial notice of them. Accordingly, he granted the Defendants'
Request for Judicial Notice and Consideration of Documents
Incorporated by Reference in the Amended Complaint.
The Defendants move to dismiss with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
Amended Class Action Complaint. They argue that the Amended Class
Action Complaint is deficient under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure because it is an impermissible puzzle pleading that
leaves it up to the Defendants and the Court to identify the
misleading statements and to match those statements with the
reasons they are allegedly false or misleading. The Plaintiffs,
however, assert that the Complaint alleges each specific material
misstatement and related omission, including date and circumstances
of its making and the speaker or signatory of the statement, and
after each group of misstatements, provides the reasons why those
statements were materially false and/or misleading by omission when
made.
While the Plaintiffs list groups of challenged statements and
recite a repetitive and somewhat vague list of reasons why the
entire group of statements was purportedly misleading, the Judge
concludes that the Amended Complaint is sufficient under the
relatively easy notice pleading standards in Rule 8 and declines to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on this basis. To the extent that
the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how a statement is false or
misleading, the Judge will address such issues on the merits of the
claims.
Next, the Defendants contend that Lead Plaintiff Exkae and the
other individually named Plaintiffs lack standing because they did
not purchase Domo stock in or traceable to Domo's IPO Registration
Statement. The Plaintiffs assert that they meet the required
pleading standard by merely alleging that they purchased Domo
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
issued in connection with Domo's IPO.
As with all well-pled allegations, however, those allegations must
be supported by facts. The Judge concludes that the other
individually named Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a Section 11
claim based on the IPO Offering Documents because they purchased
shares after unregistered shares began trading in the market and
they cannot trace their shares back to the Offering Documents. He,
therefore, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Section 11 claim for lack of standing.
Even if the Plaintiffs have standing to assert a Section 11 claim,
the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail to plead actionable
false and misleading statements. The parties dispute whether the
Plaintiffs' Section 11 claim is subject to Rule 8's standard notice
pleading requirements or Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading
requirements for fraud.
The Judge granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Section 11 claim because the Plaintiffs lack standing and have
failed to state a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act. He
concludes that the fact that the Plaintiff's question the
effectiveness of those strategies does not mean that material
omissions regarding the strategy occurred. The Plaintiffs'
allegations reflect nothing more than a few former employees
disagreeing with Domo's chosen sales approach. Even if the
Plaintiffs had standing to raise a Section 11 claim, their
allegations fail to plead a false or misleading statement or
omission in Domo's Offering Documents.
The Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b)
claim under the Exchange Act. The Judge concludes that the
Plaintiffs fail to plead a false or misleading statement under
Section 10(b) for the same reasons they fail to plead their case
under Section 11. In addition, the PSLRA's safe harbor provides
that the Defendants "shall not be liable" for forward-looking
statements "accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements." Nine
of the 40 post-IPO statements challenged as misleading fall
squarely within the Safe Harbor. These statements were each
accompanied by meaningful cautionary language. Therefore, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim is
granted.
Because the Complaint does not state a primary violation, the
Plaintiffs' "control person" claims under Section 15(a) of the
Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act necessarily
fails. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 15(a) of the Securities Act and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act claims.
Finally, although the Court would typically allow a party to amend
to cure deficiencies, the Judge concludes that amendment would be
futile. The Plaintiffs could not cure their lack of standing and
they have had adequate access to information through multiple
confidential witnesses. Additional pleading could not change
forward-looking statements or opinions as to the correct strategy
into material misstatements or fraud. Therefore, the Judge
dismissed the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint with
prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/3arXoa1 from Leagle.com.
DOVETAIL ENERGY: Residents File Class Action Over Noxious Odors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairborn daily herald reports that Bath Township residents have
filed a class-action lawsuit against Dovetail Energy LLC, Pitstick
Renewable Energy, Pitstick Pork Farms Inc., and Township Trustee
Tom Pitstick.
The lawsuit, filed on Dec. 10 in Greene County Common Pleas Court,
alleges that the smell coming from the biodigester facility at
Dovetail Energy has deprived residents of the full use of their
property and quality of life. Luke Borntrager is listed as the
primary plaintiff, representing himself and "all others similarly
situated."
Allegations against Pitstick primarily include the odor coming from
the biodigester facility, citing failure to "collect, capture, and
destroy gas from the Facility in a manner that does not allow
noxious odors." Additionally, the lawsuit alleges gross negligence
on the part of Pitstick, Dovetail, and the other related parties to
prevent these odors, despite complaints from residents and
government entities.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for damages, including
attorney fees and costs. They also seek an order "holding the
entrance of" the noxious odors onto their property created a
nuisance, and further relief as the Court deems proper.
The lawsuit cites numerous violation notices from the Ohio
Department of Environmental Protection, as well as numerous
complaints from residents of Bath Township and Fairborn. The
lawsuit cites more than 80 households who have "contacted
Plaintiff's counsel documenting the odors they attribute to
Defendant's facility.
Additionally, the lawsuit cites a cease and desist order issued
from the Greene County Prosecutor's Office in September 2019.
"The noxious odors invading Plaintiff's property are indecent
and/or offensive to the senses, and obstruct the free use of their
property," the document reads.
The lawsuit was submitted by lawyers Daniel Petrov of Thorman
Petrov Group, and Laura Sheets of Liddle and Dubin PC.
Pitstick came under fire in recent years for use of the biodigester
on the 14.7 acres of his property. The biodigester uses an
anaerobic process to break down food waste and animal waste into
fertilizer and methane gas. The methane gas is burned to supply
electricity to approximately 800 homes, and the fertilizer is
spread over approximately 2,200 acres of surrounding farmland. In
2019, the Dovetail biodigester facility was found in violation of
the Ohio Revised Code and Bath Township Zoning Resolution. Dovetail
and Pitstick have since appealed that ruling.
Borntrager's legal counsel could not be reached by press time
Friday. Pitstick declined to comment.[GN]
DR. ERROL GAUM: Faces Suit Over Misconduct on Young Patients
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Chiu, writing for CBC News, reports that a notice of a
class-action lawsuit was expected to be filed on Dec. 17 against a
Halifax-area dentist accused of causing "physical and significant
psychological injury to several hundred young children" over 50
years.
The notice of action names Ryan Binder, the parent of a young
patient; and Sunyata Choyce, who was a patient when she was a young
girl, as the representative plaintiffs.
The lawsuit notice alleges assault and negligence by Dr. Errol
Gaum, a longtime pediatric dentist whose licence was suspended
following a Facebook post by Binder last month that was shared
widely and sparked a slew of similar complaints.
Binder posted about the "unacceptable" treatment of his
six-year-old daughter, Peyton, on Nov. 10, 2020, and is cited in
the lawsuit's statement of claim.
The claim alleges Gaum placed his hand over Peyton's mouth and
pinched her nose at the same time. When she cried for her
grandmother, Gaum is alleged to have told her, "your grandmother is
no longer here."
The document also includes historic allegations of abuse by former
patients.
Choyce, now 41, went to Gaum's dental clinic several times in the
early 1980s when she was around Peyton's age.
The statement of claim alleges Gaum would routinely make
"intimidating and cruel comments" and tell her to "shut up and that
he would hurt her more if she kept crying." It goes on to allege
that he would grab her face, lean in, and "the sides of her lips
would be ripped from her mouth being pried open too far."
Her mother was not allowed in the treatment room but could hear her
screaming, according to the document.
The allegations in the notice of action are unproven.
They are also the subject of an assault investigation by Halifax
Regional Police.
Lawyer Jamie MacGillivray said about 110 people have signed on to
the class action, with another 200 files pending. Most of them are
former patients who are now adults, he said.
He acknowledged the methods used in pediatric dentistry have
evolved, but said in this case, "the behaviour management
techniques aren't just outdated but . . . they're totally wrong,
maybe even cruel in some instances."
MacGillivray declined to provide a dollar value on the class
action, but said if successful, each damage would be separately
assessed.
Gaum's lawyer said he could not comment as he has not seen the
court documents, which will be filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.
The lawsuit must be certified by a judge in order to proceed as a
class action. [GN]
FIDELITONE LAST: Caballero Suit Remanded to Alameda Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMERICA CABALLERO, Plaintiff v. FIDELITONE LAST MILE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06281-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince
Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (i) granted Caballero's motion to remand, and (ii)
directed the Clerk of Court to remand the case to the Alameda
County Superior Court.
The Judge held that Fidelitone has failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Fidelitone's calculation of attorney's fees fails
to account for the fact that, for purposes of determining the
amount in controversy in class action cases, attorney's fees must
be calculated on a pro-rata basis. Fidelitone's bare assertion
that Caballero's reimbursement claim pushes the amount in
controversy over the $75,000 threshold because, in addition to the
cost of her truck and property damage, "the cost of the equipment,
payroll fees and uniforms would amount to thousands of dollars" is
insufficient to meet its burden.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3rgCBvU from Leagle.com.
FINANCE SYSTEM: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Larkin & Sandri Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms
the dismissal of two lawsuits in the matter titled JENNIFER R.
LARKIN and DOREAN A. SANDRI, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FINANCE
SYSTEM OF GREEN BAY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 18-3582 &
19-1557 (7th Cir.).
The consolidated appeals involve materially identical claims under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Larkin and Sandri received
collection letters from Finance System, seeking payment of medical
debts. Represented by the same law firm, Larkin and Sandri filed
separate class-action lawsuits claiming that the letters violated
Sections 1692e and 1692f of the Act, which prohibit the use of
false, deceptive, or misleading representations, or otherwise
unfair or unconscionable methods to collect a debt. The district
court dismissed both complaints for failure to state a claim.
The Appellate Court affirms, but on different grounds.
Chief Judge Diane Sykes, writing for the Panel, states that a
threshold question concerns standing to sue. Larkin and Sandri
accuse Finance System of violating Sections 1692e and 1692f, but
they have not alleged any injury from the statutory violations.
Under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), and Casillas
v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019),
both cases should have been dismissed for lack of standing, Judge
Sykes opines.
The district court judge concluded that Larkin has standing and had
timely filed suit. But he dismissed her complaint for failure to
state a claim, holding as a matter of law that the statements in
the Defendant's collection letters do not violate Sections 1692e or
1692f. The Judge reached the same conclusions in Sandri's case and
dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs Larkin and Sandri appealed. The Appellate Court
consolidated the cases because they present identical questions of
law.
Judge Sykes notes that two of the Appellate Court's recent cases
applied the teaching of Spokeo to lawsuits arising under the FDCPA:
Casillas and Lavallee. Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates
concerned an alleged violation of Section 1692g, which requires
debt collectors to provide consumers with written notice of certain
statutory rights -- notably, the right to dispute the debt and the
right to demand that the debt collector verify the identity of the
creditor. Lavallee v. Med-1 Solutions, 932 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir.
2019), also concerned an alleged violation of Section 1692g, but
the standing inquiry yielded a different result. Unlike Casillas,
which involved an "incomplete validation notice," in Lavallee the
debt collector did not provide any of the disclosures required by
Section 1692g(a).
According to the Opinion, Casillas and Lavallee raised claims under
Section 1692g, which imposes procedural obligations on debt
collectors to notify consumers of certain statutory rights when
communicating with them. Larkin and Sandri, on the other hand,
raise claims under Sections 1692e and 1692f, which prohibit "false,
deceptive, or misleading representations" and "unfair or
unconscionable" practices in the collection of consumer debts. In
other words, the Plaintiffs invoke the Act's substantive
provisions. Their attorney pointed to the procedural/substantive
distinction at oral argument as a basis to distinguish Casillas.
The Appellate Court says it is not persuaded that the distinction
makes Casillas inapplicable or alters the Article III of the
Constitution calculus. An FDCPA plaintiff must allege a concrete
injury regardless of whether the alleged statutory violation is
characterized as procedural or substantive.
Neither Larkin nor Sandri has done so, Judge Sykes states. As
Casillas explains, it's not enough for an FDCPA plaintiff to simply
allege a statutory violation; he must allege (and later establish)
that the statutory violation harmed him "or 'presented an
appreciable risk of harm to the underlying concrete interest that
Congress sought to protect.'" Larkin and Sandri generally alleged
in their complaints that certain statements in Finance System's
collection letters were false, deceptive, or misleading, or unfair
and unconscionable, in violation of Sections 1692e and 1692f. But
neither complaint contains any allegation of harm -- or even an
appreciable risk of harm -- from the claimed statutory violation.
Nothing in the Plaintiffs' appellate briefing filled the gap, Judge
Sykes says. Although the question of standing was litigated in the
district court and raised again by Finance System in its brief on
appeal, the Plaintiffs' reply brief relied exclusively on the
assertion of a statutory violation and made no effort to articulate
an injury of any kind, either tangible or intangible, from the
violation.
Not finding an allegation of injury in the complaints or briefing,
the Appellate Court says it gave the Plaintiffs' attorney several
opportunities at oral argument to identify a concrete injury that
might support his clients' standing to sue. He could not do so. He
did not contend, for example, that Finance System's communications
caused the Plaintiffs to pay debts they did not owe or created an
appreciable risk that they might do so. He did not claim that his
clients were confused or misled to their detriment by the
statements in the dunning letters, or otherwise relied to their
detriment on the contents of the letters. He did not suggest that
it was reasonable to infer that Larkin and Sandri would have
pursued a different course of action were it not for the statutory
violations (as was the case in Lavallee). He did raise the
possibility that the statements in the dunning letters might
interfere with the doctor-patient relationship because the creditor
in question was a medical provider.
In sum, Judge Sykes opines, the Plaintiffs seek to invoke the power
of the federal courts to litigate an alleged FDCPA violation that
did not injure them in any concrete way, tangible or intangible. As
explained in Spokeo and Casillas, that's impermissible under
Article III. The suits should have been dismissed for lack of
standing.
The Appellate Court, therefore, modifies the judgments to reflect a
jurisdictional dismissal. As modified, the judgments are affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybsbhb73 from Leagle.com.
FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
First American Financial Corp. (FAF)
Class Period: 2/17/2017 - 10/22/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-faf/
Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Company (RTX,
RTN)
Class Period: 2/10/2016-10/27/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 29, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rtx/
Boston Scientific Corporation (BSX)
Class Period: 4/24/2019 - 11/16/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-bsx/
Splunk Inc. (SPLK)
Class Period: 10/21/2020 - 12/2/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-splk/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the First American Financial Corp. securities
class action lawsuit:
First American Financial Corp. (FAF)
Class Period: 2/17/2017 - 10/22/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 24, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-faf/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
FIRST AMERICAN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Dec. 16 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. 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.
FAF Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/first-american-financial-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=11605&wire=1
LRN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/k12inc-information-request-form?prid=11605&wire=1
YY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/joyy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11605&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
First American Financial Corp. (NYSE:FAF)
FAF Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 17, 2017
- October 22, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 24, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/first-american-financial-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=11605&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, First
American Financial Corp. made materially 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.
K12 Inc. (NYSE:LRN)
LRN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 27, 2020 -
September 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/k12inc-information-request-form?prid=11605&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, K12 Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructures, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(ii) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer system; (iii) K12 was unable
provide the necessary levels of administrative support and training
to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv) based on the
foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts.
Joyy Inc. (NASDAQ:YY)
YY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 28, 2016 -
November 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/joyy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11605&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Joyy
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its
revenues from live streaming sources; (2) The majority of users at
any given time were bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to
effect a roundtripping scheme that Manufactured the false
appearance of revenues; (3) the Company overstated its cash
reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition of Bigo was largely
contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
Misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
FLORIDA: Initial Approval of Barnett Suit Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY BARNETT, et al.,
Plaintiffs/Petitioners, v. GREGORY TONY, Defendant/Respondent, Case
No. 0:20-cv-61113-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court,
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an
order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the Parties' Settlement;
2. preliminary certifying the Class defined in the
Settlement, consisting of:
"persons who are being, or will be, confined in the
Broward County Jail at any time while the Agreement
remains in effect, including any facilities where the
Defendant may in the future confine persons;"
the Settlement Class includes but is not limited to
persons who are "Medically Vulnerable," defined in the
Settlement as "persons 65 years of age and over, persons
who are both age 50 and over and who are hypertensive, and
persons of any age who suffer from certain underlying
medical conditions which the CDC has determined are at an
increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19."
3 approving of the proposed Notice to the Class;
4. appointing Benjamin James Stevenson, Esq. of ACLU
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA as Settlement Class Counsel; an
5. scheduling a Fairness Hearing during the week of February
1, 2021, subject to the Court's availability and
convenience.
Terms of the Settlement:
-- This Settlement ensures all Class Members will have
access to adequate personal protective equipment,
hygiene supplies, and medical care; that Class
Members, especially medically vulnerable Class
Members, will be able to maintain the recommended
social distance from other detainees when possible,
now and throughout the remaining course of the
pandemic.
-- The Settlement addresses temperature and COVID-19
symptom checks consistent with CDC guidance at
intake/booking; social distancing of at least six feet
in intake holding cells and other areas where newly
admitted persons are held before their transfer to
Jail facilities, where possible; the provision of face
coverings to newly admitted prisoners before entering
the booking area; that no one shall spend more than
six hours in the booking area; and that staff shall
wear face coverings and gloves in the booking area
while within six feet of prisoners.
-- To help prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the housing
areas of the Broward County Jail and to allow the
Class to better protect themselves from the risks
associated with the spread of COVID-19 in the housing
areas of the Broward County Jail, the Settlement
addresses the identification of all persons who are
vulnerable to serious illness or death because of
COVID-19 infection.
This litigation arises from conditions at the Broward County Jail
facilities (the Jail) during the present global COVID-19 pandemic.
As this Court is well aware, COVID-19 is a serious and potentially
fatal respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus. Around the
globe, millions of people have suffered or died from COVID-19.
On June 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs, for themselves and proposed Class
Members confined at the Broward County Jail, filed a complaint and
habeas petition alleging that the fact and conditions of their
confinement violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs sued the Sheriff of Broward
County, Florida, Gregory Tony, in his official capacity, seeking
remedies to address alleged substantial risks of their contracting
the COVID-19 virus and of suffering serious illness or death should
they contract the virus.
A copy of the joint motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement dated Dec. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/3nmGtcy at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs/Petitioners are represented by:
Benjamin James Stevenson, Esq.
Jacqueline Nicole Azi, Esq.
Daniel Tilley, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA
3 W. Garden St., Suite 712
Pensacola, FL 32502-5636
Telephone: (786) 363-2738
E-mail: bstevenson@aclufl.org
jazis@aclufl.org
dtilley@aclufl.org
- and -
Anjana Samant, Esq.
Steven M. Watt, Esq.
Eric Balaban, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad St., 18th Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
E-mail: asamant@aclu.org
swatt@aclu.org
ebalaban@aclu.org
- and -
Curtis Filaroski, Esq.
Kathryn Strobach, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA, INC.
1000 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 640
Tampa, FL 32308
Telephone: (850) 488-9071
E-mail: curtisf@disabilityrightsflorida.org
kathryns@disabilityrightsflorida.org
- and -
Suhana S. Han, Esq.
Akash M. Toprani, Esq.
James H. Congdon, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
125 Broad St.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
E-mail: hans@sullcrom.com
toprania@sullcrom.com
congdonj@sullcrom.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael R. Piper, Esq.
JOHNSON, ANSELMO, MURDOCH,
BURKE, PIPER & HOCHMAN, P.A.
2455 E. Sunrise Blvd., Suite 1000
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
Telephone: (954) 463-0100
E-mail: piper@jambg.com
FLUIDIGM CORP: Lead Plaintiff & Lead Counsel Named in Jermain Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton appoints the Lead Plaintiff and
the Lead Plaintiff's counsel in the lawsuit styled REENA SAINT
JERMAIN v. FLUIDIGM CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 20-cv-06617-PJH
(N.D. Cal.).
The lawsuit is a securities fraud putative class action. Named
Plaintiff Saint Jermain alleges that she bought shares of stock in
Fluidigm, in reliance on false or misleading statements made by the
Defendant, and that she suffered damages when the price of the
stock fell after Fluidigm's true financial condition became
apparent.
On Sept. 21, 2020, the Named Plaintiff filed a class action
complaint on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Fluidigm securities between Feb. 7, 2019, and
Nov. 5, 2019, the class period. Fluidigm manufactures and markets
products and services that are used by researchers to study health
and disease, identify biomarkers, and accelerate the development of
therapies.
On Aug. 1, 2019, Fluidigm reported second quarter 2019 revenue of
$28.2 million, below analysts' expected revenue of $32 million. The
following day, the Company's share price fell $4.10 or 34% in
trading and closed at $8.05 per share. On Nov. 5, 2019, the Company
reported third quarter 2019 revenue declined 8.5% year-over-year.
The next day, the Company's share price fell $2.60 or 51% in
trading and closed at $2.51 per share.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Fluidigm, Stephen Linthwaite
(the Company's CEO), and Vikram Jog (the Company's CFO) made
materially false or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. The same day she filed the complaint, the Plaintiff
published a notice via Business Wire advising class members of the
putative class action.
On Nov. 20, 2020, three different movants filed the present motions
to appoint the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel. Movant Prakash
Patel filed a motion stating that he lost approximately $397.29 in
connection with purchases of Fluidigm securities during the class
period. Named Plaintiff Saint Jermain, along with Patrice Saint
Jermain, filed a motion stating that they lost approximately
$696.10 in Fluidigm securities during the class period. Movant Kwok
Kong filed a motion asserting that he lost approximately $87,302.88
in Fluidigm securities during the class period.
Subsequent to these three motions, the Saint Jermain movants filed
a statement of non-opposition, acknowledging Kong's apparent larger
financial interest. Kong filed an opposition to the other two
movants based on his larger financial interest, and Patel has filed
no opposition. The Defendants have filed a statement that they take
no position as to whom the Court should appoint as the Lead
Plaintiff or the Lead Counsel but oppose the legal and factual
contentions set forth in the movants' briefs.
In the present case, there is also no dispute that one Plaintiff,
Kong, claims a substantially greater total loss than do the other
two Plaintiffs, Judge Hamilton notes. Clearly, Judge Hamilton says,
movant Kong has the largest financial interest.
The Court finds that Kong meets the typicality and adequacy
requirements. There is no evidence that he is antagonistic to class
members and he has selected counsel with experience in prosecuting
securities class action cases. Therefore, the Court finds that Kong
is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff.
Judge Hamilton also notes that no party has objected to Kong's
selection of Brager Eagel & Squire, P.C., as the Lead Counsel.
Having reviewed the firm's resume, the Court finds the Lead
Plaintiff's choice to be reasonable. It approves Kong's selection
of lead counsel.
Accordingly, the Court grants Kong's motion and denies the Saint
Jermain and Patel motions. It appoints Kwok Kong to serve as Lead
Plaintiff in the action. It also approves Kong's choice of counsel,
the law firm of Brager Eagel & Squire, P.C., to serve as the Lead
Counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9me6lhv from Leagle.com.
FORD MOTOR: $5.3MM Settlement in Kommer Suit Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON KOMMER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-CV-0296 (LEK/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Lawrence E. Kahn
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motions for final approval of the
class action settlement, and for attorney's fees, reimbursement of
expenses, and payment of an incentive award.
On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff Kommer commenced the action on behalf
of himself and similarly situated consumers, alleging that
Defendant Ford made misrepresentations regarding defective door
latches on F-Series pickup trucks. In his Second Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiff asserted a New York General Business Law
("GBL") Section 349 deceptive acts and practices claim, a GBL
Section 350 false advertising claim, and parallel claims under the
analogous deceptive acts and practices statutes of the 49 other
states.
The Plaintiff alleges that door latches on several models of Ford
pickup trucks sold and leased between 2015 and 2019 do not lock and
latch properly when the temperature drops below freezing. Ford
allegedly has long known about the problem, but has published
advertisements for F-series trucks in various media that fail to
mention the defect and has otherwise failed to disclose the
information to consumers.
On Dec. 3, 2019, the parties indicated that they had reached a
settlement.
The settlement establishes a $5.3 million "Qualified Settlement
Fund." The fund is to be used for the following purposes: (1)
reimbursement of costs for past door latch repairs; (2)
reimbursement of costs for future door latch repairs; (3)
compensation for dissatisfaction with door latch performance; (4)
class notice costs; (5) settlement administration costs; (6)
residual payments to class members; (7) the class counsel's fees
and expenses; (8) service award for the named Plaintiff.
The payments will be disbursed in the following amounts: (1)
settlement class members who incurred out-of-pocket expenses in
connection with a door latch repair prior to the entry of the
preliminary approval order may receive reimbursement of such costs
up to $400; (2) settlement class members who incurred out-of-pocket
expenses in connection with a door latch repair within one year
after the preliminary approval order may receive reimbursement of
such costs up to $200, so long as they first provided an authorized
Ford dealer the opportunity to perform the most current door latch
service program applicable to their class vehicle; (3) "Silent
sufferers" who experienced a door latch malfunction but did not
seek a repair are eligible for compensation of up to $10 for
dissatisfaction with door latch performance if they attest that
they experienced dissatisfaction with a door latch in their class
vehicle and submit basic information to allow the settlement
administrator to verify their ownership.
After the conclusion of the claims process, any remaining funds in
the Qualified Settlement Fund following payment of attorney's fees,
the named plaintiff incentive award, and costs of notice and
settlement administration are to be distributed to class members
who submitted a valid claim, as well as, more broadly, anyone who
purchased or leased a class vehicle from an authorized Ford dealer
as identified in Ford's warranty records.
The Plaintiff's counsel has requested attorney's fees and expenses
of $1.3 million, and a named Plaintiff service award of $7,500.
The Defendant consents to both.
Separate from the settlement, since the case was filed, Ford has
offered free repairs to certain vehicle owners under existing
warranty coverage, in addition to creating an extended warranty
program that provides free repair to any class vehicle that
experiences a door latch problem through Oct. 31, 2028.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement. On May
4, 2020, the Court issued an order granting the Plaintiff's motion.
On Dec. 2, 2020, the Court held a fairness hearing.
Before the Court are the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final
approval of the class action settlement, and the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses,
and payment of an incentive award.
The Judge approved the terms of the Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate as it applies to the Settlement Class, and
directed consummation of all its terms and provisions.
Judge Kahn confirmed the prior conditional certification of the
Settlement Class and made final for purposes of the Settlement
Agreement as approved by the Memorandum-Decision and Order.
The Settlement Class is defined as:
All entities and natural persons in the United States
(including its Territories and the District of Columbia) who
currently own or lease (or who in the past owned or leased)
a model year 2015-2018 Ford F-150 trucks and 2017-2018 Ford
F-250, F-350, F-450, and F-550 trucks sold or leased in the
United States, as well as model year 2019 Ford F-150, F-250,
F-350, F-450, and F-550 trucks sold or leased in the United
States that were built at Ford's Dearborn Assembly Plant
before Feb. 26, 2019, Ford's Kansas City Assembly Plant
before March 4, 2019, Ford's Kentucky Assembly Plant before
March 5, 2019, or Ford's Ohio Assembly Plant before
March 11, 2019.
The Judge appointed Named Plaintiff Brandon Kommer to serve as the
Class Representative. The Judge awarded (i) a Service Award to the
Class Representative of $7,500, and (ii) the Class Counsel $1.3
million in combined fees and expenses to be paid from the Qualified
Settlement Fund.
The case is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice. In
addition, all claims which any Settlement Class Members alleged or
could have alleged in any complaint, action, or litigation based
upon an alleged Door Latch malfunction in the Class Vehicles are
dismissed.
