/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201230.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 30, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 261
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Dorene Dairy Sues Over Groundwater Contamination
5TH & TAYLOR: Walder Suit Gets Conditional Collective Action Status
ACM RESEARCH: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of Feb. 19 Deadline
ACM RESEARCH: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ACM RESEARCH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 19 Deadline
AHRC HOME: Villar Sues Over FMLA Rights Violation & Retaliation
ALDI INC: Faces Brodsky Suit Over Mislabeled Coffee Products
APOLLO COURIERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Baham Says
APOLLO MATTRESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Angeles Says
ARLO NOMAD: Collins Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
ATM RESPONSE: Culver Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
BERRICLE LCC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BHP GROUP: Seeks to Appeal Decision in Dam Collapse Class Action
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 2 Deadline
BRANDT INDUSTRIES: Sherman Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
BRANDT INDUSTRIES: Workers Seek Class Cert. in Biometric Suit
CD PROJEKT: 13MM+ Cyberpunk 2077 Copies Sold Amid Class Action
CD Projekt: US Law Firm Probes Potential Class-Action Lawsuit
CD PROJEKT: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action
CHART INDUSTRIES: Wants Faulty Storage Tank Class Action Tossed
CONNECTICUT: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Wilkes Dismissed
CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COVIA HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
COVIA HOLDINGS: Pawar Law Group Reminds of February 8 Deadline
CREDIT BUREAU: Court Tosses Class Certification in Kang Suit
CUYAHOGA CTY, OH: Court Denies Tarrify's Class Certification Bid
DE BEERS: Supreme Court Won't Hear Price-Fixing Class Action
DEL SOL FOOD: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Sued for Wrongfully Withholding Bail Money
DIETZ & WATSON INC: Goldstein Slams Cheese Product Mislabeling
DR. ERROL GAUM: Class Action Filed Against Dentist Over Misconduct
EIDOS THERAPEUTICS: Bushansky Says BridgeBio Merger Deal Lacks Info
EVENT EFFECTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Sanchez Suit Claims
FAST ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Class Action Status in Cahoo Suit
FERRELLGAS INC: Bonsangue Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
FGO DELIVERS: Benitez Files Suit in Florida Over Violation of FCRA
FIREEYE INC: Pomerantz Law Probles Claims on Behalf of Investors
FLAGSHIP FACILITY: $2-Mil. Settlement in de Orozco Wins Final Nod
FREEDOM CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carr Suit Alleges
GC SERVICES: Didonato FDCPA Suit Seeks Class Action Status
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action
GRETNA, LA: Settlement in Nelson Class Suit Gets Final Approval
HEALING TOUCH: Welch Seeks to Certify Class of Health Care Workers
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: OK of Revised Notice Schedule Sought
HOME DEPOT: Attorney Fees in Data Breach Suit Returns to 11th Cir.
HP INC: Jakubowitz Law Pursues Securities Fraud Class Action
HP INC: Law Offices of Vincent Wong Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
HP INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 4 Deadline
HP INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of January 4 Deadline
HUDSON BAY COMPANY: Denies Severance Pay Benefits, Cope Suit Claims
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Agrees to Settlement Over its Engines in Canada
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 4 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of January 11 Deadline
INTERFACE INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of January 11 Deadline
J.E.M. CAPITEL: Faces Andino Suit Over Unpaid OT & Retaliation
JOYY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 19 Deadline
JOYY INC: Vincent Wong Law Offices Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
JOYY INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of January 19 Deadline
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Baltimore Cty. Claims
JUUL LABS: HCPS Joins Nationwide E-Cigarettes Class-Action Lawsuit
K12 INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline
K12 INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
K12 INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of January 29 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of February 9 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
LANDMARK REALTY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
LASSEN & HENNIGS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEE'S SUMMIT: Class Certification of Female Employees Sought
LIBERTY SAFE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIOX CLEANERS: Underpays Laundry Workers, Bautista Suit Alleges
LOGISTICARE: Farah Seeks to Certify Class of Transport Providers
MAC GRADING: Santos Seeks Conditional Collective Action Status
MAUNE LOA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 2862: Foreign Defendants Partly Compelled to Produce Docs
MEDICREDIT INC: Kwasniewski FDCPA Suit Gets Class Certification
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Klein Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Zhang Investor Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
MRS BPO: Affirmation of Service Requested in Skvarla FDCPA Suit
NEOVASC INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of January 5 Deadline
NETFLIX INC: Fails to Pay Franchise Fee, City of Ashdown Claims
NETFLIX INC: Fails to Pay Franchise Fee, City of Knoxville Claims
NETFLIX INC: Tennessee Municipalities, Counties Join Class Action
NEW JERSEY: Court Certifies Class of Patients in J.M. Suit
NEW MEXICO: Judge Dismisses Education Lawsuit of Disabled Student
NSW HEALTH: Junior Doctors Seek to Recover Millions in Unpaid Wages
ORANGE COUNTY, NC: Class Certification in Zander Class Suit Upheld
OVINTIV USA: Buffington Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consultants
PEKIN, IL: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Mobility-Disabled Persons
PENNSYLVANIA: Grasso Seeks to Certify Class of USP Canaan Inmates
QIWI PLC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Feb. 9 Deadline
QIWI PLC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
RCN TELECOM: Grillo, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
REALPAGE INC: Bid to Stay Denied as Moot in Kelly Suit
RING LLC: Faces Class Action Over Smart Camera Privacy Invasions
RIPPLE LABS: Faces SEC Lawsuit Amid XRP Cryptocurrency Class Action
ROB GRONKOWSKI: Faces $5 Million False Advertising Class Lawsuit
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Sued in California for Selling Stock Orders
SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
SANTEE COOPER: Customers Get Settlement Checks for Nuclear Suit
SCRIBE OPCO: Jones Seeks Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Sheriff Reaches Deal Over Covid-19 Precautions
SK TRADING: Loses Bid to Toss Gasoline Spot Suit for Improper Venue
SMITH FARMS: Class Certification of H-2A Visa Workers Sought
SONA NANOTECH: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SPLUNK INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
SPLUNK INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 2 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 2 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
SQUARETRADE INC: California Court Narrows Claims in Shuman Suit
STA MANAGEMENT: Mata Labor Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
SUBWAY: Quebec Lawsuit Alleges Deceptive Chicken Sandwich Content
TIVITY HEALTH: Kahn Swick Announces Securities Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR CORP: Lawyer Seeks Damages Relating to Vehicle Defects
TRANSUNION LLC: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in FCRA Class Suit
TRANSUNION LLC: Supreme Court to Review Article III Standing
TRITERRAS INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of February 19 Deadline
ULMA PIPING: Amerifore Sues Over False Advertising of Flanges
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended LD Suit
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Tosses First Amended Pacific Complaint
UNITED KINGDOM: Court Made Certification of Class Actions Easier
UNITED STATES: J.O.P Suit Wins Rule 23 Class Certification
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ordered Into Supervision for Coverage Denials
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Castro Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
VALENTINO U.S.A.: Rosario Seeks Collective Action Status Under FLSA
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Emissions Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
WASTE PRO: Waste Disposal Drivers Class Wins Conditional Cert.
WELLS FARGO: Gets Contractor's PPP Claims Sent to Arbitration
WELLS FARGO: Mitchell Suit Moved From Tennessee to Pennsylvania
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Certifies Class in Baxley Case
WESTJET: Class Action Lawsuit Certified Over Travel Credits Issue
WHOLE FOODS: Fails to Label Foods With Allergens, Akridge Claims
WISCONSIN: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid. in West RLUIPA Suit
[*] Clayton Utz Attorneys Discuss Employment Class Action Trends
[*] Clyde & Co Attorneys Discuss Wage Class Action Judgments
[*] KWM Attorneys Discuss Class Action Litigation Funding Report
[*] Manatt Financial Attorneys Discuss PPP Agent Fee Class Suits
[*] Supreme Court Agrees to Review FCRA Class Action Judgment
*********
3M COMPANY: Dorene Dairy Sues Over Groundwater Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorene Dairy General Partnership, Doug Handley, Irene Handley and
Dustin Handley, Plaintiffs, v. The 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Co.), AGC Chemicals Americas Inc., AMEREX
Corporation, Arkema Inc., individually and as successor in interest
to Atofina S.A., Archroma Management LLC, Buckeye Fire Equipment
Company, Carrier Global Corporation, individually and as successor
in interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., Chemdesign Products Inc.,
Chemguard Inc. Chemicals, Inc., Clariant Corporation, individually
and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation,
Corteva, Inc., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise, Deepwater Chemicals, Inc., Dupont De
Nemours Inc., individually and as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise, Dynax Corporation, E. I. Dupont De
Nemours and Company, individually and as successor in interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.,
individually and as successor in interest to Kidde Fire Fighting,
Inc., Nation Ford Chemical Company, The Chemours Company,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, The Chemours Company FC, LLC, individually
and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, Tyco Fire Products, LP, individually and as successor
in interest to The Ansul Company, United States of America, United
States Department of Defense and United States Air Force,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04263 (D. S.C., December 9, 2020), seeks
actual, statutory and/or punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees
and costs and such other and further relief for invasion of privacy
and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Defendants are accused of contaminating the groundwater by the use
of aqueous film-forming foam products that contained per- and
poly-fluoroalkyl substances, including perfluorooctane sulfonate
and perfluorooctanoic acid, fluorosurfactants that repel oil,
grease and water. These are or were components of firefighting
suppressant agents used in training and firefighting activities for
fighting Class B fires, involving hydrocarbon fuels such as
petroleum or other flammable liquids. Said substances persist
indefinitely in the environment, bioaccumulate in individual
organisms and humans and biomagnify up the food chain, causing
multiple and significant adverse health effects in humans,
including but not limited to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, high
cholesterol, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and
pregnancy-induced hypertension.
DoRene Dairy is owned by the Handley family. They allege that their
drinking water was eventually contaminated.[BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
Andrew W. Croner, Esq.
Patrick J. Lanciotti, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
360 Lexington Avenue, 11th
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 397-1000
Email: pnapoli@napolilaw.com
acroner@napolilaw.com
planciotti@napolilaw.com
- and -
Pete Domenici, Esq.
DOMENICI LAW FIRM, PC
320 Gold Avenue, SW, Ste. 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Tel: (505) 883-6250
Fax: (505) 884-3424
Email: pdomenici@domenicilaw.com
5TH & TAYLOR: Walder Suit Gets Conditional Collective Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLEIGH WALDER, ANDREA
LARSON, KAITLIN WRIGHT, EMILY OWENS and RYAN STORRS, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. 5Th & TAYLOR,
L.L.C., Case No. 3:20-cv-00828 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon Judge Waverly
D. Crenshaw, Jr. signed a stipulation and agreed order:
1. conditionally certifying collective action under section
216(b), consisting of:
"the Defendant's current and former servers who were paid
an hourly rate by Defendant lower than $7.25 during any
work week from September 25, 2017 to the present (Putative
Collective);"
2. authorizing Court-supervised notice to the Putative
Collective;
3. directing the Parties to brief the issues of form and
method of notice according to the following schedule:
i. The Plaintiffs shall have seven days from issuance of
this Order to file their proposed Notice and a brief
supporting its contents and method for distribution;
ii. The Defendant shall have 14 days from the filing of the
Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and supporting brief to
file a Response thereto;
iii. The Plaintiffs shall have seven (7) days from the
filing of the Defendant's Response to file a Reply
thereto; and
4. directing the Parties to notify the Court of their
agreement, if the Parties are able to reach an agreement
as to the form or method of Notice during the briefing
schedule.
On September 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated this action by
filing a Collective Action Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards
Act seeking minimum wage and overtime compensation for themselves
and all other servers who were paid a tipped hourly rate lower than
the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour during the statutory time period
covered by this lawsuit.
On November 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs' filed a motion seeking
conditional certification and the issuance of Court-supervised
notice. In conjunction with the filing of Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint on December 3, 2020, the Plaintiffs' sought to withdraw
their initial motion and filed the pending Motion.
Since December 3, 2020, the Parties have continued to confer
regarding the relief Plaintiffs seek, and as a result, the Parties
have reached this Joint Stipulation and Agreed Order.
A copy of the Court-approved stipulation dated Dec. 22, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aLV2mu at no
extra charge.[CC]
ACM RESEARCH: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of Feb. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Dec. 23 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against ACM Research, Inc. ("ACM" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ACMR) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of ACM between March 6, 2019
and October 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for ACM investors under the federal
securities laws.
The Complaint alleges Defendants throughout the Class Period made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company's revenue and profits had been diverted to
undisclosed related parties; (2) accordingly, the Company had
materially overstated its revenues and profits; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about ACM's business, operations,
and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of ACM during
the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the February 19,
2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
ACM RESEARCH: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of ACM Research Inc. ("ACM" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ACMR) to determine whether ACM engaged in
securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE SECURITIES OF
ACM RESEARCH BETWEEN MARCH 6, 2019 AND OCTOBER 7, 2020, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN
$100,000 ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES
CLASS ACTION QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR,
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, (215) 792-6676, EXT. 802,
KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
A class action lawsuit has been filed seeking to recover damages on
behalf of investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, ACM
securities during the Class Period and suffered losses.
According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the ACM Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. The ACM
Defendants, allegedly, made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose to investors that (i) the Company's revenue and
profits had been diverted to undisclosed related parties; (ii)
accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its revenues and
profits; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On October 8, 2020, J Capital Research reported, among other
things, that "ACMR reports industry-beating gross margins of 47%.
[J Capital Research] believe[s] the real gross margins are half
that at best. That would wipe out the company's net profit." J
Capital Research also reported that it ". . . estimate[s] that
revenue is overstated by 15-20%[,]" and that it has ". . . evidence
that undisclosed related parties are diverting revenue and profit
from the company[.]"
Additionally, J Capital Research reported that the "[k]ey means by
which ACMR tunnels over-reported profit out of the company may be
through about $20 mln in overstated inventory costs and through
cash that is inflated or just compromised. We think [at] least $11
mln in warranty and service costs are understated."
On this news, ACM's stock price dropped $1.09 per share to close at
$70.79, thereby injuring investors.
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. [GN]
ACM RESEARCH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 23
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of ACM Research, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACMR)
between March 6, 2019 and October 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ACM investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the ACM class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2013.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) the Company's revenue and profits had been diverted to
undisclosed related parties; (2) accordingly, the Company had
materially overstated its revenues and profits; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about ACM's business, operations,
and prospects 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 February
19, 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-2013.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.
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.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
AHRC HOME: Villar Sues Over FMLA Rights Violation & Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO VILLAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AHRC HOME CARE SERVICES, INC. and NYSARC,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 161256/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty.,
December 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violate the federal and
state laws by denying the Plaintiff leave to take care of his sick
sister, for whom he was a caretaker, and retaliating against him
for asserting his FMLA rights by terminating his employment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a residential
habilitation counselor from on or about March 10, 2017 until his
termination on or about December 3, 2017.
AHRC Home Care Services, Inc. is a licensed home care services
agency with a principal place of business located at 83 Maiden
Lane, New York, New York.
NYSARC, Inc. is a not-for-profit agency in New York State
supporting people with intellectual and other developmental
disabilities, headquartered at 83 Maiden Lane, New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ALDI INC: Faces Brodsky Suit Over Mislabeled Coffee Products
------------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN BRODSKY; and RHONDA DIAMOND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALDI INC.; COFFEE
HOLDING COMPANY, INC.; and PAN AMERICAN COFFEE CO. LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07632 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 21, 2020) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Beaumont coffee products against
Defendants for manufacturing, distributing, and selling underfilled
coffee products.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants engaged
in widespread false and deceptive advertising on their Beaumont
coffee products. In a practice that offends reasonable consumer
expectations, the Defendants employ a classic bait-and-switch
scheme that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend more money for
less than the advertised amount of coffee they believe they are
purchasing. The packaging and labeling of the coffee products
prominently advertise that they will produce a certain number of
servings when, in fact, they do not.
ALDI Inc. owns and operates grocery stores. The Company offers
grocery, meat, fresh produce, wine and beer, beverages, and other
home products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
APOLLO COURIERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Baham Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CELESTEIN BAHAM, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLO COURIERS, INC.; DISPATCH MANAGEMENT
GROUP; FARZAM GHAMARI; FAIRBORZ GHAMARIFARD; PAYMAN KHOSRAVI; and
DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV48718
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 21, 2020) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Baham was employed by the Defendants as driver.
Apollo Couriers, Inc. was founded in 1988. The company's line of
business includes delivering individually addressed letters,
parcels, and packages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 733-2498
Facsimile: (562) 733-2495
E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com
APOLLO MATTRESS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Angeles Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLO MATTRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10823 (Dec. 22, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.lumasleep.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff.
When the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's Website,
www.lumasleep.com, to make a purchase, despite her efforts,
however, the Plaintiff 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 the
Plaintiff from being able to determine what specific products were
offered for sale.
Apollo Mattress, Inc. is engaged in manufacturing mattresses. [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
ARLO NOMAD: Collins Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
GENEVA COLLINS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARLO NOMAD, LLC (D/B/A ARLO NOMAD); AYYA
HOTEL, LLC (D/B/A ARLO NOMAD); HELIX 31 ASSOCIATES, LLC (D/B/A ARLO
NOMAD); QUADRUM HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC; NELSON CORDELL; JAVIER
EGIPACIO; MICHAEL DOE; and AZIZ BACHAOUCH, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-10786 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2020) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Collins was employed by the Defendants as an overnight
lobby host, coffee preparer, and pizza server.
ARLO NOMAD, LLC provides accommodation, lodging, dining, meeting
and event rooms, special amenities, and recreational clubs
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ATM RESPONSE: Culver Suit Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN CULVER, THOMAS
HEAPE, ROY THOMAS EIDSON, ANASTASIA COX, CORDELIA GOBER, and JOSHUA
LAWSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated
persons, v. ATM RESPONSE, INC., and CLAYTON BRASWELL, Case No.
1:20-cv-03551-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective group defined as:
"all persons who (a) were classified by the Defendants as
independent contractors at any time within the period
beginning three years prior to the filing of the original
Collective Action Complaint to present (the "relevant time
period"), and (b) worked more than 40 hours in one or more
workweeks within the relevant time period;"
2. directing the Defendants, within 21 days of this Order, to
provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel all available mailing
addresses and email addresses for members of the
collective;
3. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send the Notice and
the Consent to Join Form, in the form submitted to the
Court by the Plaintiffs, by U.S. mail and email to all
individuals within the collective group. Starting from the
date of the issuance of the Notice, the Notice recipients
will have 45 days to submit their Consent to Join Form to
join this action. Plaintiffs' counsel will send the
Reminder Notice, in the form the Parties agreed upon and
submitted to the Court, 15 days from the end of the Notice
Period to any individuals who have not completed and
returned a Consent to Join Form; and
4. staying the discovery in this action for 90 days following
the entry of this Order. Provided the Parties have not
first moved for approval of a settlement, the Parties
shall submit a Joint Report within 14 days of the
expiration of the 90-day stay of discovery regarding the
status of the case, including resolution, and the
remaining discovery that needs to be completed in the
matter, if any.
On August 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing
their original Collective Action Complaint. Eight additional
individuals have joined the case as Opt-in Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Collective Action Complaint on
November 16, 2020, in which the Plaintiffs reasserted their
overtime-wage claims and first asserted a retaliation claim against
the Defendants on behalf of Plaintiff Lawson.
This is a collective action brought against the Defendants pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendants misclassified them, and those similarly situated, as
independent contractors and failed to pay them overtime wages for
all time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2M68gjR
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Michael D. Forrest, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: 678 780.4880
Facsimile: 478 575.2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Byron M.G. Sanford, Esq.
Mary Trachian-Bradley, Esq.
BRISKIN, CROSS & SANFORD, LLC
33 S. Main Street, Suite 300
Alpharetta, GA 30009
Telephone: (770) 410-1555
E-mail: bsanford@briskinlaw.com
mtrachian@briskinlaw.com
BERRICLE LCC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berricle LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Berricle LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10930
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 25, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BERRICLE -- https://www.berricle.com/ -- was founded in 2011 by Amy
Li and Kevin Chen as an online jewelry retailer for women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BHP GROUP: Seeks to Appeal Decision in Dam Collapse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross McInnes, Esq. -- rmcinnes@claytonutz.com -- James Walker,
Esq., and Aaron Moss, Esq., of Clayton Utz, in an article for
Lexology, report that Impiombato (No 2) confirms it is possible for
foreign residents to be group members in Australian class actions
but leaves open some important questions of principle.
The Federal Court recently handed down its first judgment
considering whether foreign residents can be group members of class
actions commenced under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia
Act 1976 (Cth).
In Impiombato v BHP Group Limited (No 2) [2020] FCA 1720, Justice
Moshinsky dismissed an application by BHP Group Ltd (BHP Ltd) which
sought to exclude foreign resident group members from bringing
their claims within the class action. The judgment contains
important statements of principle which suggest it is possible for
foreign residents to be group members in Australian class actions.
However, BHP Ltd's application was also dismissed for
discretionary, case-specific reasons.
On 15 December 2020, it was reported that BHP Ltd is seeking to
appeal the decision.
Fundão Dam collapse
Impiombato (No 2) relates to the collapse of the Fundão Dam at the
Germano iron ore mine complex in Brazil on 5 November 2015. The
failure of the Dam was the world's largest recorded mine disaster,
destroying two towns, killing 19 people and injuring many others,
and spreading toxic wastewater across almost 700km of watercourses
and into the Atlantic Ocean (by way of comparison, the Hume Highway
between Sydney and Melbourne is 840km).
The Germano mine was owned by Samarco Minerção SA, which in turn
was jointly owned by Vale SA and BHP Ltd (an ASX-listed company
registered in Australia) and, possibly, though the Court did not
finally determine this, by BHP Group Plc (BHP Plc, a London Stock
Exchange (LSE)-listed company registered in England and Wales)
through a subsidiary, BHP Brasil. At all relevant times, BHP Ltd
and BHP Plc maintained a "dual listed company structure", through
which the two companies operated as a single unified economic
entity referred to as BHP. Under that structure, BHP Ltd and BHP
Plc had identical boards of directors, unified senior management,
and shareholders in BHP Ltd or BHP Plc had equivalent economic and
voting interests in BHP.
Shortly after 5 November 2015, BHP Ltd made two announcements to
the ASX about the Dam collapse. Following these announcements, the
price of BHP Ltd shares listed on the ASX, BHP Plc shares on the
LSE, and BHP Plc shares (a third BHP entity registered in South
Africa, trading on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE)) declined
significantly.
What does Impiombato (No. 2) tell us about non-resident group
members?
The Dam collapse led to three class actions being commenced in
Australia against BHP Ltd on behalf of shareholders under Part IVA
of the Federal Court Act. As we noted last September, following an
appeal to the Full Court, those three actions were later
consolidated into a single action.
The proceedings allege misleading and deceptive conduct and
continuous disclosure failures. The applicants allege BHP Ltd made
misleading representations in annual reports and failed to disclose
information about problems with the Dam. This conduct, and BHP
Ltd's ASX announcements about the Dam collapse, are alleged to have
caused loss to BHP Ltd's Australian shareholders and to
shareholders of BHP Plc on the LSE or JSE.
BHP Ltd's application sought the exclusion of non-resident group
members and/or the striking out of their claims on the basis that
either the Federal Court Act did not apply to those persons or that
the Court ought to exercise its discretionary powers to dismiss
their claims. Justice Moshinsky dismissed BHP Ltd's application for
three reasons:
"[f]rom the perspective of Australian law", Part IVA of the Federal
Court Act applies to non-resident group members;
it was not in the interests of justice to exclude non-resident
group members; and the claims of the BHP Plc shareholders did
disclose a reasonable cause of action against BHP Ltd.
"From the perspective of Australian law", Part IVA of the Federal
Court Act applies to non-resident group members
Justice Moshinsky held that Part IVA and, in particular, section
33ZB (which provides for orders binding group members to the
outcome of a class action) applies to and operates on, "all group
members irrespective of their place of residence, unless they opt
out of the proceeding."
BHP Ltd's submissions on this issue relied upon the common law
presumption that Commonwealth legislation (including the Federal
Court Act) is not intended to apply outside of Australian territory
with the result, BHP Ltd suggested, that non-resident group members
were excluded from the class action regime.