The Clerk of the Court will serve a copy of the Memorandum-Decision
and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/3pa57xu from Leagle.com.
FRERES DE SAINT-GABRIEL: Court Okays Sexual Assault Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Presse Canadienne reports that Quebec Superior Court on Dec. 15
authorized a class-action suit against the Freres de Saint-Gabriel
du Canada seeking damages for sexual assaults allegedly committed
since 1940.
The legal firm Arsenault Dufresne Wee, which is overseeing the
action, announced that the plaintiff, a 67-year-old man, had been
granted the status of representative for anyone who claims they
were sexually assaulted by a volunteer, employee or member of the
religious order based on Gouin St. E. in Montreal.
The identity of the plaintiff is protected by a court order.
The man contends he was sexually assaulted by a brother of
Saint-Gabriel between 1964 and 1966 while he attended the
Orphelinat Saint-Arsene in Montreal. He said that on more than 10
occasions, the member of the congregation, who was a nurse at the
establishment, fondled him sexually when he was between 11 and 13
years old.
In a statement made public by his lawyers, the plaintiff says he
suffered for many years because of the assaults and even attempted
suicide at the age of 24. He wants the truth to come out to allow
him to turn the page on that part of his life, he said.
In authorizing the class action, the court noted the plaintiff was
suffering from anxiety, trouble sleeping, feelings of guilt, low
self-esteem and alcohol abuse.
A list of alleged abusers is attached to the class action
authorization request. The plaintiff's lawyers said the
congregation is challenging its being made public and that the
issue will be argued before a Superior Court judge in March.
Arsenault Dufresne Wee notes that anyone who believes they were the
victims of inappropriate conduct on the part of members of the
congregation of the Freres de Saint-Gabriel du Canada can join the
class action by contacting them.
The Orphelinat Saint-Arsene, who housed an elementary and secondary
school, was founded in 1906 and administered until 1976 by the
Freres de Saint-Gabriel du Canada, which was established in Quebec
in 1888.
The older section of the building, on Christophe-Colomb Ave., was
destroyed by fire in the 1970s. The remainder of the building was
purchased by the city of Montreal.
Arsenault Dufresne Wee has also steered class actions seeking
damages for sexual assaults against the congregations of
Sainte-Croix et l'Oratoire Saint-Joseph, the Oblats de Marie
Immaculée, the Clercs de Saint-Viateur du Canada, the Freres des
écoles chrétiennes, the Religieux de Saint-Vincent de Paul as
well as the dioceses of Montréal, Longueuil, Joliette and Quebec
City. [GN]
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Court Revives Homebuyers Taxes Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that the Georgia Court of
Appeals has revived a putative class action that, if certified and
successful, could mean tens of millions of dollars in refunds to
residents of Fulton County and 14 cities within it who bought homes
in 2015 and 2016 and were allegedly hit with illegally inflated
property tax bills. [GN]
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Foley & Lardner Discusses Ruling in FACTA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Davis, Esq., of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, has
vacated a pre-Spokeo "beat the clock" class action settlement for
lack of standing post-Spokeo. This decision is reflective of a
developing trend in the Eleventh Circuit to undertake exacting
reviews of class action settlements. The decision was issued less
than six weeks after an Eleventh Circuit panel vacated a district
court order in another case for failure to sufficiently explain the
grounds for approving a class settlement in that matter, as we
previously reported.
The new decision is Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No.
16-16486 & 16-16783, 2020 WL 6305084 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2020). In
Muransky, the parties had negotiated, executed and obtained
preliminary approval of a $6.3 million settlement in January 2016,
four months before the Supreme Court issued its seminal decision on
Article III standing in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540
(2016). During the parties' settlement negotiations, each side was
mindful that the impending decision in Spokeo would significantly
change the parties' respective bargaining positions. According to
the Eleventh Circuit, the Spokeo decision did just that - setting a
standard that conclusively established that the Muransky plaintiff
lacked standing to pursue his case, or to settle the litigation.
Even so, four months after Spokeo was decided, the parties sought
and obtained final approval of their settlement. The parties'
moving papers contained references to Spokeo, principally relating
to its import on the settlement negotiations, but without analysis
of the decision's application to the plaintiff's allegations. The
district court's final approval order did not mention Spokeo at
all.
A nonparty objector appealed the district court's order granting
final approval of the settlement to the Eleventh Circuit. Finding
that the plaintiff had "shut his eyes and closed his ears to the
requirements of Spokeo while his claims were still at the district
court," the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's final
approval of the class settlement, and directed the court to dismiss
the Muransky lawsuit without prejudice.
This Eleventh Circuit decision is significant for two key reasons.
First, the opinion makes clear that a class action settlement will
not pass muster -- even if negotiated in the type of uncertain
environment common to most litigation, and even if preliminarily
approved -- if subsequent legal developments are deemed to bar a
settlement prior to final approval. Second, as with its earlier
decision this fall, the Eleventh Circuit has made absolutely clear
that the appellate court will not simply defer to district court
approvals of class action settlements as a matter of course.
Instead, the Eleventh Circuit has signaled -- in no uncertain terms
-- that the court will rigorously review each settlement when
presented.
Background
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") forbids
merchants from printing more than the last five digits of credit
card numbers on receipts offered to customers. After the named
plaintiff in Muransky spent $19.26 at a Godiva store in Florida, he
was given a receipt with the first six and the last four digits of
his 16 digit credit card number. Less than a week later, the
plaintiff filed a class action suit, alleging that defendant Godiva
Chocolatier, Inc. had printed too many credit card digits on
hundreds of thousands of receipts nationwide. The plaintiff alleged
that such violations of FACTA exposed class members to "an elevated
risk of identity theft." The plaintiff disclaimed any recovery for
actual damages, and instead sought only statutory damages. In light
of FACTA's per-violation statutory damages of up to $1,000,
Godiva's potential liability was estimated to be more than $342
million.
When the Complaint was filed in April 2015, litigants and courts
were "bedeviled" - according to the Eleventh Circuit - concerning
whether pleading a bare statutory violation, without allegations of
actual injury, was enough to establish standing. In early November
2015, the Supreme Court heard argument on that issue in Spokeo.
Over the next three months, while the Supreme Court decision was
pending, the Muransky parties negotiated and executed a January
2016 Settlement Agreement.
According to the Eleventh Circuit, "[b]oth parties had an interest
in settling before [Spokeo] was decided, because the Supreme
Court's decision was likely to shift the bargaining calculus
dramatically. So they settled." On January 25, 2016, the district
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. In March
2016, the court entered an amended preliminary approval order,
setting a September 2016 final approval hearing.
In Spokeo, which was decided in May 2016, the Supreme Court held
that a party lacks standing to sue when it pleads only a "bare
procedural violation" of a statute, and not an actual injury. As
stated above, the parties' final approval papers in Muransky did
contain references to Spokeo, but without analysis of its
application to the plaintiff's allegations, including the
plaintiff's express disclaimer of seeking any actual damages. At
the final approval hearing in September, one objector asked the
district court to consider whether the plaintiff's claim comported
with Spokeo, arguing that without standing, the settlement should
not be approved. One week later, the district court granted final
approval, without any reference to Spokeo or to standing.
The objector appealed. In October 2018, an Eleventh Circuit panel
affirmed the final approval order. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier,
Inc., 905 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2018). In April 2019, after the
objector filed a petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc,
the same three-judge panel issued a superseding opinion, with a
revised standing analysis, also affirming the final approval order.
922 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 2019). In October 2019, after the objector
filed a renewed petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc,
the Eleventh Circuit vacated the superseding opinion, and granted
rehearing en banc.
The Majority Decision
A 7-3 majority (with two judges recused) initially found,
consistent with decisions by other circuit courts of appeal, that
the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to confer standing.
The prior three-judge panel had reasoned that a violation of a
statute that causes even a marginal risk of harm is tantamount to a
concrete injury, allowing standing. The Eleventh Circuit majority
disagreed, stating: "[W]e know one thing to be true -- alleging a
statutory violation is not enough to show injury in fact."
The majority then held that the district court "acted without
jurisdiction" by approving the Muransky settlement post-Spokeo,
stating that courts are "'powerless to approve a proposed class
action settlement' if 'no named plaintiff has standing.'" The court
was not sympathetic to the plaintiff's protest that standing was
not litigated before the district court - having been raised by
Godiva only in a boilerplate affirmative defense, and then by the
objector at the final approval hearing. In a stern rebuke, the
majority stated: "We do not think it is too much to ask that
litigants who are aware that their allegations may not satisfy
constitutional standing requirements take the time to firm up those
allegations -- if it is possible to do so -- before an en banc
circuit court confirms their suspicions of inadequacy."
There's more. Mincing no words, the majority declared: "[E]ven if
the parties wish to bargain around Spokeo, we cannot indulge them .
. . . Having shut his eyes and closed his ears to the requirements
of Spokeo while his claims were still at the district court, the
named plaintiff now tries to say that those claims surely show
concrete injury under Spokeo in any event. . . . But the emperor
still has no clothes; the bare procedural violation the plaintiff
alleges is just as bare as it ever was. Because the plaintiff
alleged only a statutory violation, and not a concrete injury, he
has no standing. That means we cannot evaluate the fairness of the
parties' settlement, and we vacate the district court's order
approving it."
The Three Dissents
Each of the three dissenting judges wrote a separate opinion. All
argued that the plaintiff had standing. In his dissent, Judge
Adalberto Jordan, a member of the initial three-judge panel, also
contended that in lieu of dismissal, "Supreme Court precedent and
procedural fairness dictate that [the plaintiff] have an
opportunity to amend his complaint or present facts in support of
standing." In pointed language, Judge Jordan added: "Not only is
dismissal unfair to [the plaintiff], but it requires the majority
to make assumptions about the risks of identity theft without the
benefit of a factual record, expert reports, or adversarial testing
of the issue in the district court. . . . [I]t is not fair to
expect parties to anticipate changes in the law and then dismiss
their case if they fail to do so. The proper resolution in that
scenario is to remand."
Takeaways
The Muransky decision is a clear warning that parties cannot ignore
Article III standing in order to resolve a class action. Though the
Muransky parties wanted to "beat the clock" by settling their case
prior to the imminent decision in Spokeo, the Eleventh Circuit
majority was not receptive to the parties' attempt to sidestep that
decision when they sought final approval of their settlement four
months after the Supreme Court had issued its opinion.
As such, the Muransky decision instructs that any relevant changes
in the law -- after execution of a settlement agreement but before
final approval -- must be carefully considered and then addressed,
as appropriate, with a district court. And, as explained above, the
Muransky decision further informs that when objections to
settlement approval orders are made, the Eleventh Circuit will
conduct its own exacting and rigorous examination of the objections
-- without any inclination to simply show deference to a district
court's findings, or any hesitation to vacate final approval of a
class action settlement. [GN]
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Takes Up Securities Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Goldman Sachs Group Inc's
appeal in a securities fraud case that could redefine the ability
of shareholders to pursue class actions against public companies
whose stock prices fall.
Goldman is appealing an April decision from the 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Manhattan allowing a class action accusing the
bank of hiding conflicts of interest when creating risky subprime
securities before the 2008 financial crisis.
A decision is likely before the end of the court's current term in
June.
The case stemmed from Goldman's sale of collateralized debt
obligations including Abacus 2007 AC-1, which it assembled with
help from hedge fund manager John Paulson.
In 2010, Goldman reached a $550 million settlement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve charges it cheated
Abacus investors by concealing Paulson's role, including how he
made a $1 billion profit by betting the CDO would fail.
Shareholders led by three pension plans claimed that before the
news came out, the bank had misled them and inflated its stock
price with such statements that client interests "always come
first" and that "integrity and honesty" mattered.
The 2nd Circuit presumed that shareholders relied on such
statements when buying Goldman stock, and rejected the bank's
argument that allowing lawsuits based on seemingly generic
statements would unleash a flood of litigation.
Goldman described its appeal as "the most important securities
case" before the Supreme Court in several years, and drew support
for it from business and financial industry groups.
The bank also won support from the Society for Corporate
Governance, which said a Goldman loss could prompt companies to
clam up on social issues such as diversity and racial justice, "out
of fear that even generalized or aspirational statements" could
prompt securities fraud claims. [GN]
GOLDMAN SACHS: NECA-IBEW Class Counsel May File Letter Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NECA-IBEW HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDMAN,
SACHS & CO., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-10783-LAP
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted the Class Counsel's
motion for leave to file under seal: its Nov. 24, 2020 letter to
the Court; and Exhibit A to the Letter.
Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Court's Individual Practices, Class
Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is, contemporaneously with
its motion, submitting paper copies of the subject documents, along
with the motion, to the Court.
The documents the Class Counsel seeks to file under seal contain
confidential Class Member claim information, as well as settlement
information that the Class Counsel, on behalf of the Class, has
agreed to maintain as confidential. Additionally, the Letter and
exhibit thereto concern and contain information that has expressly
been deemed confidential and is sealed by court order in Fort Worth
Employees' Retirement Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase, et al., No.
1:09-cv-03701-JPO-JCF (S.D.N.Y.).
Because the reasons establish good cause for filing the Class
Counsel's Letter and exhibit under seal, Judge Preska granted the
request to file under seal in order to protect the parties'
interests in settlement. The Class Counsel will confer and inform
the Court within one week of the finalization of the settlement as
to whether the papers may be unsealed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 order is available at
https://bit.ly/3nH2y60 from Leagle.com.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Alonzo, Esq., and Peter Duffy Doyle, Esq., of Proskauer Rose
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on December 11, 2020,
the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in a shareholder
securities litigation against Goldman Sachs.[1] On appeal, Goldman
argues that federal securities law permits issuer defendants in
purported class actions to rebut the presumption of reliance where
the alleged misstatements are of such a generic nature that they
could not be expected to have impacted the stock price. The Supreme
Court could decide a split between the Second and Seventh Circuits
on whether corporations may challenge materiality of the alleged
misstatements at the class certification phase of litigation.
The complaint, which was initially filed in 2011, alleges Goldman
privately allowed its hedge fund clients to select mortgages that
were packaged as collateralized debt obligations, to the detriment
of other CDO investors. According to the plaintiffs, this conduct
rendered Goldman's public statements about its procedures
concerning conflicts of interest materially misleading and
artificially maintained the company's inflated stock price, in
violation of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs allege that after an SEC enforcement action revealed
these issues, Goldman's stock price declined and shareholders lost
about $1 billion.
A critical issue in this litigation has been whether Goldman
rebutted the "fraud on the market" presumption of reliance set
forth by the Supreme Court in Basic v. Levinson,[2] which presumes
that the market price of a company's shares takes into account all
publicly available information about the company - including
material misrepresentations. In challenging the district court's
grant of class certification, Goldman argued that its alleged
misstatements generally describing its conflicts of interest
policies did not sufficiently inflate the company's stock price.
The Second Circuit, however, accepted the plaintiffs' argument that
although such statements may not have initially inflated Goldman's
stock price, they artificially maintained that inflation.[3] The
Second Circuit also held that evaluating the effect the bank's
statements had on its shareholders would impermissibly institute a
materiality requirement for class certification under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23. Generally, defendants challenge materiality
in motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. Because it presents
a common question for all shareholders, class certification under
Rule 23 does not evaluate materiality.[4]
The effect of the Supreme Court's decision in this case could be
wide-ranging. Goldman, along with other critics of the
inflation-maintenance theory, have argued that accepting
generalized statements at the class certification stage would
render it impossible to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption
of reliance before a class is certified. Notably, this argument was
accepted in the Seventh Circuit's recent decision in In re Allstate
Corp. Securities Litigation, which vacated a class certification
order wherein the district court had refused to consider whether
the defendant-company's public statements impacted its stock
price.[5] The Allstate decision (which was joined by then-Judge Amy
Coney Barrett) acknowledged that such evidence "looks very much
like the prohibited defenses [at the class certification stage] of
no materiality or truth on the market," but nevertheless held that
this "close similarity" does not mean a district court can
disregard such evidence.[6] The plaintiffs' bar, on the other hand,
has argued that Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent does not
allow materiality determinations at the class certification stage,
and allowing price-impact defenses to be made in class
certification arguments would effectively amend Rule 23.
[1] Goldman Sachs Grp. Inc. v. Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys., Dkt. No.
20-222.
[2] 485 U.S. 224 (1988).
[3] Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., 955 F.3d
254, 264 (2d Cir. 2020).
[4] See Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455,
468 (2013).
[5] 966 F.3d 595 (7th Cir. 2020).
[6] Id. at 602. [GN]
GREENSKY INC: Wright Class Suit Removed to S.D Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEXISS WRIGHT, an individual, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. GREENSKY, INC., a corporation, and
GREENSKY, LLC, a limited liability company, and GREENSKY HOLDINGS,
LLC, a limited liability company, and GREENSKY MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 20-011646-05, was
removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on December 1, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:20-cv-62441-BB to the proceeding.
The case arises from negotiable instrument-related issues.
The Defendants operate as technology companies in the payment,
credit, and commerce space. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Irene Oria, Esq.
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
199 E. Flagler St. #550
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 536-2838
Facsimile: (305) 536-2838
E-mail: irene.oria@fisherbroyles.com
HORIZON HEALTH: Proposed Suit Involving Ex Nurse Back in Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that lawyers involved in a proposed class-action
lawsuit against former Moncton nurse Nicole Ruest and the Horizon
Health Network met by conference call Friday to set dates for the
next steps in the process.
Ruest was fired in March of 2019 after women at the Moncton
Hospital were allegedly given labour-inducing oxytocin without
their consent.
An internal investigation by the Horizon Health Network found two
women required urgent C-sections after receiving the hormone.
The proposed class-action lawsuit was launched against the Horizon
Health Network and Ruest on behalf of women who were allegedly
"inappropriately" given the labour-inducing drug at the hospital.
Jayde Scott, 26, is the representative plaintiff of the proposed
class-action suit, filed by the Halifax-based firm McKiggan Hebert
and Fidelis of Moncton in April of 2019. It has not yet been
certified.
Horizon Health Network has filed a statement of defence and a cross
claim against Ruest. Fredericton lawyer David Hashey of the law
firm Cox and Palmer is representing the health authority.
The lawsuit alleges that Ruest for years administered oxytocin to
pregnant women without their knowledge or consent, through a
punctured saline IV bag in at least one case.
Ruest denies the allegations in her statement of defence, which was
filed by Polley Faith LLP of Toronto and contains a cross claim
against the Horizon Health Network.
None of the allegations has been tested in court.
In the conference call Friday at the Court of Queen's Bench, Chief
Justice Tracey DeWare heard from lawyers representing all of the
parties as they went over what will happen next.
Justice DeWare said the case management conference had been
requested by the plaintiff in the case.
"Today we're just hoping to get some assistance in setting dates
for the next steps," lawyer John McKiggan said.
McKiggan said the matter has dragged on longer than necessary.
"We just want to move this along, Madame Justice," he said.
Lawyers spent about 20 minutes discussing paperwork and dates. They
agreed to having motion records and supporting documents sent to
the defendants by Dec. 18.
A followup conference call will be held on Jan. 18.
Justice DeWare has set aside the week of Sept. 20, 2021 for a
certification hearing - a required step for a class-action lawsuit
to determine if the case can proceed.
On July 7, 2020, RCMP announced no criminal charges would be laid
against Ruest. Public Prosecutions Services reviewed the file and
determined there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with charges.
[GN]
HOSTESS: Faces Fake Flavoring Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Goldstein, Esq., and Amy Ralph Mudge, Esq., of Baker &
Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that but did the
company's labeling choices Leave It open to attack?
According to one consumer, nowhere near enough. San Franciscan
plaintiff Elena Lauchung-Nacarino launched a class action against
snack food giant Hostess, accusing the company of violating
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law
and False Advertising Law, among other charges. [GN]
IGS SOLUTIONS: Faces Mendivil Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
KASSANDRA MENDIVIL, on behalf of herself, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other similarly situated "aggrieved
employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorney General Act of
2004 v. IGS SOLUTIONS, LLC, a California limited liability company,
AUTHENTIC 760 LLC, a California limited liability company, SHRYNE
GROUP, INC., a California corporation and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 20STCV45949 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Dec. 1, 2020) is a representative action based on the Defendants'
alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the Industrial
Welfare Commission Order.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are liable to her, the
state of California, and other similarly situated aggrieved current
and former employees who worked in California as hourly assistant
managers, managers, inventory managers, budtenders, receptionists,
fillers, fulfillment and employees in similar positions, at any
time during the period of September 21, 2019 to the present, for
civil penalties and other related relief.
According to the complaint, these claims are based on the
Defendants' alleged failures to pay all wages earned for all hours
worked at the correct rates of pay, provide all rest breaks and
meal periods, indemnify Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees for
reasonable expenses incurred during the course of performing their
duties, provide accurate written wage statements, timely pay wages
during employment, timely pay final wages upon termination of
employment, and maintain accurate employment records.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from February 12, 2020
to approximately April 27, 2020 as an assistant manager.
The Defendants are limited liability companies organized and
existing under the laws of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Spivak, Esq.
Maralle Messrelian
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 582-3086
Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
maralle@spivaklaw.com
- and -
Walter Haines, Esq.
UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Telephone: (562) 256-1047
Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Wilson Suit Moved to Los Angeles Super. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KYREE WILSON and RHONDA GUERRERO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IKEA
NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC; IKEA US RETAIL LLC; IKEA DISTRIBUTION
SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. CV 20-09075-CJC
(ASx) (C.D. Cal.), District Judge Cormac J. Carney grants the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.
Plaintiffs Wilson and Guerrero filed the putative wage-and-hour
class action against Defendants IKEA and unnamed Does in Los
Angeles County Superior Court.
The Plaintiffs, hourly non-exempt employees at Ikea, allege that
Ikea failed to pay them for all hours worked, including overtime
and missed meal periods or rest breaks. In the case, they assert
nine claims under California's Labor Code for unpaid overtime
wages, meal period premiums, rest period premiums and minimum
wages, among other claims. The Plaintiffs assert these claims on
behalf of a proposed class of "[a]ll current and former hourly-paid
or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within
the State of California at any time during the period from four
years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final judgment and
who reside in California."
The Defendants removed the action to the Court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Ikea contends that the Court has
CAFA jurisdiction because minimum diversity is met and the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million.
The Court considers the Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state
court, in which the Plaintiffs argue that Ikea has failed to meet
its burden to show the amount in controversy. The Plaintiffs
contend that this case must be remanded because Ikea has not
properly established that the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million. Ikea contends the amount in controversy is over $22
million.
After reviewing the allegations in the Complaint and the evidence
Ikea presents, the Court finds that Ikea's estimates rely on
multiple layers of unreasonable, unsubstantiated, and unrealistic
assumptions that find no support in any evidence submitted. In
reaching this result, the Court finds the Ninth Circuit's recent
decision in Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9th Cir.
2020), especially helpful. The court concluded that the defendant
failed to carry its burden because it "failed to provide any
evidence to support its assumption[s]."
Similarly, here, Ikea presents thin evidence to support the amount
in controversy: the number of employees and the number of workweeks
for three calendar years, Judge Carney notes. It presents no
evidence that every employee suffered all of the injuries alleged
in the complaint. Judge Carney says it takes another leap of logic
to assume that each employee suffered the injuries alleged in the
complaint every workweek. Again, Ikea offers no evidence to support
that assumption.
While the asserted $22 million amount in controversy is far above
the $5 million threshold, it is not the Court's job to perform the
mathematical calculations to justify it, Judge Carney says. That is
Ikea's burden. Even if the Court were to assume Ikea's burden, Ikea
has failed to provide any information which would enable the Court
to calculate more conservative estimates. Ikea's failure to present
"real evidence" to support its assertions is particularly
concerning because it appears some portion of the Plaintiffs'
claims have recently been settled in a related class action. See
Cahilig v. Ikea U.S. Retail, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-01182-CJC-AS.
Given this reality, the amount in controversy is significantly less
than $22 million even if Ikea's naked assumptions are accepted as
true.
For these reasons, Ikea has not carried its burden to show that the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under CAFA.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted, and this
case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydyt4o7a from Leagle.com.
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ICPT) between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important January 4, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Intercept investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Intercept class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1973.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of
safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's (obeticholic acid
("OCA")) use in treating primary biliary cholangitis; (2) 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; (3) any
purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating
nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH") were outweighed by the risks
of its use; (4) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve
Intercept's New Drug Application for OCA in treating patients with
liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Intercept's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 4,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1973.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]
JAGUAR LAND: George Files Fraud Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jaguar Land Rover
North America LLC. The case is captioned as BLAKE GEORGE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER
NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-17561-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Dec. 1,
2020).
The case arises from fraud-related issues and is assigned to Judge
William J. Martini.
Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC was founded in 2001. The
company's line of business includes the manufacturing or assembling
of complete passenger automobiles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick John Klorczyk, III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER PA
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 207-2700
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
JONES DAY: Class Cert. Bid Under Equal Pay Act Denied as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOLTON et al. v. JONES
DAY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00945 (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Randolph D.
Moss entered an order:
1. denying as moot the motion to certify class conditionally
under the Equal Pay Act; and
2. directing the parties to adhere to the following schedule:
-- The parties shall file a stipulation identifying the
claims voluntarily dismissed and those claims that
remain in the action on or before December 21, 2020;
-- Fact discovery shall close on April 30, 2021;
-- The Defendant shall file a motion for summary judgment
on or before June 4, 2021;
-- The Plaintiffs shall file an opposition on or before
July 15, 2021; and
-- The Defendant shall file a reply on or before August
5, 2021.
The nature of suit is stated as civil rights involving employment
discrimination.
Jones Day is an international law firm based in the United States.
As of 2018, it was the fifth largest law firm in the U.S. and the
13th highest grossing law firm in the world.[CC]
JONES DAY: Gender Discrimination Class Action Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Rubino, writing for Above the Law, reports that say goodbye
to the class-action gender discrimination lawsuit against Jones
Day.
As you may recall, the purported class-action gender discrimination
case alleged a "fraternity culture" at the firm and unequal pay
behind the firm's notorious "black box" compensation system. The
plaintiffs were spread throughout the country -- Nilab Rahyar
Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams, and Jaclyn Stahl worked
in California offices of the firm, while Saira Draper was an
associate in Atlanta, and Katrina Henderson was in the firm's New
York office -- and a core allegation is that the same black box
compensation systems kept their pay below that of men working at
the firm.
After contentious discovery, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of
the District of Columbia ordered Jones Day to provide plaintiffs
with salary information about every associate nationwide from 2012
to 2018. But that data didn't turn out how the plaintiffs
anticipated, and after an analysis, the plaintiffs have decided to
drop the class-action claims against the Biglaw firm, as reported
by Law.com:
In a joint status report filed late on Dec. 14, attorneys for the
six women suing the firm and for Jones Day indicated the women had
decided to cast aside the class action claims after analyzing the
nationwide evaluation and compensation data provided by the firm.
They also agreed to drop their individual disparate impact claims
related to the firm's compensation model, while other individual
claims will remain active.
Henderson, Draper, and Williams still have individual Equal Pay Act
claims and there are also pending claims under the California
Private Attorneys General Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
the Family and Medical Leave Act, and various state and District of
Columbia laws.
Attorney for the plaintiffs, Sanford Heisler Sharp's Deborah
Marcuse, said they'll continue to pursue their individual claims:
"The six named plaintiffs brought this case in the name of
transparency and equity in the legal profession and we will
continue to vigorously pursue their compelling individual and
statutory claims, including their individual claims of unequal
pay."