Justice Moshinsky considered this submission "focuses on the wrong
enquiry". His Honour observed that the provisions of Part IVA
contain no territorial limitations and are designed to provide a
mechanism for the Court to hear and determine class actions
otherwise within its jurisdiction. Where there was no doubt that
BHP Ltd - an Australian company - was subject to the Court's
jurisdiction, and group members pleaded claims that the Federal
Court could normally determine, it was irrelevant to the operation
of Part IVA that some group members were not residents of
Australia. Whether or not any future judgment or settlement in the
Australian class action could be enforced in the UK or South Africa
was a "separate question" of foreign law.
It was not in the interests of justice to exclude non-resident
group members
To the extent that non-resident group members were within the scope
of the Australian class action regime, BHP Ltd argued that the risk
of those persons re-litigating the same issues in other
jurisdictions meant the Court should use its discretionary powers
in the Federal Court Act to exclude, at minimum, all those
non-resident group members who did not register to participate in
(and, therefore, agree to be bound by the outcome of) the
proceeding.
Justice Moshinsky rejected this submission as inconsistent with the
interests of justice in the proceeding, noting that the relief
sought by BHP Ltd would "deprive the relevant Group Members", whom
his Honour considered to have "arguable claims against BHP Ltd . .
. of the ability to pursue their claims within the framework of
[the] representative proceeding". His Honour noted that any
benefits of the orders BHP Ltd sought may have proved illusory in
any event, as it would remain open to excluded group members to
commence separate proceedings in Australia.
Beyond these case-specific factors, Justice Moshinsky referred to
BMW v Brewster [2019] HCA 45 where the High Court held that section
33ZF of the Federal Court Act (which enables the Court to "make any
order [it] thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice
is done in the proceeding") is an "essentially supplementary or
gap-filling power" designed to advance the determination of the
issues between the parties and ensure justice is done in the
proceeding.
Justice Moshinsky considered that there was a "real question" about
whether section 33ZF enabled the Court to make the orders sought by
BHP Ltd when its application was not premised on ensuring justice
was done in the present proceeding, but rather in relation to
possible future proceedings. His Honour considered it was arguable
that this was not a purpose which the Court's powers extended to
protecting, especially when BHP Plc is not a party to the
Impiombato class action.
Lastly, Justice Moshinsky noted that a registration process may be
appropriate "(at least) to facilitate settlement discussions
between the parties" but - there having been no discovery, no
defence filed, and the issues not yet defined - that this would be
"premature".
The claims of the BHP Plc shareholders did disclose a reasonable
cause of action against BHP Ltd
Lastly, Justice Moshinsky rejected BHP's submission that the claim
made on behalf of the BHP Plc shareholders failed to disclose a
reasonable cause of action.
Applying an orthodox analysis, Justice Moshinsky considered the
claims made by BHP Plc's shareholders were novel, and so it was
inappropriate to determine them at a preliminary stage and without
the full factual context. Justice Moshinsky concluded the claims
were novel and should be determined at trial as:
BHP's dual listing, single economic entity structure is unusual,
such that the position of a shareholder of BHP Plc (vis-à-vis BHP
Ltd) is arguably quite different from the position of a shareholder
of a third party company; and noting the breadth of the relevant
statutory provisions, it is "at least arguable" that
non-disclosure, or misleading representations, by BHP Ltd to the
ASX and shareholders could have caused loss or damage, within the
meaning of the relevant statutory provisions, to shareholders of
BHP Plc shares listed on the LSE or JSE.
Consequences of the Impiombato (No 2) decision for foreign
residents in Australian class actions
Justice Moshinsky's decision in Impiombato (No 2) means, at least
for the purposes of commencing a class action under Part IVA of the
Federal Court Act, foreign residents can be group members in an
Australian class action. The judgment confirms, again, that the
"gateway" requirements to commence a class action in the Federal
Court are undemanding.
The decision raises difficult practical questions for companies who
may face class action proceedings. Close regard must be paid to
group member definitions. There will be additional costs involved.
Risk of exposure to litigation involving non-resident group members
may need to be reassessed. In this regard, BHP's own circumstances
offer a cautionary tale: shareholder register information in
evidence before the Court suggested that in 2014 and 2015, for
example, only about 46% of the beneficial owners of BHP Ltd shares
were based in Australia.
The decision leaves open "arguable" or "real" questions about the
scope and application of the Court's discretionary power under
section 33ZF of the Federal Court Act and the misleading and
deceptive conduct and continuous disclosure provisions of the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) and
the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). If the Impiombato class action
goes to trial, it will be the first time market-based causation
will be applied to alleged losses on a foreign stock market.
The decision is now under appeal. Interestingly, the parties'
arguments and Justice Moshinsky's reasons mirror an earlier
decision of the High Court in Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v
Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1. There the High Court held that a class
action commenced in Victoria could include claims by residents of
NSW. Chief Justice Gleeson noted in Mobil Oil that "[t]he position
of group members who may reside outside Australia was not
explored". There is every reason to think - given the recent
history of questions about Part IVA ending up in the High Court and
what is at stake for BHP Ltd - that Impiombato (No 2) may have a
long appellate journey ahead of it. [GN]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston
Scientific" or "the Company") (NYSE: BSX) investors that acquired
securities between April 24, 2019 and November 16, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or lesley@portnoylaw.com, or click
https://portnoylaw.com/boston-scientific/ to join the case.
Boston Scientific announced a worldwide recall on November 17,
2020, of all unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve
System, a transcatheter aortic valve replacement product which had
been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in
April 2019. Citing "complexities associated with the product
delivery system" and the "additional time and investment required
to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system," Boston
Scientific stated that it had "chosen to retire the entire LOTUS
product platform immediately."
On November 17, 2020, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00
per share, or approximately 8%, on this news, to close at $35.03
per share, thereby injuring investors.
It is alleged in this lawsuit that throughout the Class Period,
Boston Scientific made misleading and/or materially false
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about Boston Scientific's prospects, operations, and business.
Specifically, Boston Scientific failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) It was clear that the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's
product delivery system was dysfunctional, which threatened the
entire product line's continued viability; (2) Boston Scientific
had materially overstated the continued commercial viability and
profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System as a result;
and (3) positive statements made by Boston Scientific about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
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]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York 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").
All investors who purchased shares of Boston Scientific Corporation
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Boston Scientific
Corporation, you may, no later than February 2, 2021, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of Boston Scientific Corporation.
The filed complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's product delivery system was
dysfunctional and threatened the continued viability of the entire
product line;
as a result, the Company had materially overstated the continued
commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System; and
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 "given 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.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
BRANDT INDUSTRIES: Sherman Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH SHERMAN,
individually and on behalf of himself all others similarly
situated, v. BRANDT INDUSTRIES USA LTD., Case No.
1:20-cv-01185-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying a class with respect to the claim against
Brandt for violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(b), consisting of:
"all individuals who, while residing in the State of
Illinois, worked at Brandt's Hudson facility and used the
Time Clocks to record their time and attendance;
2. certify the following subclass:
"all individuals who, while residing in the State of
Illinois: (1) worked at Brandt's Hudson facility; (2) used
the Time Clocks to record their time and attendance; and
(3) subsequently ended their employment;
3. appointing himself to be the Class and Subclass
representative;
4. appointing Keith J. Keogh and Gregg M. Barbakoff of Keogh
Law, Ltd., as class counsel for the Class and Subclass;
and
5. granting such other and further relief as is just and
appropriate.
On May 4, 2020, the Plaintiff brought this class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ayJ53A
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:
Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
KEOGH L AW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com
BRANDT INDUSTRIES: Workers Seek Class Cert. in Biometric Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a former employee of agriculture and
construction equipment manufacturer Brandt Industries USA Ltd. is
asking an Illinois federal court to certify a class of workers in
the state who say the company violated their biometric privacy
rights by keeping and storing their fingerprints. [GN]
CD PROJEKT: 13MM+ Cyberpunk 2077 Copies Sold Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Statt, writing for The Verge, reports that Cyberpunk 2077 has
already sold more than 13 million copies since its launch two weeks
ago, according to the parent company of developer CD Projekt Red.
The sales milestone, revealed in an investor note from CD Projekt
S.A. on Dec. 22, is a remarkable one considering it accounts for
some digital and physical refunds resulting from the game's messy
launch. That metric is counting sales between the game's release on
December 10th through December 20th, the note says. It's about half
of the 12-month sales forecast analysts projected for the game
shortly after launch but before digital storefronts said they would
begin accepting refunds, Bloomberg reports.
Selling 13 million copies makes Cyberpunk 2077 one of the
bestselling games of the year, though it still lags far behind the
top 50 bestselling games of all time and CD Projekt Red's last big
hit, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, which has sold more than 28 million
copies across all platforms. Still, few games ever sell more than
10 million copies, and to break into the top 50 of all time you
need only sell more than 19 million copies (to beat out NES classic
Super Mario Bros. 3).
It's likely Cyberpunk 2077 sales could soar far higher once the
studio fixes more of its bugs and the game is rereleased on the
PlayStation Store. Sony pulled the game and began processing
digital refunds for unsatisfied buyers.
The financial success of the roleplaying game stands in stark
contrast with its public perception as a multifaceted failure, a
fact that has only intensified criticism of CD Projekt Red and also
raised the possibility of a class action lawsuit. That something
can be that successful while also being considered a deeply
compromised product is also a stunning indictment of the current
video game industry and its marketing and preorder model.
Because the studio promised the game would run well on
current-generation consoles, it was able to accumulate more than 8
million preorders for Cyberpunk 2077, effectively covering the
costs of the game's nearly decade-long development cycle in
single-day sales. Meanwhile, the studio took efforts to allegedly
hide the performance of the game on those systems from media
outlets ahead of time, according to a report from The New York
Times.
Unlike other forms of media, which can often be easily assessed in
a standardized format, video games require extensive first-hand
experience on a variety of platforms for the full extent of a
product's overall quality to become clear. Without that knowledge
ahead of time, millions of people purchased Cyberpunk 2077, only to
discover its flaws later once players began posting clips online
and assessing the game's various bugs and performance issues on
message boards.
Hence the refund campaign, which was its own whirlwind of
controversy after CD Projekt Red revealed it had not hammered out
formal refund agreements with its retail partners before advising
customers ask for their money back.
But if there's any silver lining here, it's that a project as huge
and ambitious and, ultimately, over-hyped as Cyberpunk 2077 is now
a teachable moment for customers and developers alike about
treating major game releases with more skepticism and requiring
more transparency around the quality of a product before placing a
preorder. [GN]
CD Projekt: US Law Firm Probes Potential Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lopez at thegamer.com reports that it has been a little
over a week since Cyberpunk 2077's worldwide launch, after several
delays. Unfortunately, while the game did break some impressive
records, the developer agreed with Sony to remove the game from PSN
and issue refunds to anyone who wanted one due to the ongoing
issues on PS4 -- an unprecedented move in the gaming industry. Now
we've learned that CD Projekt is potentially facing a class-action
lawsuit from a US law firm.
The announcement comes after CD Projekt Red attempted to appease
dissatisfied customers the world over. On December 14, just four
days after launch, CDPR tweeted an apology and a commitment. The
apology was for, "not showing the game on base last-gen consoles
before it premiered and, in consequence, not allowing you to make a
more informed decision about your purchase." The commitment was
that the company would fix bugs, crashes, and improve the overall
experience of the game. Following Cyberpunk 2077's delisting from
PSN, CDPR reiterated its commitment to refund dissatisfied
customers, even if the money came from the company's "own
pockets."
However, consumers are just one side of a publicly-traded company
like CD Projekt. A press release appeared that outlined Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP's intention to investigate the
possibility of a class-action lawsuit against CD Projekt (CDPR's
parent company) on behalf of shareholders in the US. The firm
states that CD Projekt, "may have issued materially misleading
information to their shareholders and investing public."
Earlier, we reported that Opencritic, a review aggregating site,
issued a warning to readers which reads in part, "The OpenCritic
team and several critics suspect that the developer, CD Projekt
Red, intentionally sought to hide the true state of the game on
Xbox One and PS4, with requirements such as only allowing
pre-rendered game footage in reviews and not issuing review copies
for PS4 and Xbox One versions."
Additionally, it came to light that critics were given review keys
for the PS4 and Xbox One just one day before the game was released.
Similarly, the company's co-CEO, Adam Kicinski, is on record saying
that CDPR, "ignored the signals about the need for additional time
to refine the game on the base last-gen consoles." CDPR's defenders
have taken to claiming that nobody should have expected the game to
run well on last-gen consoles, given the age of the PS4 and Xbox
One hardware. The other popular opinion is that the developers were
forced to release the game too early, resulting in the performance
we now see.
To date, CD Projekt's stock has fallen nearly 30% since the game's
release just a week ago, resulting in the loss of more than $1
billion for the company's founders alone. [GN]
CD PROJEKT: Wolf Haldenstein Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of CD Projekt S.A. (OTC: OTGLY, OTGLF) (the "Company")
resulting from allegations that CD Projekt may have issued
materially misleading information to their shareholders and
investing public.
All investors who purchased the American Depositary Receipts
("ADR's") of CD Projekt SA and incurred losses are urged to contact
the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or
(212) 545-4774.
If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of CD Projekt SA, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in CD Projekt SA.
On December 18, 2020, Market Insider reported that "Sony announced
that it was pulling [Cyberpunk 2077] from its PlayStation Store and
offering full refunds to players following a wave of complaints
about the long-awaited title." The Market Insider report also
quoted the Company's co-CEO stating during an analyst call that
"[a]fter three delays, we were too focused on releasing the game,"
and "[w]e ignored signals about the need for additional time to
refine the game on the base last-gen consoles."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.49 per ADR, or 15%,
to close at $18.50 per ADR on December 18, 2020.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this ongoing situation, please
immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735
or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com. [GN]
CHART INDUSTRIES: Wants Faulty Storage Tank Class Action Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Chart Industries Inc. is asking a California
federal court to give it a win in a proposed class action alleging
a faulty storage tank it manufactured caused the loss of frozen
embryos, saying the plaintiffs haven't put forth any admissible
expert testimony that supports their claims. [GN]
CONNECTICUT: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Wilkes Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS WILKES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NED LAMONT,
GOVERNOR, et al. Defendants, Civil Case No. 3:20-cv-594 (JCH) (D.
Conn.), Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut denied in part and granted in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiffs in the case are five individuals confined at
Connecticut Valley Hospital ("CVH") and Whiting Forensic Hospital
("WFH"), two state-operated inpatient psychiatric facilities in
Connecticut. They bring the action under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
section 1983 of title 42 of the U.S. Code, and section 2241 of
title 28 of the U.S. Code. They seek, on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated individuals, various forms of declaratory
and injunctive relief, as well as a writ of habeas corpus.
The Plaintiffs allege in their Amended Class Action Complaint and
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus that the Defendants have not
adopted adequate measures to protect them and the similarly
situated persons from the COVID-19 pandemic. In the Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs name as Defendants Connecticut Governor
Ned Lamont, Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction
Services Commissioner Miriam E. Delphin-Rittmon, WFH CEO Hal Smith,
and CVH CEO Lakisha Hyatt, in their official capacities only. They
allege that the Defendants owe a duty to provide safe conditions at
CVH and WFH, and that they have violated the duty by failing to
take sufficient measures to protect them and the other patients
from COVID-19.
Count One asserts a claim under the substantive component of the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for failure to
ensure safe conditions at psychiatric facilities. Counts Two and
Three asserted claims for discrimination on the basis of physical
or mental impairments under Title II of the ADA and section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act. In their Prayer for Relief, the Plaintiffs
seek declarations that the Defendants have violated their rights,
as well as various forms of injunctive relief.
On June 11, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint. They argue that the Plaintiffs' request for relief via
a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for failure to exhaust
state remedies, that the Court should decline to address the
Plaintiffs' claims at this time on account of the primary
jurisdiction doctrine, and that the Court should abstain under
Colorado River from the Plaintiffs' claims pertaining to assessment
and discharge.
The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion on July 2,
2020. Subsequently, on July 20, 2020, they filed a Supplemental
Brief addressing the Defendants' arguments concerning exhaustion of
state remedies. The Defendants filed a Reply on July 30, 2020.
Judge Hall granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. She denied in part the Motion as to the
Defendants' arguments concerning primary jurisdiction doctrine and
Colorado River abstention. First, she finds that the primary
jurisdiction doctrine exists because an ad hoc quasi-exhaustion
requirement may sometimes be desirable and tolerable when issues
involving complex or technical factual issues have been committed
to the discretion of an agency, but she doubts whether such an
arrangement would ever be acceptable in a case involving alleged
violations of constitutional rights. Second, given the Second
Circuit's clear indications that Colorado River abstention is
disfavored, and that the only the clearest of justifications will
warrant dismissal, the Judge concludes that abstention is not
warranted in the case.
The Judge granted in part the Motion as to the Defendants'
arguments concerning habeas corpus. She concludes that the
Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust state remedies should not be
excused. On account of that conclusion, the Judge need not address
whether the Plaintiffs' petition must be brought under section 2241
or 2254. She also concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
show that Connecticut statutes leave them without an adequate
remedy. Although the Plaintiffs' fears of delays while pursuing
state remedies during the COVID-19 pandemic are not unreasonable
given the unprecedented nature of the current crisis in recent
history, their arguments with respect to the delays they allege
their particular claims would face amount to little more than
speculation.
The portion of the Amended Complaint petitioning for a writ of
habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice to repleading if
changed circumstances during the pandemic give rise to a good faith
basis for arguing that exhaustion of state remedies should not be
required in the case. The Judge does not believe that this aspect
of her Ruling is appealable at this juncture in the case, but she
notes her determination that she will not issue a certificate of
appealability once a final judgment is entered in the case, because
the Plaintiffs have not made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Ruling is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yd44rj9c from Leagle.com.
CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consumer Technology
Association. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Consumer Technology
Association doing business as: www.ces.tech, Case No. 1:20-cv-06258
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 25, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Consumer Technology Association (CES) -- https://www.ces.tech/ --
is a technology event known as proving ground for breakthrough
technologies and global innovators.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
COVIA HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Covia Holdings Corporation ("Covia"
or the "Company") f/k/a Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount
Santrol") (OTC: CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA, FMSA) securities between March
15, 2016 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Covia
investors have until February 8, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2WUzWdv to participate.
Covia provides minerals and materials solutions for the industrial
and energy markets, including producing proprietary sand for use in
fracking.
On March 22, 2019, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that it had "received a subpoena from the SEC seeking information
relating to certain value-added proppants marketed and sold by
Fairmount Santrol or Covia within the Energy segment since January
1, 2014."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.45, or 7%, to close
at $6.05 per share on March 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on November 6, 2019, during market hours, Covia disclosed
that "the SEC ha[d] requested additional information and subpoenaed
certain current and former employees to testify."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.07, or 4.3%, to
close at $1.56 per share on November 6, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.
Then, on June 29, 2020, after the market closed, the Company
announced that it had filed for petitions under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
On June 30, 2020, the NYSE delisted the Company, stating in
relevant part that "the Company is no longer suitable for listing .
. . after the Company's June 29, 2020 disclosure that the Company
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.18, or more than
37%, between the closing price on NYSE and resuming trading OTC on
July 1, 2020 at $0.30 per share.
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) 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, were 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, 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 Covia securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than February 8, 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 Covia 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]
COVIA HOLDINGS: Pawar Law Group Reminds of February 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Dec. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased 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"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Covia Holdings Corporation investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants 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. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]
CREDIT BUREAU: Court Tosses Class Certification in Kang Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNG GON KANG v. CREDIT
BUREAU CONNECTION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony W. Ishii entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and
2. vacating all dates associated with the Plaintiff's motion,
including the February 1, 2021 motion hearing.
The Court said, "Given the effect the Defendant's motion may have
on this case, the Court now finds that it is appropriate to resolve
the summary judgment dispute before addressing matters of class
certification. Thus, the Court will administratively deny the
Plaintiff's certification motion and vacate all associated dates
and deadlines, including the motion hearing set for February 1,
2021. Following resolution of Defendant's summary judgment motion,
if necessary, the Plaintiff will be permitted to re-notice the
certification motion (without the need to re-file the motion and
supporting papers). The Court will at that point accept additional
briefing, set a hearing date, and resolve Plaintiff's motion."
On November 30, 2020, the Plaintiff Sung Gon Kang filed the instant
motion for class certification. Shortly thereafter, on December 8,
2010, the Court gave notice to the parties that the Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on November 9, 2020, would be
taken under submission pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 230(g).
The nature of suit states Other Statutes - Consumer Credit filed
pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Credit Bureau Connection provides credit report and compliance
solutions.
A copy of the Court's order on the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class dated Dec. 21, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3rr8KRA at no extra charge.[CC]
CUYAHOGA CTY, OH: Court Denies Tarrify's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC,
et al., v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293-JG (N.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge James S. Gwin entered an order:
1. denying Tarrify's class certification motion and limine
motion;
2. granting Cuyahoga County's limine motion.
The Court said, "Whether Cuyahoga County violated the Fifth
Amendment when transferring a given property depends on whether the
property's tax delinquency exceeded its fair market value. So too
does membership in Tarrify's proposed class. Because Plaintiff
Tarrify may not use the county auditor's tax valuations to
establish fair market property value, the parties must undertake
the fact-intensive adversarial process of establishing each
property's fair market value. And these individualized
property-value at the time of transfer questions would be the core
of any future litigation proceedings or trial. The centrality of
these fact-intensive inquiries undermines Tarrify's class
certification motion on ascertainability, predominance, and
superiority grounds. The Court would essentially have to factually
adjudicate each class plaintiff's claim to ascertain their class
membership. And, at any rate, resolving these necessarily
individualized factual questions would represent the lion's share
of the litigation, neutralizing any benefit of the class action
vehicle. Because Tarrify cannot meet its burden to affirmatively
demonstrate compliance with Rule 23's ascertainability,
predominance, and superiority requirements, class certification is
inappropriate in this case."
The Plaintiff Tarrify Properties, LLC failed to pay $35,000 in
Cuyahoga County property taxes on a southeast Cleveland commercial
property. For real estate tax purposes, Cuyahoga County had earlier
valued Tarrify's property as worth significantly more than the
$35,000 tax debt. The County foreclosed Tarrify's property. But
instead of selling it, the County transferred the property to a
county-run land bank. Tarrify received no compensation for any
property value exceeding its tax liability. Tarrify brought this
putative class action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 on behalf of
itself and other Cuyahoga County landowners in hopes of retrieving
money damages for any surplus land value.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 21, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o12jCZ at no
extra charge.[CC]
DE BEERS: Supreme Court Won't Hear Price-Fixing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
620ckrm.com reports that an application from Regina's Merchant Law
Group for a class action law suit against De Beers for allegedly
inflating the price of diamonds, and for the unfair results from a
separate class action case, will not be heard before the Supreme
Court.
Lawyer Tony Merchant says it's a complicated case. A settlement was
reached with De Beers through a different legal team in 2016.
It stated that anyone in Canada who bought a Gem Grade Diamond
between 1994 and mid-October of 2016 would be compensated through a
$9.4-million settlement.
Merchant says once you take off the lawyers' fees, it would work
out to about $5.8-million, meaning each claimant would only get
about $2.
Merchant's class action suit objected to that amount saying it was
unfair. De Beers has never admitted fault.
Merchant alleges De Beers would hold back on the amount of diamonds
in the marketplace to inflate the price. [GN]
DEL SOL FOOD: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Del Sol Food Company
Incorporated. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Del Sol Food Company
Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-10929 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 25, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
DEL Sol Food Company, Incorporated --
https://www.briannas.com/company/ -- operates as a packaged food.
The Company offers salad dressings such as vegetable relishes,
fruits, honey ginger, red wine, lime, buttermilk, honey mustard,
blue cheese, and sauces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Sued for Wrongfully Withholding Bail Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Rose, writing for Daily Times, reports that a Port Allegany
man has filed a class-action lawsuit alleging Delaware County
wrongfully withheld bail money he was due after he was found not
guilty or charges were otherwise dismissed or withdrawn from a 2016
arrest.
Tony Burford is alleging violations of the Fifth, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as
conversion and a Monell claim alleging an unconstitutional policy,
according to an amended class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania last year.
The suit, filed by attorneys Alan Denenberg and Stephen Thomas
O'Hanlon, names Delaware County, former Prothonotary Angela
Martinez, Director of Court Financial Services Patricia Oreskovich
and Director of Pre-Trial/Bail Services Philip Pisani as
defendants.
Suzanne McDonough, the attorney representing all four defendants,
did return a call for comment on Dec. 23.
Burford was charged in Darby Borough in January 2016 with indecent
assault, indecent assault against a person less than 16 years old,
unlawful contact with a minor and corruption of a minor. Bail was
initially set at $100,000, but was reduced to 10% of $60,000,
according to court records. Burford posted the required $6,000 Jan.
15, 2016.
The indecent assault charge was withdrawn, but the commonwealth
proceeded to trial on the charges of corruption of minors, indecent
assault on a person less than 16 years old and unlawful contact
with a minor. The corruption charge was dismissed and Burford was
found not guilty on the other two charges following a jury trial in
March 2017.
Burford went to collect his bail money April 4, 2017, but received
only $2,467, according to the complaint. When he questioned this
amount, a clerk allegedly told Burford that certain "customary
deductions" had been removed and that there was no way for him to
contest them or seek a refund.
The deductions included $2,400 to the county under a 40% bail
handling fee, as well as $811.80 in constable fees, $5 for
constable education training, $16.25 for constable certification
and $300 to the arresting agency, according to the complaint, for a
total $3,533 retained.
Burford is not seeking a return of the $2,400, which is permissible
under state law, but is seeking the return of $833 in constable
fees and a $300 "Live Scan" or digital fingerprinting fee.
The complaint explains that under state law, the costs of constable
fees are to be paid by the court. When criminal defendants are
found guilty, the court can pass these fees on to the defendant as
part of the costs of prosecution, according to the complaint.
By rule, bail money is returned to defendants even in criminal
cases where they are found guilty unless the prosecutor files a
motion to attach those funds within 20 days of final disposition,
according to the complaint.
"By contrast, and as the plaintiff was informed when he tried to
get the court costs returned to him, there is no rule or procedure
that permits an arrestee who has had his or her charges dismissed
to challenge the retention of bail to cover court costs or by which
he or she can seek a return of impermissibly retained bail money,"
the complaint says.
One section of Pennsylvania statutes does allow for those who are
aggrieved by search and seizure or property seized and placed into
evidence to have that property returned, according to the
complaint, but that does not apply to bail money voluntarily
deposited with the court.
What the law does provide, Burford claims, is that where the
defendant is "discharged or indigent or the case is otherwise
dismissed," the court shall assess fees to the county that brought
the charges - not the defendant.
The complaint argues that using part of Burford's bail money for
court costs in the form of constable fees therefor constituted an
impermissible fine or penalty barred by the federal Constitution
and Pennsylvania common law.
Burford additionally alleges that this was not confined to his
case, but is part of a continuing and well-entrenched policy in the
county that has injured numerous other criminal defendants who were
ultimately found not guilty or otherwise had their cases
dismissed.
He is seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages, including
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other
relief the court deems just and equitable.
District Judge John Milton Younge previously ruled that Martinez
could not be sued in her official capacity and that all defendants
were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual and
personal capacities.
The judge also dismissed Burford's substantive due process claim
under the Fourteenth Amendment, but not his procedural due process
claim or any of the other counts.
The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Sandra Carole Moore
Wells for settlement discussions. Discovery is due by Jan. 21 and a
final pretrial conference is set for Aug. 3. [GN]
DIETZ & WATSON INC: Goldstein Slams Cheese Product Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aileen Goldstein, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-06018 (E.D. N.Y., December 9, 2020), seeks injunctive relief
resulting from violations of the California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.
Dietz & Watson, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and
sells sliced smoked provolone cheese to consumers from retail and
online stores of third-parties, in packaging of various sizes.
Goldstein claims that the term "smoked" is misleading because the
product's label indicates that only smoked flavoring was added
instead of being actually smoked. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Blvd., Ste. 311
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
DR. ERROL GAUM: Class Action Filed Against Dentist Over Misconduct
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aya Al-Hakim at Global News reports that a Halifax law firm has
filed a proposed class action lawsuit against a prominent
Halifax-area dentist whose licence was suspended in November after
several allegations of misconduct.
MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law said they filed a statement
of claim with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia alleging that Dr.
Errol Gaum, a dentist at the Granville Dental Clinic in Bedford,
N.S. "used substandard and aberrant methods of behavior management
for his pediatric dental patients."
More than 150 people are currently involved in this lawsuit, said
the firm. The allegations have not been tested in Court.
READ MORE: Bedford, N.S. dentist's licence suspended following
numerous misconduct allegations at https://bit.ly/2KP7QxP
The claim states that Gaum's practice was focused on treating young
children. During his procedures, he would use cruel and
traumatizing "behavior management techniques," which the claim says
included "slapping in the face, covering mouths with a towel,
restraining arms and legs with leather straps, and pushing the
needle onto the roof of the mouth."
One of the plaintiffs, six-year-old Peyton Binder, attended Gaum's
clinic with her grandmother to have two cavities filled on Nov. 10.
Peyton is being represented by her father, Ryan Binder.
The claim states that the grandmother was told she had to remain in
the waiting room, but soon after began hearing Peyton screaming and
crying.
Her father claimed Gaum "wasn't letting his daughter breathe"
because he was holding her nose during the treatment. He also
claimed Gaum told his daughter to "shut up" during the
appointment.
Since the incident, the statement of claim states that Peyton has
not left her father's side without extreme protests and repeats
"please protect me" and "don't let me get hurt again."
Another plaintiff, 41-year-old Sunyata Choyce, was treated by Gaum
on multiple occasions between 1982 and 1984, and said in the claim
that she has developed anxiety due to the dentist's actions.
Choyce said in the claim that Gaum would routinely tell his
assistant to hold her down and that when she called out for her
help, Gaum would tell her he would inflict more pain and do more
injections if she cried out again.
READ MORE: Parents accuse Bedford, N.S. dentist of malpractice,
call for licence to be revoked at https://bit.ly/3n29Dg2
Gaum would also perform dental work on Choyce's teeth before the
numbing was activated, according to her statement.
The firm said that Gaum has practiced dentistry in Nova Scotia for
approximately 50 years, but is currently under suspension for
incidents related to the proposed class action claim.
The claim accuses him of assault, battery and professional
negligence. [GN]
EIDOS THERAPEUTICS: Bushansky Says BridgeBio Merger Deal Lacks Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EIDOS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; NEIL
KUMAR; SUZANNE SAWOCHKA HOOPER; WILLIAM LIS; ALI SATVAT; DOUGLAS
ROHLEN; and UMA SINHA, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-09308 (N.D.
Cal., Dec. 23, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against
Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. and the members of Eidos's Board of
Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Eidos will be acquired by BridgeBio Pharma, Inc.
through its wholly owned subsidiaries Globe Merger Sub I, Inc. and
Globe Merger Sub II, Inc.
According to the complaint, on December 16, 2020, the Defendants
filed a Schedule 14A Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that Eidos stockholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things: (i) Eidos and BridgeBio
management's financial projections; (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by the special committee of the Board's
financial advisor, Centerview Partners LLC; (iii) Centerview's
potential conflicts of interest; and (iv) the background of the
Proposed Transaction. Defendants authorized the issuance of the
false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of the Exchange
Act.
Unless remedied, Eidos's public stockholders will be irreparably
harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations
and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed
voting decision on the Proposed Transaction.
Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a bio-pharmaceutical company.
The Company discovers and develops novel oral therapy for the
treatment of diseases. Eidos Therapeutics serves clients in the
State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Boulevard #725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
EVENT EFFECTS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Sanchez Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN E. SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENT EFFECTS GROUP, LLC; and
MITCH AMSTERDAM, Defendants, Case No. 0:20-cv-62657 (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 23, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as staff.
EVENT EFFECTS GROUP, LLC is a full-service production company
handling the logistics of all kinds of events including the rental
of sound and lighting equipment, decor, and furniture. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
FAST ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Class Action Status in Cahoo Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATTI JO CAHOO, KRISTEN
MENDYK, KHADIJA COLE, HYON PAK, and MICHELLE DAVISON, v. FAST
ENTERPRISES LLC, CSG GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS, STEPHEN GESKEY, SHEMIN
BLUNDELL, DORIS MITCHELL, DEBRA SINGLETON, and SHARON
MOFFET-MASSEY, Case No. 2:17-cv-10657-DML-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon
Judge David M. Lawson entered an order denying the plaintiffs'
motion to certify this case as a class action.
The plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement of Rule
23(a), and they have identified some questions common to their
proposed class. But they have not satisfied the other requirements
of Rule 23(a) or (b)(3), Judge Lawson says.
The plaintiffs, all former claimants in Michigan's unemployment
compensation system, allege that their constitutional right to due
process of law was infringed when the defendants designed, built,
and implemented an automated system to detect and punish
individuals who submitted fraudulent unemployment insurance
claims.
Fast Enterprises is involved in the development and installation of
software for government agencies. In 1998, it changed the way
government revenue agencies supported their business with the
introduction of GenTax (TM). CSG Government Solutions is involved
in the planning, managing and supporting complex projects that
modernize the IT and business processes of large government
programs.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order denying motion to certify
class dated Dec. 22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/38F5328 at no extra charge.[CC]
FERRELLGAS INC: Bonsangue Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bonsangue, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
drivers, Plaintiff, v. Ferrellgas, Inc., Ferrellgas, L.P., Blue
Rhino LLC and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20STCV38208 (Cal. Super., October 2, 2020), was removed to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on December 9, 2020 under Case No. 20-cv-11169.
Bonsangue filed a civil complaint seeking redress for failure to
pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of
Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1197, failure to authorize or permit
meal periods in violation of Labor Code Sections 512 and 226.7,
failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of Labor
Code Section 226.7, failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements in violation of Labor Code Section 226, failure to
timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at separation
of employment in violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202 and 203
and Unfair Business Practices in violation of Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200.
Ferrellgas, Inc. is a supplier of propane to homes and business,
and also provides portable tank exchange services.
Defendants cite that the class easily exceeds the 100-member
requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act, that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that Plaintiff and
Defendant are citizens of different states, as basis for removal.
[BN]
Defendants are represented by:
Nicky Jatana, Esq.
Connie L. Chen, Esq.
Sehreen Ladak, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com
Connie.Chen@jacksonlewis.com
Sehreen.Ladak@jacksonlewis.com
FGO DELIVERS: Benitez Files Suit in Florida Over Violation of FCRA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE C. BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FGO DELIVERS, LLC d/b/a FGO LOGISTICS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 118591091 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Dec.
22, 2020) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Fgo Delivers LLC is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
FIREEYE INC: Pomerantz Law Probles Claims on Behalf of Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
FireEye, Inc. ("FireEye or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FEYE). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether FireEye and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On December 8, 2020, post-market, FireEye disclosed that it
"recently was attacked by a highly sophisticated cyber threat
actor, one whose discipline, operational security, and techniques
lead us to believe it was a state-sponsored attack." FireEye
advised that "[t]he attackers tailored their world-class
capabilities specifically to target and attack FireEye" and
"primarily sought information related to certain government
customers. While the attacker was able to access some of our
internal systems, at this point in our investigation, we have seen
no evidence that the attacker exfiltrated data from our primary
systems that store customer information from our incident response
or consulting engagements or the metadata collected by our products
in our dynamic threat intelligence systems."
On this news, FireEye's stock price fell sharply during intraday
trading on December 9, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN]
FLAGSHIP FACILITY: $2-Mil. Settlement in de Orozco Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARTA L. CERON DE OROZCO and EMMA BARCENAS,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of
Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiffs v. FLAGSHIP
FACILITY SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-2397 JLS (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis
L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement, and Motion for
Award of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Class Representative Service
Awards.
The case began on Aug. 13, 2018, when Ms. Ceron de Orozco filed a
putative class action against Flagship in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego. On Oct. 18, 2018, Flagship
removed Ms. Ceron de Orozco's First Amended Complaint to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California. On Jan. 9,
2019, Ms. Ceron de Orozco filed the operative Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC"), adding Ms. Barcenas as a named Plaintiff.
Mses. Ceron de Orozco and Barcenas are both former non-exempt
employees of the Defendant. Ms. Ceron de Orozco worked for the
Defendant as a janitor at the San Diego International Airport from
January 1999 to October 2017. Ms. Barcenas worked for the
Defendant as a janitor at the San Diego International Airport from
June 20, 2001 to Dec. 20, 2016. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant (1) failed to provide off-duty meal and rest breaks, (2)
failed to pay for all wages for off-the-clock work, (3) failed to
reimburse for necessary business expenses, and (4) incurred waiting
time and Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") penalties.
Following mediation, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation
of Class Action and PAGA Representative Action Settlement and
Release. On July 22, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement, provisionally certified the class, approved the
proposed class notice and notice plan, and appointed class counsel,
class representatives, and the settlement administrator. On Aug.
20, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' joint ex parte motion to
modify the Preliminary Approval Order, approving an amendment to
the Settlement modifying the definition of the Class Period,1
approving a proposed Amended Class Notice, and modifying the
schedule for final approval. On Nov. 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs
filed the present Motions.
Originally, the Proposed Settlement Class ("Non-Exempt Class")
included "all current and former non-exempt janitorial employees
who worked for Defendant in California at any time from August 13,
2014 through the date of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement."
On Aug. 20, 2020, the Court approved an amendment to the definition
of "Class Period," providing for an end date of Jan. 30, 2020.
Originally, the Proposed Settlement Subclass ("Waiting Time
Penalties Subclass") included "all members of the Non-Exempt Class
who separated from their employment with the Defendant at any time
from Aug. 13, 2015 through the date of the Preliminary Approval of
the Settlement." Again, the end date was subsequently modified to
Jan. 30, 2020.
In total, the Parties identified 6,922 potential Class Members.
The Settlement provides for a $2 million Maximum Settlement Amount,
allocating up to $600,000 to pay the Class Counsel's fees, up to
$35,000 to pay the Class Counsel's costs, $20,000 for the Class
Representative Service Awards, up to $39,000 to pay Settlement
Administration Costs, and $15,000 for the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency's ("LWDA") portion of the PAGA
Payment, with the remaining Net Settlement to be "distributed to
the Class Members."
Although payments will vary, with the Net Settlement Amount
currently estimated to be $1.291 million, that equates to
approximately $3.09 per Qualified Workweek, with the average Class
Member estimated to receive approximately $186.50. The Parties
also have set aside 5% of the Net Settlement for the settlement of
Class Members' FLSA claims.
None of the Maximum Settlement Amount will revert to the Defendant.
To the extent that any funds remain after distribution to the
Class Members, that amount will be distributed to Legal Aid at Work
as a cy pres award.
Judge Sammartino granted final approval to the Settlement and finds
it reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class
as a whole. Accordingly, she directed that the Settlement be
effectuated in accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement.
In light of the foregoing, the Judge ordered that the settlement
awards be made and administered in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement as to the 6,922 Class Members, which
includes the 908 individuals who have validly opted to participate
in the FLSA Collective Action. She also ordered the Settlement
Administrator will pay the PAGA Payment of $20,000 as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement. Of that amount, 75%, or $15,000,
will be paid to the LWDA and 25%, or $5,000, will be distributed to
the Class Members pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.
Graham Hollis APC is confirmed as the Class Counsel and the
requested fee of $600,000 is approved, as well as $26,861.68 in
costs, both to be paid from the Settlement Fund.
Rust is also confirmed as the Settlement Administrator and the
requested $39,000 in costs and expenses are approved, to be paid to
Rust from the Settlement Fund.
Named Plaintiffs Marta L. Ceron De Orozco and Emma Barcenas are
suitable class representatives and a payment to each of $10,000 out
of the Settlement Fund is ordered.
The Judge directed that, in accordance with the Stipulation for
Settlement, any uncashed settlement checks or settlement checks
that remain uncashed after 180 days after mailing be redistributed
to Legal Aid at Work as a cy pres award.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7glk32j from Leagle.com.
FREEDOM CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carr Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH CARR, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM CARE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-01597-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2020) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Carr was employed by the Defendant as home care aide.
Freedom Care LLC is engaged in the business of providing home
health care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murphy, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
E-mail: jmpurhy@vandallp.com
-and-
Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
7030 E. Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
GC SERVICES: Didonato FDCPA Suit Seeks Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS DIDONATO on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GC SERVICES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FINANCIAL ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-02154-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the case as class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(1) and (b)(3), on behalf of:
citizens of the various states who filed for bankruptcy in
any of district courts of the United States and were
issued Discharge Orders since April 20, 2005 (the
effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act), who:
a) Obtained Consumer Education Loans that were discharged
in bankruptcy by virtue of any of the three
characteristics: (1) were made to students attending
non-Title IV schools; (2) were made in excess of the
"cost of attendance"; (3) were made to ineligible
students under the Higher Education Act; and
b) have nonetheless been subjected to Defendants' attempts
to induce payment on discharged debts;
Excluded from the class are any debtors who have validly
reaffirmed their debts or whose debts were expressly held
to be non-dischargeable. Also excluded are Defendants, any
entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest
or that has a controlling interest in any of the
Defendants, the Defendants' legal representatives,
assignees, and successors, the attorneys for the
Plaintiff and the proposed class and any member of the
attorneys' immediate families. In addition, the judge to
whom this case is assigned and an y member of the judge's
immediate family are also excluded from the class; and
2. appointing his counsel as class counsel.
According to the complaint, the case presents a straightforward
violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692, the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), brought against the Defendants that are
collecting on loans that are not legally collectable. Specifically,
the Defendants continue to attempt to collect on loans that have
been discharged in bankruptcy. The loans at issue in this case are
private student loans that are plainly outside the scope of section
523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code, which strictly defines which
student loans are nondischargeable.
The Plaintiff and the proposed class members borrowed loans from
Navient (formerly Sallie Mae) that either were made to students who
attended non-Title IV institutions or exceeded the "cost of
attendance" at Title IV institutions. The Plaintiff and the
proposed class members filed for bankruptcy protection and received
orders of discharge that extinguished all education-relation debt
that does not meet the narrow exceptions to discharge contained in
section 523(a)(8).
GC Services is an outsourcing provider of call center management
and collection agency services in North America.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nPK8jw
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George F. Carpinello, Esq.
Adam R. Shaw, Esq.
Jenna C. Smith, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
30 South Pearl Street
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 434-0600
- and -
Austin C. Smith, Esq.
SMITH LAW GROUP
99 Wall Street 426
New York, NY 10005
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on December 18, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against GoodRX Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: GDRX). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is September 23, 2020 through
November 16, 2020.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-goodrx-holdings-inc/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all GoodRX
Holdings, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, February 16,
2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Dec. 23 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx Holdings, Inc.
("GoodRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) Class A common stock
between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020 inclusive (the
"Class Period"). GoodRx investors have until February 16, 2021 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.
In September 2020, GoodRx completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling over 39.8 million common shares for $33 per share.
GoodRx provides consumers with free information and tools to
compare prices for prescription drugs. The Company primarily earns
revenue from its prescription transaction fees.
On November 17, 2020, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") announced two new
pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a discount card program,
that would directly compete with GoodRx's platform.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.51, or 23%, to
close at $36.21 per share on November 17, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
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: (1) that Amazon had
been in the process of developing and would soon introduce its own
online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment
service; and (2) that Amazon's services would directly replicate
and compete with the GoodRx business model.
If you purchased GoodRx securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than February 16, 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 GoodRx 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]
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) to determine whether the Company engaged
in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
GOODRX INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE
COMPANY'S SECURITIES BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 23, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 16,
2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND SUFFERED
SIGNIFICANT LOSSES 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, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE
SECURITIES CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
A class action lawsuit has been filed seeking to recover damages on
behalf of GoodRx investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired,
GoodRx securities during the Class Period and suffered losses.
According to the class action complaint, at the time of GoodRx's
September 2020 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), unbeknownst to
investors, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") was developing and would
soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication
ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with
GoodRx.
The complaint alleges that the GoodRx Defendants timed the IPO so
that it was priced before Amazon announced its online
pharmaceutical business to facilitate the IPO and create artificial
demand for the common shares sold therein, as well to maximize the
amount of money the Company and the selling stockholders could
raise in the IPO. Given the GoodRx Defendants' knowledge of
Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical business, and
their misleading statements about GoodRx's competitive position
made contemporaneously with that knowledge, the GoodRx Defendants'
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and
caused GoodRx common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period.
The class action complaint alleges that on November 17, 2020, just
weeks after GoodRx completed its IPO, Amazon announced two new
pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a discount card program,
which, among other things, would compete directly with GoodRx's
platform by making it "simple for customers to compare prices and
purchase medications for home delivery, all in one place."
On this news, according to the complaint, the price of GoodRx
common stock declined 23%, from $46.72 per share to $36.21 per
share by the close of the market on November 17, 2020, erasing more
than $4 billion of GoodRx's market capitalization, thereby damaging
GoodRx investors.
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. [GN]
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-goodrx-holdings-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it filed a class action seeking to represent
purchasers of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:GDRX) Class A common
stock between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Central District
of California and is captioned Terenzini v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-11444.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased GoodRx Class A common stock during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the GoodRx class
action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the GoodRx class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the GoodRx class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the GoodRx class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
in the GoodRx class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss the GoodRx
class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058
or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-goodrx-holdings-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The GoodRx class action lawsuit charges GoodRx and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. GoodRx provides consumers with free information and
tools that allow them to compare prices and save on their
prescription drug purchases. The Company provides its users with
these services via apps and websites that display prices and
discounts at local and mail-order pharmacies for both insured and
uninsured Americans.
On August 28, 2020, GoodRx filed with the SEC a Form S-1
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") for its
initial public offering ("IPO"), which was declared effective by
the SEC on September 22, 2020. On September 24, 2020, GoodRx filed
with the SEC its Prospectus for the IPO offering to sell to the
public over 23.4 million Class A shares by the Company (excluding
the underwriters' option to purchase an additional 5.2 million
common shares) and 11.2 million common shares by certain selling
stockholders. On September 25, 2020, GoodRx closed its IPO. In the
offering, the Company and certain existing stockholders sold over
39.8 million common shares for $33 per share, including the full
exercise of the underwriters' option, generating over $1.3 billion
in gross offering proceeds.
The complaint alleges that, at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to
investors, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") was developing and would
soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication
ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with
GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before
Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate
the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold
therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and
the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants'
knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical
business, their statements in the Registration Statement and during
the Class Period about GoodRx's competitive position were
materially false and/or misleading when made and caused GoodRx
Class A common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices of
more than $64 per share during the Class Period.
Then on November 17, 2020, just weeks after GoodRx completed its
IPO, Amazon announced two new pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan
and a discount card program, which, among other things, would
compete directly with GoodRx's platform by making it "simple for
customers to compare prices and purchase medications for home
delivery, all in one place." In response to this news, the price of
GoodRx Class A common stock declined 23%, from $46.72 per share to
$36.21 per share by market close on November 17, 2020.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Brian E. Cochran, 800-449-4900
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
GRETNA, LA: Settlement in Nelson Class Suit Gets Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA G. NELSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. BELINDA C.
CONSTANT, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-14581 (E.D. La.), Judge
Janis van Meerveld of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana approved the parties' proposed Settlement
Agreement, and approved and finalized preliminary certification of
the settlement class and the subclasses.
The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit to correct what they describe as
egregious Due Process and Equal Protection violations occurring at
the Mayor's Court of the City of Gretna. The Plaintiffs' Due
Process claims were dismissed on summary judgment. Plaintiff
Richardson's Equal Protection claims remain. She challenges the
constitutionality of the Deferred Prosecution Program, which offers
arrestees accused of violating a municipal ordinance the
opportunity to have their charges dismissed in exchange for an
agreement to pay a fine that is typically less than the fine upon a
finding of guilt but does not offer an alternative for those who
cannot pay the program's fees.
The parties have been negotiating the settlement of the Equal
Protection claims for a long time. The Defendants initiated
settlement discussions early in the litigation, prior to any
dispositive rulings by the court. A settlement conference was held
before the undersigned magistrate judge on March 28, 2019.
Although that settlement conference was unsuccessful, the parties
continued to negotiate and eventually reached an agreement.
In furtherance thereof, the Plaintiff filed the motions to certify
a settlement class and for preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement. The motions were not opposed; the Defendants and the
Intervenors filed a response memorandum indicating that they
believe the settlement is fair, that it was negotiated at
arms-length, and that the proposed notice would be adequate and
cost-effective.