The firm's statement on the latest development in the case noted
the timing of the decision to drop the class-action claims and that
they'll continue to fight the individual claims:
Jones Day spokesman David Petrou noted that the women were required
to submit expert reports in early December supporting their
allegations that the firm's evaluation and compensation processes
led to systemic discrimination against women.
"But after their experts analyzed nationwide data for the period
2012-2018, they concluded -- as Jones Day has said from the outset
of the case's filing -- that there was no basis to pursue these
claims," he said in an email. "The firm will continue to litigate
the limited -- and equally meritless -- claims that remain."
It's a quiet end to the class-action case we once hoped would blow
open the firm's notorious black box compensation system. [GN]
JONES DAY: Plaintiffs May Drop Gender Pay Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that once billed as a
potential $200 million blockbuster, the gender pay discrimination
lawsuit against Jones Day got considerably smaller late on Dec.
14.
Plaintiffs represented by Sanford Heisler Sharp last year filed
class and collective action claims against Jones Day claiming the
firm's "black box" compensation model and secretive culture
systematically denied women attorneys equal pay and advancement
opportunities.
Plaintiffs bringing gender discrimination claims against Jones Day
on Dec. 14 indicated that they were dropping all class and
collective action claims and moving forward as individuals. The
move follows a similar move by plaintiffs in a case against
Morrison & Foerster. [GN]
JOYY INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Joyy Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) alleging
that the Company violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in YY:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/joyy-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11526&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Joyy Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming
sources; (2) The majority of users at any given time were bots; (2)
the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme
that Manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company
overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition of Bigo
was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
Misleading at all relevant times.
Shareholders have until January 19, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the YY lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
JUUL LABS: Wadsworth Schools to Join Vaping Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Delozier, writing for The Gazette, reports that Wadsworth
Schools voted to join a national class-action lawsuit against
vaping manufacturer Juul Labs Inc., the latest step in a
long-standing local fight against teens' use of the products.
California-based Frantz Law Group filed the suit in 2019 on behalf
of numerous school districts in that state, seeking to recover
perceived damages caused by exponential growth in vaping popularity
among students. On Oct. 23, Judge William H. Orrick, III, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled that
the suit may move forward with a trial date set for 2022.
"There could potentially be a settlement to be distributed to
school districts," Wadsworth Superintendent Andy Hill said on Dec.
14. "There will be no cost to us out of our general fund for
joining and, if there's a reward, the fees for attorneys are taken
out of that. If there's no award, there's no attorney fee."
In late 2019, Wadsworth High School hosted a community talk on
vaping as related hospitalizations and deaths had been reported
nationwide since that summer. However, black market vaping
cartridges containing THC and not over-the-counter products were
eventually blamed for those medical emergencies.
In other news
School board members authorized a $174,160 purchase of two new
buses with that price tag factoring in trade-in value for older
vehicles.
A 2021-25 district strategic plan was also approved with points of
emphasis including pathways for non-college and non-career tech
students, K-4 gifted services, diversity and inclusion, and
social-emotional learning.
Officials also said goodbye to district school resource officer
(SRO) Adam Innocenti, who has been promoted to detective at the
Wadsworth Police Department.
Innocenti has acted as SRO since implementation of the program for
the 2013-14 school year and officially was promoted Dec. 1. His
duties in Wadsworth Schools will be taken over by Patrolman Ben
Smith.
"I want to thank everyone for these past eight years, where you've
seemed like a family," said Innocenti during the Dec. 14 meeting.
"I've been a blessed person to be here and I want to thank all of
you for everything you've done."
The new detective led last year's aforementioned vaping
discussion.
"We wanted to publicly thank Adam for his service to us," Hill
said. "This is technically the eighth school year of the
arrangement, but even before that, he quasi-functioned for us in
that role already. He's moved on to do something that's been a goal
of his since he became a police officer. We're happy and proud of
him but sad at the same time to see him go." [GN]
K12 INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Dec. 16 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired K12 Inc. ("K12" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LRN) common shares between April 27, 2020 and
September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). K12 investors
have until January 19, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/k12-inc/ to participate.
On August 26, 2020, reports surfaced that K12's training for
teachers on its online education platform in Miami-Dade County
Public Schools, one of the largest school districts in the country,
had been ineffective and "unacceptable."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.87, or 13.5%, over
the course of two trading days to close at $37.70 on August 27,
2020.
On August 31, 2020, when classes in Miami-Dade started, K12's
platform experienced major technical issues, disruptions, and a
series of cyberattacks. During a district Board meeting to discuss
the problems with K12's platform, the district's superintendent
revealed that the district had never executed its $15.3 million
contract with K12.
On this news, the price of K12 shares fell by $3.96, or 10.2%, over
the course of two trading days, to close at $34.89 on September 3,
2020.
A week later, facing overwhelming complaints from parents and
teachers about K12's platform and curriculum, the Miami-Dade County
Public Schools Board voted to terminate its contract with K12.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell by $3.21, or 9.5%, to
close at $30.55 on September 10, 2020.
On September 17, 2020, due to the lack of confidence in K12's
ability to provide educational solutions for the district, the
Beaufort County School Board also voted to terminate its contract
with K12.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.09, or 3.9%, to
close at $27.21 on September 18, 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) K12 lacked the
technological capabilities, infrastructure, and expertise to
support the increased demand for virtual and blended education
necessitated by the global pandemic; (2) K12 lacked adequate
cyberattack protocols and protections to prevent the disabling of
its computer systems; (3) K12 was unable to provide the necessary
levels of administrative support and training to teachers,
students, and parents; 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 K12 securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than January 19, 2021 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 purchased K12 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.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.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi")
(NASDAQ: KNDI) and Qiwi plc ("Qiwi") (NASDAQ: QIWI) to determine
whether Kandi and Qiwi engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.
INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE SECURITIES OF
KANDI BETWEEN MARCH 15, 2019 AND NOVEMBER 27, 2020, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN
$50,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES
CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215)
792-6676, EXT. 804, MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES
INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kandi in United
States District Court seeking to recover damages on behalf of Kandi
investors.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Kandi
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that (1) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues
through undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had
relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did
not have an arms-length relationship with Kandi; (2) the majority
of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related
parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history
with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their
relationship; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues
and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on Kandi's
reputation and valuation; and (4) as a result, Kandi's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Qiwi plc
INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE SECURITIES OF
QIWI BETWEEN MARCH 28, 2019 AND DECEMBER 9, 2020, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN
$50,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES
CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215)
792-6676, EXT. 804, MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES
INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Qiwi in United States
District Court seeking to recover damages on behalf of Qiwi
investors.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Qiwi
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and
record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank
of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon Qiwi and impose
restrictions upon Qiwi's ability to make payments to foreign
merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a
result, the Qiwi Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff-side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.
This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KNDI)
securities during the period from March 15, 2019 through November
27, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 9,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
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) Kandi artificially inflated its
reported revenues through undisclosed related party transactions,
or otherwise had relationships with key customers that indicated
those customers did not have an arms-length relationship with
Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's sales in the past year had been
to undisclosed related parties and/or parties with such a close
relationship and history with Kandi that it cast doubt on the
arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity
of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable
negative impact on the Company's reputation and valuation; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
a report entitled "Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed
Company Used Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S.
Investors." Citing "extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi's
factories and customer locations in China, interviews with over a
dozen former employees and business partners, and review of
numerous litigation documents and international public records,"
the Hindenburg report asserted that almost 64% of Kandi's sales
over the year have been to undisclosed related parties. The report
also alleged that "[Kandi] has consistently booked revenue it
cannot collect, a classic hallmark of fake revenue[.]" Following
the publication of the Hindenburg report, Kandi's stock price fell
$3.86 per share, or 28.34%, to close at $9.76 per share on November
30, 2020.
If you acquired Kandi securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
KANYE WEST: Facing $1MM Lawsuits Over Treatment of Opera Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Breihan at stereogum.com reports that last November, Kanye West
staged a gospel opera called Nebuchadnezzar at the Hollywood Bowl.
The show, which West only announced about a week ahead of time,
purported to tell the story of the Old Testament Babylonian king of
the title. West narrated the story himself, Sheck Wes played the
title character, and West's Sunday Service choir was also featured.
The opera streamed on Tidal, and critics hated it. Now, West is
reportedly facing two different class action lawsuits from
performers and behind-the-scenes workers on Nebuchadnezzar.
Vice reports that Nebuchadnezzar crew members -- makeup artists,
hairdressers, costume designers -- filed the first lawsuit in July,
and performers filed the second in August. Both lawsuits allege the
same thing: West violated California labor law by classifying the
people who worked on the opera as independent contractors, rather
than employees. He also allegedly underpaid the workers, denied
them meal and rest breaks, and took months to pay them.
According to California law, workers are classified as employees if
their employers tell them when to work and supervise them. They're
also considered employees if the workers are doing tasks that are
within their regular lines of work. By making the workers work
extra time without giving them overtime pay and by denying them
breaks, West allegedly failed to give the workers everything that's
required of him. And since the workers are claiming that West took
months to pay them, those workers might be eligible for huge
waiting-time penalties.
Vice talked to a few legal experts who believe that the lawsuit
will be settled out of court and that West will likely have to pay
out about a million dollars. We know he can afford it. [GN]
LC3S INC: Odle Files Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LC3S Inc., et al. The
case is captioned as Kayce Odle, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Does 1 through 10, LC3S Inc., Sam D. Manolakas, and
Stacy K. Marr, Case No. 34-2020-00289534-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Dec. 1, 2020).
The case arises from employment-related issues.
LC3S Inc., doing business as Brookfields Restaurant, operates as a
restaurant. The Company provides breakfast, lunch, dinner, and
beverages. Brookfields Restaurant serves customers in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dawn M. Berry, Esq.
MCKAGUE ROSASCO LLP
1217 Pleasant Grove Blvd., Suite 120
Roseville, CA 95678
Telephone: (916) 672-6552
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that company continues to defend a putative class action suit
initiated by TVPX ARS Inc., as Securities Intermediary for
Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD.
VPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.
Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v. LLANY Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2020, that the class action suit entitled, Vida Longevity Fund, LP
v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), is still
ongoing.
Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more
for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the
policies.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of
universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own
or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest
that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policies.
Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York." Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder
class and sub-class.
Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Hawkins Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA HAWKINS, TYLER MOE
and PHILLIP GEISSLER, v. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF WISCONSIN AND
UPPER MICHIGAN, INC., COMMUNITY TRANSITION CENTER and EAU CLAIRE
COUNTY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons who were referred by Eau Claire County
Circuit Court to the CTC testing program as a condition of
their pre-conviction, pre-trial, bond since April 17,
2014."
2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and
3. appointing Herrick & Hart, S.C. as class counsel.
The proposed class represented by Plaintiffs, Joshua Hawkins
and Phillip Geissler and Tyler Moe, includes:
"all persons who were referred by Eau Claire County
Circuit Court to the CTC testing program as a condition of
their pre-conviction, pre-trial, bond since April 17,
2014."
The proposed class represented by Plaintiff, Tyler Moe,
includes:
"all persons who are currently (as of the time of filing
of the Complaint herein, or thereafter) being subjected
to the CTC testing program as a condition of their pre-
conviction, pre-trial bond referred by Eau Claire County
Circuit Court."
According to the complaint, the proposed class meets all of the
requirements of Rule 23 necessary to certify classes that will
allow pre-trial bond participants in Eau Claire County, whose legal
rights were impermissibly violated by the CTC pre-trial bond
procedures, to be compensated for their damages and to seek
injunctive relief protecting others similarly situated from said
violations.
In absence of the class, the class members will not be compensated
for their damages resulting from these violations of their rights
and the constitutionally invalid pre-trial bond procedures for
pre-trial criminal defendants will impermissibly continue,
violating the rights of untold numbers of participants, the
Plaintiffs contend.
Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan provides a
wide range of social services to people of all faiths and
backgrounds.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nm9vJn
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jay E. Heit, Esq.
HERRICK & HART, S.C.
116 West Grand Avenue
Post Office Box 167
Eau Claire, WI 54702-0167
Telephone: (715) 832-3491
MAESTRO CONSULTING: Roberson BIPA Suit to Remain in S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SAROYA ROBERSON, et al., Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MAESTRO CONSULTING
SERVICES LLC, Individually and d/b/a Symphony Post Acute Network,
et al., Case No. 20-CV-00895-NJR (S.D. Ill.), Chief District Judge
Nancy J. Rosenstengel issued a memorandum and order:
-- denying the motion to remand filed by Plaintiffs Saroya
Roberson, Christa Hammond, Tonika Smith, Daphne Williams,
Idella Hill, Olabisi Bodunde, Victoria Brewer, Alyssa
Bendersky, Felecia Williams, Attla Dupree, and Jameea
Boykin; and
-- granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.
On Dec. 8, 2017, Plaintiff Roberson filed a Class Action Complaint
against Symphony Sycamore LLC, and several related entities, in the
Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of St. Clair
County, Illinois. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants, a
network of various nursing homes. To track the Plaintiffs' time and
attendance, the Defendants collected, and the Plaintiffs scanned,
fingerprints or handprints for time and attendance purposes.
On July 2, 2020, Plaintiff Roberson was granted leave to amend her
complaint, adding 10 new Plaintiffs and 17 new Defendants. Nine of
the new Plaintiffs were union members during their respective
tenures. The new Defendants are allegedly part of the network of
various nursing homes employed by named Plaintiffs and the class
members. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). Specifically, they
allege the Defendants violated sections 15(a), 15(b)(1), 15(b)(2),
15(b)(3), 15(d), 15(e)(1), and 15(e)(2) of the BIPA.
Judge Rosenstengel concludes that: the Defendants' Notice of
Removal was timely; the Plaintiffs' Section 15(a) claims are
sufficient to plead an injury in fact for standing under Article
III of the Constitution; the Plaintiffs have Article III standing
to pursue their Section 15(b) claims under a straightforward
application of Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 958 F.3d 617, 621
(7th Cir. 2020); and the Plaintiffs also have Article III standing
to pursue their Section 15(e) claims.
The Defendants removed the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d),
alleging that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act. Judge Rosenstengel notes that the
Defendants established, at the time of removal, the requirements
for jurisdiction under CAFA, and minimal diversity exists because
the Defendants are organized under the laws of Illinois and
maintain their principal places of business in Illinois. The
Defendants also allege that at least one putative class member --
either all or some of the ones with non-Illinois addresses
mentioned, or an employee or former employee of one of the other
Defendants -- is diverse from the Defendants, which at this stage
of the proceedings is sufficient to satisfy minimum diversity.
Instead of contesting that the parties to the action are minimally
diverse or that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the
Plaintiffs argue that the "home-state controversy" and "local
controversy" exceptions apply. Under both exceptions, the
Plaintiffs have the burden of persuasion on whether two-thirds or
more of the members of the proposed class and the primary
defendants are citizens of the original filing state.
Judge Rosenstengel opines that the Plaintiffs fail to meet their
burden for the Court to find that two-thirds of the class members
are Illinois citizens. The Plaintiffs only provide time system
employee data produced by one defendant and claim that at least 95%
of the Plaintiffs' class are Illinois citizens and all of the
Defendants are by admission Illinois citizens from which
significant legal relief is being sought by all members of the
Plaintiffs' class for the Defendants' capturing, collecting, and
use of their biometric information and identifiers in the State of
Illinois. The Plaintiffs ignore the potential non-Illinois citizens
employed by the newly named Defendants with facilities in the
Chicagoland area. The number of class members also remains
unclear.
Accordingly, jurisdiction exists by way of CAFA because the
Plaintiffs fail to carry their burden of persuasion on whether
two-thirds or more of the members of the proposed plaintiff class
and the primary defendants are citizens of the original filing
state, Judge Rosenstengel concludes. Hence, the motion to remand is
denied.
In their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the Defendants
seek dismissal of the union members' claims under 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the claims are preempted
by the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). Judge Rosenstengel
notes that Section 301 of the LMRA preempts the union members'
claims. Accordingly, the Defendants' 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss the
union members' claims is granted.
Section 301 preempts claims founded directly on rights created by
collective-bargaining agreements, and also claims 'substantially
dependent on analysis of a collective-bargaining agreement. In
their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Tonika Smith, Daphne Williams,
Olabisi Bodunde, Victoria Brewer, and Alyssa Bendersky ("Consenting
Plaintiffs") have no claim because each of these Plaintiffs signed
a BIPA Consent Form.
Judge Rosenstengel disagrees. She opines that the Consenting
Plaintiffs' Section 15(b) claims are not rendered false by the
signed BIPA Consent Forms. While the BIPA Consent Forms are dated,
the Defendants have not shown that the Plaintiffs were informed and
consented before their biometric information was collected. Even if
the Defendants provided appropriate documents showing that the
Plaintiffs were informed and consented before their biometric
information was collected, it would potentially only impact the
Consenting Plaintiffs' claims regarding their Sections 15(b) and
15(d) claims. The Defendants fail to show how the Consenting
Plaintiffs' remaining BIPA claims would be impacted.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consenting
Plaintiffs' claims is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 14,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ya2j7y2f from
Leagle.com.
MAESTRO CONSULTING: Squire Patton Discusses Ruling in BIPA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin L. Bryan, Esq. -- kristin.bryan@squirepb.com -- Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for National Law Review,
reports that it is becoming the data privacy version of paint by
numbers: a plaintiff files a putative class action against their
employer, alleging that the employer collected employees' biometric
information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"). Well, in the most recent permutation of the
litany of BIPA litigations filed this year, a federal court held
that claims under BIPA should not be remanded to state court and
also that a complaint met federal pleading standards to withstand a
motion to dismiss. Roberson v. Maestro Consulting Servs. Llc, 2020
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233868 (S.D. Ill. 2020).
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants, a network of various
nursing homes. To track Plaintiffs' time and attendance, Defendants
collected, and Plaintiffs scanned, fingerprints or handprints for
time and attendance purposes. Plaintiffs filed suit in state court,
asserting that Defendants' practices violated BIPA. Defendants
removed the dispute to federal court, on the arguments that the
litigation was preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act
("LMRA") and Plaintiffs' BIPA claims had a "common nucleus" of fact
with other claims raised in the litigation.
A short detour-as readers of CPW already know (but for you novices
out there), BIPA requires, among other things, that:
A private entity must establish and make publicly available a
protocol for retaining and handling biometric data.
A private entity must first inform the subject in writing about the
purpose of collecting the data, how long the data will be kept, and
obtain consent of the subject.
Further, this data must be destroyed: (1) when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such identifiers or information has
been satisfied or (2) within 3 years of the individual's last
interaction with the private entity (whichever occurs first).
Sales, leases, trades, or further actions in which a private entity
may profit from a person's biometric information are strictly
prohibited while disclosures, redisclosures, or other dissemination
of a person's biometric information are statutorily limited.
Finally, private entities must protect biometric information from
disclosure using "the reasonable standard of care within the
private entity's industry . . . . [and] in a manner that is the
same as or more protective than the manner in which the private
entity stores, transmits, and protects other confidential and
sensitive information."
Before the court were two motions: (1) Plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case back to state court and (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to plead a cognizable claim. The court
addressed both, in turn.
In regards to the motion to remand, the court held that Defendants
timely removed the case to federal court. Additionally, relying on
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' rulings in Bryant and Fox,
the court also found that Plaintiffs had Article III standing (a
prerequisite to federal courts hearing the dispute) in regards to
their claims brought under Section 15(b) of BIPA.
Insofar as Plaintiffs' other BIPA claims were concerned, well, the
Seventh Circuit has not yet addressed Article III standing for
claims brought under Section 15(d) of BIPA (which requires entities
to obtain a person's consent when disclosing or disseminating an
individual's biometric data). However, the court adopted the
reasoning of two district courts in the Seventh Circuit that have
found that a plaintiff's claims under section 15(d) satisfy Article
III's injury-in-fact requirement. The same result was reached as to
Plaintiffs' claims under Section 15(e) of BIPA, for a different
reason ("Like their section 15(a) claims, the concrete injury
suffered by Plaintiffs was the unlawful retention of their
biometric data by Defendants because Defendants allegedly failed to
comply with the standard of care within their industry and in a
manner that is the same or more protective than the manner in which
Defendants store, transmit, and protect other confidential and
sensitive information") (emphasis in original).
For these reasons, and because the district court found federal
jurisdiction proper under the Class Action Fairness Act, the court
denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand.
Turning to the motion to dismiss, the court rejected exhibits
attached to Defendants' motion as establishing that Plaintiffs have
no claim because each of these Plaintiffs signed a "BIPA Consent
Form." The court explained that, even when these so-called
"consent" forms were considered, Defendants have not shown that
Plaintiffs were informed and consented before their biometric
information was collected. Additionally, even if Defendants offered
such proof, that would be dispositive only to some of Plaintiffs'
claims under BIPA (and not result in dismissal of the entire
litigation at the pleadings stage).
So there you have it -- another BIPA case remains in federal court
and also survives the all-important motion to dismiss. [GN]
MASTERCARD: UK Supreme Court Enables $18.5BB Consumer Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirstin Ridley at Reuters reports that the UK Supreme Court on
Friday allowed a 14 billion pound ($18.5 billion) class action to
proceed against Mastercard for allegedly overcharging more than 46
million people in Britain over a 15-year period in a landmark
judgment.
The complex case, brought after Mastercard lost an appeal against a
2007 European Commission ruling that its fees were
anti-competitive, could entitle adults in Britain to 300 pounds
each if it is successful.
The court dismissed a Mastercard appeal, setting the scene for
Britain's first mass consumer claim brought under a new legal
regime and establishing a standard for a string of other, stalled
class actions.
"Mastercard has been . . . imposing excessive card transaction
charges over a prolonged period in a way it must have known would
impose an invisible tax on UK consumers," said Walter Merricks, a
lawyer who is leading the action.
Mastercard said the claim was driven by "hit and hope" U.S.
lawyers.
The case will now be sent back to the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT), nominated in 2015 to oversees Britain's fledgling,
U.S.-style "opt-out" collective class actions for breaches of UK or
European Union competition law.
The CAT will reconsider granting the necessary collective
proceedings order (CPO) for the case to proceed to trial, having
refused to certify the case in 2017 because of its complexity. A
hearing is expected next year.
Mastercard said it would ask the CAT to avert a serious risk of the
new collective action regime going down the wrong path with a
"fundamentally flawed" case.
The case centres on so-called interchange fees which credit and
debit card companies say they levy on merchants' banks to cover the
costs of card services, security and innovation.
Merricks, who is being advised by law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, alleges these fees were excessive between 1992 and 2008,
that they had to be paid by businesses that accepted Mastercard
payments from British consumers and were passed on through
increased shop prices.
Under the opt-out regime, UK-based members of a defined group are
automatically bound into legal action unless they opt out.
Critics say such regimes encourage claims without merit. Others
argue they can offer an effective route to compensation for those
whose claims are individually too small to warrant the legal costs
of taking on large companies alone - and that grouping such claims
together helps attract necessary funding.
One such litigation funder, Therium, said it now expected to
increase its investment allocation to competition class actions.
Anthony Maton, the global vice-chair of law firm Hausfeld, which is
advising on other class actions, said: "This is a revolution in
English law." [GN]
MCDONALDS'S RESTAURANTS: California Court Terminates Rocha Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California terminated the case, JOHN ROCHA, as an
individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated non-exempt
and current employees, Plaintiff v. McDONALDS'S RESTAURANTS OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., et cet., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-CV-1550 AWI
SAB (E.D. Cal.), and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
The case is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff
Rocha against Defendants McDonald's Restaurants and McDonald's USA,
LLC. On Dec. 2, 2020, the parties filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
stipulation to dismiss the matter with prejudice. The stipulation
states that there was a negotiated settlement in a state court
class action case in Los Angeles County (Sanchez v. McDonald's
Restaurants of California, BC499888), the stipulation was reached
on Oct. 5, 2020, and that Rocha is a member of the Sanchez class.
The stipulation indicates that the Sanchez case likely encompasses
the class claims made in the instant case. At minimum, it clearly
shows that all claims by Rocha, the only class representative
named, are now moot. Therefore, because Rocha's claims are moot,
the Judge will not require any additional briefing prior to
voluntary dismissal.
In light of the parties' stipulation for dismissal, and the
settlement reached in the Sanchez class action, the case is
terminated, and the Clerk will close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/38ktIZF from Leagle.com.
MDL 2705: Mayer Brown Discusses Parmesan Cheese Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Dale J. Giali, Esq. -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown, in
an article for Mondaq, reports that The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration permits grated parmesan cheese to include
anti-caking and anti-contamination ingredients. 21 CFR Sec.
133.146(c). FDA also permits -- indeed, requires -- the cheese with
these additional ingredients be called grated parmesan cheese. 21
CFR § 133.146(d)(3)(i). None of this is disputed.
When food companies, following these regulations precisely, labeled
their parmesan cheese product "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" they
were sued for false advertising under state consumer protection
law. The 100% in the name, the complaint alleged, deceived
consumers into thinking the product consisted solely of cheese
without anti-caking and anti-contamination ingredients. One class
action quickly turned into many, as consumer lawyers across the
country (at last count, more than 60 different consumer lawyers)
wanted a slice of the action. The class actions -- under the false
advertising laws of ten states and covering nationwide sales going
back more than four years -- were transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois and consolidated for pretrial proceedings
under the Multidistrict Litigation law. See In Re: 100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No.
1:16cv5802 (N.D. Ill.).
The district court dismissed the false advertising claim on a Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion under an Iqbal/Twombly plausibility
analysis. As it should, the district court assessed the challenged
name in context and applying common sense. It concluded that the
name 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese was (at worst for defendants)
ambiguous. The 100% could mean multiple things, e.g., it's 100%
grated or the cheese is 100% parmesan or the product is
standard-of-identity-compliant grated parmesan cheese as FDA
defines it. In that situation, where the challenged label statement
is subject to multiple interpretations, the district court ruled
that the reasonable consumer should be held to the additional
information on the label if that additional information would
dispel the confusion. Here, that additional information included
the legally required ingredient list that specifically disclosed
the inclusion of the anti-caking and anti-contamination
ingredients. Nothing about plaintiffs' linguistics expert reports
or consumer survey, both of which created for the express purpose
of avoiding dismissal, changed this straightforward record.
Accordingly, and as a matter of law, the district court ruled that
reasonable consumers would not be deceived by the product name, and
dismissed the claim with prejudice.
The Seventh Circuit reversed and reinstated the false advertising
claim. Bell v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., -- F.3d --, 2020 WL
7137786 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2020). Rejecting what it called the
district court's "ambiguity rule," and along with it a consumer's
personal responsibility and obligation to apply a little common
sense while shopping -- while ever-increasing the court's role in
protecting consumers from themselves and against clever advertisers
and their tricky lawyers -- the Seventh Circuit said that
[c]onsumer-protection laws do not impose on average consumers . . .
with a child or two in tow . . . an obligation to question the
labels they see and to parse them as lawyers might for ambiguities,
especially in the seconds usually spent picking a low-cost
product.
1016928a.jpg
They're not? Why not and why shouldn't they? Why should a consumer
get to make rushed shopping decisions while preoccupied and then
sue based on some after-the-fact perceived ambiguity on the label
that the same label clearly dispels? Why isn't it enough that
legally mandated information right on the label provides the
consumer with all the information needed? If a consumer really
wanted a product that was solely parmesan cheese, without any
incidental ingredients whatsoever (including those designed to keep
the product from caking and contamination), should that consumer
rely on the necessarily limited information provided solely by the
product name and after only a few-second review or, instead, spend
the time to consult the legally required and detailed objective
information on the label?