The Court granted the motions and preliminarily certified the
following settlement class and subclasses:
a. All persons who in the past year were denied participation
in, terminated from, or threatened with termination from
the deferred prosecution program due to their inability to
pay program fees;
b. Subclass A: all persons with unpaid Deferred Prosecution
Program fees on a case filed in the Gretna Mayor's Court on
or before Dec. 31, 2017;
c. Subclass B: all persons terminated from the Deferred
Prosecution Program from June 1, 2015, to present, who
forfeited payments to the program, were later convicted,
paid fines and fees upon conviction, but received no credit
for the funds forfeited to the Deferred Prosecution
Program; and
d. Subclass C: all persons terminated from the Deferred
Prosecution Program on or after Jan. 1, 2018, for failure
to pay and are either (i) awaiting trial or (ii) have
failed to make their final payment as scheduled or have
been attached for failure to appear.
The Court appointed named Plaintiff Richardson to represent the
class and her present counsel, attorneys from the Roderick and
Solange MacArthur Justice Center in New Orleans to serve as the
class counsel. It also preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement and approved the sending of notice to the class members.
The proposed settlement purports to bind the Plaintiff class; the
City of Gretna, the Mayor of Gretna, the Magistrates of the Gretna
Mayor's Court, and the City Prosecutor; and, to the extent the
obligations are applicable, the Clerk of Court of the Gretna
Mayor's Court, and the Gretna Chief of Police who intervened in the
action solely for the purposes of settlement.
The proposed agreement requires that the Defendants develop a
written admissions policy for the Deferred Prosecution Program. No
applicant can be denied because of their inability to pay. The
Defendants are required to waive the fees for all Deferred
Prosecution Program participants deemed indigent or may impose
certain conditions in lieu of fees, such as community service, job
training, substance abuse treatment, education, etc. Alternative
conditions must have a rational relation to the alleged offense.
Mental or physical incapacity to fulfill a nonfinancial condition
or an inability to pay for the nonfinancial condition cannot be
considered a cause for termination from the program.
The settlement agreement also requires participants be allowed a
period of time to complete their nonfinancial conditions that is no
less than the time given to paying participants to pay their fees.
The Defendants cannot impose longer "probation" periods upon
indigent applicants in lieu of participation fees. They are
required to develop a Deferred Prosecution Program application
form. The settlement agreement offers suggested information that
can be solicited (e.g., income, employment history, money owed,
assets owned, dependents) and requires the Defendants to confer
with the Plaintiffs in the development of the application and to
provide them with a draft and opportunity to comment prior to the
implementation.
The settlement agreement also provides certain benefits for each of
the subclasses. The Defendants must waive all unpaid fees to the
Deferred Prosecution Program in all accounts for cases filed in the
Mayor's Court on or before Dec. 31, 2017 and will consider those
participants to have successfully completed the Deferred
Prosecution Program and will dismiss the charges. In case of
nonpayment occurring after entry into the settlement agreement, the
Defendants must inquire if the nonpayment was willful before
terminating the person from the program. The Defendants must
identify all participants in the Deferred Prosecution Program who
were terminated from the program for failure to pay fees from June
1, 2015, through the present and who forfeited payments, were later
convicted, and paid fines and fees upon conviction but received no
credit for funds paid under the Deferred Prosecution Program.
For those participants, the Defendants must refund the amount paid
into the Deferred Prosecution Program that was forfeited without a
credit. All participants who were terminated from the program on
or after Jan. 1, 2018, and are awaiting trial, failed to make their
final payment as scheduled, or have been attached for failure to
appear will be given a choice to be placed back into the Deferred
Prosecution Program upon appearance at the Mayor's Court within
nine months of the Court's approval of the settlement agreement.
The Defendants are required to provide general notice of that
option through postings in the Clerk of Court's office and the
Mayor's Court and including written notice of the option in all
communications from the Mayor's Court. To the extent any such
terminated participant made payments while participating in the
Deferred Prosecution Program, they are entitled to a full credit of
those payments either after re-enrollment into the Deferred
Prosecution Program, towards any future fine or fee if the case is
adjudicated, or to a refund if the case is dismissed.
The settlement agreement requires notification of the availability
of alternatives for low income people in the Deferred Prosecution
Program agreement with participants, on the City's online payment
portal, and in any termination notices, default notices, payment
receipts, or payment plans produced to program participants by the
City Prosecutor, Clerk of Court, or other Defendants. It further
requires that for a period of three years, the Defendants produce
to the plaintiffs a monthly report identifying the total number of
applicants, the number of applicants accepted, the number of
applicants denied participation, and the number of indigency
waivers sought.
In exchange, the Plaintiffs agree to waive all claims described in
the Complaint and First Amended Complaint.
A Fairness Hearing was held on Dec. 4, 2020.
Judge van Meerveld finds that the settlement is fair, adequate and
reasonable, and that the requirements of the Class Action Fairness
Act with regard to notice have been satisfied. Accordingly, she
approved the settlement, and approved and finalized her preliminary
certification of the settlement class and the subclasses.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3gocqr from Leagle.com.
HEALING TOUCH: Welch Seeks to Certify Class of Health Care Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE WELCH, for herself
and all others similarly situated, v. HEALING TOUCH HEALTH SERVICES
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00894-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed
collective Fair Labor Standards Act class defined as:
"all current and former Direct Support Professionals,
State Tested Nursing Assistant (STNA), Licensed Practical
Nurse (LPN), Registered Nurse (RN), House Managers,
Private Duty Aides, or other employees performing health
care services ("Hourly Employees") of the Defendant who,
during the three years prior to conditional certification,
were paid on an hourly basis and did not receive overtime
payment at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in a workweek in excess
of 40;"
2. implementing a procedure whereby a Court-approved Notice
of the Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and
e-mail), and a Court-Approved Reminder Notice is sent (via
e-mail) to the Plaintiff's proposed FLSA class; and
3. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, dates of
employment and position(s) held, of all potential opt-in
plaintiffs who fit the class definition proposed by the
Plaintiff.
This is an action for unpaid wages brought pursuant to the FLSA and
filed as a collective action. The Plaintiff filed this action on
November 5, 2020, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay her and
similarly situated individuals overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their respective regular rates for their
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant is in the
business of providing home healthcare services and related services
to clients throughout central and southwestern Ohio. The Defendant
employs individuals in the positions of Direct Support
Professional, STNA, LPN, RN, House Manager, and Private Duty Aide;
these
employees provide in-home healthcare and personal care services to
the Defendant's clients in the client's homes.
Plaintiff Welch was employed with the Defendant between August 24,
2020 and September 30, 2020, and at all times, she was paid on an
hourly basis. Ms. Welch was employed as a Direct Support
Professional.
Healing Touch is a healthcare provider in Middletown, Ohio.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification dated Dec. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37J2j4A at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
Rhiannon M. Herbert, Esq.
Mansell Law, LLC
1457 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Telephone: (614) 610-4134
Facsimile: (614) 547-3614
E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com
Rhiannon@MansellLawLLC.com
HILL COUNTRY STAFFING: OK of Revised Notice Schedule Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERASMO DURAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HILL COUNTRY
STAFFING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00445-RP (W.D. Tex.), the
Parties ask the Court to approve a revised text message notice
schedule:
"If you worked as an Equipment Operators and/or other hourly
non-exempt employees and performed services for Hill Country
Staffing in the last three years, you may be entitled to join
a lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime wages. You can view the
Notice and sign the Consent here [hyperlink]. For additional
information about the case and your rights, please call the
Equipment Operators' attorneys at 212-300-0375 or
email info@fslawfirm.com."
On November 20, 2020, the Defendant confirmed that email addresses
were not available for prospective Collective Members. As a result,
the Defendant agreed on the issuance of a text message rather than
an email to prospective Collective Members but required additional
time to gather telephone numbers.
On November 2, 2020, the Court Granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Conditional Certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b).
A copy of joint motion to amend deadlines dated Dec. 21, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37KFYUv at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Burch, Esq.
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 E Greenway Plaza No. 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
- and -
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
HOME DEPOT: Attorney Fees in Data Breach Suit Returns to 11th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Goggin at Court House News reports that home Depot asked an
11th Circuit panel to overturn an order requiring it to pay $15.3
million in fees and expenses to lawyers who litigated a class
action case against the retailer for a 2014 credit card data breach
affecting 56 million customers.
The original $15.3 million award was handed down by an Atlanta
federal judge in 2017 but the 11th Circuit scrapped it last year,
finding that the award improperly included a multiplier that
enhanced the fees as compensation for the litigation risk assumed
by the attorneys.
Counsel on both sides appeared anxious to put the matter to rest.
Attorney Cari Dawson of Alston & Bird told a three-judge panel of
the appeals court that her client, Home Depot, is looking for one
thing in this appeal: "Finality."
"[Home Depot] wants a final end to these serial appeals and the
termination of further litigation regarding attorneys' fees.
Finality is what this appeal is about and what Home Depot is
entitled to," she said.
The class action against Home Depot was settled in 2017. The
company agreed to pay $27.25 million to the financial institutions
impacted by the breach. At the time, it was the largest recovery in
a data breach case for a class of financial institutions.
After attorneys for the class requested $18 million in fees, Home
Depot objected and countered that reasonable legal fees should be
set at about $5.6 million.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash stepped in after the parties
failed to agree on a dollar amount. He accepted the $11.7 million
lodestar proposed by class counsel and applied a 1.3 multiplier to
arrive at the final $15.3 million total.
After the 11th Circuit's reversal, Thrash entered a new order in
January awarding the class attorneys a percentage of the total
class award which again amounted to $15.3 million in fees and
expenses.
The question before the panel came down to how the fees, costs and
expenses should be calculated. Atlanta-based Home Depot argued that
the fee award should be calculated without the multiplier, while
the class counsel said the original award is reasonable.
Dawson's argument relied heavily on one paragraph of the 2017
settlement agreement, which says that if the award of attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses is reduced on appeal, Home Depot will only
be obligated to pay the reduced amount of the award.
She said the district court should have awarded the $11.7 million
lodestar plus interest, reminding the panel that "Georgia law makes
it clear that settlement agreements are to be strictly enforced."
"The language of the settlement agreement is clear, unambiguous and
controlling. The district court's interpretation of the settlement
agreement was wrong," Dawson said.
Dawson asked the appeals court to exercise its discretion and "tell
the district court the award that should have been given on remand
was $11,773,000."
A failure to do so would "upend Georgia law on enforceability of
settlement agreements" and "embolden district courts to circumvent
the mandate rule," she said.
Arguing on behalf of the class, attorney Ken Canfield of Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles told the panel that the "mandate of the
court controls the case, not the settlement agreement."
Canfield said that although the settlement agreement "focuses on
finality," the district court ruled that "the language that Home
Depot relies upon only applies if there's a final decision from
this court."
"There wasn't a final decision," Canfield said. "Even if this court
didn't require the $11.7 million award on remand and it wasn't
final, [Dawson] says the settlement agreement relieved Home Depot
of any further obligation. The problem is, if it's not final, Home
Depot's obligation to pay the award never arises. So if Ms. Dawson
is correct, then Home Depot has no obligation to pay anything at
this point because there hasn't been a final award."
Dawson dismissed Canfield's arguments in rebuttal.
"The language about finality that Mr. Canfield raises is simply not
in the agreement itself," she told the panel. "The triggering event
in terms of Home Depot's obligation post-appeal is if the award is
reduced, which it was. That triggers the [settlement] language that
Home Depot is only obligated to pay that reduced amount."
Dawson said the fee award has been "examined exhaustively," adding
that there is a "strong presumption of reasonableness of the
lodestar."
Canfield argued that the $11.7 million fee is not reasonable in
light of the length of litigation in the case.
"We're entitled to be paid for the time that we spent after July
2017," he said.
panel was comprised of U.S. Circuit Judge Britt Grant, a Donald
Trump appointee; U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, a Bill Clinton
appointee; and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat, a Gerald
Ford appointee. The panel did not indicate when it would reach a
decision in the case. [GN]
HP INC: Jakubowitz Law Pursues Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law announces that securities fraud class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the class
periods 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 links below.
HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT HPQ:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/hp-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11700&from=1
Class Period : November 6, 2015 - June 21, 2016
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 4, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a)
HP's channel inventory management and sales practices resulted in
the sale of supplies to customers that did not need or want the
product in order to artificially increase revenues and profits; (b)
HP's channel inventory management and sales practices resulted in
the sale of supplies to customers outside of designated regions at
unsustainable discounts in order to artificially increase revenues
and profits; (c) HP's channel inventory management and sales
practices resulted in the sale of supplies at steep discounts to
customers to encourage those customers to sell the supplies further
down the supply channel, out of HP's inventory management metrics;
and (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, defendants' statements about
HP's business condition and prospects were materially false and
misleading when made.
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]
HP INC: Law Offices of Vincent Wong Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 23 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=11768&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
Class Period: November 6, 2015 - June 21, 2016
Allegations against HPQ include that: (a) HP's channel inventory
management and sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies to
customers that did not need or want the product in order to
artificially increase revenues and profits; (b) HP's channel
inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of
supplies to customers outside of designated regions at
unsustainable discounts in order to artificially increase revenues
and profits; (c) HP's channel inventory management and sales
practices resulted in the sale of supplies at steep discounts to
customers to encourage those customers to sell the supplies further
down the supply channel, out of HP's inventory management metrics;
and (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, defendants' statements about
HP's business condition and prospects were materially false and
misleading when made.
Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11768&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 22, 2021
Class Period: May 16, 2019 - November 1, 2019
Allegations against PINS include 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.
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:NERV)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/minerva-neurosciences-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11768&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
Class Period: May 15, 2017 - November 30, 2020
Allegations against NERV include 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.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
HP INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of HP Inc. (NYSE: HPQ) between
November 6, 2015 and June 21, 2016, 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
HP investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the HP class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1982.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 representations about HP's revenues, profits, and prospects
which were each false and misleading when made. According to the
lawsuit, the true facts which were then known to or recklessly
disregarded by defendants, included: (1) HP's channel inventory
management and sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies to
customers that did not need or want the product in order to
artificially increase revenues and profits; (2) HP's channel
inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of
supplies to customers outside of designated regions at
unsustainable discounts in order to artificially increase revenues
and profits; (3) HP's channel inventory management and sales
practices resulted in the sale of supplies at steep discounts to
customers to encourage those customers to sell the supplies further
down the supply channel, out of HP's inventory management metrics;
and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about HP's business
condition and prospects were materially false and misleading when
made. 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-1982.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.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
HP INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of January 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against HP Inc.
("HP" or "the Company") (NYSE:HPQ) for violations of Sec10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
6, 2015 and June 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 4, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/hp-inc-2/#case-form to participate.
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. HP's sales practices artificially
inflated its performance by selling supplies to customers that did
not want or need them. The Company sold supplies outside of
designated regions at massive discounts to boost profits. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about HP,
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. [GN]
HUDSON BAY COMPANY: Denies Severance Pay Benefits, Cope Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANNE COPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUDSON BAY COMPANY SEVERANCE PAY PLAN FOR US
EMPLOYEES AMENDED and RESTATED AS HBC US HOLDINGS LLC SEVERANCE PAY
PLAN FOR US EMPLOYEES; HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, PLAN SPONSOR; HBC US
HOLDINGS LLC, PLAN SPONSOR; JESSICA ARNOLD, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06490 (E.D. Pa., December 24, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for denial of benefits claim,
breach of fiduciary duty, and interference with attainment of plan
benefit rights pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 and violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants abused their discretion
and unlawfully denied the Plaintiff and Class members their
severance pay benefits under the Hudson's Bay Company Severance Pay
Plan for U.S. Employees and the HBC US Holdings LLC Severance Pay
Plan for US Employees. The Plaintiff made a timely and proper
appeal of the severance pay benefits denial to Defendant Jessica
Arnold as plan administrator but she affirmed the initial denial
determination and denied Ms. Cope's appeal. The Defendants also
breached their fiduciary obligations to the Plaintiff and the Class
by failing to convey the terms and conditions of the Plans to the
Plaintiff and Class members and failing to properly assess their
severance pay benefits claims.
Hudson's Bay Company is a retail business group headquartered in
Brampton, Canada.
HBC US Holdings LLC is an investment firm located in New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Weinstein, Esq.
WEINSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC
500 Office Center Drive, Suite 400
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Telephone: (267) 513-1942
E-mail: marc@meweinsteinlaw.com
- and –
Vincent J. Pentima, Esq.
PENTIMA LAW FIRM, PLLC
30 Rock Hill Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (484) 436-2119
E-mail: vjp@pentimalaw.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Agrees to Settlement Over its Engines in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jil Mcintosh at driving.ca reports that Hyundai has agreed to a
settlement over engines that allegedly may stall, seize, or even
catch fire, although it still maintains there's nothing wrong with
the engines, and the class-action suit won't be fully determined
until next February.
The legal action involves 2.0L and 2.4L "Theta II" direct-injection
gasoline engines in the 2011 to 2019 Sonata; 2013 to 2019 Santa Fe
Sport; and 2014, 2015, and 2019 Tucson.
The suit is divided into a class action for residents of Quebec,
and three national suits originating in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and
British Columbia. It covers owners or lessees of the vehicles, who
can submit claims, opt out, or raise objections to the suit
online.
Hyundai maintains there is nothing wrong with the engines, but
agreed to the settlement to "avoid the cost and risk of further
litigation, including a potential trial," according to the
class-action lawyers. Those who accept a settlement payment can't
sue the automaker beyond that.
The settlement includes a lifetime powertrain warranty extension;
reimbursement for past repairs and expenses related to them;
compensation if the vehicle was sold or traded at a loss;
compensation for total loss by fire; and a trade-in rebate program.
Although both sides have agreed to the settlement, it still has to
be approved by the courts before compensation is made, which is
expected to happen in February 2021. [GN]
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
shareholders. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICPT)
Investors Affected: September 28, 2019 - October 7, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true
scope and severity of safety concerns associated with the use of
Ocaliva (obeticholic acid ("OCA")), Intercept's lead product
candidate, in treating primary biliary cholangitis; (ii) the
foregoing increased the likelihood of a U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("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 nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH") were outweighed by the risks of its use;
(iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's New
Drug Application 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.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11682&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Klein Law Firm Reminds of January 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Dec. 24 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICPT) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in ICPT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11791&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true scope and
severity of safety concerns associated with the use of Ocaliva
(obeticholic acid ("OCA")), Intercept's lead product candidate, in
treating primary biliary cholangitis; (ii) the foregoing increased
the likelihood of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("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 nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH") were outweighed
by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to
approve the Company's New Drug Application 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.
Shareholders have until January 4, 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 ICPT 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]
INTERFACE INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of January 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 23 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ:TILE)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/interface-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11760&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 11, 2021
Class Period: March 2, 2018 - September 28, 2020
Allegations against TILE include 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 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.
Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11760&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 22, 2021
Class Period: May 16, 2019 - November 1, 2019
Allegations against PINS include 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.
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:NERV)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/minerva-neurosciences-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11760&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
Class Period: May 15, 2017 - November 30, 2020
Allegations against NERV include 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.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
INTERFACE INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of January 11 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ: TILE)
between March 2, 2018 and September 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=interface-inc&id=2486
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=interface-inc&id=2486
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the January 11, 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
that: (1) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
consequently, Interface, among other things, reported artificially
inflated income and earnings per share (EPS) in 2015 and 2016; (3)
Interface and certain of its employees were under investigation by
the SEC with respect to the foregoing since at least 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 (4) as a result, the Company's 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.
Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]
J.E.M. CAPITEL: Faces Andino Suit Over Unpaid OT & Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELVIN R. ANDINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J.E.M. CAPITEL DESIGN CORP., a/k/a JEM
DRYWALL, and JORGE E. MENDEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-25249 (S.D. Fla., December 24, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated construction workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek and by retaliating against the
Plaintiff following his wage complaints.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted
full-time construction worker in Dade County, Florida from
approximately July 21, 2020 to December 07, 2020.
J.E.M. Capitel Design Corp., also known as Jem Drywall, is a
general construction contractor with a principal place of business
in Dade County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
JOYY INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 19, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired. ("JOYY" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: YY)
securities between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020 inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your JOYY 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/joyy-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.
On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report
entitled "YY: You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Well . . . Actually You
Can," alleging that the Company "is a multibillion-dollar fraud."
The report concluded "that YY's component businesses are a fraction
of the size it reports, and that the company's reported user
metrics, revenues, and cash balances are predominantly
fraudulent[,]" and that "[a]pproximately 84% of YY's reported
consolidated revenue appears to be fraudulent."
On this news, JOYY American depositary shares ("ADSs") price fell
$26.53 per ADS, or 26%, to close at $73.66 per ADS on November 18,
2020.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (3) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping
scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (4) the
Company overstated its cash reserves; (5) the Company's acquisition
of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and
(6) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired JOYY securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 19, 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. [GN]
JOYY INC: Vincent Wong Law Offices Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 24 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Joyy Inc. (NASDAQ:YY)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/joyy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11779&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
Class Period: April 28, 2016 - November 18, 2020
Allegations against YY include that: (1) JOYY dramatically
overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) The
majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) the Company
utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme that
Manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company
overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition of Bigo
was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
Misleading at all relevant times.
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=11779&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020
Allegations against NAK include 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.
GoodRx Holdings, Inc (NASDAQ:GDRX)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11779&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 16, 2021
Class Period: September 23, 2020 - November 16, 2020
Allegations against GDRX include that: at the time of the IPO,
unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would
soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication
ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with
GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before
Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate
the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold
therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and
the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants'
knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical
business, and their misleading statements about GoodRx's
competitive position made contemporaneously with that knowledge,
defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements alleged
herein were made willfully and caused GoodRx common stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
JOYY INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of January 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) between
April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=joyy-inc&id=2491
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=joyy-inc&id=2491
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the January 19, 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
that; JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming
sources; the majority of users at any given time were bots; the
Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme that
manufactured the false appearance of revenues; the Company
overstated its cash reserves; the Company's acquisition of Bigo was
largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and 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.
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]
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, Baltimore Cty. Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES, LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA INC.; JAMES MONSEES;
ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-09268 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in
the marketing, advertisement, and sale of vapor products,
including, but not limited to e-cigarette JUUL Products.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to provide accurate, true, and correct information concerning the
risks of using JUUL products and appropriate, complete, and
accurate warnings concerning the potential adverse effects of
vaping and nicotine use and, in particular, JUUL's patented
nicotine salts and the chemical makeup of JUULpods liquids.
At the heart of the disastrous epidemic are the concerted efforts
of the Defendants, and all those in JUUL's supply and distribution
chain to continuously expand their market share and profits by
preying upon a vulnerable young population and deceiving the public
about the true nature of the products they were selling. Nicotine
is not benign like coffee, contrary to what many JUUL users
believe. Nor is the aerosol as harmless as puffing room air. Worse,
the flavors in JUUL products are themselves toxic and dangerous,
and have never been adequately tested to ensure they are safe for
inhalation.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular
conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain
no health risk warnings at all. And a generation of kids is now
hooked, ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry
because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as
children.
JUUL Labs, Inc. manufactures electronic cigarettes. The Company
offers products such as device kits, JUULpods, and accessories in
different flavors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com
cgold@rgrdlaw.com
dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
JUUL LABS: HCPS Joins Nationwide E-Cigarettes Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Took at cecildaily.com reports that Harford County Public
Schools (HCPS) joined school districts across the country in a
class action lawsuit against JUUL Labs, Inc., which manufactures
e-cigarettes and other vaping products, at a Dec. 7 board meeting.
Patrick Spicer, the district's general counsel, said that the
lawsuit would seek funding for staff time and materials dedicated
toward addressing and ameliorating JUUL use among students.
"JUUL use among teenagers and students has increased substantially
over the last few years," Spicer said. "JUUL use has impacted
schools in terms of increased staff time being devoted to
monitoring, counseling and sometimes disciplining students."
The class action lawsuit is being litigated by Frantz Law Group on
behalf of over 100 school districts across the country, including
HCPS. The board of the neighboring Cecil County Public Schools
voted to join the same lawsuit, which is being pursued in the
Northern Division of the United States District Court of
California. JUUL Labs, Inc. is based out of San Francisco.