The court doesn't address these based-in-reality questions, intent
instead on giving consumers a free-pass on responsibility -- and a
key to the consumer class action courthouse door -- when they "make
quick decisions that do not involve careful consideration of all
information available to them." All of that, in turn, the Seventh
Circuit tells us, leads to the legal principle that "[h]ow
reasonable consumers actually understand" an ambiguous product name
"is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on the pleadings."
Bah humbug.
Having been on the front lines of defending these types of claims
for more than a decade, including taking scores of depositions of
plaintiffs, the decision -- which needlessly and unfortunately
strengthens the consumer class action bar's already-plenty-strong
hand in pleading attack proceedings -- strikes me as equal parts
paternalistic and ivory tower. It fails entirely to grapple with
what is actually going on in our trial courts, i.e., a perfect
storm of profit-motivated consumer lawyers generating and then
driving claims under state consumer protection laws governed by the
largely undefinable "reasonable consumer" standard, strategically
exploiting the class action vehicle and its in terrorem settlement
impact, and taking full advantage of the liberal rules allowing
those same lawyers to solicit individuals to serve as stand-ins for
the role of plaintiffs (who are only then informed of the deception
they allegedly suffered and will be suing over).
Though failing to grapple with any of this, the Seventh Circuit
does recognize an essential component of the flood of false
advertising cases against consumer packaged-goods manufacturers,
when it acknowledges (in the concurring opinion) that consumer
"lawyers . . . can find ambiguity in just about anything." In other
words, "just about" any packaged good can be targeted in a false
advertising complaint based on mere ambiguity and, in the Seventh
Circuit, that false advertising claim may not be defeated at the
pleading stage even where the label provides clarifying language.
The decision is proud to announce that, as to that issue, the
Seventh Circuit is now in line with the First, Second, and Ninth
Circuits. But that's not accurate. I am not aware of any decisions
holding that false advertising claims based on a mere ambiguity -
especially one that is cured by the label itself - are immune from
a plausibility pleading attack. See, e.g., Ebner v. Fresh Inc., 838
F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir. 2016) ("in light of . . . deceptive" -- not
merely ambiguous -- "packaging, we rejected the use of the
ingredient list as a 'shield for liability for the deception[,]'
explaining that a reasonable consumer is not 'expected to look
beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to
discover the truth from the ingredient list'") (emphasis added);
Mantikas v. Kellogg Company, 910 F.3d 633, 637 (2d Cir. 2018)
(same).
Be careful what you ask for Seventh Circuit. You may just become
the new food court for the country. Having served in that role for
more than ten years, courts in the Ninth Circuit appear more than
ready to give up the moniker:
Every reasonable shopper knows that the devil is in the details.
Moreover, any potential ambiguity could be resolved by the back
panel of the products, which listed all ingredients in order of
predominance, as required by the FDA. As our court of appeals
stated in this context, 'reasonable consumers expect that the
ingredient list contains more detailed information about the
product that confirms other representations on the packaging.'
Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
(quoting Williams v. Gerber).
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal
practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices").
The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown
Europe - Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships
established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a
limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales
(authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown,
a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong
partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil &
Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer
Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the
trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective
jurisdictions. [GN]
MM879 INC: Court Approves Class Notice Administration in Cruz Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
approved the parties' joint stipulation to continue class notice
administration in the lawsuit entitled ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL,
LOURDES BAIZ, and CHRISTIE GOODMAN, individuals, residing in
California v. MM879, INC., a corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY LLC, a
limited liability company; MERRY MAIDS LP, a limited partnership;
MM MAIDS LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG (E.D. Cal.).
On Nov. 25, 2020, the Court entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, thereby, dismissing from
the case Defendants Servicemaster, Merry Maids, and and MM Maids.
On Nov. 30, 2020, the Court entered an order (i) granting Defendant
Barrett's Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby, dismissing from the
case Defendant Barrett, and (i) granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Approval of Class Notice Plan, thereby, establishing a timeline for
the administration of the class notice.
The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant have met and
conferred in good faith and agree that it is in the interests of
efficiency, preservation of resources, and judicial economy to
briefly postpone the class notice process, to allow the Parties to
assess the impact of the Court's recent dismissal of several
Defendants, and to explore potential resolutions to this matter, as
well as all other options for moving case forward. The Plaintiffs
and the Defendant stipulate and agree, and the Court approves, that
the timeline for administration of the class notice be continued
for a period of approximately two months and amended as follows:
-- Defendant to provide Class List to Class on February 15,
2021;
-- Counsel and Notice Administrator to mail all notices to
class members by February 22, 2021;
-- Class Member Opt-Out Deadline is 60 days after mailing of
Class Notice; and
-- Notice Administrator to provide list of all class members,
who did not opt out, to class counsel -- 75 days after
mailing of Class Notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybnwnaqr from Leagle.com.
S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- SUTTON HAGUE LAW
CORPORATION, Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL,
LOURDES BAIZ, and CHRISTIE GOODMAN.
Steven R. Wainess -- srw@raimondoassociates.com -- STEVEN R.
WAINESS RAIMONDO & ASSOCIATES, Attorneys for Defendant MM879, INC.
MUNDI 910: Responds to Class Action Lawsuit Over Deadly Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Nielsen, writing for Castanet, reports that the owners of a
Prince George motel that was the scene of a deadly fire this summer
have filed a response to a class-action lawsuit, saying they took
all reasonable care to ensure its fire safety systems were in
working order prior to the blaze breaking out.
Instead, Mundi 910 Victoria Enterprises Ltd. and Choice Hotels
Inc., say that if anyone is to blame it would be the City of Prince
George and the two companies who were in charge of maintaining the
system at the Econo Lodge City Centre Inn.
Three people were killed in the July 8 fire that gutted much of the
motel in the 900 block of Victoria Street. In September, one of the
occupants who survived the blaze filed a class-action lawsuit
against the the two owners as well as the City and All Points Fire
Protection Ltd. and Aztech Fire Safety Planning and Consulting
(2015) Ltd.
In a response filed Dec. 7 at the Prince George courthouse, Mundi
and Choice say that on July 6 -- two days before the fire -- the
city, through Prince George Fire Rescue, inspected the motel's fire
preparedness and safety system and found they had met standards.
They also say they followed a fire safety plan that has been
prepared by Aztech sometime before the fire and that All Points had
inspected and tested the system on in February and March.
The owners further say that at all material times, the motel "was
reasonably safe for use by the general public" and they deny that
it was "in a dangerous or unsafe condition prior to the fire,
whether as alleged or at all."
If there were problems with the system, they say they were due to a
failure by the City, Aztech and All Points to "take reasonable
care" to ensure it was in proper working order. The owners also
suggest the occupants failed to take reasonable care for their own
safety.
The allegations have not yet been tested in court and the City,
Aztech and All Points have not yet filed responses to the lawsuit,
which has not yet been certified by a judge.
The lawsuit's main plaintiff, Leonard Hay, says he suffered second
and third degree burns and lost all his possessions in the fire.
Dick Byl Law Corp. and Vancouver-based Camp Fiorante Matthews
Mogerman LLP are listed as the plaintiff's lawyers. [GN]
MY PILLOW: Class of CSRs in Deutch Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Brandon Deutsch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. My Pillow, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-318 (SRN/ECW) (D. Minn.), Magistrate
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification and Notification to All Putative Class
Members Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) as modified.
In the action, Plaintiff Deutsch, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated Customer Service Representatives, alleges that
Defendant My Pillow violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
by failing to pay him overtime. My Pillow is a Minnesota
corporation that sells pillows and other goods in its retail stores
and via its website. It operates a call center in Chaska,
Minnesota.
Mr. Deutsch worked at the call center as an hourly CSR from
December 2017 to October 2019. He alleges that his primary duties
as a CSR included answering customer calls and placing orders for
various My Pillow products, up-selling various products and
programs, answering questions about the products, and responding to
and handling customer complaints. According to Deutsch, he worked
more than 40 hours per week.
Mr. Deutsch alleges that he was regularly required to work a
substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part of his job as a
CSR, performing various tasks, for which he was never compensated.
Similarly, he alleges that he was not paid for work time following
breaks because each time he and the Class members clocked back in
after taking a break, they were made to wait for the Defendant's
timekeeping program to load before they could clock in and begin to
be paid, which "oftentimes" took one to two minutes.
With respect to similarly situated individuals for the purposes of
a FLSA collective action, Deutsch alleged that, upon information
and belief, there are numerous other similarly situated current
and/or former Customer Service Agents or other job titles
performing similar job duties who performed off-the-clock work
during their preliminary 'boot up' time and/or postliminary time
who were not compensated at the proper legal rate for each hour
worked and would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised
notice of the action and the opportunity to join it.
In addition to named Plaintiff Deutsch, opt-in Plaintiffs Craig
Lyons and Shandrea Jenkins have filed consents to sue. Lyons
declared under penalty of perjury that he worked at My Pillow's
call center as an hourly employee from February 2018 to September
2019.
Along with seeking conditional certification of this matter as a
collective action under the FLSA, the Plaintiffs move for
Court-authorized notice to the putative class members. They
propose to define the class for the collective action as follows:
All current and former Customer Service/Sales Representative
employees, or other job titles performing the same or similar job
duties, who worked more than forty hours per week for My Pillow at
any time in the last three years and were not paid overtime for
every hour worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court approves the proposed
Court-Authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form, compel My Pillow
to produce a list of the putative class members, permit the notice
to be disseminated via U.S. Mail and email, permit the opt-in
Plaintiffs to file their consents using an electronic signature
service, set the opt-in period at 90 days from dissemination of the
notice, and permit a reminder notice at 45 days.
The Plaintiffs argue that they have sufficiently established that
My Pillow call center CSRs are similarly situated to conditionally
certify a class, and that their proposed court-authorized notice
plan is appropriate. My Pillow argues that conditional
certification should not be granted because the Plaintiffs have not
presented adequate evidence of opt-in interest nor of a colorable
basis for a FLSA violation claim, and because class adjudication
would be unmanageable.
Magistrate Judge Wright concludes that the Plaintiffs have
established a colorable basis for their claim that they and the
putative class members were the victims of a single decision,
policy, or plan by My Pillow to not compensate time that should
have properly been considered work time and are, thus, similarly
situated. While the case is a close one, the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated sufficient interest in the case to render it
appropriate for collective-action status. My Pillow has not
demonstrated that there is anything particularly unmanageable about
proceeding in the case with a conditionally certified class.
Having determined that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of
showing the case is appropriate for conditional certification, the
only remaining issue is the proposed notice. My Pillow did not
object to any aspect of the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition,
scheme for notice, or request for an order compelling production of
information about My Pillow employees.
The Magistrate Judge exercises her discretion to facilitate notice
in the case and approves the plan proposed by the Plaintiffs in all
respects, with one exception. At the hearing, she raised a concern
that the proposed class definition in the Motion and proposed
Notice does not accurately reflect the specific allegations in the
case. The proposed definition refers broadly to employees who
worked more than 40 hours per week for My Pillow and were not paid
overtime for hours over 40.
Magistrate Judge Wright, therefore, modifies the class definition
in the proposed Notice to read as follows: "All current and former
Customer Service/Sales Representative employees, or other job
titles performing the same or similar job duties, who worked more
than 40 hours per week for My Pillow at any time in the last three
years and were not paid overtime for every hour worked over 40 in a
workweek where the workweek included unpaid time for pre-shift
and/or post-break time spent booting up and/or logging in to
computers and computer applications before being able to clock in
and begin being paid."
Magistrate Judge Wright also modifies the language in the "To"
paragraph at the beginning of the Notice to match the language.
She also modifies the second paragraph of the "Description of the
Lawsuit" section to read as follows: "Plaintiffs represent all
current and former Customer Service/Sales Representatives (CSRs)
employed by Defendant who worked off-the-clock during their
pre-shift and/or post-break time spent booting up and/or logging in
to computers and computer applications. The Plaintiffs allege
unpaid wages, including unpaid premium overtime wages for pre-shift
and/or post-break off-the-clock time spent booting up and/or
logging in to computers and computer applications.
The Plaintiffs will use the Notice, which incorporates the Court's
modifications.
Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Wright granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and Notification
to All Putative Class Members Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
The matter is conditionally certified as a collective action
defined as follows:
All current and former Customer Service/Sales Representative
employees, or other job titles performing the same or
similar job duties, who worked more than 40 hours per week
for My Pillow at any time in the last three years and were
not paid overtime for every hour worked over 40 in a
workweek where the workweek included unpaid time for
pre-shift and/or post-break time spent booting up and/or
logging in to computers and computer applications before
being able to clock in and begin being paid.
The Defendant will produce, within 14 days of the Order, the full
name, last known address, last known personal and work email
addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential class members.
The Plaintiffs' proposed Notice form is modified and the Plaintiffs
will send the Notice to each putative Plaintiff.
The Magistrate also approved the Plaintiffs' proposed Consent to
Sue form. The putative class members may sign their Consent to Sue
form using an electronic signature service. They will have 90 days
to return their Consent to Sue form to the Plaintiffs' counsel for
filing with the Court.
The Plaintiffs' counsel will send the Notice to each putative
plaintiff by U.S. Mail and email within 14 days of receipt of the
Defendant's production of the list of potential class members. The
Plaintiffs' counsel will send a reminder of the Notice by U.S. Mail
and email at the 45th day of the 90-day notice period.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3awO9p1 from Leagle.com.
NCAA: Justices to Take on Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Amy Howe, writing for SCOTUS blog, reports that the justices on
Dec. 16 added three new cases, for a total of two hours of argument
time, to their list of cases slated for oral argument this term.
The announcement that the justices would tackle significant issues
relating to antitrust protection for the National Collegiate
Athletic Association and class-action lawsuits came just two days
after the justices released their second set of orders from their
private conference on Dec. 11. The move resembled a similar set of
orders at this time last year, allowing the justices to continue
fill out their docket for the second half of the term without
having to wait for their next regularly scheduled conference on
Jan. 8.
The Supreme Court agreed to wade into the controversial issue of
compensation for college athletes, granting National Collegiate
Athletic Association v. Alston and American Athletic Conference v.
Alston. Over 35 years ago, the Supreme Court indicated in NCAA v.
Board of Regents that rules regarding eligibility standards for
college athletes are subject to a different and less stringent
analysis than most antitrust cases. But earlier this year, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled, in a case brought by
Division 1 football and basketball players, that the NCAA's limits
on providing education-related benefits - such as computers,
science equipment, post-graduate scholarships and internships -
violate federal antitrust laws.
The NCAA (along with 11 major athletic conferences) came to the
Supreme Court in October, asking the justices to review that
decision. The NCAA told the justices that, if allowed to stand, the
9th Circuit's ruling "will fundamentally transform the century-old
institution of NCAA sports, blurring the traditional line between
college and professional athletes."
The athletes urged the justices to stay out of the dispute, arguing
that what the NCAA and the schools are really seeking is antitrust
immunity. But Congress, they contended, has not only declined to
provide such a shield, but it is currently considering whether to
"roll back" limits on athlete compensation, "recognizing the
profound inequity of a system that enables conference executives,
athletic directors, coaches, schools, television networks, and a
host of others to make billions of dollars on the backs of young,
often underprivileged players."
The justices on Dec. 16 granted the petitions filed by both the
NCAA and the athletic conferences, consolidated the two cases for
one hour of oral argument.
The Supreme Court also granted a petition filed by credit-reporting
giant TransUnion, which had asked it to weigh in on issues related
to class actions and punitive damages. The case, TransUnion v.
Ramirez, arose when Sergio Ramirez went to a Nissan dealership with
his wife and father-in-law to buy a car, but a credit report
indicated that Ramirez's name matched a name on the list,
maintained by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets
Control, of people with whom U.S. companies cannot do business.
Ramirez and his wife still bought a car that day, but they did it
only in her name. TransUnion eventually removed the OFAC alert from
any future credit reports that might be requested by or for
Ramirez, but -- out of an abundance of caution -- Ramirez canceled
a planned trip to Mexico.
Ramirez then went to federal court, alleging that TransUnion's
actions violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The district court
certified the case as a class action that included everyone who had
received a letter from TransUnion, during a six-month period,
indicating that their name was a "potential match" for one on the
OFAC list. Only a fraction of those class members had their credit
reports sent to a third party.
The jury awarded each class member nearly $1,000 for violations of
the FCRA and over $6,000 in punitive damages, bringing the total
verdict to more than $60 million. On appeal, the 9th Circuit upheld
the statutory damages but reduced the punitive damages to roughly
$32 million.
TransUnion came to the Supreme Court this fall, asking the justices
to weigh in on two questions. The first is whether either the
Constitution or the federal rules governing class actions allow the
case to go forward when most class members were not harmed at all,
and any harm that they did suffer was nothing like Ramirez's. The
second is whether the $32 million punitive damages award was so
large in comparison with the damages for the violation of the FCRA
that it violates the Constitution. The justices agreed to hear the
first question, but declined to take up the punitive damages
issue.
The cases granted on Dec. 16 will likely be argued in the spring,
with decisions to follow by summer.
This post was originally published at Howe on the Court. [GN]
NEOVASC INC: Zhang Investor Reminds Investors of Jan. 5 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Neovasc Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN)
between November 1, 2019 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=neovasc-inc&id=2476
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=neovasc-inc&id=2476
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before January 5, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things: 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; 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; blinding is critical when studying a
placebo-responsive condition such as angina; the lack of blinding
assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret; as a
result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably likely to require
additional premarket clinical data; as a result, the Company's
Premarket Approval application (PMA) for Reducer was unlikely to be
approved without additional clinical data; and 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. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
NEW YORK LIFE: Rejects Applicants With Arrest Records, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
law.com reports that a job applicant to New York Life filed a class
action alleging that the company denied employment to her because
of arrests that never resulted in conviction. The complaint
specifically alleges that New York Life's uniform policy and
practice, to deny applicants with such arrests, "flout[s] New York
law, treating individuals as guilty of crimes for which they were
never convicted, and inverting the fundamental U.S. legal principle
that an individual is innocent until proven guilty."
New York City and State make it an unlawful discriminatory practice
to deny employment to an individual or group of persons because of
arrests that were terminated in their favor. As the New York City
Human Rights Law explains, "there is no greater danger to the
health, morals, safety and welfare of . . . [New York City] and
its inhabitants than the existence of groups prejudiced against one
another and antagonistic to each other because of their actual or
perceived differences, including those based on . . . conviction or
arrest record."
Outten & Golden attorney, Christopher M. McNerney, says: "This
lawsuit is crucial to ensuring that New Yorkers are no longer
denied gainful employment because of arrests that did not even
result in any conviction, and have absolutely no bearing on their
suitability for employment." Youth Represent attorney, Michael C.
Pope, adds: "These legal protections have been on the books for
years now. For a corporation to still be ignoring the law, and
harming New Yorkers in the process, is simply not acceptable."
Causes of Action: New York City Human Rights Law, New York State
Human Rights Law.
Relief: Injunction barring unlawful practices; class certification;
compensatory and punitive damages.
Potential Class Size: All job applicants and employees denied
employment because of arrests by NY Life throughout New York
State.
Attorneys: Ossai Miazad and Christopher M. McNerney with Outten &
Golden LLP and Michael C. Pope and Eric Eingold with Youth
Represent filed the complaint.
The case is Hughes-Phillips v. New York Life, No. 1:20-cv-10158,
filed 12/3/2020.
Outten & Golden LLP focuses on advising and representing
individuals in employment, partnership, and related workplace
matters both domestically and internationally. The firm counsels
individuals on employment and severance agreements; handles complex
compensation and benefits issues (including bonuses, equity
agreements, and partnership interests); and advises professionals
(including doctors and lawyers) on contractual issues. It also
represents employees with a wide variety of claims, including
discrimination and harassment based on sex, sexual orientation,
gender identity and expression, race, disability, national origin,
religion, and age, as well as retaliation, whistleblower, and
contract claims. The firm handles class actions involving a wide
range of employment issues, including economic exploitation,
gender- and race-based discrimination, wage-and-hour violations,
violations of the WARN Act, and other systemic workers' rights
issues. [GN]
NEW YORK: J.T. Appeals Order in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs J.T., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled J.T., et al., Plaintiffs v. BILL DE
BLASIO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-5878, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).
The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought by the parents
and/or natural guardians of students who are classified under
federal law as disabled or having an educational disability.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.
Section 1400, et seq. (IDEA), disabled students are entitled to a
"free appropriate public education." To guarantee students receive
a FAPE, each student with disabilities has an Individualized
Education Program (IEP) that lays out the terms of his or her
special education and related services, supplementary aids and
services, and program modifications or supports for school
personnel that will be provided for the student. Under the IDEA, a
local educational agency -- most often, a school district -- cannot
alter a student's IEP without complying with certain procedural
requirements, including notifying parents of any change. If a
parent initiates an IDEA proceeding against an LEA, the IDEA's
"stay put" or "pendency" provision requires that the child remain
in his or her then -- current educational placement until the
proceedings are complete, unless the State or local agency and
parent otherwise agree.
The Plaintiffs allege that, when schools were shut down due to the
public health emergency created by the COVID-19 pandemic, every
school district in the United States that went from in-person to
remote learning (1) automatically altered the pendency placement of
every special education student in the United States; and (2)
ceased providing every one of those students with a FAPE, in
violation of IDEA's substantive and procedural safeguards.
The Plaintiffs hereby appeal to review the District Court's Order
dated and entered in the action on November 13, 2020, denying
Plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction and dismissing
Plaintiffs' complaint by the Hon. Judge Colleen McMahon.
The appellate case is captioned as J.T. v. de Blasio, Case No.
20-4128, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, December 14, 2020. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants J.T., individually and on behalf of D.T.,
K.M., individually and on behalf of M.M. and S.M., J.J.,
individually and on behalf of Z.J., C.N., individually and on
behalf of V.N. and, all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Peter Glenn Albert, Esq.
BRAIN INJURY RIGHTS GROUP
300 East 95th Street
New York, NY 10128
Telephone: (646) 850-5035
E-mail: peter@pabilaw.org
Defendants-Appellees Bill de Blasio, in his official capacity as
Mayor of New York City; Richard Carranza, in his official capacity
as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education; New
York City Department of Education; School Districts in the United
States; and State Departments of Education in the United States are
represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
- and -
Fredric Paul Gallin, Esq.
METHFESSEL & WERBEL, P.C.
112 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10120
Telephone: (212) 947-1999
E-mail: gallin@methwerb.com
- and -
Kyle Kaiser, Esq.
UTAH OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
160 East 300 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 366-0100
E-mail: kkaiser@agutah.gov
- and -
Adam I. Kleinberg, Esq.
SOKOLOFF STERN LLP
179 Westbury Avenue
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 334-4500
E-mail: akleinberg@sokoloffstern.com
- and -
Bryan L. LeClerc, Esq.
BERCHEM, MOSES & DEVLIN, P.C.
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Telephone: (203) 783-1200
E-mail: bleclerc@berchemmoses.com
- and -
Caroline B. Lineen, Esq.
SILVERMAN & ASSOCIATES
445 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 574-4510
E-mail: clineen@silvermanandassociatesny.com
- and -
Jill M. O'Toole, Esq.
SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP
1 Constitution Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 251-5000
E-mail: jotoole@goodwin.com
- and -
Dennis Michael Rothman, Esq.
LESTER SCHWAB KATZ & DWYER, LLP
100 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 341-4343
E-mail: drothman@lskdnylaw.com
- and -
Mohammad Shihabi, Esq.
FORDHARRISON LLP
366 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 453-5907
E-mail: mshihabi@fordharrison.com
- and -
Jacqueline Wilson, Esq.
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1885 North 3rd Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 326-6362
- and -
Darren P. Cunningham, Esq.
CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 808-5074
- and -
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Chong Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allows in
part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss all
claims in the lawsuit entitled MANNY CHONG, THANE GALLO, and ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, Case No.
20-10844-RGS (D. Mass.).
Chong and Gallo filed the putative class action against
Northeastern University. By way of a Third Amended Complaint
("TAC"), they allege that Northeastern breached a contract with its
students (Counts I, III, and V) or, alternatively, unjustly
enriched itself at its students' expense (Counts II, IV, and VI)
when it retained the full amount of tuition and fees collected for
the Spring semester of 2020, despite ceasing in-person instruction
and closing its on-campus facilities and resources. Northeastern
moves to dismiss all claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Northeastern is a private educational institution with a main
campus in Boston, Massachusetts. Gallo is an undergraduate student
and Chong is a graduate student, and both enrolled in courses at
Northeastern during the Spring semester of 2020.
Before the semester began, Gallo and Chong (and all similarly
situated students) executed an Annual Financial Responsibility
Agreement ("FRA") with the University. The FRA does not explicitly
define the term "educational services." The Plaintiffs allege,
however, that Northeastern described the "educational services"
each student could expect to receive in "numerous statements,
promises, and representations in the Semester Schedule and Class
Details documents" that Northeastern issued during student
registration.
After signing the FRA, the Plaintiffs registered for courses
designated in Class Detail documents as having "traditional"
instruction (i.e., face-to-face instruction in a classroom
setting), and Northeastern issued Semester Schedules specifying
that instruction for their courses would occur within an assigned
room in specific buildings.
For the first half of the Spring semester, instruction for the
Plaintiffs' courses occurred in person, as specified in the
Semester Schedule and Class Details documents. On March 11, 2020,
however, the University's president notified students that "all
Spring 2020 courses offered by Northeastern would be taught online
beginning March 12, 2020 for the remainder of the semester, in
response to the spread of the Covid-19 virus." Northeastern also
closed its on-campus facilities, including its classrooms,
laboratories, library, student center, fitness centers, and the
First Year Learning & Innovation Center workspaces, effective March
12, 2020. No tuition-paying student had access to in-person
instruction or on-campus facilities and resources during the
remainder of the Spring semester of 2020. Chong further alleges
that one of his professors ceased offering lectures to students
following the switch to remote learning and instead emailed weekly
notes, reducing the hands-on instruction time in the course to zero
until the end of the semester.
Chong petitioned for a partial refund of the tuition and fees he
had paid to Northeastern for the Spring semester of 2020, citing
the pedagogical inferiority of online instruction. When
Northeastern failed to act on his petition or otherwise offer its
students a refund, he and Gallo filed the instant putative class
action.
They assert six claims on behalf of three nominated classes: breach
of contract (Count I) or, alternatively, unjust enrichment (Count
II) as to a Tuition Class, tentatively defined as "all Northeastern
University students who attended one or more courses in-person for
credit on a Northeastern campus between Jan. 1, 2020 and March 11,
2020 and paid tuition monies to Northeastern" for these courses;
breach of contract (Count III) or, alternatively, unjust enrichment
(Count IV) as to an Undergraduate Fees Class, tentatively defined
as "all Northeastern University undergraduate students who paid
Northeastern a student activity fee, an undergraduate student fee,
a campus recreation fee, and a student center fee on or before
March 11, 2020, and who registered for one or more Spring 2020
courses for credit on a Northeastern campus March 11, 2020"; and
breach of contract (Count V) or, alternatively, unjust enrichment
(Count VI) as to a Graduate Fees Class, tentatively defined as "all
Northeastern University graduate students who paid Northeastern a
student activity fee, a recreation fee, and a student center fee on
or before March 11, 2020, who registered for one or more Spring
2020 courses for credit on a Northeastern campus before March 11,
2020."