William Shinoff, a trial lawyer at Frantz Law Group, addressed the
HCPS board to explain that the suit would not only seek to
retroactively recover damages, but look ahead to support ongoing
efforts to curb JUUL use in schools.
"Not only is it seeking compensation for any harm that the district
has suffered up to this point, but also it is looking ahead to make
sure that the bigger school system has enough funding to be able to
deal with this issue in the future as well," he said.
HCPS policy proclaims that the district seeks to provide a
tobacco-free and inhalant-free school environment, stating that
possession, sale, use and consumption of tobacco products,
including electronic cigarettes and vapes, is prohibited by anyone
in Harford County Public School buildings 'at all times.'
However, unlike cigarettes, the vapor released is nearly odorless,
meaning the product can be used easily in bathrooms, hallways or
even in the classroom. Each JUUL pod contains about 10 times the
level of nicotine as cigarettes, and as such are highly addictive.
While the products were originally billed as a substitute for
cigarettes, the lawsuit alleges that the company targeted younger
consumers with popular flavored pods and dedicated marketing.
According to Shinoff, the lawsuit could potentially yield funding
for HCPS to invest in measures deterring use of e-cigarettes on
campus, including vapor detectors in bathrooms, increased staff for
supervision and counseling support and educational programs to show
students the short- and long-term adverse effects.
In addition to the prospective funding, Shinoff also characterized
the lawsuit as an investment in student health.
"Getting information to students is very important, because right
now, there is a very large gap between what children know about the
product, what parents know about the product and what the truth
is," he said. "You're taking one more step further to protect the
children in your community, to make sure that this type of conduct
steps."
He said there would be minimal requirements on HCPS for deposition
and document production, estimating that the district's involvement
would require a few hours of staff time.
As for cost, there is no direct cost to the district. Frantz Law
Group typically charges a contingency of 40 percent of the monetary
recovery, but has cut the fee to 20 percent if there's a recovery
in the first year and 25 percent if recovery comes any time after.
Buck Hennigan, executive director of student services, encouraged
board members to approve joining the lawsuit.
"I fully support this, given the uptick we've seen over the last
couple of years" Hennigan said. "We've implemented some great
restorative practices to try to educate our students who are
getting caught in our school vaping, but I think this is definitely
a worthy cause and could bring us some much needed relief."
Board member David Bauer moved to approve the recommendation that
the district join the lawsuit, seconded by his colleague Joyce
Herold. The motion passed unanimously. [GN]
K12 INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 19, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired K12 Inc. ("K12" or the "Company") (: LRN) common
shares between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your K12 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/k12-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.
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.
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 or otherwise acquired K12 common shares during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 19, 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. [GN]
K12 INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law announces that a securities fraud class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of K12 Inc. 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.
K12 Inc. (NYSE:LRN)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT LRN:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/k12inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11700&from=1
Class Period : April 27, 2020 - September 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 19, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants 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.
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]
K12 INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of January 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of K12 Inc. (NYSE: LRN) between
April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=k12-inc&id=2489
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=k12-inc&id=2489
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the January 29, 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
that: K12 lacked the technological capabilities, infrastructure,
and expertise to support the increased demand for virtual and
blended education necessitated by the global pandemic; K12 lacked
adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to prevent the
disabling of its computer systems; K12 was unable to provide the
necessary levels of administrative support and training to
teachers, students, and parents; and K12's officers lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.
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]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of February 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi Technologies Group, Inc.
("Kandi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KNDI) securities between March
15, 2019 and November 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Kandi investors have until February 9, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3hutLWU to participate.
On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research 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 inspections of the Company's factories and customer
locations and interviews with former employees, the report alleged,
among other things 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[.]"
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.86 per share or
28%, to close at $9.76 per share on November 30, 2020.
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 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.
If you purchased Kandi securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than February 9, 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 Kandi 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. [GN]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly-traded
company Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. Shareholders who purchased
shares in the company during the date listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)
Investors Affected: March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially 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.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11698&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: KNDI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, and docketed under 20-cv-06042, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi securities between March 15,
2019 and November 27, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Kandi securities during the
Class Period, you have until February 9, 2021, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
[Click https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=kndi for
information about joining the class action]
Kandi was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Jinhua, the
People's Republic of China ("China"). The Company, through its
subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and commercializes
electric vehicle ("EV") products and parts and off-road vehicles in
China and internationally.
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.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com. [GN]
LANDMARK REALTY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Harrison, writing for KMBC News, reports that more trouble
for tenants at a south Kansas City apartment complex. Landmark
Realty is facing a new federal lawsuit. More tenants are coming
forward alleging shady business dealings.
Patrice Johnson is an assistant principal. Her husband, Michael, is
a youth minister. The hard-working couple said that they have been
ideal tenants at the Coach House Apartments the last four years.
"It was good, and we got comfortable and um, then things started to
change," Michael Johnson said.
The Johnsons say previous ownership kept lease records online and
they couldn't get copies. This summer, when California-based
Landmark Realty bought the complex, the couple said that they were
told there was no lease on file and that they would need to
resign.
"'Don't worry. We're not going to raise your rents.' That's what
she said. And it didn't work that way, " Michael Johnson said.
The family says they're now facing an extra $328 a month to stay.
"It's baffling," Michael Johnson said.
They're not alone in their complaints about Landmark. This fall,
KMBC introduced you to the family of a Kansas City firefighter
facing threats of eviction at the same complex.
Landmark Realty is also the target new federal class-action
lawsuit. It alleges the company used deceptive practices to wrongly
withhold fees from tenants.
Back at Coach House, the Johnsons said they are looking to move
out.
"I have a business background so I know it could possibly be just
business, but it's not ethical," Patrice Johnson said.
The Johnsons say they're speaking up on behalf of their elderly
neighbors, who they worry could be taken advantage of. KMBC reached
out to Landmark Realty but has not heard back. [GN]
LASSEN & HENNIGS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lassen & Hennigs
Incorporated. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Lassen & Hennigs
Incorporated, Case No. 1:20-cv-10928 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 25, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lassen and Hennigs -- https://www.lassencatering.com/ -- is a
gourmet deli and bakery that provides catering for all occasions,
breakfast, lunch or dinner.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
LEE'S SUMMIT: Class Certification of Female Employees Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Case NANCY SPATZ, STACY
ORF, BROOKE MOREHEAD, and JOY BRIGMAN on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. LEE'S SUMMIT R-7 SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Case No. 4:20-CV-00448-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
1. granting conditional class certification of the
Plaintiffs' claims under 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) for:
"all current and former female employees of the Lee's
Summit R-7 School District whose salary, during the last
three years, was determined by (1) placement on one of the
District's salary schedules at the time of she was
initially hired and/or promoted and/or, (2) by a
subsequent move on the salary schedule, if any;"
2. appointing Nancy Spatz, Stacy Orf, Brooke Morehead and Joy
Brigman as class representatives;
3. appointing George E. Kapke , Jr., Kapke & Willerth, LLC,
Andrew Schermerhorn, and The Klamann Law Firm to act as
class counsel;
4. approving the Notice of Claims and Opt-In Consent Form to
the Suggestions in Support of this Motion;
5. approving the Notice of Claims and Opt-In Consent Form to
be sent via email to members of the class;
6. directing the defendant to produce a list of class members
in a usable electronic format which includes full name,
address, work location, dates of employment, employee
number and all known email addresses within 14 days of the
Court's Order;
7. approving the Notice of Claims to be posted in the break
rooms of all facilities where teachers and administrators
work;
8. permitting repeat emailing of the Notice of Claims and
Opt-in Consent Forms; and
9. allowing the class opt-in period to last for 180 days
while discovery in this case continues, with class counsel
to keep track of opt-ins and report to the Court at the
end of the Opt-in period or as otherwise directed; and
10. granting such other relief the Court deems just and
proper.
The Lee's Summit R-7 School District serves parts of Lee's Summit,
Kansas City, Missouri, rural eastern Jackson County and the
entirety of Unity Village, Greenwood, Lake Winnebago, and Lake
Lotawana in the State of Missouri.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3aEjMNnat
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq.
John M. Klamann, Esq.
THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM
4435 Main Street, Suite 150
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 421-2626
Facsimile: (816) 421-8686
E-mail: jklamann@klamannlaw.com
ajs@klamannlaw.com
- and -
Ted Kapke, Esq.
Mike Fleming, Esq.
KAPKE & WILLERTH
3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
Telephone: (816) 461-3800
Facsimile: (816) 254-8014
E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com
mike@kapkewillerth.com
LIBERTY SAFE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Safe and
Security Products, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Liberty Safe
and Security Products, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10926 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
25, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Liberty Safe and Security Products, Inc. --
https://www.libertysafe.com/ -- is a residential and commercial
safe manufacturer located in Payson, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
LIOX CLEANERS: Underpays Laundry Workers, Bautista Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMINA BAUTISTA, MARIBEL RIVERA, YURIANA ALEJO, CECILIA
DAVILA, JACKELINE BAUTISTA, AND SANDRA MEJIA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIOX CLEANERS
INC., AND WASH SUPPLY LAUNDROMAT, INC. (D/B/A WASH SUPPLY
LAUNDROMAT), SERGEY PATRIKEEN, KOSTANTYN DIDORENKO AND VICTORIA
PATRIKEEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10903 (S.D.N.Y., December
24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid
minimum wages and overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours pay,
failure to maintain records, and unlawful deductions from the
Plaintiffs' wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as laundry workers
in New York at any time between 2013 and 2019.
Wash Supply Laundromat, Inc. is a laundromat company with a
principal place of business located at 409 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, New York.
Liox Cleaners Inc. is a dry cleaning company with a principal place
of business located at 123 Allen Street, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina F. Stillman, Esq.
Aygul Charles, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (800) 933-5620
LOGISTICARE: Farah Seeks to Certify Class of Transport Providers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMED FARAH,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v.
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00578 (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all current and former Transportation Providers who were
issued 1099 payments for providing non-emergency medical
transportation services for Defendant at any time from
July 22, 2017 to the present;
2. requiring the expedited issuance of the notice form of the
Plaintiff's Amended Suggestions to those Class members,
and setting a deadline of 90 days after the date of the
Court's order granting certification and mailing of the
notice, for which putative Class members can join this
matter;
3. requiring the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff's counsel
a list both electronically (in an Excel spreadsheet with
each item of the employee's name and address designated as
a separate field) and by hard copy, of all individuals who
meet the above Class description, including their current
or last known address, phone number, and e-mail address,
within 14 days of the issuance of the order;
4. requiring the Defendant to provide notice in three
paychecks to current employees;
5. designating the Plaintiff Mohamed Farah as Class
Representative for the collective Class;
6. approving the Plaintiffs' counsel to act as Class Counsel
in this matter; and
7. granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
LogistiCare provides non-emergency medical transportation
management services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's amended motion for conditional collective
action certification dated Dec. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hc5qVW at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Wasserman, Esq.
Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
Benjamin Ashworth, Esq.
MCINNES LAW LLC
1900 West 75th Street, Suite 220
Prairie Village, Ks 66208
Telephone: (913) 220-2488
Facsimile: (913) 347-7333
E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com
ben@mcinnes-law.com
rob@mcinnes-law.com
- and -
Patrick G. Reavey, Esq.
Kevin C. Koc, Esq.
REAVEY LAW LLC
1600 Genessee, Ste. 303
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 474-6300
Facsimile: (816) 474-6302
E-mail: preavey@reaveylaw.com
kkoc@reaveylaw.com
MAC GRADING: Santos Seeks Conditional Collective Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PANFILO GONZALES SANTOS
a/k/a PANFILO GONZALEZ SANTOS, BENJAMIN GONZALEZ SANJUAN, and
GILBERTO GONZALEZ SANJUAN, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, v. M.A.C. GRADING CO., CHRISTOPHER
HALES, and MELISSA D. HALES, Case No. 7:19-cv-219-D (E.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this action as a Fair Labor
Standard Act (FLSA) collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) for the following group of workers:
"who were employed by one or more of the defendants in the
manufacturing facility of M.A.C. Grading Co. located at,
Autryville, North Carolina 28318 at any time in the time
period from November 7, 2016 through the date on which the
Court files its Order with respect to this Motion:
(a) Employees of M.A.C. Grading Co. who were paid only on
a piece rate basis for the total number of pallets
they repaired each workweek and at an hourly rate for
the few additional hours they worked in some workweeks
making pallets in workweeks in which they worked for
more than 40 hours but were not paid at 1.5 times
their regular rate of pay calculated pursuant to 29
C.F.R. section 778.111(a) and 778.115;"
2. approving the sending or delivery of the collective action
Notice by the Plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days from
the date on which the Court conditionally certifies any
FLSA claim in this action as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), to each putative member of the
conditional collective action certified by the Court:
(a) By U.S. Mail, first class delivery, postage prepaid,
to the last known address (as already provided by the
Defendants and such other last known address as not
previously provided to the Plaintiffs) of each
putative member of the collective actions using the
collective action Notice; and
(b) By inclusion by M.A.C. Grading Co. with the next
weekly Wage Statement that accompanies each weekly
paycheck that defendant M.A.C. Grading Co. delivers to
each putative member of any conditional collective
action that the Court may certify in response to this
Motion; and
(c) By text to the cellphone number or WhatsApp number
provided by the Defendants for each putative member of
the collective action; and
3. directing the Defendant M.A.C. Grading Co., within 14 days
of entry of this Order and to the extent not already
provided, to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel (in computer-
readable electronic format) the names, last known
addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone number, cellphone
number, WhatsApp number, dates of employment by M.A.C.
Grading Co., birth dates, and last four digits of the
social security number of all persons who are, have been,
or will be employed at any time from November 7, 2016, to
the date of the Court's Order and compensated on a piece
rate basis by Defendant M.A.C. Grading Co. primarily to
repair pallets (but who were also employed and compensated
on an hourly basis by Defendant M.A.C. Grading Co. in some
workweeks for brief periods of time to make pallets) in
workweeks in which they worked for more than 40 hours but
were not paid at 1.5 times their regular rate of pay.
Mac Grading Co was founded in 1998. The company's line of business
includes distributing lumber, plywood, and millwork.
A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec.
22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2WGxZ4q at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Willis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
P.O. Box 1828
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Telephone: (919) 821-9031
Facsimile: (919) 821-1764
488 Thompson Street
Pittsboro, NC 27312
E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Nathan A. Huff, Esq.
Stephan M. Poucher, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
4140 ParkLake Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
E-mail: nathan.huff@phelps.com
Stephanie.Poucher@phelps.com
MAUNE LOA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mauna Loa Macadamia
Nut Corporation. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Mauna Loa Macadamia
Nut Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-10927 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 25, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corporation -- https://www.maunaloa.com/ --
is a processor of macadamia seeds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MDL 2862: Foreign Defendants Partly Compelled to Produce Docs
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DIISOCYANATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This
Document Relates to All Cases, Master Docket Misc. No. 18-1001, MDL
No. 2862 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Donetta W. Ambrose of the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Foreign Defendants
to Produce Documents and Information Responsive to Plaintiffs'
Jurisdictional Discovery Requests.
The multi-district litigation stems from an alleged conspiracy to
reduce supply and increase price for methylene diphenyl
diisocyanate ("MDI") and toluene diisocyanate ("TDI"), precursor
ingredients for the manufacture of polyurethane foam and
thermoplastic polyurethanes. The Judge notes that the Plaintiffs
and the Foreign Defendants have engaged in negotiations regarding
disputes to keep the MDL moving forward, and she commends them for
their ability to resolve most issues. Understandably, there are
and will be times when the parties reach an impasse. This is one
of those times.
The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Compel Foreign Defendants to
Produce Documents and Information Responsive to Plaintiffs'
Jurisdictional Discovery Requests pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3)(B) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, they seek an
order compelling: 1) the Foreign Defendants to search for and
produce documents and information from Jan. 1, 2014 to Dec. 31,
2019; 2) the Foreign Defendants to search for and produce documents
and information related to MDI and TDI systems as well as
stand-alone MDI and TDI; 3) Wanhua China to search for and produce
documents related to TDI; 4) Wanhua China to respond to
Jurisdictional Requests for Production Nos. 17 and 18; 5) Wanhua
China to respond with information and documents regarding all of
its United States based related entities, not just Wanhua Chemical
(America) Co.; 6) Wanhua China to disclose information regarding
any agent for service of process it has or previously had in the
United States in response to Jurisdictional Interrogatory No. 8; 7)
Wanhua China to identify any business related visits made by its
personnel to the United States, not limited to visits for sales
purposes only, in response to Jurisdictional Interrogatory No. 6;
and, 8) Wanhua China to produce documents in response to Request
for Production Nos. 9, 10, 16 and 23, instead of relying on
references to Interrogatories Responses.
The Foreign Defendants filed a Brief in Opposition thereto along
with related documents. The Plaintiffs filed a Reply.
On a related issue, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Domestic Defendants to produce unstructured document discovery from
Jan. 1, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2019. The Plaintiffs argue that the
time period for jurisdictional discovery should be the same. In
ruling on the Motion to Compel Domestic Defendants, however, the
Judge found the relevant and proportional time period for
unstructured discovery is Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2019.
Since the Plaintiffs request that the time period for
jurisdictional discovery align with and mirror the time period for
unstructured discovery for the Domestic Defendants, the Judge
considers Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2019 as the Plaintiffs'
requested time frame in ruling on the present Motion. In response,
the Foreign Defendants assert the relevant and proportionate time
period for jurisdictional discovery is Jan. 1, 2015 through June
28, 2018. Based on the same, the beginning date for the
jurisdictional time period is Jan. 1, 2015.
As to the end date for jurisdictional discovery, the Judge finds no
controlling bright line test for the temporal framework of
jurisdictional discovery. The Second Amended Complaint suggests
that price increases are "ongoing" and persist "to this day."
Further, the Judge has granted merits discovery until Dec. 31,
2019. Based on the same, she finds an end date of Dec. 31, 2019 is
appropriate and proportionate for the limited jurisdictional
discovery, as well. Therefore, the relevant time period for the
limited jurisdictional discovery is Jan. 1, 2015 through Dec. 31,
2019.
As they did in their Motion to Compel Domestic Defendants, the
Plaintiffs argue that the case involves MDI and TDI Systems, and as
such, request the Foreign Defendants be ordered to search for and
produce documents and information related to MDI and TDI, as well
as MDI and TDI Systems. As more fully set forth in his ruling on
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Domestic Defendants, the Judge
disagrees. She opines it is a case about a conspiracy to fix
prices of MDI and TDI only, and not Systems. She did not permit
discovery of Systems as it relates to merits discovery. The
discovery at issue is limited to that of jurisdictional discovery
only. As such, he finds that the discovery of Systems is overly
broad and vague, unduly burdensome, and is not proportionate to the
needs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' Motion is denied as it relates
to Systems discovery.
The Plaintiffs request that Wanhua China be ordered to search for
and produce documents related to TDI during the relevant period.
Since the Judge has found the relevant time period to be 2015-2019,
Wanhua China did manufacture, sell, or distribute TDI during a
portion of the relevant time period. Further, she agrees with the
Plaintiffs that the production of TDI documents may be relevant to
jurisdictional discovery as it is a case about a conspiracy to fix
prices of TDI (and MDI) and producing the same should not be unduly
burdensome. As such, the Judge finds TDI related documents are
relevant and proportionate and should be produced. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs' Motion is granted in this regard and Wanhua China is to
search for and produce TDI related documents.
The Plaintiffs request in Interrogatory No. 1 that Wanhua China
identify all of its related entities located in and/or having
conducted, advertised, promoted, or solicited any business in the
United States. The Judge finds that a relevant and proportionate
response from Wanhua China should include the Holding and
Operations. She finds jurisdictional discovery related to the
other two entities identified by Wanhua China to be too speculative
and not proportionate as it relates to burden. To be clear, the
Plaintiffs' Motion in this regard is granted as to Holding and
Operations only. Therefore, Wanhua China is to respond to
Interrogatory No. 1 with information regarding Holding and
Operations, as well as Wanhua Chemical (America) Co.
The Plaintiffs seek Wanhua China to respond to Requests for
Production Nos. 17 and 18. Request No. 17: All Documents relating
to any written or unwritten agreements between or among You and any
other Defendants regarding the production, manufacturing,
marketing, pricing, exchange, swap, sale or resale of any products
in the United States. Request No. 18: All Documents relating to
any Meetings attended by You and any other Defendant at which there
was any Communication concerning the production, manufacturing,
marketing, pricing, exchange, swap, sale or resale of any products
in the United States or that would reach the United States.
After a review, the Judge finds such requests are overreaching as
written. The Plaintiffs have not shown such discovery is
proportional given Wanhua China's agreement to produce the
documents set forth. As a reminder, at issue is jurisdictional
discovery only. Therefore, Wanhua China must respond to Request
Nos. 17 and 18, as they have agreed to above, except that the
response to any discovery request must include both MDI and TDI
during the relevant time period--January 2015 through December
2019.
The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Wanhua China to more fully
answer Interrogatory No. 8, which asks Wanhua China to identify any
and all agents You have authorized currently or previously to
receive service of process or other notice of legal proceedings
within the United States or any state or other jurisdiction of the
United States, for any judicial or other legal proceedings,
including, but not limited to, any received under 35 U.S.C. Section
293. Upon review, the Judge agrees with Wanhua China that visits
to the United States for the purpose of conducting or soliciting
"any business" is too broad and not proportionate. Jurisdictional
discovery, however, should not be limited to just sales, but rather
business documents related to MDI and TDI.
Based on the same, the Judge finds that MDI and TDI
business-related visits by its personnel to the United States is
relevant and proportionate. Therefore, Wanhua China must respond
to Interrogatory No. 6 to the extent that it relates to MDI and TDI
business visits by its personnel to the United States.
Finally, the Plaintiffs take issue with Wanhua China's response to
certain Requests for Production that merely reference an answer to
an Interrogatory. With regard to Interrogatories 9, 10 and 16, the
Judge notes that the Plaintiffs are looking for information
"sufficient to show" or "sufficient to identify" their requests.
The Plaintiffs, however, suggest that their detailed list of items
to be produced is not exhaustive. To be responsive, the Judge does
believe that documents must be produced and not merely referred
back to a summarized interrogatory answer. She does not, however
find that an exhaustive production of every minor piece of paper
must be produced as the Plaintiffs seem to urge. Such a production
simply is not proportional to the needs of jurisdictional
discovery. Therefore, Wanhua China is ordered to produce documents
"sufficient to" show, identify or respond to Requests for
Production Nos. 9, 10, 16, and 23.
Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Foreign
Defendants to Produce Documents and Information Responsive to the
Plaintiffs' Jurisdictional Discovery Requests, Judge Ambrose
granted in part and denied in part said Motion to Compel as
stated.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ydg7cla9 from Leagle.com.
MEDICREDIT INC: Kwasniewski FDCPA Suit Gets Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELEN KWASNIEWSKI, on
behalf of plaintiff and a class, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00701-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley
entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
2. certifying the following class pursuant to Rule 23:
"(a) all individuals (b) to whom Medicredit sent a letter
in the form attached to Plaintiff's complaint as Exhibit A
(c) to a Wisconsin address (d) seeking to collect a debt
for St. Mary's Hospital in the amount of less than $1200,
(e) which letter was sent at any time during a period
beginning August 28, 2018 (one year prior to the filing of
this action) and ending September 18, 2019 (21 days after
the filing of this action);"
3. appointing Helen Kwasniewski Eric as the class
representative;
4. appointing Attorneys Daniel Edelman, Heidi Miller, and
Zeshan Usman and the firms Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC, HNM Law, LLC, Usman Law Firm, LLC, as class
counsel;
5. directing the parties, on or before January 15, 2021, to
submit a joint proposed form and method of notice, or if
unable to agree, plaintiff should submit her own proposed
notice, with defendant to respond by January 22, 2021;
6. scheduling a status conference on January 8, 2021, at
2 p.m.; and
7. granting the Defendant's motion to file a sur-reply.
The Court added that summary judgment motions are due January 18,
2021.
The Court said, "The plaintiff's theory rests on facts common to
all class members. She has therefore demonstrated predominance.
Likewise, the court concludes that a class action will promote
judicial economy and uniformity of decisions, and thus concludes
that the final element for class certification is met."
The plaintiff Helen Kwasniewski brings this putative class action
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against the
Medicredit, for sending allegedly misleading collection letters.