Northeastern argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim for breach of contract (Count I) because they have not
sufficiently identified the basis for any contractual right to
in-person instruction. The Plaintiffs respond that the contractual
right to in-person instruction derives from two sources: the FRA
and the course registration materials. The Court says further
factual development is needed to resolve the issue on the merits.
Accordingly, it denies the motion to dismiss Count I.
Counts III and V assert breach of contract claims relative to the
payment of certain student fees. The Plaintiffs allege that
Northeastern breached its obligations under the educational
services agreement when it ceased permitting access to any
Northeastern student to its campus facilities, including its
student center, with no on-campus activities conducted in any of
those facilities, upon information and belief, from late March 2020
onward.
District Judge Richard G. Stearns notes that the Plaintiffs do not
point to any explicit language in the FRA or the registration
materials creating an entitlement to access on-campus facilities
and resources. Because students pay the student activity fee, the
student center fee, and the undergraduate student fee to "support"
certain facilities during terms for which those students are
enrolled in classes, and not to gain admission to any on-campus
facility or access to a given resource (or even to support the
operation of any specific service at an on-campus facility), the
Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for breach of contract with
respect to these fees. The Judge, accordingly, allows the motion to
dismiss Counts III and V to the extent these claims are premised on
payment of the student activity fee, the student center fee, or the
undergraduate student fee.
Students also pay the campus recreation fee to "support" certain
facilities. Payment of the campus recreation fee, however, gives
students "the option to gain admission to home athletic events" and
to "use the Marino Fitness Center, the SquashBusters athletic
facility, and the Cabot Gym (fitness and pool)." Because the
Plaintiffs allege that they lost the option to attend home athletic
games or use fitness facilities after March 12, 2020, they have
stated a plausible claim for breach of contract with respect to the
campus recreation fee. The Court, accordingly, denies the motion to
dismiss Counts III and V to the extent these claims are premised on
payment of the campus recreation fee.
Counts II, IV, and VI assert claims of unjust enrichment.
Northeastern argues that the Plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law,
state a claim for unjust enrichment because they have an adequate
alternative remedy available, namely, a breach of contract action.
But unlike the Second Amended Complaint, the TAC does not rely on
the existence of a single document that indisputably governs the
parties' contractual relationship, Judge Stearns opines. The TAC
alleges a broader educational services agreement entitling students
to in-person instruction. The Judge, accordingly, declines to
dismiss these counts.
For these reasons, the motion to dismiss is allowed as to the
portions of Counts III, IV, V, and VI premised on payment of any
student activity fee, student center fee, or undergraduate student
fee. It is denied in all other respects. Counts I and II and the
portions of Counts III, IV, V, and VI premised on payment of a
campus recreation fee also survive Northeastern's motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 14,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y962rvuf from
Leagle.com.
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Hagens Berman Reminds of February 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)
investors to submit their losses now. A securities fraud class
action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.
Class Period: Dec. 21, 2017 – Nov. 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Feb. 2, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/NAK
Contact An Attorney Now: NAK@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NAK) Securities Fraud Class
Action:
The lawsuit alleges Northern Dynasty and senior executives misled
investors about the viability of the company's proposed Pebble
Project, a large mining project in Alaska.
In past quarters, Northern Dynasty repeatedly touted its progress
in obtaining the necessary permitting for the Pebble Project. The
company and senior management also repeatedly assured investors
that the Pebble Project design included a substantially reduced
development footprint and meaningful new environmental safeguards
and, as a result, would likely receive necessary permits from
federal, state and local regulatory agencies.
Investors began to learn the truth through a series of partial
disclosures beginning on Aug. 24, 2020, when the U.S. Army
announced the Pebble Project would significantly degrade the
environment, result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic
system or human environment, and as proposed "cannot be permitted."
This news sent the price of Northern Dynasty shares crashing
lower.
On Sept. 21, 2020, the Environmental Investigation Agency released
recordings of conversations between Northern Dynasty senior
executives and EIA investigators revealing the company's plans to
expand the Pebble Project mine operations from 20 years to 180 –
200 years and to expand it geographically.
Finally, on Nov. 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty announced the U.S. Army
Corps. of Engineers rejected its Pebble Project permit application
under the Clean Water Act, finding the project "is not in the
public interest." This news drove the price of Northern Dynasty
lower again.
"We're focused on, among other things, investor losses and proving
that Northern Dynasty and its senior management intentionally
misled investors and manipulated the permitting process to achieve
personal compensation for having done so," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are a Northern Dynasty investor, click here to discuss your
legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Northern Dynasty 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 NAK@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. [GN]
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Kendall Is Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
grants the Plaintiff's motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff
and approval of selection of the Lead Counsel in the lawsuit
captioned KEVIN KENDALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ODONATE THERAPEUTICS, INC., KEVIN C. TANG,
MICHAEL HEARNE, and JOHN G. LEMKEY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01828-H-LL
(S.D. Cal.).
On Sept. 16, 2020, Plaintiff Kendall, through his counsel Pomerantz
LLP and Holzer & Holzer, LLC, filed a securities class action
complaint action against Defendant Odonate and three of its senior
executives. The Complaint claims that between Dec. 7, 2017, and
Aug. 21, 2020, inclusive, the Defendants defrauded investors in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
regarding the safety and tolerability of its lead drug candidate,
tesetaxel, an orally administered chemotherapy agent. Tesetaxel was
in a Phase 3 clinical study for patients with locally advanced or
metastatic breast cancer ("CONTESSA trial"). Plaintiff Kendall
alleges Odonate investors incurred significant losses following a
press release regarding the CONTESSA trial that announced tesetaxel
was associated with significant treatment-emergent adverse events.
Plaintiff Kendall asserts that he has the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class as he lost approximately
$19,561 on his purchases of 1,700 shares of Odonate's stock during
the Class Period. Because no other movant has asserted the largest
financial interest in the litigation and no opposition has been
filed, the Court has no basis for finding otherwise. Thus, the
Court concludes Plaintiff Kendall is the member with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class.
The Court also concludes that the typicality and adequacy
requirements are met. Similar to all other class members, Plaintiff
Kendall alleges he purchased Odonate securities during the Class
Period at prices artificially inflated by the Defendants' material
misrepresentations and/or omissions and as a result, suffered
damages. It also appears that Plaintiff Kendall's interests are
aligned with those of the other class members, and he is willing
and able to serve as Lead Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Kendall's retained counsel, Pomerantz and Holzer, are
well experienced in the area of complex securities class litigation
and are capable of representing the interests of the Class.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff Kendall is the
presumptive Lead Plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.
Plaintiff Kendall asks the Court to approve his selection of
Pomerantz and Holzer as Co-Lead Counsel. On their firm resumes,
Pomerantz and Holzer, both firms have served as lead or co-lead
counsel in numerous securities class action litigation and obtained
millions of dollars in recovery. In light of the firms' substantial
experience in securities class action litigation, the Court
approves Plaintiff Kendall's choice of counsel and appoints
Pomerantz and Holzer as Co-Lead Counsel.
District Judge Marilyn L. Huff directs the Co-Lead Counsel to
coordinate, among other things, the briefing and argument of
motions, the conduct of discovery proceedings, the examination of
witnesses in depositions and the selection of cthe ounsel to act as
a spokesperson at pretrial conferences. Judge Huff also rules,
among other things, that no motion, request for discovery, or other
pretrial proceedings shall be initiated or filed by any plaintiffs
without the approval of the Co-Lead Counsel, so as to prevent
duplicative pleadings or discovery by the Plaintiffs. No settlement
negotiations shall be conducted without the approval of the Co-Lead
Counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y95ovnfd from Leagle.com.
OREGON: Prison Inmates' COVID-19 Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Wilson, writing for OPB, reports that a federal judge in
Portland ruled on Dec. 15 that a group of Oregon prison inmates
could continue suing state officials over their response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The class-action lawsuit states the seven
inmates named in the case have underlying medical conditions and
are at risk for contracting COVID-19; though the case applies to
any Department of Corrections inmate who has contracted the disease
or is medically vulnerable.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman ruled state leaders named in
the lawsuit are not protected from litigation over their response
to the pandemic inside Oregon's correctional institutions. The
ruling could have national implications because it's believed to be
one of the first rulings where a judge found a state is not
protected from litigation over its pandemic response in prisons and
could have to pay financial damages.
"No one was sentenced to die of COVID-19 in prison," said Juan
Chavez, one of the civil rights attorneys representing the inmates.
"No one deserves that agonizing fate. We clung to mass
incarceration when all of the health science pointed to
decarceration as the answer to protecting lives."
Related: Indigenous inmates, volunteers navigate a year without
ceremonies, celebrations
The lawsuit names Gov. Kate Brown, Oregon Department of Corrections
Director Collette Peters and other prison officials in both their
personal and professional capacities.
In August, the Oregon Department of Justice, which represents Brown
and the other defendants, asked Beckerman to dismiss the lawsuit's
primary argument. The attorneys for the state argued the defendants
were protected by qualified immunity because the COVID-19 pandemic
is unprecedented and there's no clear constitutional requirement
for the Department of Corrections to limit COVID-19 spread inside
prisons. But in her 26-page opinion, Beckerman disagreed.
"The law does not support a finding of qualified immunity for
government officials who fail to protect individuals in their
custody from a new serious communicable disease, as opposed to a
serious communicable disease of which they were previously aware,"
Beckerman wrote. "To hold otherwise as a matter of law would
provide qualified immunity to defendants even if they had done
nothing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic."
The ruling puts the state in a precarious legal position, one where
people in custody could now argue before a jury that Oregon
officials were deliberately indifferent toward prisoners at risk
for contracting COVID-19.
The lawsuit was first filed in April.
The Oregon Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a
request for comment about the opinion and its implications for the
state. Brown's office declined to comment, citing the pending
litigation.
"The COVID-19 pandemic is an extraordinary event," attorneys for
the Oregon DOJ wrote in their August court filing seeking to
dismiss the lawsuit. "There is no controlling case law explaining
how to address such a situation in the prison context. Every
country, every state, every institution is grappling to figure out
how to handle the many complex issues that have arisen."
The attorneys for the state argued addressing the pandemic in
prisons calls for discretionary judgment, both in terms of policies
and how they are implemented.
Beckerman rejected that argument, stating "the law is clearly
established that individuals in government custody have a
constitutional right to be protected against a heightened exposure
to serious, easily communicable diseases, and the Court finds that
this clearly established right extends to protection from
COVID-19."
The risk of harm to inmates from the virus is not disputed,
Beckerman wrote. She said it should've been no surprise to the
governor and state prison leaders that they're responsible for
protecting inmates from being exposed to COVID-19, "despite the
novelty of the virus."
Beckerman said there are clear legal rights inmates have protecting
them from serious communicable diseases. Part of her legal analysis
rested on Helling v. McKinney, a 1993 ruling by the U.S. Supreme
Court involving a Nevada inmate who said his involuntary exposure
to cigarette smoke posed a health risk. In a 7-2 ruling, the court
found prison officials cannot "be deliberately indifferent to the
exposure of inmates to a serious, communicable disease." Beckerman
also said that opinion would apply under the 8th Amendment, which
guards against cruel and unusual punishment.
At roughly 12,900 inmates, Oregon's prison population is the lowest
it's been in years. Still, the state reports more than 1,600 people
in custody have contracted COVID-19 this year, and 19 have died as
of publication.
Meanwhile, the governor has been slow to release inmates early
because of COVID-19, despite calls from defense attorneys and other
groups. So far, Brown has commuted the sentences of 123 inmates who
meet certain criteria, including having suitable housing after
their release. An additional 144 inmates are set to be released by
the end of December. [GN]
PINTEREST INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of Jan. 22 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 Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:
PINS), Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK), Splunk, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SPLK), and Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV).
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.
Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS)
Class Period: May 16, 2019 to November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 22, 2021
On October 31, 2019, the Company announced its financial results
for the quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company reported
disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S.
MAUs year over year, reaching 87 million, only 8 million more than
the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also missed its
consensus projections and reported lower than expected U.S.
advertising revenue. The Company only marginally increased its full
year 2019 guidance, implying further deceleration in the future
quarters.
On this news, the price of the Company's shares steeply declined by
17%, to close at $20.86 on November 1, 2019.
The Complaint, filed on November 23, 2020, alleges that Pinterest
made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the
Class Period and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its maximum capacity;
(ii) which significantly decelerated Pinterest's future ability to
monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (iii) Pinterest was at
an increased risk of losing advertising revenue; (iv) and as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.
For more information on the Pinterest class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PINS
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)
Class Period: December 21, 2017 to November 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
Northern Dynasty engages in the exploration of mineral properties
in the United States. Its principal mineral property is the Pebble
copper-gold-molybdenum project comprising 2,402 mineral claims that
covers an area of approximately 417 square miles located in
southwest Alaska (the "Pebble Project").
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 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.
The complaint, filed on December 4, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project
was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public
interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be
larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a
result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project
would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
For more information on the Northern Dynasty class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NAK
Splunk, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK)
Class Period: October 21, 2020 to December 2, 2020
Lead Plaintiff: February 2, 2021
After the markets closed on December 2, 2020, Splunk stunned the
market when it announced its financial results for the third
quarter of 2021. These results fell short of annual recurring and
total revenue estimates, and Splunk reported a loss of 7 cents per
share versus an expected gain of 8 cents per share. Splunk's
forecast for the fourth quarter of 2020 was also lower than
expected. Numerous analysts have already downgraded the stock and
cut their price targets. This includes JPMorgan, who was
"blindsided by the magnitude of too many large deals slipping in
the final days of October on the heels of an upbeat analyst day 10
days prior to the quarter close," on October 21, 2020, "at which
the company reaffirmed guidance and stated that it was excited
about near-term and long-term growth prospects."
On this news, shares of Splunk common stock plummeted, closing at
just $158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, down over 23% from the
December 2, 2020 closing price of $205.91 per share.
The complaint, filed on December 4, 2020, alleges that the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers
in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
For more information on the Splunk class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SPLK
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV)
Class Period: May 5, 2017 to November 30, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
Minerva's drug candidate roluperidone, MIN-101, is in development
for the treatment of negative symptoms in patients with
schizophrenia. In October 2016, the Company had previously reported
positive results from a Phase 2b trial of roluperidone for this
treatment, asserting that the "[d]ata show continuous improvement
in negative symptoms, stable positive symptoms and extended safety
profile."
On May 29, 2020, Minerva released the results of its Phase 3
clinical trial. The Company announced that the studied "doses were
not statistically significantly different from placebo at Week 12
on the primary endpoint . . . or the key secondary endpoint." In
other words, the Phase 3 clinical trial failed.
On this news, the Company's stock price plummeted from a May 28,
2020 closing price of $13.47 per share to a May 29, 2020 closing
price of just $3.71 per share.
On December 1, 2020, Minerva issued a press release revealing that
it had "received official meeting minutes from the November 10,
2020 Type C meeting with the" FDA. Minerva disclosed for the first
time that the "FDA advised that the Phase 2b study is problematic
because it did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone
and was conducted solely outside of the United States. In addition,
FDA commented that the Phase 3 study does not appear to be capable
of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness . . . ."
Indeed, the "FDA cautioned that an NDA submission based on the
current data from the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be highly
unlikely to be filed and that at a minimum, there would be
substantial review issues due to the lack of two adequate and
well-controlled trials to support efficacy claims for this
indication."
On this news, Minerva's stock price fell from its November 30, 2020
closing price of $3.89 per share to a December 1, 2020 closing
price of $2.89 per share. This represents a one day drop of
approximately 25.7%.
The complaint, filed on December 8, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the truth about the feedback received from the
FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2" meeting; (ii) the Phase 2b
study did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone and
was conducted solely outside of the United States; (iii) the
failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its primary and key secondary
endpoints rendered that study incapable of supporting substantial
evidence of effectiveness; (iv) the Company's plan to use the
combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be "highly
unlikely" to support the submission of an NDA; (v) reliance on
these two trials in the submission of an NDA would lead to
"substantial review issues" because the trials were inadequate and
not well-controlled; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
For more information on the Minerva class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NERV
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]
PINTEREST INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of January 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law announces that securities fraud class action lawsuit
has commenced on behalf of Pinterest, Inc. shareholders.
Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the link below.
Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT PINS:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11538&from=1
Class Period: May 16, 2019 - November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 22, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its
maximum capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated Pinterest's
future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (iii)
Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue;
(iv) and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
PLAINS MARKETING: Henry Price Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henry Price Trust,
successor co-trustees Henry Price Bradley and Patricia Bradley
Scott, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
Plains Marketing, L.P., Case No. 6:19-cv-00390-RAW (E.D. Okla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Class for Settlement purposes,
consisting of:
"all persons or entities, except as specifically excluded
below, who received proceeds payments from Defendant
Plains Marketing, L.P., or its designee on Plains' behalf,
for oil and/or liquids proceeds from oil and/or gas wells
located in the State of Oklahoma, or whose oil and/or
liquids proceeds from oil and/or gas wells located in the
State of Oklahoma were remitted to unclaimed property
divisions by Plains, or its designee on Plains' behalf,
dated between October 1, 2014, and October 31, 2020."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) agencies,
departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of
America or the State of Oklahoma; (2) Plains, its
affiliates, affiliated predecessors, and their employees,
officers, and directors; (3) persons or entities that
Plaintiff 's counsel are prohibited from representing
under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional
Conduct; and (4) officers of the Court;
2. preliminarily approving the Settlement;
Under the Settlement, the parties agreed on a term sheet,
wherein the Defendant agreed to pay $10 million to
settle the Plaintiff's class claims and in which the
Defendant agreed to begin calculating and paying
statutory interest automatically on a go-forward basis.
3. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative for the
Settlement Class;
4. appointing Reagan E. Bradford, Ryan K. Wilson, and Jim U.
White as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Settlement Class;
5. approving the form and manner of the proposed Notice;
6. appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement
Administrator;
7. appointing JND Legal Administration as Escrow Agent; and
8. setting a hearing date for final approval of the
Settlement and application for an award of Attorneys'
Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to
the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff initiated this action on October 11, 2019, by filing
a Petition in the District Court of Muskogee County, Oklahoma. The
Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant violated Oklahoma's Production
Revenue Standards Act (PRSA), by failing to pay statutory interest
owed on the payment of oil-and-gas proceeds made outside of the
timelines set out in the PRSA.
Plains Marketing operates as a midstream energy company. The
Company provides energy infrastructure and logistics services for
crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas, as well as owns
pipeline transportation, terminalling, storage, and gathering
assets.
A copy of Plaintiff's unopposed motion to certify the settlement
class dated Dec. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3oXz5EN at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
James U. White, Jr.,Esq.
WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C.
P.O. Box 54783
Oklahoma City, OK 73154
Telephone: (405) 842-7545
E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com
POPULAR INC: Torres Putative Class Action Concluded
---------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico, et al, has been concluded.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) was separately named a
defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Ramirez
Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al, filed before
the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part.
The complaint sought damages and a preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against the same
Popular Defendants, as well as other financial institutions with
insurance brokerage subsidiaries in Puerto Rico.
Plaintiffs contended that in November 2015 Antilles Insurance
Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance
Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to
obtain reimbursement on their insurance deductible for good
experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or
disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products
instead, in violation of their duties as insurance brokers.
Plaintiffs sought a determination that defendants unlawfully failed
to comply with their duty to disclose the existence of this new
insurance product, as well as double or treble damages (the latter
subject to a determination that defendants engaged in monopolistic
practices in failing to offer this product).
In July 2017, after co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint and opposed the request for preliminary injunctive
relief, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In August
2017, plaintiffs appealed this judgment, and in March 2018 the
Court of Appeals reversed the Court of First Instance's dismissal.
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied review. In August 2019, the
Popular Defendants and plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion where they
informed the Court that plaintiffs were simultaneously filing
voluntary dismissals with prejudice against all other parties.
On April 24, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the terms of a
proposed class settlement submitted by the parties. Notices to the
proposed class for settlement purposes were published on April 28
and May 5, 2020.
A hearing was held on June 23, 2020, where the Court granted its
final approval of the stipulation for settlement and, on July 10,
2020, the Court issued its final judgment.
Such judgment became final and unappealable on August 12, 2020 and,
on September 12, 2020, BPPR complied with the disbursements
contemplated in the settlement agreement.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
QIWI PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Claims on Behalf of Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Qiwi plc ("Qiwi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QIWI). Such investors
are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Qiwi and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
On December 10, 2020, Qiwi issued a press release entitled "QIWI
(QIWI) Fined by Bank of Russia, Restricts Operations." The press
release stated, in relevant part, that "[f]rom July to December
2020, the Central Bank of Russia ('CBR'), acting in its supervisory
capacity, performed a routine scheduled audit of Qiwi Bank JSC
('Qiwi Bank') for the period of July 2018 to September 2020 and, in
the course of this audit, has identified certain violations and
deficiencies relating primarily to reporting and record-keeping
requirements. . . . The monetary fine imposed on Qiwi Bank as a
result of these findings was RUB 11 million, or approximately USD
150,000." Qiwi further disclosed that "as part of its instruction
letter setting forth the findings of the audit, the CBR introduced
certain restrictions with respect to Qiwi Bank's operations,
including, effective from December 7, 2020, the suspension or
limitation of most types of payments to foreign merchants and money
transfers to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts." On this news,
Qiwi's American Depositary Receipt price fell sharply during
intraday trading on December 10, 2020, damaging investors.
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]
QIWI PLC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Qiwi plc (NASDAQ: QIWI) between March 28, 2019 and
December 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Qiwi investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Qiwi class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2005.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and
record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank
of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose
restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign
merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
9, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2005.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Wants Retirement Plan Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Quest Diagnostics Inc. urged a New Jersey
federal judge to toss a proposed class action accusing the lab
testing giant of violating federal benefits law by letting workers
sink retirement savings into subpar mutual funds, saying the
"threadbare" allegations from retirement plan participants are too
vague to stay in court. [GN]
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 29 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 Raytheon Technologies
Corporation (NYSE: RTX), Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ICPT), Neovasc, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN), and Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TILE). 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.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX)
Class Period: February 10, 2016 to October 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 29, 2020
On October 27, 2020, after market hours, Raytheon filed its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended
September 30, 2020 (the "3Q20 Report"). The 3Q20 Report announced
the DOJ Investigation, stating in pertinent part: "On October 8,
2020, the Company received a criminal subpoena from the DOJ seeking
information and documents in connection with an investigation
relating to financial accounting, internal controls over financial
reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles
& Defense business since 2009."
On this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per share, or
7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020, on unusually
heavy trading volume, damaging investors.
The complaint, filed on October 30, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (2) Raytheon had faulty financial accounting;
(3) as a result, Raytheon misreported its costs regarding
Raytheon's Missiles & Defense business since 2009; (4) as a result
of the foregoing, Raytheon was at risk of increased scrutiny from
the government; (5) as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon would
face a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ"); and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
For more information on the Raytheon class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RTX
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICPT)
Class Period: September 28, 2019 to October 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
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 this 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.
For more information on the Intercept class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ICPT-2
Neovasc, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN)
Class Period: October 10, 2018 to October 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
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.
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.
The complaint, filed on November 5, 2020, 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.
For more information on the Neovasc class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NVCN
Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE)
Class Period: March 2, 2018 to September 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 11, 2021
On April 24, 2019, Defendants filed a current report on Form 8-K
with the SEC, disclosing, inter alia, that Interface "received a
letter in November 2017 from the [SEC] requesting that the Company
voluntarily provide information and documents in connection with an
investigation into the Company's historical quarterly [EPS]
calculations and rounding practices during the period 2014-2017";
that "[t]he Company subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC in
February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019 requesting additional
documents and information"; and that "[i]n the fourth quarter of
2018, the Company conducted at the SEC's request an internal
investigation into these and other related issues for seven
quarters in 2015, 2016 and 2017."
On this news, Interface's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or
8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share on April 25, 2019.
Then, on September 28, 2020, the SEC announced the conclusion of
its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS
calculations and rounding practices. Interface agreed to pay a $5
million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and
desist from violating the federal securities laws. In the SEC's
enforcement order issued that same day, the SEC also disclosed how,
inter alia, "Interface employees caused Interface to produce
documents in response to Commission investigative requests that
were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries
that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were
recorded," and had modified certain documents after the SEC's
investigation began.
On this news, Interface's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or
3.13%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $6.18
per share on September 29, 2020.
The complaint, filed on November 12, 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) Interface
had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal
control over financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface,
inter alia, reported artificially inflated income and earnings per
share ("EPS") in 2015 and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its
employees were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") with respect to the foregoing issues since at
least as early as November 2017, had impeded the SEC's
investigation, and downplayed the true scope of the Company's
wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC investigation; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Interface class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TILE
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]
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of December 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a
Raytheon Company securities class action lawsuit:
Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Company (RTX,
RTN)
Class Period: 2/10/2016-10/27/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 29, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rtx/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Dec. 16
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon
Company (NYSE: RTX, RTN) ("Raytheon") on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Raytheon securities between
February 10, 2016 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Raytheon securities
during the Class Period may, no later than December 29, 2020, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
For additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/raytheon-technologies-corporation?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=raytheon.
According to the complaint, Raytheon is an aerospace and defense
company providing advanced systems and services for commercial,
military, and government customers worldwide. On April 3, 2020,
United Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Company completed a
merger and changed "Raytheon Company" to "Raytheon Technologies
Corporation."
The Class Period commences on February 10, 2016, when Raytheon
Company published its annual report on a Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2015, which stated in relevant part, "we
maintain a system of internal control over financial reporting to
provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded and that
transactions are properly executed and recorded. The system
includes policies and procedures, internal audits and our officers'
reviews."
Concerns regarding Raytheon's financial accounting and internal
controls over financial reporting were revealed after market hours
on October 27, 2020, when Raytheon filed its quarterly report on a
Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2020.
The Form 10-Q reported that "[o]n October 8, 2020, [Raytheon]
received a criminal subpoena from the [U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ")] seeking information and documents in connection with an
investigation relating to financial accounting, internal controls
over financial reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon
Company's Missiles & Defense business since 2009."
Following this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per
share, or 7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
Raytheon had faulty financial accounting; (3) as a result, Raytheon
misreported its costs regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles &
Defense business since 2009; (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Raytheon was at risk of increased scrutiny from the government; (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon would face a criminal
investigation by the DOJ; and (6) as a result, the defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Raytheon investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class
action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or at
info@ktmc.com.
Raytheon investors may, no later than December 29, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]
SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS: Summary Judgment in Hinkle Class Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBIN L. HINKLE, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company,
Defendant-Appellee, and JOHNNY HINKLE; CASEY JOE MATTHEWS; TIMOTHY
MAY and CONNIE MAY, husband and wife; SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, Defendants, Case No. 19-1451 (4th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
district court's:
-- dismissal of Hinkle's claims against Safe-Guard under
Articles 2 and 6 of West Virginia's Consumer Credit and
Protection Act ("CCPA"), and
-- grant of summary judgment to Safe-Guard on her claims under
West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and for
common law bad faith and breach of contract.
In July 2006, Robin L. Hinkle and her then-husband Johnny Hinkle
purchased a new car at C&O Motors in West Virginia. C&O salesman
Paul Waugh asked the Hinkles if they also wanted to purchase
Guaranteed Asset Protection ("GAP") insurance provided by
Safe-Guard. Subject to certain terms and conditions, GAP insurance
would relieve the Hinkles of payments owed on the car if it were
declared a total loss because of an accident and the Hinkles owed
more than the car's value at the time of the accident.
The GAP insurance policy cost $495, which C&O paid to Safe-Guard on
the Hinkles' behalf in a lump sum payment. C&O then included the
$495 in the amount financed for the car. During the loan's term,
the Hinkles missed payments, made partial payments, had some
payments deferred, and incurred late fees.
In June 2011, Robin Hinkle was involved in a car accident. Her
insurance carrier, State Farm Insurance, determined that the car
was a total loss and that its cash value was $7,285. State Farm
paid that amount to Santander Consumer USA, Inc., which had
acquired the loan from C&O. Including the late fees and delinquent
and deferred payments, Robin Hinkle then owed $11,983.81 on the
loan. Had Hinkle made timely payments, she would have owed only
$5,283.68.
Robin Hinkle filed a claim with Safe-Guard under the GAP insurance
policy for the amount owed on the loan above the amount that State
Farm paid. Safe-Guard denied the claim, citing the GAP Addendum's
definition of "Unpaid Net Balance," which excludes late charges,
delinquent payments, and deferred payments.
Robin Hinkle filed suit in state court alleging violations of the
UTPA (which governs the trade practices of insurers), common law
bad faith, and common law breach of contract against Safe-Guard and
Santander. Specifically, Hinkle alleged that Safe-Guard and
Santander violated the UTPA by (1) misrepresenting pertinent facts
or insurance policy provisions, (2) failing to acknowledge and act
reasonably promptly upon her claim, (3) failing to adopt and
implement reasonable standards for prompt investigation of claims,
and (4) refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable
investigation. Hinkle also alleged that Safe-Guard and Santander
breached the terms of the Gap Addendum and acted in bad faith by
refusing to cover the total amount she owed on the car loan.
Hinkle later moved to amend her complaint to add class action
claims on behalf of all West Virginia residents who purchased
Safe-Guard's GAP insurance, and the court granted the motion.
Safe-Guard then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act. Hinkle also settled all claims against Santander,
leaving Safe-Guard as the sole remaining Defendant. In her Amended
Class Action Complaint, Hinkle realleges the claims in her original
complaint and also alleges violations of the CCPA.
Safe-Guard moved to dismiss the CCPA claims, arguing that it wasn't
a debt collector under the Act and that the provision on unfair or
deceptive acts doesn't apply to the sale of insurance. The
district court granted the motion, holding that Safe-Guard wasn't a
debt collector. It also held that the Act's unfair or deceptive
acts provision doesn't apply to the sale of insurance.
Safe-Guard then moved for summary judgment on the remaining UTPA,
bad-faith, and breach of contract claims. The district court
granted the motion. It concluded that there was no breach of
contract because the GAP Addendum's definition of "Unpaid Net
Balance" unambiguously excluded late charges and delinquent and
deferred payments. And because the bad-faith claim relied on the
contract claim, the court dismissed it as well. As to the UTPA
claims, the district court concluded that Hinkle failed to show
that the insurance company had a 'general business practice' of
committing unfair claim settlement practices and that the breach of
the law was not an isolated event.
The appeal followed.
First, the Fourth Circuit agrees with the district court that
Hinkle failed to state a claim under Article 2 of the CCPA. The
plain meaning of "transaction"--an exchange or transfer of goods,
services, or funds--reveals the error in Hinkle's characterization.
There was no exchange or transfer when the Hinkles agreed to
purchase GAP insurance. Instead, the exchange occurred when they
paid the $495 fee. Thus, the transaction at issue encompasses
Safe-Guard's offer of GAP insurance and the Hinkles' payment in
exchange. And because the exchange included the Hinkles' payment
in full, no duty to pay money resulted from the transaction.
Therefore, there was no claim under Article 2 of the Act, and
Safe-Guard was not soliciting or collecting a claim when it sold
GAP insurance.
Second, the Court finds that the Article 6 doesn't refer to
insurance, the CCPA excludes sales of insurance from coverage
unless expressly provided otherwise, and the provisions of Articles
1-4 expressly refer to and regulate insurance in unrelated
contexts. Accordingly--and contrary to Hinkle's contention--it
discerns no ambiguity in the CCPA that requires it to interpret it
in her favor. The district court, thus, correctly held that
Article 6 doesn't apply to the sale of insurance.
Finally, the Court finds that Safe-Guard provided no promotional
materials for its policy to Hinkle, and the GAP Addendum, including
all terms and conditions, is a mere two pages long. Hinkle also
admits that she read the terms and conditions, which expressly
excluded finance or lease charges, late charges, and delinquent
payments, before agreeing to purchase the policy. On this record,
the Circuit Court agrees with the district court that no reasonable
person would expect credit for one's own delinquency. To hold
otherwise would defy common sense and turn insurance law on its
head.
For the reasons given, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district
court's judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/3h4QmJy from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: Jonathan R. Marshall -- JMARSHALL@BAILEYGLASSER.COM --
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, in Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Jeffrey D. Van Volkenburg -- jdvanvolkenburg@vv-wvlaw.com -- VARNER
& VAN VOLKENBURG PLLC, in Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Raymond S. Franks II, BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, in
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Debra Tedeschi Varner -- dtvarner@vv-wvlaw.com -- James A. Varner,
Sr. -- javarner@vv-wvlaw.com -- VARNER & VAN VOLKENBURG PLLC, in
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
SASOL LIMITED: Weil Gotshal Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
attorneys from Weil, Gotshal & Manges are urging a Manhattan
federal judge to dismiss a multibillion-dollar securities class
action, alleging in a new filing that plaintiffs' counsel in the
case submitted false accounts from confidential witnesses to prop
up claims against South African chemical firm Sasol Limited.
Weil Gotshal attorneys have taken aim at plaintiffs' Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro counsel. But Steve Berman dismissed the accusations
as without merit. [GN]
SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: $525K Settlement in Garcia Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRISTOBAL GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHLUMBERGER LIFT
SOLUTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01261-DAD-JLT (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for final approval of a class action settlement and for an
award of attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive payments.
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval. It was referred to a U.S. Magistrate Judge.
On Nov. 24, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations recommending that the proposed class be certified
for settlement purposes and that the parties' class action
settlement be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. In
addition, the magistrate judge recommended that the Plaintiff be
awarded $175,000 in attorneys' fees (representing one-third of the
gross settlement fund of $525,000); $14,670.01 in litigation costs;
$2,500 as a representative incentive payment; and $6,000 in claims
administration costs for the settlement administrator, Simpluris,
Inc.
The findings and recommendations were served on all parties and
contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within 14
days after service. To date, no objections to the pending findings
and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so
has now passed.
Judge Drozd has conducted a de novo review of the case. He finds
the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
proper analysis. Accordingly, he adopted them in full. The Court
retains jurisdiction to consider any further applications arising
out of or in connection with the settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 15, 2020 Amended Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3ar1q2i from Leagle.com.
SCHLUMBERGER LIFT: Garcia Class Settlement Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CRISTOBAL GARCIA, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. SCHLUMBERGER LIFT
SOLUTIONS, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01261-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.),
District Judge Dale A. Drozd grants the Plaintiff's motion for
final approval of class action settlement.
The matter before the Court is the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
final approval of a class action settlement and for an award of
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive payments, filed on behalf of
Plaintiff Garcia. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 302.
On Nov. 24, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations recommending that the proposed class be certified
for settlement purposes and that the parties' class action
settlement be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court adopted in full the findings and recommendations issued
on Nov. 24, 2020. He granted the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement,
certified the settlement class, and approved the settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement
agreement and any deadlines or procedures for distribution
therein.
The Class counsel will receive $175,000 in attorneys' fees and
$14,670 in litigation expenses. The Plaintiff will receive $2,500
as an incentive payment. Simpluris, Inc. will receive $6,000 in
settlement administration costs and expenses.
The action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms
of the settlement agreement. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7nqq3gj from Leagle.com.
SCHOOL ZONE PUBLISHING: Monegro Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SCHOOL ZONE PUBLISHING COMPANY, Case No.
1:20-cv-10052-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's
Website, www.schoolzone.com, on multiple occasions, the last
occurring in October of 2020, to make a purchase. Despite his
efforts, however, he was denied a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety
of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from
being able to determine what specific products were offered for
sale.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its unlawful conduct and seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
School Zone Publishing Company is a learning products company that
owns and operates the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SECURITY LIFE: Partial Summary Judgment in Zhuo Insurance Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado grants the
Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denies the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit titled SU
ZHOU, by and through her Power of Attorney, individually and on
behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. SECURITY
LIFE OF DENVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Case No.
19-cv-02781-RBJ (D. Colo.).
The Plaintiff filed the case on Sept. 27, 2019. In her complaint,
the Plaintiff named two Defendants: Security Life and Voya
Financial, Inc. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a
putative class, brought a single breach of contract claim against
the Defendants. On March 25, 2020, the Court dismissed Voya
Financial as a party, leaving SLD as the sole Defendant in the
case.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached the contract when
it failed to credit her account with interest from Oct. 8, 2015,
the parties' agreed upon policy date, and Nov 8, 2015, the first
monthly processing date. To support the claim, the Plaintiff argues
that the interest-crediting provision -- which keys the payment of
interest to the policy date -- is unambiguous, and that the Court
must enforce its plain meaning.
The Defendant argues that no contract was formed until Nov. 12,
2015, and that it had no duty to credit the Plaintiff's account
with interest until Dec. 8, 2015, the first monthly processing date
after the contract was "in force."
On Aug. 27, 2015, Zhou applied for Security Life's universal life
insurance policy. The Plaintiff included a check in the amount of
$6,000 with her application. The check cleared the Plaintiff's
checking account on Sept. 11, 2015. Upon receiving the check, the
Defendant placed the funds in a suspense account on the same day.
In addition to the application for the life insurance policy, the
Plaintiff also submitted a Temporary Insurance Receipt ("TIR") to
the Defendant. The TIR listed the premium receipt as $6,000. The
TIR provided life insurance coverage to the Plaintiff for 90 days
or until the policy was in force, whichever came sooner. The
Plaintiff also signed an "Acknowledgement in Lieu of Illustration
Submission" and submitted the document with her initial
application. These types of acknowledgements are used during
solicitation, when a policy applied for is different than as shown
in the illustration used during solicitation. Under the
acknowledgement, the premium amount was listed as "payable
annually" for six years.
As of Nov. 8, 2015, the Defendant had received two premium payments
from the Plaintiff. The first was the $6,000 premium that cleared
her account on Sept. 11, 2015. The second is the $22,000 premium
that cleared her account on Nov. 3, 2015.
In his Order, District Judge R. Brooke Jackson finds that according
to the terms of the policy, the $6,000 premium should have been
added to the fixed strategy value as of the Oct.8, 2015 policy
date. However, based on subsection "c" of the fixed strategy
formula, interest is to be paid from the date the premium is
received to the date of calculation. Therefore, under the terms of
the policy, interest should have been accruing on the $22,000
premium as of Nov. 3, 2015, the date it was received. The Defendant
should have credited that interest to plaintiff's account on the
Nov. 8, 2015 processing date, the date of calculation.
The Defendant ignores subsection "h" of the fixed strategy formula,
which contains the same "received since the most recent Monthly
Processing Date" language, Judge Jackson says. That section states
that the Defendant will deduct any policy or rider transaction
charges from the Fixed Strategy since the most recent Monthly
Processing Date. When discussing subsection "c" the Defendant
argues that retroactively crediting interest does not make sense in
light of the phrase received since the most recent Monthly
Processing Date. However, the Defendant construes that same phrase
to permit retroactivity when it involves the Plaintiff's
obligations under the policy. On Dec. 8, 2015, SLD did not charge
the Plaintiff one month of deductions. Instead, SLD charged three
months of deductions by retroactively charging the Plaintiff
according to the Oct. 8, 2015 policy date.
At oral argument the Court asked the Defendant's counsel how SLD
could justify a policy interpretation that permitted the Plaintiff
to be charged retroactively but precluded the Defendant from having
to credit interest retroactively. The Defendant primarily argued
that Ms. Zhou had the option to change her policy date prior to the
contract being in force.
Judge Jackson avers that this did not answer the Court's question.
However, the Defendant repeatedly makes this argument in both its
motion for summary judgment and in its response to the Plaintiff's
motion.
According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff had the option to
backdate her policy date so that she could potentially reduce her
insurance age. The Court finds the argument irrelevant because the
Plaintiff did not choose to backdate her policy. However, even
assuming that she had, it would not have affected the Defendant's
interest-crediting obligations. Even if the Plaintiff backdated her
policy, the Defendant would still have received the checks at the
same time.
Judge Jackson states, the Defendant received the premiums and held
onto them for several weeks before allowing the funds to accumulate
interest. If the Plaintiff had backdated her policy to a date
before the Defendant had these checks, there would be no funds on
which to credit interest. In other words, the Plaintiff's "fixed
strategy" on the policy date would be zero because no net premium
would have been paid by that earlier date.
Therefore, even relying on the Defendant's argument that no
contract was formed until Nov. 12, 2015, the Defendant's
interpretation is not reasonable, Judge Jackson holds. Under such
an interpretation, the Defendant would have the Court apply only
certain portions of the policy retroactively, namely only the
portions benefitting SLD. Such an interpretation defies both the
plain language of the contract and the parties' agreement to make
Oct. 8, 2015 the policy date.
According to the policy, Judge Jackson opines, the Defendant had an
obligation to (1) add the $6,000 premium payment to the fixed
strategy value as of the Oct. 8, 2015 premium date, and (2) add the
$22,000 premium payment to the fixed strategy value as of the Nov.
8, 2015 monthly processing date. Notably, even if the Court found
that the policy language were ambiguous, basic concepts of contract
interpretation would require the Court to construe any ambiguous
provisions against the drafter; i.e., against SLD. For these
reasons, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied, and
the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhec87j from Leagle.com.
SGS AUTOMOTIVE: Carroll Asks Court to Reconsider Class Cert. Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR CARROLL,
individually and on behalf of the Class, v. SGS AUTOMOTIVE
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00537-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its November 30, 2020 ruling
denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff contends that the Court committed manifest errors of
law and fact that justify reconsideration of its Ruling.
Specifically, the Court incorrectly applied a heightened standard
of "administrative feasibility" for determining ascertainability,
which has not been expressly adopted or discussed by the Fifth
Circuit. To the contrary, most Circuit Courts have concluded that a
lesser standard is appropriate, requiring only a determination that
the class definition is adequate and that the identity of the class
members need only be determined at some stage of the proceeding
after class certification. Because the Court applied the heightened
standard to satisfy ascertainability which was the sole basis for
denying class certification, reconsideration of the Court's Ruling
is required to prevent manifest injustice, asserts the complaint.
In addition, the Court's determination that the SGS call logs
failed to provide sufficient information to satisfy the
ascertainability requirement, whether at the heightened or lower
standard was manifestly erroneous. The proposed PRM class is
defined not by the name of the call recipient but by the number
called by SGS. The SGS call logs provide every phone number that
received every call at issue, along with a corresponding address,
vehicle details, and dispositions for each call, the Plaintiff
added.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 14, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2JZRlPm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
John P. Wolff, III, Esq.
KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD.
701 Main Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 383-3796
Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
E-mail: jwolff@keoghcox.com
cjones@keoghcox.com
- and -
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
SOLARWINDS CORP: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of SolarWinds
Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") (NYSE: SWI) investors
concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the
federal securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your SolarWinds 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/solarwinds-corporation/. 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 December 13, 2020, Reuters reported hackers alleged to be
working for Russia have been monitoring email traffic at the U.S.
Treasury and Commerce departments. The alleged hackers are believed
to have breached the emails by deceptively interfering with updates
released by SolarWinds, which services various government vendors
in the executive branch, the military, and the intelligence
services.
On December 14, 2020, the Company stated it has evidence that the
weakness was introduced in its Orion monitoring products and
existed in updates released between March and June 2020.
On this news, the price of SolarWinds shares fell $3.93, or 17%, to
close at $19.62 per share on December 14, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
On December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that Vinoth Kumar, a
security researcher, alerted the Company, last year, that anyone
could access SolarWinds' update server by using the password
"solarwinds123" and that co-founder of cybersecurity company
Huntress, Kyle Hanslovan, noticed the malicious updates were still
available for download even days after SolarWinds was aware their
software was compromised.
On this news, the price of SolarWinds shares fell $1.56, or 8%, to
close at $18.06, thereby injuring investors.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
SolarWinds should consider their options to aid the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the
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 Charles H.
Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email
shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward-looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Carter COBRA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William F. Jung grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss without prejudice the lawsuit entitled CHERRITA CARTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Case No.
8:20-cv-1381-T-02JSS (M.D. Fla.).
The Plaintiff brings a putative class action accusing the Defendant
of violating the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1985 ("COBRA") by failing to provide timely and proper notice of
the right to continue health insurance coverage after a qualifying
event. The Defendant moves to dismiss the action for lack of
standing and failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff Carter worked at Southwest Airlines for 11 years. During
that time, she maintained health insurance through Southwest's
employee health plan. The insurance covered the Plaintiff and her
three children. The Plaintiff was also a member of the Transport
Workers' Union Local 555.
Southwest fired the Plaintiff on May 8, 2019. Although the
Plaintiff does not say why she was terminated, she says it was not
for gross misconduct. The Defendant says it sent the Plaintiff a
COBRA election notice on May 14, 2019 -- just six days after her
termination. The Plaintiff denies ever receiving a copy of the May
Notice. She filed a sworn declaration with the Court saying she had
never seen the May Notice before the Defendant filed it as an
attachment to its Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff challenged her termination through the labor union's
internal grievance process. Importantly, this allowed the Plaintiff
to maintain her employee healthcare benefits while the grievance
process was pending. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter on
May 23, 2019, notifying her that she would not lose her employee
healthcare coverage until the resolution of the union grievance.
The union ultimately rejected the Plaintiff's grievance on Aug. 5,
2019. That led to the termination of the Plaintiff's employee
health insurance through Southwest. The Defendant sent the
Plaintiff a COBRA notice one day later on Aug. 6, 2019. The
Plaintiff acknowledges that she received the notice. Nevertheless,
she claims the August Notice is deficient because it was late, it
lacked essential information, and it confused her.
The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in June, and later
filed an Amended Complaint in September. She alleges the Defendant
violated COBRA by failing to provide timely and proper notice of
her right to elect COBRA coverage. She says the Defendant's alleged
violations caused her to lose insurance coverage and incur
significant medical bills, including bills from her son's
hospitalization, which occurred "shortly after her termination."
The Plaintiff also claims this coverage lapse led her to refrain
from seeking medical care, despite needing it. She seeks monetary
damages, attorneys' fees, and an injunction barring the Defendant
from using the defective notice and also requiring Defendant to
mail corrective notices.
The Defendant presents two arguments why the Amended Complaint
should be dismissed: (1) the Plaintiff lacks standing under Article
III because she failed to establish a concrete injury-in-fact and
causation, and (2) the Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the notice
substantially complies with the applicable laws and regulations.
The Court agrees that the Plaintiff has failed to establish
standing for most of her claims and that the other claims do not
pass muster under Rule 12(b)(6). At issue is whether the Plaintiff
established a concrete injury, and if she did, whether she
established that the Defendant's COBRA violations caused the
injury.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to provide timely
notice of her COBRA election rights. She claims the untimeliness
caused her to suffer both economic and informational injuries.
Judge Jung opines that the Plaintiff has not established standing
for her timeliness claim. It is unclear what economic injury the
Plaintiff could have suffered or how the Defendant's untimeliness
could have created a material risk of economic harm.
The Court holds that the Plaintiff has failed to allege a concrete
economic injury. The Plaintiff has also failed to establish an
informational injury. She has not met this burden, and the claim
must, therefore, be dismissed.
The Plaintiff's allegations about informational deficiencies also
fail. Hence, the Court dismisses the first and third claims under
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and the second and
fourth claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.
Therefore, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and
the action is dismissed without prejudice. An amended complaint, if
any, must be filed within 14 days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ya4zqmnh from Leagle.com.
SP PLUS: Pena Seeks to Certify Class of Parking Attendants
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ONIEL PENA, on behalf of
himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. SP PLUS
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-01370-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of:
"all parking attendants employed by the Defendant for the
six-year period prior to the filing of the Complaint
(collectively, the "Covered Employees");"
2. approving the distribution of the notice of the FLSA
action to Covered Employees, including a consent form (or
opt-in form) as authorized by the FLSA;
3. approving the proposed FLSA notice (including Spanish
translation) of the action and the consent form;
4. directing the Defendant, within 10 days of this Order, to
produce in Excel format, the names, titles, compensation
rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses,
email addresses and all known telephone numbers of all
Covered Employees;
5. approving the posting of the notice, along with the
consent forms, at each parking lot operated by the
Defendant in New York City where Covered Employees are
employed, at any time during regular business hours; and
6. approving equitable tolling of the FLSA statute of
limitations until such time that the Plaintiff is able to
send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.
SP Plus provides vehicle parking solutions. The company offers
professional parking management, ground transportation, remote
baggage check-in and handling, facility maintenance, security,
event logistics, and other technology-driven mobility solutions.
A copy of the notice of plaintiff's proposed order dated Dec. 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3h6jPDbat
no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class, are:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
SPLUNK INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Splunk Inc. ("Splunk" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: SPLK) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk securities
between October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/splk.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers
in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/splk 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 in Splunk
you have until February 2, 2021 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.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
SPLUNK INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of February 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law announces that securities fraud class action lawsuit
has commenced on behalf of Splunk Inc. shareholders. Shareholders
interested in representing the class of wronged shareholders have
until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the court. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with our firm
without cost or obligation, follow the link below.
Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ:SPLK)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT SPLK:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/splunk-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11538&from=1
Class Period: October 21, 2020 - December 2, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers in the
third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
SPLUNK INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of February 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in Splunk Inc securities class action lawsuit:
Splunk Inc. (SPLK)
Class Period: 10/21/2020 - 12/2/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: February 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-splk/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
SPLUNK INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of February 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK) ("Splunk") on behalf of those
who purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk common stock between
October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Splunk investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk common
stock during the Class Period may, no later than February 2, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/splunk-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=splunk.
According to its filings with the SEC, Splunk "provides innovative
software solutions that ingest data from different sources
including systems, devices and interactions, and turn[s] that data
into meaningful business insights across the organization." Splunk
states that its "Data-to-Everything platform enables users to
investigate, monitor, analyze and act on data regardless of format
or source."
The Class Period commences on October 21, 2020, when Splunk held a
call with several analysts at the Virtual Analyst & Investor
Session at.conf.20. On this call, Splunk assured investors that
everything was on track for the close of the third quarter, which
was just ten days after the call.
However, the truth regarding its third quarter was revealed after
the market closed on December 2, 2020, when Splunk announced its
financial results for its third fiscal quarter for 2021. In its
announcement, Splunk reported total revenues of $559 million, down
11% year-over-year and which missed estimates by nearly $60
million. Furthermore, Splunk announced quarterly non-GAAP earnings
per share of -$0.07, missing estimates by $0.15, as well as GAAP
earnings per share of -$1.26, missing by $0.24 per share.
Following this news, shares of Splunk common stock fell, closing at
$158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, down over 23% from the
December 2, 2020 closing price of $205.91 per share.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers
in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Splunk investors may, no later than February 2, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201216005290/en/
Contacts
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]
SUBWAY: Quebec's Court of Appeal Authorizes New Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press report that after a controversial media report
and a failed lawsuit, anyone who's bought a chicken sandwich from
Subway -- at least in Quebec, over the course of three years -- is
going to get some definitive answers about what they actually ate.
Quebec's Court of Appeal has authorized a new class action lawsuit
in the province against the fast-food chain, which has been accused
of having misrepresented what's really in its chicken sandwiches.
The province's Superior Court initially refused, in 2019, to give
the class action a green light. But in a decision released earlier
this month, the Court of Appeal ruled that the lawsuit can proceed
through all the steps leading up to trial.
The lawsuit will represent all those who bought a chicken sandwich
at a Subway in Quebec between February 24, 2014 and December 31,
2017.
Subway is accused of having falsely represented their sandwiches as
being "chicken." This claim is based on a CBC Marketplace report
that reported the results of a DNA analysis performed by a
researcher at a Trent University laboratory.
According to that research, the pieces of chicken found in Subway
sandwiches contain only about 50 per cent chicken DNA, the rest
being soy.
Subway denies these allegations, and the allegations haven't yet
been tested in court.
The company challenged the application for the class action on
several grounds. The company maintains that the DNA analysis report
in question lacks rigour, saying it's not dated or signed and
doesn't indicate where the analyzed sandwiches came from, other
than that they were bought from franchises in Ontario.
Subway also claims that its recipes contain less than 1 per cent
soy protein, according to the Court of Appeal judgment.
All these questions will be thoroughly tested at trial, however --
a judge will have to determine whether Subway adequately
represented its chicken sandwiches to its customers.
If the company loses its case, it will be asked to reimburse the
cost of the sandwiches to everyone who bought them in the given
three-year period, in addition to punitive damages.
Subway previously brought a defamation lawsuit against CBC for its
report but the lawsuit was dismissed last year in an Ontario court,
and Subway was ordered in February to pay $500,000 in damages to
the broadcaster.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 16,
2020. -- With files from CTV News [GN]
TALBOTS INC: Court Dismisses Piper's Claim for Unjust Enrichment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts grants in
part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit titled Piper et al. v. The Talbots, Inc., Case No.
20-10297-NMG (D. Mass.).
District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim
for unjust enrichment is dismissed. As requested by the Defendant,
he takes judicial notice that the information contained in two
printouts.
Talbots is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of
business in Hingham, Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs are both
Virginia residents, who have allegedly made purchases at Talbots
retail stores in Virginia during an unspecified period of time. In
February 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their original putative class
action complaint against Talbots. Talbots responded by filing a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim after which the
Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint ("FAC") as of right.
In June 2020, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed the FAC against Talbots, alleging that
Talbots was unlawfully selling personally identifiable information
("PII") of its customers to data mining companies, data brokers and
other third parties. The Plaintiffs contend that such conduct
violates the Virginia Personal Information Privacy Act ("VPIPA")
(Count I) and unjustly enriched defendant pursuant to Virginia
state law (Count II).
In the FAC, the Plaintiffs allege that each time they made
purchases at Talbots retail stores in Virginia, the cashier
requested PII, including their names and addresses. They assert
that, using that information, Talbots created and maintained a
digital database comprised of the PII of all its consumers and sold
that information to third parties, such as NextMark, Inc., a data
broker, and Wiland Direct, a data mining company. The Plaintiffs
contend that they were never notified that Talbots sells the PII of
its customers and that they never authorized such a sale of their
own PII.
As evidence of Talbots' alleged misconduct, the Plaintiffs attach
to the FAC two printouts from NextMark's website. One printout is
labeled the "Talbots Mailing List" and shows that NextMark offers
to sell various information with respect to Talbot's customers. The
second is labeled "Talbots Wiland Direct Modeled Mailing List"
which also shows NextMark offering to sell information about
Talbots' customers and adds that the mailing list will allow Wiland
Direct members to "apply their models to Talbot's names to connect
with their ideal customer type." Both printouts also bear the
Talbots logo.
The Plaintiffs submit that the sale of their PII without their
knowledge or consent has caused them injury. First, the disclosure
of their PII to third parties has caused them to be inundated with
unwanted junk mail and telephone solicitations. Second, the
Plaintiffs contend that the products they purchased (without
accompanying statutory privacy protections) are worth less than
what they paid for, i.e., products with accompanying statutory
privacy protections. They aver that, had they known that Talbots
would be profiting from their PII, neither Plaintiff would have
purchased Talbots' products at the listed purchase price, if at
all. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs assert two counts against Talbots:
(I) violation of the VPIPA and (II) unjust enrichment pursuant to
Virginia state law.