Specifically, the letter to Kwasniewski represented that a civil
action "may" be commenced if her debt remained unpaid, despite the
creditor allegedly having no intention to file suit.
Medicredit sent a letter to Kwasniewski in March 2019, in an
attempt to collect on a debt owed to St. Mary's Hospital -
Janesville, which is owned by SSM Health (SSM). The letter stated
that Kwasniewski had a balance due of $224.66.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 21, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37NkzKa at no
extra charge.[CC]
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Klein Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Minerva Neurosciences, Inc.
There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a
loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that
the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:NERV)
Class Period: May 15, 2017 - November 30, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
The NERV lawsuit alleges that Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. made
materially 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"; 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in NERV:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/minerva-neurosciences-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11686&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
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]
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Zhang Investor Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Dec. 23 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Minerva Neurosciences,
Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV) between May 15, 2017 and November 30, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=minerva-neurosciences-inc&id=2513
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=minerva-neurosciences-inc&id=2513
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: the truth about the feedback received from the FDA concerning
the "end-of-Phase 2" meeting; the Phase 2b study did not use the
commercial formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely
outside of the United States; 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; 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; 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 as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
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.
Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]
MRS BPO: Affirmation of Service Requested in Skvarla FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN SKVARLA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC
and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 159552/2020, a request for an
affirmation/affidavit of service was filed with the Supreme Court
of the State of New York for the County of New York on December 24,
2020.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by sending debt collection
letters to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
consumers with deceptive and misleading details.
MRS BPO, LLC is a debt collection agency with a principal place of
business at 1930 Olney Avenue, Cherry Hill, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alla Gulchina, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
STERN*THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Telephone: (973) 379-7500
E-mail: Francis@SternThomasson.com
Alla@SternThomasson.com
- and –
Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
818 East 16th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11230
Telephone: (347) 640-4357
E-mail: simon@goldenbergfirm.com
NEOVASC INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of January 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICPT)
Class Period: September 28, 2019 - October 7, 2020
Deadline: January 4, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/icpt
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
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 use in treating PBC; (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 NASH
were outweighed by the risks of its use; (4) 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 (5) as a result of
all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Neovasc Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN)
Class Period: November 1, 2019 - October 27, 2020
Deadline: January 5, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/nvcn
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 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) 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) blinding is critical when studying
a placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) the lack of
blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably
likely to require additional premarket clinical data; (6) as a
result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely to be approved
without additional clinical data; and (7) 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.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
NETFLIX INC: Fails to Pay Franchise Fee, City of Ashdown Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ASHDOWN, ARKANSAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. NETFLIX, INC.; and HULU, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 4:20-cv-04113-SOH (W.D. Ark., Dec. 23, 2020) alleges that
the Defendants failed to pay the 5% franchise tax under the
Arkansas Video Service Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as video service
providers, the Defendants were required to file an application with
the Secretary of State for a state-issued certificate of franchise
authority (SICFA) prior to providing video service after June 30,
2013, unless they were providing video service under a franchise
from a political subdivision in effect on March 6, 2013, elected to
negotiate a franchise with a political subdivision or adopted the
terms and conditions of an existing franchise issued by a political
subdivision to an incumbent video service provider.
The Defendants failed to apply for and obtain a SICFA, and are,
therefore, providing video service throughout Arkansas without
authorization
A SICFA authorizes video service providers such as the Defendants
to use public rights-of-way, as long as said video service provider
made a quarterly franchise payment to each political subdivision in
which it provides service.
The Defendants have failed to comply with the Arkansas Video
Service Act, because they have failed to pay the Plaintiff and the
other Class members the required franchise fee of 5% of gross
revenues. The Defendants cannot escape liability by arguing that
they simply were not SICFA holders; they were required to apply for
and obtain a SICFA, then pay the franchise fee of 5% of gross
revenues derived from providing video service in Ashdown in the
manner in which they did.
Netflix Inc. is an Internet subscription service for watching
television shows and movies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Chad Trammell, Esq.
Melody H. Piazza, Esq.
Trammell Piazza Law Firm, PLLC
418 North State Line Avenue
Texarkana, AK 71854
Telephone: (870) 779-1860
E-mail: chad@trammellpiazza.com
melody@trammellpiazza.com
-and-
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Mark Hamill, Esq.
Brittany Hartwig, Esq.
D I CELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 314-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com
-and-
Austin Tighe, Esq.
Michael Angelovich, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com
mangelovich@nixlaw.com
-and-
Peter Schneider, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY, LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste. 1100
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
E-mail: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com
-and-
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY, LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
jkim@schneiderwallace.com
kbates@schneiderwallace.com
-and-
Anthony Bruster, Esq.
BRUSTER, PLLC
680 N. Carroll Ave., Suite 110
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: (817) 601-9564
E-mail: akbruster@brusterpllc.com
NETFLIX INC: Fails to Pay Franchise Fee, City of Knoxville Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETFLIX, INC.; and HULU,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00544 (E.D. Tenn., Dec. 22, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants should be and are required by the
Competitive Cable and Video Service Act to pay each of those
municipalities and counties a video service provider fee of up to
5% percent of their gross revenue, as derived from their providing
video service in that municipality and county.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants failed
to obtain a state-issued certificate of franchise authority (SICFA)
before providing video service in Knoxville and the other Tennessee
municipalities and counties in which they provide their video
services. The Defendants' failure to obtain a certificate of
authority, however, did not relieve the Defendants of the
obligation to pay a franchise fee of 5% of their gross revenues
derived from providing such video service in those counties and
municipalities. Nothing in the Competitive Cable and Video Service
Act provides that an entity otherwise qualified as a "video service
provider" is exempt from this requirement, so long as it refrains
from obtaining a SICFA.
By failing to obtain the required authorization for providing video
service in the City of Knoxville and in other Tennessee
municipalities and counties, Defendants have avoided their
obligation to pay the franchise fee. Defendants cannot escape
liability by arguing they are not SICFA holders; they were required
to apply for and obtain a SICFA, and to then pay 5% of their gross
revenues derived from providing video service in the City of
Knoxville in the manner in which they did.
Netflix Inc. is an Internet subscription service for watching
television shows and movies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Benjamin A Gastel, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
beng@bjsfirm.com
-and-
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Mark Hamill, Esq.
Brittany Hartwig, Esq.
D I CELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 314-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
mhamill@dicellolevitt.com
bhartwig@dicellolevitt.com
-and-
Austin Tighe, Esq.
Michael Angelovich, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
3600 North Capital of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
E-mail: atighe@nixlaw.com
mangelovich@nixlaw.com
-and-
Peter Schneider, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY, LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Ste. 1100
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
E-mail: pschneider@schneiderwallace.com
-and-
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY, LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
jkim@schneiderwallace.com
kbates@schneiderwallace.com
NETFLIX INC: Tennessee Municipalities, Counties Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Greene, writing for WATE, reports that more than 430 of
Tennessee's municipalities and counties are suing two video service
giants for unpaid franchise fees mandated under state law.
The lawsuit claims Netflix and Hulu have not complied with
Tennessee's Competitive Cable and Video Service Act. That law
requires video service providers to be certified by the state and
to pay a fee of 5% gross revenue to the municipality or county in
which they earned that revenue.
The lawsuit claims the streaming giants are subject to the law
because they use broadband wireline facilities that are located, at
least in part, in public rights-of-way all across the state.
Netflix and Hulu are also each accused of failing to apply for a
state-issued certificate of franchise authority from the Tennessee
Public Utility Commission. That certificate authorizes video
service providers to use the public rights-of-way.
"By failing to obtain the required authorization for providing
video service in the city of Knoxville and in other Tennessee
municipalities and counties, defendants have avoided their
obligation to pay the franchise fee," the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit is filed in federal court because the corporations
being sued are out of state and the financials in dispute are more
than $75,000. Netflix is a Delaware corporation located in Los
Angeles. Hulu is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Santa Monica, Calif. [GN]
NEW JERSEY: Court Certifies Class of Patients in J.M. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.M., S.C., A.N., P.T.,
J.L., R.H., "JOHN DOE", "ROBERT DOE", T.W., M.K., and E.A.
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
v. SHEREEF M. ELNAHAL, M.D., M.B.A., Commissioner, New Jersey
Department of Health, in his official capacity, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-17303-ES-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor
entered an order:
1. approving the settlement proposal under Rule 23(e)(2);
2. certifying the Class for purposes of judgment on the
proposal, which is defined by the Settlement Agreement as:
"all current patients of Greystone Psychiatric Hospital;"
3. appointing the law firm DiSabato & Considine LLC as class
counsel;
4. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; and
5. scheduling a final approval hearing on April 5, 2021.
The Court said, "The parties have entered into the Settlement
Agreement voluntarily and in order to avoid the expense,
uncertainty and burden of continued and protracted litigation."
The Defendants include CAROLE JOHNSON, Commissioner, New Jersey
Department of Human Services, in her official capacity; ELIZABETH
CONNOLLY, Acting Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Human
Services, in her official capacity; VALERIE L. MIELKE, M.S.W.,
Assistant Commissioner, New Jersey Division of Mental Health and
Addiction Services, as an individual and in her official capacity;
TOMIKA CARTER, CEO, Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, as an
individual and in her official capacity; TERESA A. McQUAIDE, Former
Acting CEO, Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, as an individual
and in her official capacity; ROBERT EILERS, M.D., Medical
Director, New Jersey Division of Mental Health and Addiction
Services, as an individual and in his official capacity; HARLAN M.
MELLK, M.D., Chief of Medicine, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; EVARISTO
O. AKERELE, M.D., Medical Director, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; LISA
CIASTON, ESQ., Legal Liaison, New Jersey Division of Mental Health
and Addiction Services, as an individual and in her official
capacity; SWANG S. OO, ESQ., Deputy Attorney General, State of New
Jersey, as an individual and in her official capacity; JAMES L.
FREY, Employee Relations Officer, Greystone Park Psychiatric
Hospital, as an individual and in his official capacity; GURBIR
GREWAL, ESQ., Attorney General, State of New Jersey, in his
official capacity; and PHILIP D. MURPHY, M.B.A., Governor, State of
New Jersey, in his official capacity.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mOd1uQ at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW MEXICO: Judge Dismisses Education Lawsuit of Disabled Student
------------------------------------------------------------------
swvatoday.com reports that state education officials will have one
less lawsuit to contend after a suit representing a disabled
student demanding in-person education services was dismissed.
The lawsuit had also represented plaintiffs in rural counties where
COVID-19 rates were high and the chance of resuming in-person
schooling under state rules is very low.
U.S. District Judge James Browning ordered the Public Education
Department to intervene in the case of a 13-year-old girl with
special needs in Hobbs in October but did not certify a
class-action lawsuit.
Browning closed the case, writing that the parties had agreed to
dismiss it. In separate court documents, it was stated that the
girls' educational services were addressed and that part of the
case was moot. Lawyers representing her had argued that students
with emotional learning challenges needed to be in classrooms with
other students, not just online.
Curbing in-person schooling has been at the center of the state's
approach to preventing the spread of the virus and a reduction of
illness and death.
Citing a vulnerable population with underlying conditions, high
household densities and poor access to healthcare, New Mexico
officials have taken one of the most aggressive approaches to
curbing coronavirus spread.
That has included a virtual ban on in-person learning, with some
exceptions for kindergarten, elementary, and special needs
students.
The approach has earned the ire of some parents, school boards and
local administrators.
A coalition of school districts is suing the department, saying it
overstepped its authority to restrict in-person schooling and
staffing decisions during the pandemic.
An ongoing lawsuit over access to education was expanded, arguing
that the state hasn't used its authority enough. In a motion,
lawyers representing the plaintiffs in Martinez/Yazzie demanded
that public school students get laptops and internet access. [GN]
NSW HEALTH: Junior Doctors Seek to Recover Millions in Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Aubusson at smh.com.au reports that junior doctors have
launched a class action to recoup tens of millions of dollars in
unpaid wages from NSW Health they say were earned caring for
patients under exploitative conditions.
Law firms Maurice Blackburn and Hayden Stephens & Associates lodged
the class action in the Supreme Court of NSW on behalf of more than
10,000 junior medical officers.
At a time when healthcare workers are being hailed as heroes,
lawyer Hayden Stephens said NSW's overworked trainee doctors were
asking to be treated with respect in their workplace and their
hours of work acknowledged.
"The widespread underpayment of junior doctors has occurred for at
least six years and most likely longer under the watch of the NSW
Department of Health and many of the state's local health
districts," Mr Stephens said.
Given the number of hours worked and the number of junior doctors
involved, the claim is set to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.
The Australian Medical Association NSW's 2020 Hospital Health Check
survey of doctors-in-training found more than half of respondents
worked at least 11 hours of overtime a fortnight. For more than one
in 10, the figure was in excess of 25 hours.
More than half of the doctors surveyed are worried about making a
clinical error due to fatigue caused by their hours of work and 44
per cent felt their personal safety was at risk for the same
reason.
A forensic accountant tasked with reconciling rostering and pay
slips for multiple junior doctors also found evidence of system
errors that triggered under-payments.
The class action's lead applicant is a female doctor who worked at
Westmead Hospital between 2015 and 2018. She was made to work up to
15 hours on top of her rostered hours per week, to start early and
stay back to care for patients and fulfil her training
requirements.
"She is showing enormous courage under the circumstances and has
been brought to this point out of frustration and necessity," Mr
Stephens said.
Like so many junior doctors, the lead applicant expressed genuine
fear of committing a medical error due to fatigue caused by
excessive hours, he said.
"Patient safety is the most important motivator for [her] and other
doctors in taking this action," he said.
Mr Stephens and his team had spoken to more than 50 junior doctors
who reported similar exploitative conditions and they expected
thousands more to join the no-win no-fee class action.
"Many doctors may be reluctant to put their hand up because they
are very concerned about the impact on their careers," he said.
A Sydney-based junior doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity,
said the class action was about more than a few hours of pay. It
was fundamentally about safeguarding the wellbeing of junior
doctors.
"Suicide is the ultimate price," said the trainee physician,
recalling the death of a fellow junior doctor.
"An hour or two of overtime pay is not going to help but better
conditions are," he said.
He described working when he was sick because he knew no one would
be rostered on for him.
"This class action puts numbers on the balance sheet that will
influence the changes that need to be made on a broader scale," he
said.
"If everybody is able to start claiming all their overtime, it will
be cheaper for the system to put more people on and then everybody
is happier."
A recent report outlining the progress of NSW Health's JMO
Wellbeing and Support Plan included the implementation of two new
safe working hours standards: 14-hour maximum consecutive rostered
hours and a 10-hour minimum break between shifts, as well as
improvements in systems and processes to reduce barriers to junior
doctors claiming unrostered overtime.
The physician trainee welcomed changes implemented by NSW Health
that made it easier for junior doctors to claim unrostered
overtime, but there were still powerful cultural and administrative
barriers.
"If you claim overtime you could be seen as inefficient or fussing
when other people aren't. That's intimidating, particularly with
[superiors] who have influence over recruitment and your career
advancement," he said.
A NSW Health spokesperson said the ministry was considering the
class action and took seriously the wellbeing and remuneration of
its junior doctors.
"As the proceedings are before the court it is not appropriate to
make any comment," the spokesperson said.
A directions hearing is scheduled for February 11.
Mr Stephens said, "While we are confident about the basis of this
court action, NSW Health should work with us to bring resolution
for these doctors." [GN]
ORANGE COUNTY, NC: Class Certification in Zander Class Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH ZANDER and EVAN GALLOWAY v. ORANGE COUNTY,
N.C. and the TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, Case No. 426A18 (N.C.), Judge
Michael R. Morgan of the Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed
the trial court's order regarding class certification, and
dismissed the Defendants' interlocutory appeal regarding the
portions of the trial court's order, which pertain to discovery
matters.
In the matter, the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether the
Superior Court, Orange County, abused its discretion in certifying
two classes of the Plaintiffs who wish to recover impact fees
assessed by Defendants Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill
under a now-repealed statute which had been enacted to allow
certain counties and municipalities to defray the costs for
constructing public schools, among other public services.
On Sept. 25 2015, the Plaintiffs purchased a parcel of real
property situated in the Town of Chapel Hill and consequently
located in Orange County. The Plaintiffs subsequently built a
house on the land. The school impact fees at issue in the matter
were levied against them as authorized by the 2008 Ordinance,
pursuant to which the Plaintiffs were assessed $11,423.
Following an unsuccessful attempt to seek a waiver of the impact
fees or an exemption from payment of the assessed impact fees, the
Plaintiffs paid the impact fees to the Town of Chapel Hill on May
4, 2016. On Nov. 15, 2016, the Board promulgated Orange County
Ordinance 2016-034, titled "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 30,
Article II—Educational Facilities Impact Fee of the Orange County
Code of Ordinances," that included new fees based upon additional
reports and calculations from TischlerBise. The Plaintiffs would
have paid a lower fee under the 2016 Ordinance's fee schedule.
The Plaintiffs commenced their putative class action by filing a
class action complaint on March 3, 2017, asserting 13 claims for
relief against the Defendants, including, inter alia, claims
premised upon an allegation that fees collected under the 2008
Ordinance were illegal and including claims seeking partial refunds
as provided under the 2016 Ordinance. On May 16, 2017, the Board,
recognizing that the General Assembly was considering the prospect
of repealing the enabling legislation for the impact fees at issue
and thereby revoking Orange County's impact fee authority, adopted
an ordinance reinstating the fees which had been in effect from
Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2016 for housing categories that had been
included in the 2008 Ordinance's fee schedule. Despite the
apparent attempt by Orange County to blunt any action by the
General Assembly with regard to the County's powers to assess
impact fees, on June 20, 2017, the General Assembly repealed the
entirety of the enabling legislation, the 1987 Session Law, along
with all of its amendments.
On May 25, 2018, the trial court notified the parties that the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Classes and Subclasses and Appoint
Class Counsel would be allowed and asked that the Plaintiffs
prepare the order for the trial court to enter which formally
allowed the motion. On Aug. 3, 2018, the trial court entered an
order certifying a "Feepayer Class" defined as "all persons who
paid a fee in the amounts established in the 2008 Fee Ordinance
during the period of March 3, 2014 to Dec. 31, 2016"; and a
"Refund Class" defined as "all persons who paid a fee for a housing
unit for which the corresponding fee payable effective Jan. 1, 2017
under the 2016 Amendment would have been less."
The order provided that the Feepayer Class was certified as to the
Third (fees alleged to be ultra vires as enforced by the Town of
Chapel Hill), Eleventh (request for declaratory judgment against
both defendants that fees paid under the 2008 amendment to the
Ordinance in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy were
unlawful), and Thirteenth (request for attorney fees and costs to
be taxed against defendants) Class Action Claims for Relief
asserted in the class action complaint and that those claims would
proceed only against Orange County. The order also provided that
the Refund Class was certified only as to the Twelfth Class Action
Claim for Relief (requested refund of fees pursuant to N.C.G.S.
Section 30-35(e)(2)) and that the claim would proceed only against
Orange County.
In addressing the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses,
the trial court directed Orange County in the Aug. 3, 2018 order to
produce all of the impact fee receipts in its possession, custody,
or control for any fee paid on or after June 3, 2014, and all
impact fee receipts in its possession, custody, or control, for any
fee payment that would qualify the feepayer as a member of the
refund class.
The Defendants timely filed a notice of appeal of the Aug. 3, 2018
Order pursuant to N.C.G.S. Sections 7A-27 (2019) (providing that an
appeal lies of right directly to the Supreme Court of a trial
court's decision regarding class action certification under G.S.
1A-1, Rule 23, and included in their appeal the portion of said
order that concerned the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses.
The Defendants' arguments regarding the trial court's class
certification primarily rest upon their position that there are
time barriers to the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs. First, the
Defendants assert that the "Feepayer Class" claims proposed by the
Plaintiffs are barred by their discernment of a "statute of repose"
set forth in the enabling legislation: "Any action contesting the
validity of an ordinance adopted as herein provided must be
commenced not later than nine months after the effective date of
such ordinance." The Defendants further contend that the
Plaintiffs' Twelfth Class Action Claim on behalf of the proposed
"Refund Class" is similarly circumscribed by the provision of the
enabling legislation stating: "Any action seeking to recover an
impact fee must be commenced not later than nine months after the
impact fee is paid."
Since there is no existing authority for the Defendants' argument
that the trial court's certification of the Feepayer Class was an
abuse of discretion, Judge Morgan finds no error on the part of the
trial court on the issue. There is no prohibition against the
Plaintiffs and other parties recognized in the trial court's
certification of classes, by virtue of a statute of repose, from
proceeding with their proposed claims as the recognized Feepayer
Class. Even if the nine-month limitation period referenced in the
act authorizing the imposition and collection of impact fees could
have been applicable here, the asserted class claims would still be
able to be pursued because the presumed statute of repose would no
longer be effective to halt the claims of the Plaintiffs and the
other class members due to the elimination of the time limitation
which was arguably included in the repealed enabling legislation.
The Defendants also contest the trial court's certification of the
Plaintiffs' Twelfth Class Action Claim for Relief. They contend
that the Twelfth Class Action Claim for Relief is fundamentally a
claim to recover a portion of an impact fee already paid and
clearly falls within the type of claims contemplated by Orange
County's enabling legislation.
The Judge holds that the remaining Refund Class claim in the case
does not attempt "to recover an impact fee" as set forth in the
1987 legislative act, but instead asserts the right to partial
refunds with interest as set forth by section 30-35(e)(2) of the
2016 Ordinance as promulgated by Defendant Orange County itself.
Further, the enabling legislation upon which defendants rely has
been repealed. The Judge finds merit in the Plaintiffs'
submissions on this point and, consistent with his earlier
determination on the operation of a perceived time limitation
barring the Plaintiffs' action on behalf of a certified class that
such a limitation would have been eliminated due to the repeal of
the enabling legislation, the Judge does not find the commission of
error on this issue by the trial court.
Along with their legal arguments to the Court, the Plaintiffs
contemporaneously filed a "Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Appeal
from Discovery Order." The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs'
position in their motion that the Defendants' effort to appeal the
discovery ruling of the trial court contained in its Aug. 3, 2018
Order is, at this stage in the litigation of the case, premature
and hence must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The Defendants have cited no basis or authority for the Court to
review the trial court's order wherein the trial court has
compelled discovery regarding the production of fee receipts.
Accordingly, the Defendants' appeal regarding the discovery portion
of the trial court's Aug. 3, 2018 Order is dismissed.
For these reasons, Judge Morgan affirmed the trial court's order
regarding class certification and dismissed the Defendants'
interlocutory appeal regarding the portions of the trial court's
order which pertain to discovery matters. All defenses which the
Defendants may choose to employ at the trial level regarding the
Plaintiffs' claims are expressly reserved.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yb8ghtqd from Leagle.com.
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Robert J.
King III -- rking@brookspierce.com -- Daniel Smith --
dsmith@brookspierce.com -- and Matthew B. Tynan --
mtynan@brookspierce.com -- for the Plaintiffs.
Womble Bond Dickinson, by James R. Morgan -- jim.morgan@wbd-us.com
-- Sonny S. Haynes -- sonny.haynes@wbd-us.com -- and Patricia I.
Heyen -- patricia.holliman@wbd-us.com -- for the Defendants.
OVINTIV USA: Buffington Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consultants
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MORGAN BUFFINGTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
OVINTIV USA INC. and NEWFIELD EXPLORATION COMPANY, Case No. (D.
Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
class consisting of:
"all safety consultants who worked for, or on behalf of
Ovintiv USA Inc. or Newfield Exploration Company during
the past 3 years who were classified as independent
contractors and paid a day-rate with no overtime;" and
2. issuing Buffington's proposed Notice and Consent forms to
these individuals to fully inform them of their right to
join this collective action and their rights under the
FLSA (including their rights to liquidated damages), and
for all other relief to which Buffington may be entitled
to under law or equity.
This case concerns a dispute under the FLSA. Plaintiff Buffington
contends that the Defendants paid him and the Putative Class
Members a flat sum for each day worked, regardless of the number of
hours that they worked that day (or in that workweek) and no
overtime pay for hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek. Mr. Buffington filed this collective action against
Ovintiv on August 18, 2020.
Ovintiv (former name: Encana Corporation) is a hydrocarbon
exploration and production company organized in Delaware and
headquartered in Denver. Newfield Exploration was a petroleum,
natural gas, and natural gas liquids exploration and production
company organized in Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pqOH4d
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative class members, are:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
William Liles, Esq.