Talbots filed a motion to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a
claim. With respect to the VPIPA claim, the Defendant contends
that: 1) the Plaintiffs allege only that Talbots asked for their
personal information and not that Talbots recorded it, 2) the
printouts from NextMark's website are ambiguous as to the source
and kind of information being sold, and 3) the Plaintiffs have
stated no facts to support their allegation that the junk mail
received was attributable to Talbots' sale of their PII.
The Defendant also requests the Court to take judicial notice of
two documents: a printout from NextMark's website of the frequently
asked questions and a printout from Talbots' website of their
loyalty and credit card programs. Both printouts emanate from
website postings that are publicly accessible and are, thus,
readily verified through an internet search and the Plaintiffs do
not contest the authenticity of either document.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly pled a claim for
relief pursuant to the VPIPA. They assert that Talbots, a
corporation which sells goods from fixed retail locations in
Virginia (a merchant), sold PII of plaintiffs and other customers
to third parties without notice or consent. They submit that they
were not informed that Talbots sells the PII of its customers so
they readily provided the requested information. Soon thereafter,
according to the FAC, the Plaintiffs received unwanted junk mail
and telephone solicitations, allowing for a reasonable inference
that the information provided to the Talbots' cashier was disclosed
to third parties.
Accordingly, if the Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the
FAC, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Talbots violated the
VPIPA by selling to third parties information concerning its
customers, including the Plaintiffs, which was gathered in
connection with the sale of tangible personal property at its
retail stores in Virginia without the customers' knowledge or
consent.
Under Virginia Law, a claim for unjust enrichment requires proof
that 1) the Plaintiff conferred a benefit on the Defendant, 2) the
Defendant was aware of the benefit and should have reasonably
expected to repay the Plaintiff but 3) the Defendant retained the
benefit without paying for its value. Regardless of whether the
Plaintiffs' FAC states the requisite elements, however, the Court
will dismiss their unjust enrichment claim because they have an
adequate remedy at law, i.e., the VPIPA. Indeed, their unjust
enrichment claim depends on a finding that Talbots' conduct
violated the VPIPA.
For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim is, with respect to
the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment (Count II), is allowed
but otherwise denied. The Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment
is dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Dec. 14,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybgy7vwm from
Leagle.com.
TESLA INC: Azealia Banks Subpoenaed in Funding Secured Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insider reports that Azealia Banks has been subpoenaed in
a lawsuit against Tesla and Elon Musk which, according to the
complaint, is partly focused on what happened during a weekend the
rapper spent at the Tesla CEO's home back in 2018.
Banks confirmed to Business Insider that she was subpoenaed this
week, after posting a photograph of the document on her Instagram.
Business Insider has also received a subpoena in the case.
"The first round of Elon Musk bulls--- was stressful enough," Banks
told Business Insider in Instagram DM. "I don't have the bandwidth
for another row with him."
Banks is being subpoenaed by attorneys for plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit against Musk and Tesla. The lawsuit, filed by Tesla
investors in 2018, alleges that Musk made false and misleading
statements when he tweeted that funding was "secured" to take Tesla
private at $420 a share in 2018.
Banks visited one of Musk's Los Angeles homes the weekend after his
$420 tweet, and told Business Insider at the time she saw the CEO
"scrounging for investors to cover his ass after that tweet."
Read more: Rapper Azealia Banks claims she was at Elon Musk's house
over the weekend as he was 'scrounging for investors' at
https://bit.ly/37G4mGv
Banks said on Thursday that the lawsuit is "not her issue," and
that attorneys should look into the musician Grimes, Musk's
girlfriend and the mother of his youngest child.
In January 2019, the US District Court of Northern California
granted the motion to serve document-preservation subpoenas against
Banks and Grimes (whose real name is Claire Boucher) as well as
Business Insider, The New York Times, and Gizmodo.
"Ms. Boucher and Ms. Banks were in close contact with Mr. Musk
before and after the tweet and are believed to be in possession of
relevant evidence concerning Mr. Musk's motives," Adam M. Apton of
Levi & Korsinsky, the firm representing the investors, told
Business Insider in January 2019. "Business Insider also appears to
have relevant evidence in light of its relationship with Ms.
Banks."
Business Insider confirmed Banks and Business Insider received a
subpoena this week to produce documents and communication related
to Musk's $420 tweet. Grimes, The New York Times, and Gizmodo did
not respond to Business Insider's request to confirm that they were
also subpoenaed to produce documents. Attorneys and representatives
for Musk and Tesla also did not respond to Business Insider's
request for comment. [GN]
TRANSUNION: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari Petition in FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Supreme Court granted TransUnion's petition
for certiorari on Dec. 16 in a class action alleging the credit
reporting agency violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [GN]
TRANSUNION: Supreme Court Grants Review of FCRA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court granted review on Dec. 16 in Transunion v. Ramirez, a $40
million Fair Credit Reporting Act class action that presents the
question of whether the Constitution's standing requirements or the
federal procedural rule governing class actions precludes cases in
which "the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury,
let alone an injury anything like what the class representative
suffered."
That, of course, is just how Transunion characterized the case,
which went all the way through a rare class action trial, in its
petition for Supreme Court review (2020 WL 5411253). The
plaintiffs' lawyers who shepherded the class action through trial
and challenge to the trial judgment at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals argued in their brief opposing certiorari (2020 WL
7029242) that the named plaintiff in the class action typified the
FCRA injury that unified the 8,185 members of the class. Their
brief rephrased Transunion's description of the question presented
by the case as a highly specific inquiry about whether a particular
violation of the FCRA amounts to material harm.
I don't think the Supreme Court agreed to take the case in order to
clarify that point. Remember, the 2016 decision in which the
justices held that mere statutory violations are not sufficient to
establish Article III standing, Spokeo v. Robins (2016 WL 2842447),
was an FCRA case. And as lower courts have sputtered along, trying
to figure out when statutory violations constitute a concrete
injury under the justices' reasoning in Spokeo, the Supreme Court
has declined to take cases -- including Spokeo, on a second trip to
the court -- asking the justices to clear up uncertainty about
Article III standing in class actions involving statutory
violations.
I'm guessing instead that the Supreme Court granted review in
Transunion to take up the issue of "no-injury" classes. I want to
emphasize that plaintiffs in the Transunion case vehemently dispute
that description as I'll explain. But Transunion and its amicus
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2020 WL 6121380) pitched the
case as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to stop plaintiffs'
lawyers from using the leverage of a class action to squeeze
defendants for big damages on behalf of plaintiffs who might not
even have suffered a recognizable injury. The justices skirted that
issue in their 2015 decision in Tyson v. Bouaphakeo (136 S.Ct.
1036) and opted not to hear it in 2016, when they declined to grant
review to resolve a split in the appellate courts on whether
plaintiffs' lawyers must offer a means of ascertaining class
membership to win class certification. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and
Amy Coney Barrett have joined the court since then. Plaintiffs'
lawyers ought to be worrying that the new Supreme Court is champing
to curtail class actions.
The named plaintiff in the Transunion case is unquestionably
sympathetic. Sergio Ramirez wanted to buy a car in 2011. He, his
wife and his father-in-law went to a Nissan dealership and picked
out a car. But when the dealer ran a Transunion credit check on
Ramirez, the report indicated that his name matched two names on a
"terrorist list" maintained by the U.S. Office of Foreign Asset
Control (OFAC). Neither of the names on the OFAC list was actually
Ramirez, who had a different birthdate and middle initial. But the
dealer asked Ramirez's wife to make the purchase in just her name.
For Ramirez, the experience was humiliating. (This account is drawn
from Transunion's Supreme Court petition.)
The next day, Ramirez contacted Transunion. The representative said
there was no OFAC flag on his credit report. He asked for a copy of
the report to be mailed to him. The report he first received did
not contain an OFAC alert -- but a few days later, he received a
separate letter from Transunion advising him that his name "is
considered a potential match to information listed on the (OFAC)
database." Ramirez eventually persuaded the credit rating service
to remove the alert, but not before canceling a vacation for fear
the "terror list" flag on his credit report would pop up.
Ramirez sued on behalf of a class of 8,185 people whose Transunion
credit reports allegedly included "terror list" alerts even though
they were not on the OFAC list and whose credit reports were
requested between January and June 2011. The class action asserted
that Transunion violated the FCRA both by placing the false OFAC
alerts on class members' credit reports and by sending them
misleading and incomplete disclosures about the alerts. (Ramirez
alleged that the FCRA required Transunion to disclose the terror
list in a single credit report, not in a separate and subsequent
mailing.)
All of the 8,185 people in the class received the allegedly
misleading Transunion mailing about the terror list alert. But only
about a quarter of the class -- 1,853 people -- shared Ramirez's
experience of having their credit report requested by a potential
lender. And according to Transunion, Ramirez was apparently the
only person in the class who was turned down for a loan because of
the errant terror list flag.
Ramirez was the star witness when the case went to trial. The jury
awarded the class nearly $1,000 apiece in statutory damages and
about $6,300 apiece in punitive damages.
Transunion appealed, arguing that absent class members had not
suffered a concrete injury sufficient to establish their Article
III standing. Lenders never accessed the credit reports of
three-quarters of the members of the class, Transunion said, and
there was no evidence at trial that anyone other than Ramirez was
turned down for a loan. There wasn't even evidence that anyone
other than Ramirez so much as noticed the Transunion notification
about the terror list alert, according to Transunion. Moreover, the
company said, Ramirez -- who had been humiliated when he was turned
down for the car loan and then canceled a vacation because of the
false flag on his credit report -- was not a typical plaintiff.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that class
action lead plaintiffs must present claims that typify the class
allegations. Ramirez, Transunion said, could not satisfy that Rule
23 requirement.
In a split decision (951 F.3d 1008) in February, the 9th Circuit
cut the jury's punitive damages award in half but otherwise
rejected Transunion's arguments. The appellate majority said class
members had constitutional standing because Transunion's failure to
follow reasonable procedures to assure the accuracy of its credit
reports represented a risk to their privacy and reputational
interests. It did not matter, according to the majority, that
lenders didn't see the credit reports of most of the people in the
class. The sheer fact that the misleading reports were available to
lenders - and the "highly sensitive and distressing nature of the
OFAC alerts" – was enough to show "a material risk of harm," the
majority said.
And even if Ramirez's injuries were "slightly more severe" than
those of some other class members, the 9th Circuit said, his claims
arose from the same Transunion actions and policies at the root of
classwide claims. "Ramirez's injuries were not so unique, unusual,
or severe to make him an atypical representative of the class," the
majority held. "A class representative satisfies typicality when
his 'personal narrative is somewhat more colorful' than other class
members' experiences, as long as his claim 'falls within the common
contours of' the class-wide theory of liability."
Obviously, Transunion has persuaded at least four Supreme Court
justices that the 9th Circuit's conclusions warrant their
attention. As Ramirez and Transunion turn to briefing on the
merits, it's going to be interesting to see whether Transunion's
counsel, Paul Clement of Kirkland & Ellis, tries to persuade the
court that this case should be a vehicle for tightening class
action procedures that, at least according to defendants, have
become too loose and plaintiff-friendly. (Clement declined to
comment.)
Ramirez counsel James Francis of Francis Mailman Soumilas said via
email that this case is simply not a no-injury class action, no
matter how Transunion portrays it. He said he hopes the Supreme
Court looks instead at "the serious and widespread injuries
consumers face when credit reporting agencies violate federal law."
[GN]
TURNING POINT: Bid for Class Certification in Reynolds Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denies summary judgment motions and a motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA M. REYNOLDS, et
al. v. TURNING POINT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-01935-JDW (E.D. Pa.).
Plaintiff Reynolds worked at a Turning Point restaurant as a
server. She says that Turning Point never told her or the other
tipped employees that it would take a tip credit for the tips she
earned and pay her a very low minimum wage. She also says that
Turning Point required servers and other tipped employees to
perform too much untipped work on the side without paying them a
full minimum wage for that time. She seeks to represent a class of
similarly situated workers.
District Judge Joshua D. Wolson states that Ms. Reynolds has
mustered evidence that creates a factual dispute about whether
Turning Point gave her notice of the tip credit. As a result,
Turning Point might have underpaid her for every hour she worked.
But the factual evidence she has is, in many respects, unique to
her. Other employees might have had similar experiences, but there
is no way to know without asking each of them.
The individual nature of that inquiry means that the case is not
appropriate for class action treatment for Ms. Reynolds' claim
under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), Judge Wolson
opines. Ms. Reynolds does have evidence that Turning Point's
practices concerning side work were similar for all tipped
employees at all of its Pennsylvania locations. So those claims are
appropriate for conditional certification under the FLSA. Claims
about the notice that each employee received are not appropriate
for conditional certification, though, the Judge adds.
Background
On Aug. 16, 2019, Ms. Reynolds filed an Amended Complaint in which
she alleges four claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the PMWA on behalf of herself and all other tipped
employees who work, or have worked, at all Turning Point locations.
On Feb. 27, 2020, the Court dismissed all non-Pennsylvania
Defendant entities. On July 2, 2020, Turning Point filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment, and Ms. Reynolds filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, a Motion to Certify a Class Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23, and a Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Class
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Turning Point then filed a
Motion to Strike Ms. Reynolds' summary judgment motion.
In her class certification motion, Ms. Reynolds proposes a class as
follows: "All current and former Tipped Employees who have worked
for Defendants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at their Turning
Point restaurant locations during the statutory period covered by
this Complaint and who do not opt-out of this action." The
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification does not include a
class definition. In her conditional certification motion, she does
not propose an express class definition, but she does ask the Court
to conditionally certify "a collective class of all Tipped
Employees employed by Defendants at their Turning Point Restaurants
in Pennsylvania from May 3, 2016 to the present."
According to the Court's Memorandum, conditional certification is
not a high bar, but it is a bar that requires some evidence of
similarity. Ms. Reynolds has none, and the Court will not just
infer it. Ms. Reynolds has not cleared the bar for her claims about
the notice.
The evidence suggests that Turning Point's conduct with respect to
side work requirements was similar at all of its Pennsylvania
locations. It employed the same payroll practices at all of its
locations. It had the same timekeeping policies. It had the same
policies concerning the performance of side work. The Court,
therefore, sees no reason to distinguish among the various Turning
Point locations in Pennsylvania at this stage of the proceedings.
Therefore, it will conditionally certify the FLSA class as: All
persons that Turning Point employed during the last three years at
any Turning Point Pennsylvania location for whom it utilized a "tip
credit" in compensating the individual.
Ms. Reynolds has not provided her proposed form of notice. The
Court directs the parties to meet and confer to find a mutually
agreeable form of notice for the FLSA class. It cannot, at this
stage, determine whether Ms. Reynolds should provide notice by
mail, email, or both. That will depend, at least in part, on
whether Turning Point has valid email addresses or current
addresses for the members of the collective class.
The Court will not require Turning Point to post notice in its
restaurants. Posted notice would supplement direct notice to reach
members of the certified collective who might not otherwise receive
notice. But the people least likely to receive notice are those who
no longer work for Turning Point, for whom Turning Point's
information might be stale. Posted notice in the employee areas of
the restaurants will not cure that problem, and the posted notice
will be redundant of the direct notice.
The Court will direct Turning Point to provide data about the
members of the collective class that includes both phone numbers
and the last four digits of each person's social security number.
It does not do so lightly. It recognizes that the information is
personal. But the information that Turning Point has could well be
out-of-date, and the Plaintiffs' counsel will need additional
personal information to perform skip tracing and locate members of
the collective class to provide them with notice. The Court will,
therefore, order its production, on the understanding that the
Plaintiff's counsel will maintain its confidentiality use it only
for limited purposes in the case.
Conclusion
Factual questions prevent the resolution of Ms. Reynolds' claims,
but many of those factual questions also render the case
inappropriate for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or conditional certification under the
FLSA. The Court will, therefore, deny both summary judgment motions
and the motion for class certification. It will grant conditional
certification as to side work issues but not notice issues, and it
will give the Parties two weeks to try to resolve notice issues or
to submit competing proposals.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Dec. 14, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydhqgj8l from Leagle.com.
TURNING POINT: Court Partly Grants Class Cert. Bid in Reynolds Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINA M. REYNOLDS, et
al., v. TURNING POINT HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-01935-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson
entered an order:
1. partly granting the Defendants' Motion to Strike the
Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. The
Court Strikes Section III.D of the Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment, which deals with
compliance with recordkeeping requirements. The Motion
is otherwise denied;
2. denying the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;
3. denying the Plaintiffs' Partial Motion for Summary
Judgment;
4. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Pursuant
To Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; and
5. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Class.
The Court will conditionally certify a collective class
defined as:
"All persons that Turning Point employed during the
last three years at any Turning Point Pennsylvania
location for whom it utilized a ‘tip credit' in
compensating the individual."
6. directing Turning Point, on or before December 23, 2020,
to provide to Plaintiff a computer-readable file
containing the name, last-known mailing address, dates of
employment, job title, phone number, email address, and
last four digits of a Social Security Number for tipped
employees in the certified collective class; and
7. directing the Parties, on or before December 23, 2020, to
submit to the Court a proposed form of notice. To the
extent the parties do not agree on the form of notice, the
parties shall submit a single, joint submission not to
exceed 15 pages that highlights areas of agreement and
explains each party's position on any aspects of the
notice for which there is any disagreement.
A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 14, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r4xW0m at no extra charge.[CC]
TURNKEY VACATION: Cahill Appeals W.D. Tex. Judgment to Fifth Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Shane Cahill, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Shane Cahill, Nye Peterson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TurnKey Vacation Rentals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-CV-441, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin.
Plaintiffs Shane Cahill and Nye Peterson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against
TurnKey, a full-service vacation-rental property-management
company. The Plaintiffs rented homes through TurnKey and agreed to
be bound by TurnKey's Guest Agreement and Terms of Service issued
June 15, 2013. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States in
March 2020, local and state governments began issuing stay-at-home
orders and travel restrictions, preventing Plaintiffs from being
able to stay in the homes they had rented through TurnKey. In
response to this crisis, TurnKey issued credit for the cost of the
stay to guests, which can be used over an 18-month period, instead
of a full refund.
The Plaintiffs filed this suit asserting breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and conversion. Plaintiffs argue that the Rental
Contracts stipulate that guests are entitled to a refund, not a
credit, under these circumstances. However, TurnKey argues that the
Rental Contracts clearly and unambiguously state that guests,
including Plaintiffs, are not entitled to a refund after the
cancellation period.
The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 13, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 2(b)(6).
The appellate case is captioned as Shane Cahill, et al. v. TurnKey
Vacation Rentals, Inc., Case No. 20-51007, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, December 14, 2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Shane Cahill, Nye Peterson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Randy Ray Howry, Esq.
HOWRY BREEN & HERMAN, L.L.P.
1900 Pearl Street
Austin, TX 78705
Telephone: (512) 474-7300
E-mail: rhowry@howrybreen.com
Defendant-Appellee TurnKey Vacation Rentals, Incorporated is
represented by:
Arthur Gollwitzer, III, Esq.
MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH, L.L.P.
2700 Via Fortuna
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 640-3161
E-mail: agollwitzer@michaelbest.com
TWITTER: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California
issued an order granting Twitter's motion to dismiss a consolidated
class-action securities suit, citing the plaintiffs' failure to
adequately plead violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
According to the order, lead plaintiffs the Weston Family
Partnership and Twitter Investor Group brought the consolidated
class-action securities lawsuit against Twitter and executives,
claiming that the social media company omitted information and
issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period,
July 26, 2019, and October 23, 2019.
In its motion to dismiss, Twitter claimed the plaintiffs fail to:
"(i) allege statements that are materially false or misleading, or
otherwise actionable; (ii) establish a strong inference of
scienter; and (iii) establish loss causation." Moreover, "(w)ithout
a primary violation of Section 10(b), defendants argue plaintiffs'
Section 20(a) claim similarly fails."
Key to the suit is Twitter's Mobile Advertising Promotion (MAP), a
campaign designed to encourage users to open an advertiser's app,
or download the app if they do not have it already. In particular,
the plaintiffs pointed to several purportedly fraudulent statements
or omissions: Twitter's July 2019 statements about the progress of
MAP and predicting revenue and reporting financial results for the
quarter ending on June 30, 2019; the defendants' August 2019
announcement about software bugs affecting MAP; and defendant
Segal's September 2019 statement about the MAP progress and Asia's
focus on the MAP during a call with investors. The plaintiffs
claimed that these statements were materially false and misleading
because when they were made, they "created the 'misimpression that
[d]efandants' work to improve MAP was on track[ ] and would lead to
increased revenue." However, the plaintiffs asserted that since the
improved MAP was "delayed," the defendants could not reasonably
claim that MAP revenue would increase.
The court sided with Twitter, finding that Twitters' claims were
reasonable puffery; forward looking statements have safe harbor
protection under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (PSLRA) because they are "accompanied by 'meaningful
cautionary statement, or are 'immaterial,' or were not made 'with
actual knowledge' of the falsity or misleading nature of the
statement.'"
The court also considered if the allegations sufficiently plead
scienter. The order noted that "(s)center includes knowledge of the
falsity as well as 'deliberate or conscious recklessness.'"
However, the court found that the plaintiffs' allegations were not
adequate "to draw a strong inference of scienter because they do
not describe with particularity the specific contents of these
daily summaries and periodic reviews of key metrics." Therefore,
the judge stated that "(w)ithout more detail, plaintiffs'
allegation that the reports 'showed [ ] demand for MAP ads was
materially declining which meant Twitter was receiving materially
less MAP revenue" is not sufficiently specific for the Court to
infer that the contents of the reports were inconsistent with any
of defendants' public statements."
The court granted the motion with leave to amend. Twitter is
represented by Latham & Watkins LLP. The lead plaintiffs are
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as well as Pomerantz LLP
and Levi & Korinsky, LLP. [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 2021 Hearing Continued to Later Date
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOSTON RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-06361-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties stipulated and agreed that, subject to the
Court's approval:
-- they shall engage in a mediation session by the end of
March 2021, and the current deadline to engage in private
mediation is extended to March 31, 2021;
-- the February 25, 2021 hearing on the Class Certification
Motion, and the deadlines for the filing of the
opposition to the Class Certification Motion and the
reply in support of the Class Certification Motion, are
continued until a date after the mediation to be set by
agreement of the Parties; and
-- the Parties shall report to the Court no later than April
1, 2021 as to the status of the mediation and if the
action is not resolved, to submit a revised Joint Case
Management Statement.
State-Boston Retirement System Pension Fund is responsible for the
governmental defined benefit plan. The Fund serves all City of
Boston departments, the Boston Planning, the Boston Housing
Authority, the Public Health Commission, and the Boston Water and
Sewer Commission.
Uber is an American company that offers vehicles for hire, food
delivery, package delivery, couriers, freight transportation, and,
through a partnership with Lime, electric bicycle and motorized
scooter rental.
A copy of the joint stipulation and [proposed] order re: class
certification dated Dec. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ajQLq4 at no extra charge.[CC]
Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System, are:
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
Joseph N. Cotilletta, Esq.
Marco A. Duenas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
afatale@labaton.com
jcotilletta@labaton.com
mduenas@labaton.com
Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Boston Retirement System, are:
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: gnespole@zlk.com
rmah@zlk.com
Attorneys for the Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Dara
Khosrowshahi, Nelson Chai, Glen Ceremony, Ronald Sugar, Ursula
Burns, Garrett Camp, Matt Cohler, Ryan Graves, Arianna Huffington,
Travis Kalanick, Wan Ling Martello,John Thain, and David Trujillo,
are:
Patrick D. Robbins
Daniel H.R. Laguardia
Emily V. Griffen
George B. Adams, III
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
Attorneys for the Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Allen & Company LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SunTrust Robinson
Humphrey, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities
(USA) Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Mizuho Securities
USA LLC, Needham & Company, LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Siebert
Cisneros Shank & Co., L.L.C., Academy Securities, Inc., BTIG, LLC,
Canaccord Genuity LLC, CastleOak Securities, L.P., Cowen and
Company, LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., JMP Securities LLC, Macquarie
Capital (USA) Inc., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., Oppenheimer &
Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., William Blair &
Company, L.L.C., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., and TPG Capital
BD, LLC, are:
Todd G. Cosenza, Esq.
Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
Joseph G. Davis, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019-6099
Telephone: (212) 728-8677
Facsimile: (212) 728-9677
E-mail: tcosenza@willkie.com
sagnolucci@willkie.com
jdavis@willkie.com
ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP: Class Certification Granted in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard F. Boulware of the United States District Court,
District of Nevada, at a hearing announced he will grant class
certification in Cung Le v. Zuffa., an antitrust class action
lawsuit on behalf of current and former Elite Professional Mixed
Martial Arts (MMA) Fighters against Zuffa LLC, the company that
runs the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). A written order
certifying the class will be issued shortly.
The suit charges Zuffa LLC (which does business as UFC) with
illegally acquiring and maintaining monopoly and monopsony power
over Elite Professional MMA fights, and using that power to
suppress fighter compensation.
Elite Professional MMA Fighters allege that UFC illegally
suppressed their wages by blocking other promoters from competing
for their services and extracting one-sided concessions. UFC is the
largest promoter of MMA events, with some 90% of the market, and
has used its dominant position to demand exclusive contracts with
fighters
"The UFC's illegal acquisition and application of monopoly and
monopsony power to suppress the wages of Elite Professional MMA
fighters is inexcusable," said Joseph Saveri, Co-Lead counsel for
the plaintiffs. "Its exclusive contracts with fighters exclude
other promoters from the market, putting them out of business or
relegating them to second-tier status as a de facto farm system.
The UFC has also acquired its market power by improperly acquiring
its potential rivals. We are grateful to Judge Boulware for
recognizing the importance of the class issues in this case, and
for indicating his intention to grant class certification."
UFC contracts typically offer poor wages, and claim exclusive
rights to the fighters' names and likenesses for marketing and
merchandising in perpetuity—meaning that fighters do not receive
royalties and cannot use their own names and hard-won recognition
to promote personal ventures for the remainder of their lives.
Cung Le v. Zuffa, LLC, seeks treble damages under Section 2 of the
Sherman Act, as well as injunctive relief for current and former
Elite Professional MMA fighters. The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada.
ABOUT THE FIRM
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm is one of the country's most acclaimed,
successful boutique firms, specializing in antitrust, class
actions, and complex litigation on behalf of national and
international consumers, purchasers, and employees across diverse
industries. For further information on our practice and
accomplishments on behalf of our clients, please visit
www.saverilawfirm.com. [GN]
UNITED STATES: All Individual Defendants Dismissed From Doe Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
grants in part and denies in part the Government's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit titled JOHN DOE v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Case No. 20-cv-2531 (N.D. Ill.).
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
United States of America moves to dismiss all the named Defendants
other than itself from the lawsuit. The Court grants in part and
denies in part the United States' motion and dismisses the
Individual Defendants from the lawsuit.
Plaintiff John Doe brings the putative class action lawsuit
challenging the constitutionality of the exclusion provision of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"),
specifically 26 U.S.C. Section 6428(g)(1), seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief against the United States, the Internal Revenue
Service ("IRS"), the United States Department of the Treasury,
Pres. Donald Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell,
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and IRS Commissioner Charles
Rettig.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the CARES
Act, which the President signed into law on March 27, 2020. The
CARES Act provides "Advance Credits" of up to $1,200 for eligible
individuals and $500 for each eligible individual's qualifying
children under the age of 17. The Act requires each Advance Credit
recipient to have a Social Security number ("SSN"), thus, excluding
undocumented immigrants without a work authorization, who file
taxes with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ("ITIN").