Melodie K. Arian, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
wliles@mybackwages.com
marian@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PEKIN, IL: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Mobility-Disabled Persons
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Patricia Berardi, Robert
Chriswell, Alice Rose Mary Ortiz, Austin Calloway, Ellen
Sunderland, and Lisa Lynch, as the parent and next friend of Maygen
Lynch, a minor child, individually on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, v. City of Pekin, Illinois, a
municipal corporation; Mark Rothert, not individually, but in his
official capacity as the Pekin City Manager; John McCabe, John P.
Abel, Michael Garrison, Mark Luft, Lloyd Orrick, Michael Ritchason
and Jim Schramm, not individually, but in their official capacities
as Council Members for the City of Pekin, Case No.
1:18-cv-01438-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying a class of proposed individuals:
"all persons with mobility disabilities who were residents
of the city of Pekin from December 11, 2016 through
December 11, 2018 who have been denied access to
pedestrian rights of way in the City as a result of the
Defendants' policies and practices with regard to the
City's pedestrian rights-of-way and disability access;"
2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and
3. appointing their attorneys of record from the law firm
Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd., and Carl Reardon as class
counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
compensatory damages on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants have a pattern and practice of failing to provide full
and equal access to their facilities and services to individuals
who have mobility disabilities and who depend upon the use of
wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
On December 5, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their putative class
action lawsuit.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34IeyfT
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer M. Sender, Esq.
Andres J. Gallegos, Esq.
ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD.
180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 782-9000
Facsimile: (312) 782-6690
E-mail: jsender@rsplaw.com
agallegos@rsplaw.com
rstavins@rsplaw.com
- and -
Carl F. Reardon, Esq.
CARL F REARDON LAW FIRM
120 Illini Drive
East Peoria, IL 61611
Telephone: (309) 699-6767
E-mail: carlreardon@comcast.net
PENNSYLVANIA: Grasso Seeks to Certify Class of USP Canaan Inmates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as 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-02040-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 brought this action to challenge the statutory
construction of title 18 United States Code section 3624 which
pertains to home confinement placement. The Petitioners alleged
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/2JnDO3G at no extra charge.[CC]
QIWI PLC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of Feb. 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
February 9, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Qiwi Plc ("Qiwi" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: [url="]QIWI[/url]) securities between March
28, 2019 and December 9, 2020,inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Qiwi investments are encouraged
to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On December 10, 2020, the Company issued a press release entitled
"QIWI (QIWI) Fined by Bank of Russia, Restricts Operations."
Therein, Qiwi stated 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 Company was fined RUB 11 million, or approximately USD 150,000.
The release also stated that "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, the Company's ADR price fell $2.80 per share, or 20%,
to close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 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) 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' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Qiwi securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 9, 2021
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]
QIWI PLC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of Qiwi plc shareholders. There is no cost to
participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the
lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.
Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI)
Class Period: March 28, 2019 - December 9, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
The complaint alleges Qiwi plc made materially 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in QIWI:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-loss-submission-form?id=11686&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
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]
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of Raytheon Technologies Corporation
shareholders. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE:RTX)
Investors Affected: February 10, 2016 - October 27, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Raytheon Technologies Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and inadequate 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 U.S.
Department of Justice; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
RCN TELECOM: Grillo, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE GRILLO and
CHRISTIAN REID, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. RCN TELECOM SERVICES, LLC; RCN TELECOM SERVICES OF
MASSACHUSETTS, LLC; RCN TELECOM SERVICES (LEHIGH), LLC; and PATRIOT
MEDIA CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-08609-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class under Fed. Rule 23(b)(3) defined as:
"all current and former RCN customers in the United States
who received and paid an RCN bill for broadband internet
service which imposed a charge for a "Network Access and
Maintenance Fee" between January 1, 2018 and December 21,
2020;"
2. certifying a sub-class under Fed. Rule 23(b)(3) defined
as:
"all current and former RCN customers in the United States
who received and paid an RCN bill for broadband internet
service which imposed a charge for a "Network Access and
Maintenance Fee" between January 1, 2018 and December 21,
2020, where the bill stated: "All services, including
telecommunications services, are provided by RCN Telecom
Services (Lehigh) LLC;"
3. certifying a sub-class under Fed. Rule 23(b)(3) defined
as:
"all current and former RCN customers in the United States
who received and paid an RCN bill for broadband internet
service which imposed a charge for a "Network Access and
Maintenance Fee" between January 1, 2018 and December 21,
2020, where the bill stated: "All services, including
telecommunications services, are provided by RCN Telecom
Services of Massachusetts LLC;" and
4. appointing Stephen P. DeNittis and Joseph A. Osefchen of
the law firm of DeNittis Osefchen Prince, P.C. and Daniel
Hattis of Hattis & Lukas as co-counsel to the class and
sub-classes.
RCN provides telecommunication services. The Company offers
broadband Internet, digital cable television, fixed line telephony,
and mobile telephony services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' proposed order dated Dec. 21, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WGRUA5 at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
- and -
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
400 108th Ave NE, Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 233-8650
E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
Attorneys for the Defendants, are:
Philip R. Sellinger, Esq.
David E. Sellinger, Esq.
Todd L. Schleifstein, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
500 Campus Drive, Suite 400
Florham Park, NJ 07932
REALPAGE INC: Bid to Stay Denied as Moot in Kelly Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN JOSEPH KELLY, et
al., v. REALPAGE, INC. d/b/a On-Site, et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-01706-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson
entered an order denying as moot the Defendant's Motion to Stay in
light of the Court's order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class.
The Court had denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
following classes:
-- All Requests Class:
"For the period beginning September 26, 2017 through
November 30, 2019, all natural persons with an address in
the United States and its Territories who had a Rental
Report sent or caused to be sent to them by RealPage,
Inc. through its On-Site operation which did not include
the name of the private vendor source(s) from which
public record information in the file was obtained; and
-- Direct Requests Class:
"For the period beginning September 26, 2017 through
November 30, 2019, all natural persons with an address in
the United States and its Territories who had a Rental
Report sent or caused to be sent to them by RealPage,
Inc. through its On-Site operation which did not include
the name of the private vendor source(s) from which
public record information in the file was obtained,
following a documented direct request by the consumer
to RealPage Inc. and/or RP On-Site LLC."
RealPage operates tenant screening businesses, including RP On-Site
LLC, which operates under the brand name "On-Site." When a landlord
requests a report from RealPage, RealPage provides a screening
report, which is a type of "consumer report."
The Plaintiffs claim that Defendant RealPage Inc. and its
subsidiary RP On-Site LLC fail Congress' mandate to disclose to
consumers the vendors that they use to gather information about
them.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aGAZGg at no extra charge.[CC]
RING LLC: Faces Class Action Over Smart Camera Privacy Invasions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Paul, writing for The Guardian, reports that dozens of people
who say they were subjected to death threats, racial slurs, and
blackmail after their in-home Ring smart cameras were hacked are
suing the company over "horrific" invasions of privacy.
A new class action lawsuit, which combines a number of cases filed
in recent years, alleges that lax security measures at Ring, which
is owned by Amazon, allowed hackers to take over their devices.
Ring provides home security in the form of smart cameras that are
often installed on doorbells or inside people's homes.
The suit against Ring builds on previous cases, joining together
complaints filed by more than 30 people in 15 families who say
their devices were hacked and used to harass them. In response to
these attacks, Ring "blamed the victims, and offered inadequate
responses and spurious explanations", the suit alleges. The
plaintiffs also claim the company has also failed to adequately
update its security measures in the aftermath of such hacks.
People who could benefit from the lawsuit include the families
named in the case, as well as any other Ring users who have been
hacked. The class also covers the tens of thousands of customers
who purchased a Ring doorbell between 2015 and 2019, even if they
were not hacked.
"I would imagine that there are a whole lot more people out there
who have been hacked," said Hassan Zavareei, the lead attorney on
the case. "This is probably just the tip of the iceberg."
The suit outlines examples of hackers taking over Ring cameras,
screaming obscenities, demanding ransoms, and threatening murder
and sexual assault.
One Ring user says he was asked through his camera as he watched TV
one night, "What are you watching?" Another alleges his children
were addressed by an unknown hacker through the device, who
commented on their basketball play and encouraged them to approach
the camera.
In one case, an older woman at an assisted living facility was
allegedly told "tonight you die" and sexually harassed through the
camera. Due to the distress caused by the hack she ultimately had
to move back in with her family, feeling unsafe in the facility
where she once lived.
In another incident, a plaintiff who had purchased a Ring device to
keep an eye on her four-year-old daughter with a history of
seizures alleges that music from a horror film was played through
her camera. Her complaint reads:
On December 4, 2019, shortly after 8 pm, while Ms LeMay was running
errands, both of the Ring devices began live-streaming.
Simultaneously, the Tiny Tim cover of "Tiptoe Through the Tulips",
a song that appeared in a scene from the 2020 horror film
"Insidious", began to play through the two-way talk feature.
Intrigued by the music, Ms LeMay's eight-year-old daughter, AL,
went to the room she shares with two of her younger sisters to
investigate. But the room was empty. As AL wandered the room,
looking for the source of the music, the song abruptly stopped, and
a man's voice rang out: "Hello there."
LeMay immediately changed passwords and called Ring that day to
report the hack, but she didn't get a response for nearly a week.
The company never told LeMay where the hack originated or how it
occurred, the complaint alleges. The plaintiff eventually had to
leave her job because of the emotional distress, the complaint
said.
Ring has not said who is behind the hacks, and victims say they
still do not know who accessed their homes through the devices.
Repeatedly, Ring blamed victims for not using sufficiently strong
passwords, the suit claims. It says Ring should have required users
to establish complicated passwords when setting up the devices and
implement two-factor authentication, which adds a second layer of
security using a second form of identification, such as a phone
number.
However, as the lawsuit alleges, Ring was hacked in 2019 -- meaning
the stolen credentials from that breach may have been used to get
into users' cameras. That means the hacks that Ring has allegedly
blamed on customers may have been caused by Ring itself. A
spokesperson said the company did not comment on ongoing
litigation.
The lawsuit also cites research from the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and others that Ring violates user privacy by using a
number of third-party trackers on its app.
The suit said that, at present, Ring "has not sufficiently improved
its security practices or responded adequately to the ongoing
threats its products pose to its customers". Security and privacy
experts have also criticized Ring's response.
"After a slew of terrifying headlines about their poor security
practices, Ring has finally made some improvements," said Evan
Greer, the deputy director of the privacy advocacy group Fight for
the Future. "But implementing basic security that they should have
had in the first place does nothing to change the fact that Ring
cameras make communities less safe, not more safe."
In addition to hacking concerns, Ring has faced increasing
criticism for its growing surveillance partnership with police
forces. Ring has now created law enforcement partnerships, which
allow users to send footage and photos to police, in more than
1,300 cities.
"Ring's surveillance-based business model is fundamentally
incompatible with civil rights and democracy," Greer said. "These
devices, and the thinking behind them, should be melted down and
never spoken of again." [GN]
RIPPLE LABS: Faces SEC Lawsuit Amid XRP Cryptocurrency Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Riley, writing for Silicon Angle, reports that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on Dec. 22 filed a lawsuit
against Ripple Labs Inc. and two of its executives claiming that
the company, which offers the XRP cryptocurrency, illegally sold
unregistered securities.
The complaint alleges that Ripple, along with Christian Larson, the
company's co-founder and executive chairman of its board and former
chief executive officer, and Bradley Garlinghouse, the company's
current CEO, raised capital to finance the company's business
beginning in 2013 through the sale of unregistered securities
called XRP to investors in the U.S. and worldwide.
The SEC says Ripple distributed billions of XRP in exchange for
noncash considerations such as labor and market-making services,
which is the key to the complaint. The offering of cryptocurrency
is not in itself illegal when the purpose is to provide a digital
currency for trading, but the line is crossed when funds from a
cryptocurrency are used primarily for company purposes. In that
case, the cryptocurrency must be registered as a security.
Larson and Garlinghouse are both alleged to have effected personal
unregistered sales of XRP totaling $600 million, and failed to
register their offers and sales of XRP or satisfying any exemption
from registration in violation of securities law.
"Issuers seeking the benefits of a public offering, including
access to retail investors, broad distribution and a secondary
trading market, must comply with the federal securities laws that
require registration of offerings unless an exemption from
registration applies," Stephanie Avakian, director of the SEC's
Enforcement Division, said in a statement. "We allege that Ripple,
Larsen and Garlinghouse failed to register their ongoing offer and
sale of billions of XRP to retail investors, which deprived
potential purchasers of adequate disclosures about XRP and Ripple's
business and other important long-standing protections that are
fundamental to our robust public market system."
Nearly a year in the making, the SEC filing does not come as a
complete surprise. Ripple was sued in a class-action lawsuit by
investors who lost money investing in XRP in February. The
class-action suit, which is still working its way through court,
alleged as the SEC now does that Ripple's offering of XRP breached
the Securities Act.
It was noted at the time the class-action lawsuit was filed that
the SEC had not take action against Ripple, but that could change.
Garlinghouse is on record saying that "we have been talking to the
SEC for some period of time."
This also isn't the first action taken against a company alleged to
have breached securities law in offering a cryptocurrency. Some of
the prominent SEC cases include those against Telegram Group Inc.
and Kik Interactive Inc. The Telegram case was eventually settled
in October when the company agreed to pay a $18.5 million penalty
as well as return some of the monies raised through its token
offering. The Kik case was also settled in October with Kik
agreeing to a $5 million fine.
Any settlement between Ripple and the SEC is likely to be
significantly. XRP has a market capitalization of more than $20
billion based on its current price and has been traded and offered
for a lot longer.
Ripple itself looks set to fight the lawsuit. Ahead of the lawsuit
being officially filed, Garlinghouse claimed that the lawsuit was
"fundamentally wrong as a matter of law and fact" and questioned
its timing.
"XRP is a currency and does not have to be registered as an
investment contract," Garlinghouse said. "In fact, the Justice
Department and the Treasury's FinCEN already determined that XRP is
a virtual currency in 2015 and other G20 regulators have done the
same. No other country has classified XRP as a security."
"The SEC has permitted XRP to function as a currency for over eight
years, and we question the motivation for bringing this action just
days before the change in administration," Garlinghouse added.
"Instead of providing a clear regulatory framework for crypto in
the U.S., [SEC Chairman] Jay Clayton inexplicably decided to sue
Ripple -- leaving the actual legal work to the next
administration." [GN]
ROB GRONKOWSKI: Faces $5 Million False Advertising Class Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Crawford at 247sports.com reports that Tampa Bay Buccaneers
tight end Rob Gronkowski -- along with champion boxer Floyd
Mayweather -- is facing a $5 million class-action lawsuit for his
involvement in promoting a teeth whitening brand that defendants
claim "unjustifiably charge over a hundred dollars more than
arguable comparable products" based on "false claims that the
lights they sell to consumers will dramatically improve the
whitening power and antiviral or antiseptic qualities" of the
product.
Both athletes have posted social media photos using the "Snow"
brand. The lawsuit includes Gronkowski, Mayweather and the CEO of
Snow Teeth Whitening LLC. The lawsuit details false advertising
relating to positive effects against COVID-19 and a "red-light
option kills viruses and bacteria in the mouth".
The company Gronkowski endorses calls itself the "No. 1 most
popular teeth whitening brand in the world!" and won the "Best of
Beauty Award" for 2019 from Allure magazine.
On the field, Gronkowski and the Buccaneers' offense hasn't been as
powerful as many projected this season. Tampa Bay is 8-5 in the NFC
South and ranks 20th in the NFL in yards per game.
Buccaneers head coach Bruce Arians has discussed the offensive woes
at times this season and has singled out quarterback Tom Brady for
his on-field performance. However, Arians defended Brady for not
getting enough credit this season.
"I don't know why anyone's criticizing Tom," Arians told reporters
via Pro Football Talk. "What he did at the end of the half and to
start the second half [against] Minnesota -- very, very few teams
can score 17 points in a matter of five or six minutes. If we
finished the half with 17 points, I don't [care] how we start. He's
not getting enough credit for what he's doing."
Gronkowski has record one 100-yard game this season for the
Buccaneers, doing so during a three-point loss to Kansas City. He
has five touchdown receptions this season and at least one
reception in every game but one, Week 2 vs. Carolina. [GN]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Sued in California for Selling Stock Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Blumberg, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Robinhood
Financial LLC was sued in a proposed class action for allegedly
failing to inform clients it was selling their stock orders to
trading firms and effectively charging back-door commission fees.
The complaint filed on Dec. 23 in San Francisco federal court
follows the company's $65 million settlement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission over similar allegations.
While Robinhood touted "commission free" trading on its platform,
it didn't disclose that it relied extensively on "payment for order
flow," collecting payment from market makers in exchange for
executing trades, according to the suit.
"The principal trading firms/electronic market makers in turn
passed these costs along to Robinhood's clients on each trade
through inferior execution quality -- the price at which the
requested market orders were executed," according to the complaint.
Read More: Robinhood Pays $65 Million to End a Key Probe, But
Others Fester at: https://bloom.bg/3pxJCXH
As part of the accord with the SEC, Robinhood agreed to have an
outside consultant monitor its compliance by ensuring it follows
rules requiring firms to provide best execution for trades.
Robinhood, which didn't admit or deny the regulator's claims, said
at the time it is now fully transparent in its communications with
customers about how it makes money.
Nora Chan, a Robinhood spokeswoman, declined to comment. The case
is Lemon v. Robinhood Financial LLC, 20-cv-09328, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco). [GN]
SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BLOOM, STEPHEN
CHATZKY, TONY DIAZ, VALERIE GRISCHY, PENNY HELMS, BENJAMIN
HERNANDEZ, DOUG HIGGINS, SUZONNE KEITH, GERALD STARK, ANNA STARK,
and DAVID WILSON, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No.
3:17-cv-02324-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on Feb. 25, 2021 to enter an order:
1. certifying a main class defined as:
"all persons in the City of San Diego who used, use, or
will use an RV or other vehicle as their only form of
shelter at any time after November 15, 2017";
2. certifying a disability subclass defined as:
"members who have a "disability" as defined under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. section
12102, which limits their ability to comply with the
City's ordinances that prevent people from using vehicles
as shelter and/or which makes them particularly vulnerable
to harm from the City's enforcement of the ordinances";
and
3. appointing the Plaintiffs Michael Bloom, Stephen Chatzky,
Tony Diaz, Valerie Grischy, Penny Helms, Benjamin
Hernandez, Doug Higgins, Suzonne Keith, Gerald Stark, Anna
Stark, and David Wilson as representatives of the main
class and disability subclass, and the law firms of Fish &
Richardson P.C.; National Law Center on Homelessness and
Poverty; Disability Rights California; Disability Rights
Advocates; Dreher Law Firm; Manfred, APC; and Bonett,
Fairrbourn, Friedman & Balint PC, as class counsel for the
main class and disability subclass.
San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for
its beaches, parks, and warm climate.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37JxAVc
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart Seaborn, Esq.
Shira J. Tevah, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
2001 Center Street, 4th Floor,
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 665-8644
Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
E-mail: sseaborn@dralegal.org
stevah@dralegal.org
- and -
Maria Foscarinis, Esq.
NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON
HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY
2000 M Street, NW, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 638-2835 x 102
Facsimile: (202) 628-2737
E-mail: mfoscarinis@nlchp.org
- and -
Ann E. Menasche, Esq.
Nichole Marie Mendoza, Esq.
Lili Graham, Esq.
Benjamin Conway, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
530 B Street, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 814-8524
Facsimile: (619) 239-7906
E-mail: Ann.menasche@disabilityrightsca.org
Nichole.Mendoza@disabiltyrightsca.org
Lili.Graham@disabilityrightsca.org
ben.conway@disabilityrightsca.org
- and -
Michael A. Amon, Esq.
Madelyn S. McCormick, Esq.
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 678-5070
Facsimile: (858) 678-5099
E-mail: Amon@fr.com
MMcCormick@fr.com
- and -
Robert Scott Dreher, Esq.
DREHER LAW FIRM
350 W. Ash, Ste. 101
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-8828
E-mail: scott@dreherlawfirm.com
- and -
Patricia Syverson, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN &
BALINT PC
600 West Broadway, No. 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 798-4292
Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
- and -
Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED, APC
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 550-4005
E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com
SANTEE COOPER: Customers Get Settlement Checks for Nuclear Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Kokal, writing for Island Packet, reports that the
average settlement from a class action lawsuit between SC residents
and the publicly-owned utility Santee Cooper was $169, according to
records from an attorney who represented ratepayers in the suit
following a failed nuclear project that cost Santee Cooper
customers and co-ops $680 million.
More than 113,000 customers got credits and checks for less than
$1.
The data provides answers to ratepayers who were expecting more
explanation for how their settlement was calculated and got few
answers from their power companies or the settlement
administrator.
Over 100 people filled out a form for The Island Packet and
Beaufort Gazette newspapers, reporting checks worth anything from 4
cents to $670.
"We're still looking at them and laughing," Bluffton resident Lisa
Bacigalupo told The Island Packet after receiving checks for her
late father, her husband and herself that totaled $3.98. "I can't
believe they wasted a stamp on these checks."
Data provided to The Island Packet by class attorney Jay Ward, of
McGowan, Hood & Felder LLC, on Dec. 22 shows that 1.6 million
customers got settlements.
Approximately 30% of the money Santee Cooper had collected for V.C.
Summer nuclear expenses came from its direct customers, Ward said.
The remaining 70% came from cooperative customers, such as Palmetto
Electric in the Lowcountry.
That 70% was allocated among the 20 cooperatives and then
distributed within each cooperative to its customers, he added.
"If a customer received a large check, it was likely a long-term
customer and/or high energy user," Ward wrote in an email to The
Island Packet. "If a customer received a small check (or bill
credit), it was likely a short-term customer and/or small energy
user."
But Ward said the 100,000 checks and credits for under $1 were
unavoidable.
"We had no discretion to deny a class member its share no matter
how small," he wrote.
SANTEE COOPER'S AVERAGE SETTLEMENT CHECK
Ward provided the following data on the settlements:
Non-industrial customers who received checks or credits: 1,612,872
Average check or credit: $169.28
Average check amount: $178.22
Average credit amount to active accounts: $12.14
8% of refunds/credits were under $1
37% of refunds/credits were between $1 and $50
14% of refunds/credits were between $50 and $100
38% of refunds/credits were between $100 and $500
2% of refunds/credits were between $500 and $1,000
1% of refunds/credits were $1,000+
WHO CAN I TALK TO ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT?
Epiq Class Action & Claims Solution, based in Oregon, provides
little information on its site about how to find help, and its
frequently asked questions page is more about the deadlines a
customer has missed to appeal or opt-out of the settlement.
However, if you think the settlement administrators have an
incorrect address for you, you can email
info@SanteeCooperClassAction.com.
To request that a replacement check be mailed to an updated
address, you must mail a written and signed request asking that a
replacement check be issued. You should include your current and
former mailing addresses, and mail the request to Cook v. SCPSA
Class Action Administrator, P.O. Box 3127, Portland, OR 97208-3127.
[GN]
SCRIBE OPCO: Jones Seeks Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
----------------------------------------------------
Eric Jones on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Scribe Opco, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02945,
(M.D. Fla., December 9, 2020), seeks collection of unpaid wages and
benefits for sixty calendar days pursuant to the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.
Eric Jones worked for Defendant for over 16 years before he was
abruptly terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff on
March 26, 2020. He last worked for Scribe at its facility located
in Clearwater, Florida. Scribe failed to provide at least 60 days'
advance written notice of termination, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon Hill, Esq.
WENZEL, FENTON AND CABASSA PA
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
Email: gnichols@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
- and -
Chad A. Justice, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel. (813) 566-0550
Fax: 813-566-0770
E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. ("Sequential" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SQBG). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Sequential and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On December 11, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") issued a press release entitled "SEC Charges Sequential
Brands Group Inc. with Deceiving Investors by Failing to Timely
Impair Goodwill." According to the SEC's press release, "by
avoiding an impairment to its goodwill in 2016, Sequential inflated
its income from operations, created a false impression of its
financial condition, and misstated its financial statements and
reports for almost a year."