As a result, United States citizens, who would otherwise qualify
for the Advance Credit, cannot receive the Advance Credit if they
filed a joint tax return with a non-citizen spouse, who lacks an
SSN. In short, Section 6428(g)(1)(B), called the exclusion
provision, excludes eligible individuals from receiving cash
assistance if his or her spouse is an undocumented immigrant.
The United States first asserts that the official capacity claims
against the Individual Defendants are duplicative of the claims
against the United States. The Court agrees. It is well-settled
that official capacity claims are just "another way of pleading an
action against an entity of which an officer is an agent," citing
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d
114 (1985).
Accordingly, the official capacity claims against Pres. Trump,
Mitch McConnell, Mnuchin, and Rettig are duplicative, especially in
light of Doe's allegations that the Individual Defendants are
liable for their role in implementing the CARES Act, not that the
Individual Defendants themselves violated the law or acted in
excess of their authority. The Court, therefore, grants this aspect
of the United States' motion.
In addition, both the President and the Senate Majority Leader are
absolutely immune from this lawsuit because the allegations against
them stem from their constitutional and official duties as federal
office holders, District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman opines citing
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 811, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d
396 (1982).
Although the Plaintiff Doe agrees that Senator McConnell is immune
from suit, he argues that the President's conduct concerned
"unofficial acts" because the President affixed his name to CARES
Act checks. Judge Coleman opines that Doe's argument is unsupported
by legal authority except for a treasury directive that does not
indicate whether the President can or cannot sign checks drawn from
Treasury. Without more, Doe has waived the argument because it is
undeveloped and lacks sufficient legal authority.
According to the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, Doe does not
point to unequivocal language in which either Treasury or the IRS
waived their sovereign immunity under the circumstances, namely, a
constitutional challenge to the CARES Act. Instead, he argues that
the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") provides immunity to bring
this lawsuit against Treasury and the IRS even though Doe is not
seeking review of a final agency action.
The Court agrees. The APA provides a limited waiver of the United
States' sovereign immunity and supports a claim for a challenge to
agency action, but only to the extent that the Plaintiffs seek
relief other than money damages.
Because Doe is seeking injunctive relief, his argument is not
barred by Section 702, Judge Coleman says. In addition, despite the
United States' argument to the contrary, the waiver in Section 702
is not limited to claims brought pursuant to the review provisions
contained in the APA itself, but also applies when any federal
statute authorizes review of agency action, as well as in cases
involving constitutional challenges and other claims arising under
federal law. Therefore, the IRS and the Department of Treasury
remain defendants to this lawsuit.
Hence, the Court grants in part and denies in part the United
States' motion to dismiss. It dismisses the Individual Defendants
from thelawsuit. The remaining Defendants include the United
States, the IRS, and the Treasury.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Dec. 14, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7928qv5 from
Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Jones Appeals W.D. Okla. Ruling to Tenth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ALBERTA ROSE JOSEPHINE JONES filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ALBERTA ROSE JONES and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WILLIAM BARR et al., Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-CV-01056-G, in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma - Oklahoma City.
William Barr is sued in his official capacity as Attorney General
of the United States.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks damages resulting from the Defendants' act and omissions, and
any legal fees and costs, which the Plaintiff is entitled in
connection with her son's unlawful treatment in the Oklahoma County
Jail.
The Plaintiff has a developmentally-disabled son, who was
unlawfully charged and incarcerated for many months in the Oklahoma
County Jail in 2017 and 2018 and soon to be possibly in 2019. Her
son's living conditions in the Oklahoma County Jail were
unconstitutional, the Plaintiff alleges. She adds that he received
illegal treatment in the Oklahoma County Jail.
Several of the Defendants knowingly created and perpetuated an
overcrowded and understaffed jail, subjecting the 2,000 plus men
and women held in the Oklahoma County Jail to dangerous, inhumane,
and degrading conditions, Ms. Jones states. She contends that the
Defendants failed to provide minimally adequate medical care to her
son when he was in their custody.
Ms. Jones, a resident of Lincoln County, Oklahoma, also alleges
that the Defendants failed to adequately screen her son for his
medical conditions; failed to timely or adequately respond to his
and her request for medical care; and completely denied his chronic
and specialty care.
The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated November 17, 2020, dismissing the action without prejudice
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
for failure to comply with the Court's Order of August 10, 2020,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 41(b). Under the Order,
Defendant Barr's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot and
Plaintiff's Motion seeking an extension of time is DENIED.
The appellate case is captioned as Jones v. Barr, et al., Case No.
20-6189, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit, December 14, 2020.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Fee or IFP forms are due in district court on January 13,
2021 for Alberta Rose Josephine Jones;
-- Notice of appearance is due on December 28, 2020 for William
Barr; and
-- Notice of appearance is due on January 13, 2021 for Alberta
Rose Josephine Jones.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALBERTA ROSE JOSEPHINE JONES, of Agra,
Oklahoma, appears pro se.
Defendants-Appellees WILLIAM BARR, in his official capacity as
Attorney General United States; DAVID PRATER, individual capacity,
TIMOTHY HENDERSON, individual capacity, ROBERT RAVITZ, individual
capacity, CINDY FERRELL ASHWOOD, individual capacity, ALLEN BROWN,
individual capacity; LORI MCCONNELL, individual capacity and ROBERT
GROSHON, DOES 1 THRU 100, are represented by:
Tom Majors, Esq.
Alison Spurlock, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
210 West Park Avenue, Suite 400
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 553-8700
E-mail: tom.majors@usdoj.gov
tom.majors@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Tita Appeals Fed. Claims Ruling to Fed. Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christopher Tita, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Christopher Tita and Ijang
Fomukong-Tita, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. USA, Case No. 1:17-cv-01461-LAS, in the United States
Court of Federal Claims.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendant to seek just compensation for the taking of the
Plaintiffs' and Class' private property for public use when the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flooded their homes by releasing water
from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs in Houston, Texas.
As a result of the Defendant's decision to release water from
Addicks and Barker, approximately 4,000 homes that were not
otherwise going to flood during the storm, were inundated with
water and are currently uninhabitable. Thousands of families,
including Plaintiffs and the Class, are now displaced from their
homes with no assurances from the Defendant for when they will be
able to return or whether they will be compensated for the damage
it caused to their private properties. Therefore, thousands of
families are left not knowing where they will sleep, whether they
will be able to afford temporary shelter, or whether they will be
able to afford to rebuild their homes after the water recedes, the
suit says.
The Plaintiffs are now seeking an appeal to review the Court of
Federal Claims' Order dated September 10, 2020, dismissing the case
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
The appellate case is captioned as Tita v. United States, Case No.
21-1294, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
November 24, 2020.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:
-- Entry of Appearance is due on December 8, 2020;
-- Certificate of Interest is due on December 8, 2020;
-- Docketing Statement is due on December 24, 2020; and
-- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on January 25, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTOPHER TITA and IJANG FOMUKONG-TITA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Jay Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6375
Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by:
Director, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PO Box 480
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
US BANK: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in McGovern UCL Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendant U.S. BANK, N.A. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled REYNA McGOVERN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01794-CAB-LL, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, McGovern
initiated the putative class action lawsuit on Aug. 2, 2018, with a
complaint asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of
California's unfair competition law ("UCL"), arising out of USB's
practices concerning the assessment of two types of fees. The
complaint refers to these fees as "OON Fees" and "OD Fees."
The OON Fee claims arise out of USB's alleged practice of charging
two fees for use of out-of-network ("OON") automated teller
machines ("ATMs") when an accountholder checks her account balance
and then withdraws funds. The OD Fee claims arise out of USB's
alleged practice of charging an overdraft fee for transactions made
with a debit card at a time when sufficient funds were available
because in the time between when the debit card transaction is made
and when it settles, an intervening transaction on the checking
account reduces the amount of funds in the account to less than the
amount of the prior debit card transaction. The complaint calls
these transactions "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative
Transactions" or "APPSN Transactions." McGovern alleges that these
duplicate OON Fees and OD Fees are not permitted by the account
agreements governing her and other account-holders' relationships
with USB.
The Defendant is seeking an appeal to review the District Court's
Order dated Dec. 3, 2020, denying USB's motion for reconsideration.
Under the order, USB wants the Court to hold that the arbitration
provision of Plaintiff's Deposit Account Agreement requires
individual arbitration of all of Plaintiff's claims. But the plain
language of that arbitration provision, based on the unenforceable
public injunction waiver and non-severability clause, renders it
null and void. In effect, there is no arbitration provision in the
Deposit Account Agreement, meaning Plaintiff may litigate any and
all claims for which she has Article III standing in the Court.
The appellate case is captioned as Reyna McGovern v. U.S. Bank,
N.A., Case No. 20-56313, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant U.S. Bank, N.A. Mediation Questionnaire is due on
December 18, 2020;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by January 11, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on February 8, 2021;
-- Appellant U.S. Bank, N.A. opening brief is due on March 22,
2021;
-- Appellee Reyna McGovern answering brief is due on April 21,
2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee REYNA MCGOVERN, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Annick Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
- and -
Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com
jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
117 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (626) 550-1250
E-mail: ekim@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
Defendant-Appellant U.S. BANK, N.A. is represented by:
Lauren Lynn Erker, Esq.
James R. McGuire, Esq.
BUCKLEY LLP
201 Mission Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 619-3419
E-mail: lerker@buckleyfirm.com
jmcguire@buckleyfirm.com
- and -
Michael Rome, Esq.
BUCKLEY LLP
100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 424-3900
E-mail: mrome@buckleyfirm.com
USP CANAAN: Burroughs, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Wilfredo Rodriguez, Sean
Collins, Michael Grasso, Marc Hubbard, and Lester Burroughs on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Eric
Bradley in his official capacity as Warden of USP Canaan, Case No.
3:20-cv-02231-MEM-DB (M.D. Pa.), the Petitioners ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 23(b)(2),
consisting of:
"all current inmates of United States Penitentiary (USP)
Canaan, and all current inmates who are in custody within
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who share the Middle
District of Pennsylvania as their court of jurisdiction,
who have made a request or been approved by the Warden of
their institution to be transferred to home confinement
under the CARES Act, but were later denied by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff, other than their Warden;"
and other than their Warden;" and
2. appointing counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g).
The Petitioners are prisoners at the Satellite Camp at USP Canaan
in Waymart, PA. They bring this action to challenge the statutory
construction of title 18 United States Code section 3624 which
pertains to home confinement placement. The Petitioners allege that
the BOP Central Office has usurped the role of Congress by adding
an additional gatekeeper, and process, to the home confinement
determination.
USP Canaan is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, 20 miles east
of Scranton and 134 miles north of Philadelphia.
A copy of the Petitioners' motion for class certification dated
Dec. 18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3rhDAfl at no extra charge.[CC]
USP CANAAN: Hubbard, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Wilfredo Rodriguez, Sean
Collins, Michael Grasso, Marc Hubbard, and Lester Burroughs on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Eric
Bradley in his official capacity as Warden of USP Canaan, Case No.
3:20-cv-02233-MEM-DB (M.D. Pa.), the Petitioners ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 23(b)(2),
consisting of:
"all current inmates of United States Penitentiary (USP)
Canaan, and all current inmates who are in custody within
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who share the Middle
District of Pennsylvania as their court of jurisdiction,
who have made a request or been approved by the Warden of
their institution to be transferred to home confinement
under the CARES Act, but were later denied by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff, other than their Warden;"
and
2. appointing counsel pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g).
The Petitioners are prisoners at the Satellite Camp at USP Canaan
in Waymart, PA. They bring this action to challenge the statutory
construction of title 18 United States Code section 3624 which
pertains to home confinement placement. The Petitioners allege that
the BOP Central Office has usurped the role of Congress by adding
an additional gatekeeper, and process, to the home confinement
determination.
USP Canaan is located in northeastern Pennsylvania, 20 miles east
of Scranton and 134 miles north of Philadelphia.
A copy of the Petitioners' motion for class certification dated
Dec. 18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3p6339G at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Schall Law Reminds Investors of December 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Dec. 17 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or "the Company") (NYSE:WFC)
for violations of §§10(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.
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]
ZOSANO PHARMA: Zhang Investor Reminds of December 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Zosano Pharma Corporation
(NASDAQ: ZSAN) between February 13, 2017 and September 30, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=zosano-pharma-corporation&id=2478
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=zosano-pharma-corporation&id=2478
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the December 28, DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(a) the Company's clinical results reflected differences in
zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects receiving
different lots; (b) pharmocokinetic studies submitted in connection
with the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") included patients
exhibiting unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan;
(c) as a result of the foregoing differences among patient results,
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was reasonably likely
to require further studies to support regulatory approval of
Qtrypta; (d) as a result, regulatory approval of Qtrypta was
reasonably likely to be delayed; and (e) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
[*] Epiq Attorneys Discuss GDPR's Influence on Class Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loree Kovach, Esq. -- loree.kovach@epiqglobal.com -- and Lauren
McGeever, Esq. -- lmcgeever@epiqglobal.com -- of Epiq, in an
article for JDSupra, report that when thinking about class action
lawsuits, most people envision legal proceedings occurring in the
United States. However, class and collective proceedings modeled
after those in the U.S. are becoming increasingly popular abroad -
specifically in the U.K. and European Union (EU). Other countries
with rising class and collective proceedings are turning to the
U.S. for guidance on how to navigate this lengthy and often
complicated process. Since class actions are a well-established
proceeding in the States, the logistics around administering cases
like these are fully developed and perfected by US-based settlement
administration firms and their law firm partners. That expertise is
critical to the success of this emerging process in the U.K. and
EU. Yet, when considering best practices for these proceedings
abroad, it is critical to factor in how the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) affects the process. Specifically, law firms and
their administrative partners should be aware of EU-specific
requirements around collection of data in relation to management of
these proceedings.
The GDPR is groundbreaking legislation that heavily promotes
consumer privacy. The law invokes several things businesses must do
to protect the personal data and privacy of EU citizens. Class
proceedings will undoubtedly require consideration of the stricter
privacy regulations around data subject to the GDPR. Because of
this, developing a GDPR-compliant privacy policy and compliant data
collection practices for collective proceedings involves extra
steps not necessary in U.S. cases. Lawyers in these countries
should be mindful of these considerations before moving forward
with a case to ensure compliance at every level. For the time
being, the U.K. will continue to follow the GDPR, even during their
Brexit transition period, as EU law continues to remain in effect
until the transition is complete.
Keeping Consent at the Forefront
Best practices for lawyers handling these proceedings falling under
the GDPR's purview will revolve around consent. It is critical to
take caution when creating a centralized place to disseminate
information to a class. In the states there is generally a
dedicated website that provides information about the case, helps
increase awareness of a collective claim, and can collect data. In
the EU and U.K., creating this website would make an administrator
a data processor and the firm for which the data is being collected
is the data controller. Anyone providing their contact information
on the sites would be data subjects. Since this would constitute
data processing under the GDPR certain rights, responsibilities,
and disclosures come into play.
When gathering data for a collective action from a website, consent
will be necessary. Under the GDPR, consent needs to be freely
given, specific, informed, unambiguous, and the data subject must
provide the consent by a clear affirmative action. Consent could be
in the form of a privacy policy disclosure that requires the person
to read it and check a box expressing agreement to the data
collection and use for purposes related to the proceedings. The
privacy policy should include what the data controller and
processor plan to do with the collected information - like send out
communication about the claim, use for reporting purposes to the
court, or analyze class demographics. Additionally, if the data
will be processed outside the EU for any reason, this should be
clearly articulated in the policy.
Another major consideration includes what to do when a data subject
requests access to their information or consent withdrawal, which
are key rights under the GDPR. If there is withdrawn consent, the
best practice would be to ensure data is deleted from all locations
in which it is stored. The process for this should be clear and
memorialized. Additionally, both the processor and controller need
to be aware of the process since both entities will need to comply
with the request. Internal policies about data subject access
requests should include who responds to them, appropriate
timeframes, what mechanisms to implement for data deletion, and any
other information pertinent to handling these requests in a manner
consistent with GDPR compliance obligations.
Standard Contractual Clauses
Besides the consent factor, a recent development on cross-border
data transfers between the U.S. and the U.K. or EU also influences
class proceedings. Before July 2020, these countries could transfer
data under privacy shield frameworks, however, now that has been
deemed an unsafe mechanism. As such, a law firm using a US-based
administrator on a collective proceeding in the EU or U.K. should
now utilize the appropriate standard contractual clause with that
vendor to ensure the protection of the data being transferred. The
European Commission issues these clauses, which declare that there
are sufficient privacy safeguards on data transferred to another
country. Without this, there could be GDPR implications that halt
or delay the collective proceeding.
Considerations for Avoiding GDPR Violations
These are just a few of the key considerations that lawyers and
administrators need to make when dealing with a class or collective
proceeding subject to the GDPR. Given the increasingly global
nature of these proceedings, the development of a single privacy
policy and data collection practice that comply with the
requirements in the most restrictive jurisdiction is a practical
approach that avoids inadvertent missteps. It is better to be safe
than sorry, especially since the European Commission has been
vigorously cracking down on GDPR violations. Regarding the U.K., it
is important to monitor what happens with Brexit. If the European
Commission does not issue an adequacy finding about the U.K.'s
privacy safeguards, prior to the end of the transition period, then
data transfers from EU countries to the U.K. would be treated in a
similar fashion to those from the EU to the U.S., even if the GDPR
is ultimately converted into U.K. law. As a precaution and method
to avoiding GDPR roadblocks, US-based administrators storing class
or collective data in the U.K. should consider moving non-U.K. data
to another EU location for storage purposes. [GN]
[*] ONTARIO: Dismissal of Basic Income Class Action for Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
lindsayadvocate.ca reports that a decision made by a Superior Court
of Justice judge to dismiss the Ontario basic income class action
lawsuit will be appealed.
The lawsuit was initiated by four Lindsay residents -- Dana Bowman,
Grace Marie Doyle Hillion, Susan Lindsay, and Tracey Mechefske.
They argued through their lawyers that the early termination of the
Ontario Basic Income Pilot's payments amounted to "a breach of
contract, a breach of undertaking, negligence . . . and a breach of
section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and
that as a result they have suffered damages.
The Advocate has learned that the Toronto law firm that represents
them, Cavalluzzo LLP Barristers & Solicitors, will appeal, after
the firm discussed their options with the four plaintiffs.
In a letter the Advocate obtained from the law firm that was sent
to all members participating in the class action lawsuit, they note
what success might look like at first.
"If we are successful at the Court of Appeal, the result would be
either that . . . we return to the Superior Court and argue the
remaining issues regarding the certification motion (Justice Bale
only ruled on 1 out of 5 of the certification issues); or . . . the
Ontario Court of Appeal agrees to certify the class action. If
unsuccessful, Justice Bale's ruling will stand and the Action will
not be certified," the lawyers Stephen Moreau and Kaley Duff
write.
As the lawyers note, certification is the first major step in a
class action proceeding. "When the court certifies a class action,
this means that the court agrees the issues in the plaintiffs'
Statement of Claim can be decided together, on a class-wide
basis."
If a lawsuit is certified, they note that the plaintiffs still must
win on the merits by having the key questions (like, was there a
contract?) answered in favour of the class. When a court does not
certify a class action, then that means the class action cannot
proceed at all.
The current Conservative government cancelled the Ontario Basic
Income Pilot in one of the first policy decisions the government
made when it came to office in 2018 -- despite a campaign promise
to let the three-year pilot play out.
"I personally think (Premier Doug) Ford cancelling basic income was
inhumane," said Lauretta Blackman, who was on basic income and is
participating in the class action suit.
"We were an experiment for the betterment of the future and then
got devastated emotionally, physically and financially when they
stopped the pilot abruptly after promising to let it go it's
course," she said.
Dana Bowman, one of the plaintiffs, said she feels gratitude for
the appeal.
"The lawyers have given us hope and faith of a better tomorrow --
which I really need right now.
Bowman says the "rug was pulled out from under us" when Ford
cancelled the pilot, "and I will not forget that day, how it
affected me and others around me."
The pilot was initiated by the province in 2017 under the Liberal
government of Kathleen Wynne. It was set up in three areas -
Hamilton region, Thunder Bay area, and Lindsay. Almost 4,000 people
were involved, with 1,840 participants from Lindsay. It was set to
run for three years. Payments ended prematurely in March of 2019,
leaving hundreds of people scrambling.
The appeal is expected to be filed by the end of the year, while
written arguments will be submitted in late January or early
February.
"We expect the appeal will be heard sometime in mid-2021," they
write, "as the Court continues to conduct hearings remotely during
the pandemic."
The Basic Income Canada Network released a survey report, Signposts
to Success, in March of 2019, documenting the experiences of
recipients in the pilot. It provided compelling indicators of lives
remarkably changed for the better.
Responses from more than 400 recipients showed that the pilot was
working -- enabling women and men to get and keep jobs, start
businesses, pursue education and training, overcome barriers and
improve health and well-being for themselves and their families.
For instance, 58 per cent improved their housing situation, 34 per
cent found the basic income supported employment by affording
transportation to work, child care or ability to start or expand a
business, and 32 per cent of respondents were able to go back to
school or upgrade their skills. [GN]
[*] Persistent Securities Class Action Presents Risk for D&O
------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that while the COVID-19 pandemic presents
risks for directors and officers (D&O), it is far from the only
force these insureds and their insurers will be dealing with in the
year ahead.
Rising insolvency exposures, growing cyber security threats and
persistent securities class action activity are among the other key
risks where executives of companies could be held liable, according
to a new report, Directors and Officers Insurance Insights 2021,
from Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS).
In 2021, companies will also need to be on guard against
"event-driven litigation" caused by inaction on diversity, poor
sustainability performance or for underestimating or
misrepresenting COVID-19 related risks.
The report contends these factors will exacerbate an
already-strained D&O insurance market.
Growth in the number of lawsuits as well as rising claims frequency
and severity has already resulted in a difficult environment for
the D&O insurance sector in recent years. Underwriting results have
been negative in many markets around the world, including
Australia, the UK, the U.S. and parts of Europe. While the market
was correcting itself at the beginning of 2020, it was then hit by
the current pandemic and economic crisis.
"Many insurers are still digesting the effect of previous pricing
inadequacy and exposure and loss trend increases from prior-year
policies," says Shanil Williams, global head of Financial Lines at
AGCS. "This is also at a time of great uncertainty around
forward-looking exposure assessments, in particular the impact of
COVID-19 on the economy in general and on specific industries."
Williams said these conditions, when combined with climate change,
cyber risks or ESG (environmental, social or governance) factors,
create a" lot of nervousness" in this sector.
Top Concerns
The sector will also be watching insolvencies, which are a key
cause of D&O claims as insolvency administrators usually look to
recoup losses from directors.
According to Euler Hermes, the bulk of insolvencies is still to
come through the first half of 2021, with its global insolvency
index likely to hit a record high for bankruptcies, up 35% by end
of 2021, and with top increases expected in the U.S., Brazil, China
and core European countries such as UK, Italy, Belgium and France.
"We expect markets to remain fragile in view of the recent extreme
bullish reaction to positive COVID-19 vaccine news," said David Van
den Berghe, global head of Financial Institutions at AGCS.
"Further, the tech war between the U.S. and China, and the end of
the Brexit transition period, will remain top of mind as well, and
adds to an overall high level of economic uncertainty."
Companies also face a constantly evolving landscape of cyber
security threats as ransomware attacks and data breaches continue
to be on the rise, while the shift to remote working due to
COVID-19 is believed to have generally increased security
vulnerabilities. Investors view cyber risk management and adequate
security standards as a critical component of a board's oversight
responsibilities, the authors note.
Class Actions and COVID Cases
New U.S. securities class actions filings were pacing about 18%
behind rates seen in 2019 during the first half of 2020, according
to Cornerstone Research, largely due to the disruption of business
and court activity caused by the pandemic. Nonetheless, the report
says, the frequency of court filings is on track to match rates in
2017 and 2018 and will be well in excess of every year prior to
those.
The percentage of new filings in 2020 targeting foreign-domiciled
U.S.-listed companies has been nearly twice the average in recent
years, with around half of these against Asia-domiciled companies.
Outside the U.S., securities class actions are being filed in
record numbers and the threat of facing an action has increased in
many jurisdictions, as highlighted in a recent AGCS and Clyde & Co
report.
New initial public offerings (IPO) dramatically increased as 2020
was coming to a close, suggesting the potential for a wave of new
IPO-related securities litigation. Approximately 20% of U.S. IPOs
launched between 2009 and 2018 gave rise to securities class action
suits within four years of the offering.
Shareholders have filed the first class action lawsuits directly
related to COVID-19. These include suits against cruise ship lines
that suffered COVID-19 outbreaks, as well as litigation regarding
the business impact of the pandemic on companies' financial
performance or operations and misrepresentations about
coronavirus-related therapies.
Another threat looming on the horizon comes from the
return-to-office steps taken by businesses. "Such decisions are
fraught with peril, with regard to shareholder derivative actions,
but also in relation to other forms of litigation stemming from
employees or customers," warns Williams.
The report adds that companies that are slower to recover from the
pandemic compared to their competitors could face litigation from
shareholders and consumers claiming underperformance.
ESG and Private Company Issues
Beyond financial performance and shareholder value, so-called
"soft" management topics are increasingly triggering what is known
as "event-driven litigation" against boards: diversity, climate
change or ESG concerns are increasingly seen as opportunities to
bring class actions or to force settlements.
For example, Oracle, Facebook and Qualcomm are among the technology
companies that have been subjected to diversity derivative
lawsuits. In such cases, shareholders typically allege that
directors violated their fiduciary duties by their inaction on
diversity issues including remuneration or nomination of new black
board directors.
While the financial impact of such lawsuits remains to be seen,
there will be legal defense costs involved in their settlement and
this growing threat may further drive U.S. securities class
actions, warn the authors.
Also in the area of ESG, climate change, water management,
biodiversity degradation, exploitation in supply chains and
corporate governance are some of the topics companies and boards
will be expected to focus on in 2021 with regards to disclosure and
internal risk management, according to the report.
Corporates -- particularly in Europe -- and boards are increasingly
being challenged by investors and stakeholders with climate change
concerns and allegations that companies have failed to adjust
business practices in line with changing climate conditions.
"Current and future D&O underwriters need to be aware of ongoing
global ESG matters -- from activist investor campaigns to social
justice protests or money laundering schemes -- in order to
adequately assess potential perils," notes Joana Moniz, global head
of Commercial Financial Lines at AGCS, in the report. "Ultimately,
underwriters must assess how these matters may develop into a
litigation trend and/ or impact a company's risk management
practices."
While publicly-listed companies are generally more highly exposed
to D&O risks, the situation of private companies also is
aggravating and, the report contends, often understated.
While the majority of private company lawsuits are employee-related
matters, a private company's officers can also be sued over the
sale of a company, anti-trust claims or regulatory actions,
including securities regulations for alleged misrepresentations to
prospective investors and others.
The report further notes that the COVID-19 pandemic is currently
placing private companies and their executives under considerably
higher litigation risk. D&Os of privately-held companies are
typically closely involved in business decisions, which can become
even more challenging than usual in a crisis environment such as
COVID-19. The business decisions will also have a long-term impact
on these organizations, according to the report. [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 ***