On this news, Sequential's stock price fell $2.03 per share, or
11.14%, to close at $16.20 per share on December 11, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Sheriff Reaches Deal Over Covid-19 Precautions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dima Amro, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports that the
Shelby County Sheriff's Office reached an agreement over COVID-19
conditions in the county jail, according to a sheriff's office news
release on Dec. 23.
"Pursuant to the agreement, the sheriff's office will continue to
work closely with the health department and Shelby County
Government to provide the best possible care and protection for
detainees in its custody," the release said.
On May 20, multiple legal organizations including the American
Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee filed a federal class-action
lawsuit against the Shelby County Sheriff's Office asking for the
release of detainees most vulnerable to COVID-19.
The lawsuit came after an April announcement that about 200 inmates
and staff at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center tested
positive for COVID-19 and a corrections deputy who worked with
detainees at the main jail died.
According to the accord announced by the sheriff's office, the jail
will now provide inmates two facial coverings "upgraded as
warranted," and provide all detainees free access to cleaning
products and soap.
The sheriff's office will also quarantine all new detainees for at
least 14 days and offer a COVID-19 test by the twelfth day of
incarceration. Unless approved by medical personnel, the detainee
will stay out of general population, the release said.
Any detainee who tests positive or has symptoms of COVID-19 will be
isolated until medical personnel clear the inmate to return to
general population.
The sheriff's office said it hopes to offer the vaccine to all
inmates in the coming months, the release said.
The jail, which is also referred to by the shorthand of its
address, 201 Poplar, will also have a ventilation system upgraded
to help eliminate airborne viruses.
The jail houses 400 fewer inmates than at the beginning of the year
after the sheriff's office took steps to reduce the jail
population, the release said.
To further fight the pandemic, the sheriff's office will work with
an independent inspector who will visit the jail quarterly.
The agreement still needs to be approved by the federal judge.
[GN]
SK TRADING: Loses Bid to Toss Gasoline Spot Suit for Improper Venue
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: GASOLINE SPOT LITIGATION, Case No.
20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California:
(i) denies SK Trading International Co., Ltd.'s motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Amended
Complaint ("CCAC") for improper venue under Rule
12(b)(3); and
(ii) defers ruling on SK Trading's motion to dismiss the CCAC
for lack of personal jurisdiction because jurisdictional
discovery is warranted.
In the consolidated putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants entered into horizontal agreements to restrain
competition in the spot market for gasoline and gasoline blending
components formulated for use in California. The Plaintiffs bring
federal and state antitrust claims, as well as state law unfair
competition and unjust enrichment claims against SK Trading
International Co., Ltd., SK Energy Americas, Inc., Vitol Inc., and
two Individual Defendants, Brad Lucas and David Niemann.
The gravamen of the CCAC is that SK Trading, SK Energy, and Vitol
conspired to restrain competition in the spot market for gasoline
formulated for use in California and in certain gasoline blending
components used in that gasoline. The Defendants' scheme exploited
a disruption in refining capacity that resulted from an incident at
the refinery in Torrance, California, wherein a cracking unit
exploded which impaired the refinery's ability to refine alkylates
from February 2015 through at least June 2016.
The class action Plaintiffs are eight entities and individuals, who
purchased gasoline at retail in the State of California within the
class period for their own use and not for resale. They bring the
action on their own behalf as well as on behalf of "all persons or
entities that purchased gasoline from a retailer, for their own use
and not for resale, within the State of California from Feb. 18,
2015 until such time as the adverse effects of the Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct ceased."
SK Trading, a South Korean corporation with its head office in
Seoul, South Korea, is the largest refiner of crude oil in Korea.
SK Energy, a California corporation with its registered office in
Houston, Texas, is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of SK
Trading. Vitol is an energy company incorporated in Delaware and
registered with the California Secretary of State to conduct
business in California. Mr. Lucas is Vitol's West Coast Marketing
Director. Mr. Niemann was SK Energy's senior trader responsible
for executing trades on the West Coast. He allegedly colluded with
Mr. Lucas regarding the price fixing scheme.
All the Defendants have moved to dismiss the CCAC. The Court has
phased the briefing and hearing of the motions. SK Trading's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper
venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (3) came
before the Court for hearing on Dec. 16, 2020.
Magistrate Judge Corley denies SK Trading's motion to dismiss for
improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). She finds that SK Trading's
improper venue argument is essentially a rehash of its challenge to
Go-Video's nationwide contacts test. SK Trading insists that the
Plaintiff cannot establish sufficient contacts with California to
satisfy venue requirements. However, under Go-Video, venue is
proper in a federal antitrust suit if the venue requirements of
either Section 12 or 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 is satisfied. As the
Plaintiffs note in their opposition brief, under 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(c)(3), a defendant not resident in the United States may be
sued in any judicial district. SK Trading does not respond to the
argument, and in fact, makes no reference to venue in its reply
brief.
The Magistrate Judge defers ruling on SK Trading's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) until
the parties have completed limited jurisdictional discovery
regarding the relationship between SK Trading and SK Energy. The
Plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case of specific
personal jurisdiction. The CCAC's allegations are too general to
satisfy the Plaintiffs' burden of showing specific personal
jurisdiction of SK Trading based on an agency theory. The
Plaintiffs have not alleged facts that satisfy their burden of
making a prima facie showing that SK Trading controlled SK Energy's
activities.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge holds, the Plaintiffs' allegations
are sufficient to warrant limited jurisdictional discovery into two
of their personal jurisdiction theories. The first is that SK
Trading was itself involved in directing and overseeing the
anticompetitive horizonal spot market trading activity alleged.
Second, the Magistrate Judge will allow discovery into the agency
theory, although to a large extent the relevant discovery will
overlap with the agency theory. She will not, however, permit
discovery in support of an alter ego theory as the Plaintiffs have
not made any allegations that suggest that with discovery they
could satisfy the fraud or inequitable result requirement.
The parties will meet and confer via video-conference using the
Plaintiffs' proposed discovery plan as a starting point. The plan
should focus on the discovery that will be the most probative to
the questions presented. The parties will submit the plan in
joint, or separate form if they are unable to agree, by Jan. 15,
2021. The Court will review the plan(s) with the parties at the
previously scheduled Jan. 28, 2021 hearing.
Following the limited jurisdictional discovery period, the parties
will file supplemental submissions addressing personal
jurisdiction. Their discovery plan will also include a proposed
schedule on the supplemental submissions. Upon review of the
supplemental submissions, the Court will advise the parties if
additional oral argument is required.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7l3cm3k from Leagle.com.
SMITH FARMS: Class Certification of H-2A Visa Workers Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCOS BENITEZ GONZALEZ,
ISAAC GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, VICTORINO FELIX ANTONIO, JUAN JAVIER
VARELA CUELLAR, RUBEN DOMINGUEZ ANTONIO, RIGOBERTO CARTERAS JARDON,
JORGE BAUTISTA SABINO, EMMANUEL CRUZ RIVERA, CELSO GONZALEZ TREJO,
ERIC JACINTO WENCES VASQUEZ, MARTIN NELSON WENCES VASQUEZ, PORFIRIO
BAUTISTA CRUZ, ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ MEDINA, JOSE ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ
CRUZ, SIXTO HERNANDEZ BUENO, VIRGINIO ANGELES GONZALEZ, TIBURCIO
ANTONIO MANUEL, and HUMBERTO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated persons, v. O.J. SMITH
FARMS, INC., BOSEMAN FARMS, INC., GREENLEAF NURSERY CO., SBHLP,
INC., JOEL M. BOSEMAN, JEAN J. BOSEMAN, PEYTON G. MCDANIEL, SANDRA
W. MCDANIEL, and SALVADOR BARAJAS, Case No. 5:20-cv-00086-FL
(E.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order certifying
a North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA)/Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) class defined as:
"all H-2A visa workers who in 2019 were allegedly jointly
employed by SBHLP, Inc. and/or Salvador Barajas on one hand
and by Smith Farms on the other who were not paid all wages
when due because of de facto wage deductions for travel and
other related expenses that were an incident of and necessary
to their employment in North Carolina with an H-2A visa."
The Plaintiffs and Smith Farms have negotiated a settlement
agreement in this action which includes relief on a class-wide
basis for named Plaintiffs' claims under this combined FLSA/NCWHA
claim. The parties submit the Motion pursuant to the terms of their
Settlement Agreement. The parties submitted a Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement prior to the filing
of this Motion.
A copy of the Parties' joint motion to certify class dated Dec. 21,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KPD8oa
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert J. Willis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
P.O. Box 10730
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Telephone: 919-821-9031
Facsimile: 919-821-1763
E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
William Joseph Austin, Jr., Esq.
Benton Sawrey, Esq.
NARRON WENZEL, P.A.
5400 Glenwood Ave., Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: 919-977-8018
Facsimile: 919-977-8526
E-mail: jaustin@narronwenzel.com
bsawrey@narronwenzel.com
SONA NANOTECH: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sona Nanotech Inc. (OTC: SNANF) between July 2, 2020
and November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Sona investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Sona class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1994.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) it was unreasonable for Sona to represent that it could
receive results from field studies of its COVID-19 antigen test
within a month; (2) Sona's positive statements about its COVID-19
antigen test were unfounded as the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") would deprioritize emergency use
authorization approval of Sona's antigen test finding it did not
meet "the public health need" criterion; (3) it was unreasonable
for Sona to believe that data gathered over such a short period of
time would be sufficient for approval of its antigen test by either
the FDA or Health Canada; (4) Sona would have to withdraw its
submission for Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for
the marketing of its COVID-19 antigen test as it lacked sufficient
clinical data to support approval; 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. 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
16, 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-1994.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.
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]
SPLUNK INC: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Splunk Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ:SPLK)
Investors Affected: October 21, 2020 - December 2, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Splunk Inc. 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.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/splunk-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11698&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
SPLUNK INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of
Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK). The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Splunk between October 21, 2020 and
December 2, 20200, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
move the Court no later than February 2, 2021.
The Complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and 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.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please
include a phone number.
Additionally, you can click https://bit.ly/38NzqDx to join this
action. There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
SPLUNK INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 2 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
Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired
Splunk Inc. ("Splunk" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SPLK) securities
during the period from October 21, 2020 through December 2, 2020
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 2, 2021 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On December 2, 2020, after the market closed, Splunk announced its
third quarter 2021 financial results in a press release. The
Company reported total revenue of $559 million, well below prior
guidance expecting between $600 and $630 million. Splunk attributed
the shortfall to "uncertainty and volatility for macro factors"
that "cause[d] customers to delay spending commitments,
particularly for high-value contracts." However, analysts at BTIG
wrote that this explanation "is fairly confusing given that most
peers in the software space (and particularly in security software)
saw relatively strong trends." Also, analysts at JPMorgan were
"blindsided by the magnitude of too many large deals slipping in
the final days of October."
On this news, Splunk's stock price fell by $47.88 per share, or
approximately 23%, to close at $158.03 per share on December 3,
2020.
If you acquired Splunk 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.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]
SPLUNK INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Dec. 24 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.
SPLK Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/splunk-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11790&wire=1
BSX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11790&wire=1
QIWI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-information-request-form?prid=11790&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK)
SPLK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 21, 2020
- December 2, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/splunk-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11790&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Splunk
Inc. 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.
Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX)
BSX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 24, 2019 -
November 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11790&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Boston
Scientific Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LOTUS Edge
Aortic Valve System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and
threatened the continued viability of the entire product line; (ii)
as a result, the Company had materially overstated the continued
commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Qiwi plc (NASDAQ: QIWI)
QIWI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 28, 2019 -
December 9, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-information-request-form?prid=11790&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Qiwi plc
made materially 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.
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]
SPLUNK INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Splunk Inc.
("Splunk" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: SPLK) between October 21, 2020
and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than February 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/securities/splunk/ or contact Sharon
M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Splunk Class Litigation
Splunk, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in San
Francisco, California, is a software company specializing in
web-based products for searching, monitoring, and analyzing
machine-generated data at an organizational level.
The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Splunk was
failing to close deals with most of its biggest customers in the
fiscal third quarter 2021; (2) Splunk was not achieving the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result,
defendants' public statements were at all relevant times materially
false and misleading.
On December 2, 2020, after markets closed, Splunk announced
disappointing results for the fiscal third quarter 2021, including
a decrease of approximately 11% in total revenues, missing analyst
estimates by almost $60 million. On the subsequent earnings call,
Company executives disclosed for the first time that Splunk had
failed to close most of its largest deals during the quarter. On
this news, the price of Splunk stock dropped $47.88 per share, or
23.25%, from its closing price of $205.91 on December 2, 2020, to
close at $158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, on extremely heavy
trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility. [GN]
SQUARETRADE INC: California Court Narrows Claims in Shuman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL SHUMAN, Plaintiff v. SQUARETRADE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02725-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate
Judge Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part
SquareTrade's Motion to Dismiss.
In the putative class action, Plaintiff Shuman alleges that
Defendant SquareTrade, which sells service contracts for the
protection of consumer goods, consistently fails to provide
consumers with the full terms and conditions of the contract at the
time of purchase and systematically pays reimbursement in an amount
that is less than the purchase price of the covered item when
claims are filed. In his complaint, he asserts claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Claims One and Two), the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1790 (Claim Four),
and California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Claim Five). He
also asserts claims for breach of contract (Claim Three) and unjust
enrichment (Claim Six).
Presently before the Court is SquareTrade's Motion to Dismiss
Counts I, II, IV, V and VI. Because Shuman has stipulated to the
dismissal of the claims asserted under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Magistrate Judge
Spero considers only the challenges to Claims Five and Six. A
hearing on the Motion was held on Dec. 18, 2020 at 9:30 a.m.
Magistrate Judge Spero finds that based on the facts alleged in the
FAC, and particularly, the fact that Shuman purchased the service
contract from which his UCL Claim arises in Pennsylvania, Shuman
cannot assert a claim under California's UCL. Regardless of
whether SquareTrade made a change in its policies with respect to
paying on claims under its service plan, the only transaction
alleged here occurred in Pennsylvania, where Shuman alleges he
purchased a protection plan based on representations that later
turned out to be untrue. Therefore, the Judge dismisses Claim Five
with prejudice.
Because there are disputes about the existence and scope of the
express contract upon which Shuman's breach of contract claim is
based, the Judge declines to dismiss Shuman's unjust enrichment
claim at the pleading stage of the case.
For these reasons, Magistrate Judge grants in part and denies in
part the Defendant's Motion. He grants as to claims One, Two, Four
and Five, and dismisses these claims with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y7g6qbrr from Leagle.com.
STA MANAGEMENT: Mata Labor Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS MATA, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. STA MANAGEMENT, LLC
d/b/a "Domino's Pizza" et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-11662-NGE-DRG (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action and authorizing the
Plaintiff to send notice of this case to the following
class:
"all current and former delivery drivers who worked at any
of Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores from June 5, 2016 to
the point of judgment;"
2. designating Jesus Mata as representative of the class;
3. designating the law firms of Blanchard & Walker PLLC and
Forester Haynie PLLC as Class Counsel; and
4. approving the class notice.
The Defendants operate dozens of Domino's pizza stores in Michigan,
employing thousands of pizza delivery drivers. The Defendants
systematically under-reimburse the Plaintiff and each of their
other delivery drivers for the cost of operating their personal
vehicles for Defendants' benefit, violating federal and Michigan
minimum wage law, says the complaint.
According to the complaint, because of the nature of the claims and
the class, adjudication as a Rule 23 class is superior to requiring
low wage pizza delivery drivers to pursue their claims against the
Defendants individually. Hence, the Plaintiff has met the
requirements to bring his Michigan minimum wage claim as a class
action.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec.
22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2KDGI4N at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
Frances J. Hollander, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC
221 North Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 929-4313
E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
hollander@bwlawonline.com
- and -
J. Forester, Esq.
Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
SUBWAY: Quebec Lawsuit Alleges Deceptive Chicken Sandwich Content
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Silva at montreal.eater.com reports that anyone who
purchased a Subway chicken sandwich in Quebec between February 24,
2014, and December 31, 2017, may someday get their money back. The
province's Court of Appeal has given the go-ahead to a class-action
lawsuit against the fast-food chain for allegedly misrepresenting
the contents of its "chicken."
The genetic makeup of Subway's chicken had originally been called
into question by a 2017 CBC Marketplace report, which had a Trent
University researcher conduct a DNA analysis of several fast-food
chicken sandwiches. While the chicken content in the sandwiches of
McDonald's, Wendy's, and A&W hovered at around 85 percent (the
study explains that seasoning, marinating, or otherwise processing
meat brings the number down), Subway's score was much lower: Its
oven-roasted chicken was deemed to be just 53.6 percent chicken,
and its chicken strips even lower, at 42.8 percent. The rest was
soy.
Subway disputed the allegations, going as far as to pursue CBC with
$210-million defamation suit. The foot-long -- or is it
11-inch-long? -- sub purveyor claimed the study was lacking
"scientific rigour," but the Ontario Superior Court ultimately
sided with the national public broadcaster.
When a class action suit against the world's largest fast-food
chain had initially been brought to the Quebec Superior Court in
2019, it had been blocked, but on December 4, the Quebec Court of
Appeal authorized it to go forward. If Subway fails to prove that
it has suitably characterized its chicken, that could lead to a
reimbursement of the cost of the sandwiches sold during that
approximate three-year timeframe, and additional punitive damages,
according to a CTV report.
In a statement provided to Eater, Subway says, "The decision
allowing the class action in Quebec to move forward does not
validate the flawed research performed by Trent University or the
damaging reporting from the CBC, it only determined that this case
can proceed. We look forward to vigorously defending our brand with
the facts that uphold the quality of our food."
Turns out, chicken may not be the only item on Subway's menu
recently under scrutiny. The Irish Supreme Court ruled earlier this
fall that Subway's sandwich bread contains too much sugar for it to
be considered bread under the country's Value Added Tax
regulations. According to Irish law, for bread to be regarded as a
staple food, and therefore not be subject to tax, its sugar content
should sit at a maximum of two percent of the weight of the flour
included in the dough. Subway's sweet, sweet rolls come in at 10
percent, making it seem more like cake than anything else.
Update: December 21, 2020, 4:42 p.m.: This article was updated to
include a comment from Subway .[GN]
TIVITY HEALTH: Kahn Swick Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Tivity
Health, Inc. (NasdaqGS: TVTY).
On February 19, 2020, the Company announced its financial results
for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2019, disclosing
that its "Nutrition segment had a disappointing end to 2019"
including "a non-cash impairment charge of $377.1 million," that
contributed to a $272.8 million net loss in the fourth quarter, due
to complications in the nutrition business since its acquisition of
Nutrisystem in March 2019, and also that its Chief Executive
Officer had resigned. In September of 2020, the Company announced
the resignation of co-founder Daniel G. Tully from its Board of
Directors. Then, in October of 2020, it was reported that the
Company would be selling Nutrisystem for $575 million, less than
half of what Tivity paid to buy it.
The Company and certain of its executives have been sued in a
securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws, which remains ongoing.
KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Tivity's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Tivity's shareholders
or otherwise violated state or federal laws.
If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Tivity shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-tvty/ to learn more.
About Kahn Swick & Foti
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients – including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contacts
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850 [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR CORP: Lawyer Seeks Damages Relating to Vehicle Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyerly reports that a lawyer for group members in a class action
against Toyota is seeking aggregate damages relating to vehicle
defects that allegedly had a "significant impact" on fuel
consumption. The switch, it said, was designed to be used if the
vehicle's electronic control unit failed to commence the burnoff on
its own. [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in FCRA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Doyle, Esq. -- erin.doyle@agg.com -- and Montserrat Miller,
Esq. -- montserrat.miller@agg.com -- of Arnall Golden Gregory LLP,
in an article for JDSupra, report that the Supreme Court has
granted certiorari in TransUnion v. Ramirez, a case that could have
important implications for Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class
actions. The Court will consider the question of whether Article
III of the Constitution or the Federal Rules of Evidence permit a
"damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered
no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class
representative suffered." The case arises from a class action
against TransUnion in the 9th Circuit involving the matching
technologies used by the company in connection with the reporting
of Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) information. In the case,
the class representative was found to have suffered actual injuries
due to the reporting of inaccurate information, while many members
of the class arguably suffered no injury because TransUnion never
issued a consumer report about them with the information in
question. The trial court found for the plaintiffs and the 9th
Circuit affirmed, while reducing an accompanying punitive damages
award. Click
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/transunion-llc-v-ramirez/
to read more. [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Supreme Court to Review Article III Standing
------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Heinke, Esq. -- rheinke@akingump.com -- Shelly Kim, Esq. --
shelly.kim@akingump.com -- Natasha Kohne, Esq. --
nkohne@akingump.com -- Neal Ross Marder, Esq., Ali Rabbani, Esq.,
and Michael Stortz, Esq., of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, in
an article for JDSupra, report that the U.S. Supreme Court granted
review in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which presents the question of
whether Article III or Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permits a damages class action where most class members
experienced no actual injury. This question has taken on increasing
urgency over the past several years, as plaintiffs and their
counsel routinely seek classwide statutory damages on claims for
technical violations of statutory requirements even though most
class members experienced no resulting injury. TransUnion provides
the Supreme Court with an opportunity to resolve whether a class
action may be certified where plaintiff can recover massive damages
on behalf of class members who have suffered no injury-in-fact
within the meaning of Article III.
As we detailed in a prior client alert, the underlying litigation
arises from allegations that TransUnion placed inaccurate alerts on
credit reports of plaintiff Sergio Ramirez and over 8,000 class
members. The alerts incorrectly matched the names of Ramirez and
class members with individuals on the U.S. Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) list of
terrorists, drug traffickers and other individuals prohibited from
doing business in the United States for national security reasons.
Ramirez filed a putative class action claiming that TransUnion's
OFAC alert practices violated various provisions of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA). While Ramirez alleged that he experienced
difficulty obtaining a car loan after a dealership reviewed his
inaccurate credit report, the parties stipulated that more than 75
percent of the proposed class did not have a credit report
disseminated to a third party during the class period. There was
also no evidence that absent class members received, opened or read
a notice from TransUnion making them aware of the OFAC alert on
their credit reports. Nonetheless, the district court certified the
class of all 8,000 consumers, and a jury awarded Ramirez and the
class $60 million in statutory and punitive damages.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit held that each member of a class
certified under Rule 23(b)(3) must establish Article III standing
at the final judgment stage of a class action in order to recover
monetary damages. Despite the fact that the majority of class
members did not have their credit reports disseminated to third
parties, the 9th Circuit found that the mere fact that the credit
reports were available to potential creditors and employers upon
request sufficed to show a "material risk of harm" to the concrete
interests of all class members. In so ruling, the court confirmed
that its holding was limited to the entry of a classwide damages
judgment following a jury trial of class claims certified under
Rule 23(b)(3) -- and did not "alter the showing required at the
class certification stage or other early stages of a case." In
other words, the 9th Circuit implied that plaintiffs do not need to
establish Article III standing for absent class members at the
class certification stage.
In its petition for writ of certiorari, TransUnion pointed to
federal appellate court rulings, including a string of published
circuit court decisions, holding that a mere risk of dissemination
of customer data retained in violation of a federal statute or the
mere receipt of an allegedly deficient disclosure is insufficient
to confer standing. TransUnion argued that aside from the 9th
Circuit, "no other circuit would have allowed this class action to
proceed given the absent members' lack of standing and the class
representative's atypicality." Thus, according to TransUnion, the
9th Circuit's decision "eviscerated critical Article III, Rule 23,
and due process constraints, thereby paving the way for one highly
atypical plaintiff to recover massive damages on behalf of
thousands of uninjured class members."
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari on the issue of "whether
either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action when
the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone
an injury anything like what the class representative suffer." It
is not yet clear whether the Court will both address Article III
standing of absent class members and clarify when those standing
requirements must be evaluated during the course of a class action.
Although the Supreme Court has previously scrutinized class action
plaintiffs invoking the FCRA based on intangible harms (see Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)), some district courts have
failed to address the standing inquiry as to absent class members
until the final judgment stage. In light of the prolific use of the
class action device to leverage the risk of aggregate statutory
damages despite actual injury to class members, Supreme Court
guidance on both issues is welcome and needed. We will continue to
provide updates on the case as it proceeds before the Supreme
Court. [GN]
TRITERRAS INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of February 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Triterras, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRIT) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.
Class Period: August 20, 2020 – December 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Feb. 19, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TRIT
Contact An Attorney Now: TRIT@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Triterras, Inc. (TRIT) Securities Class Action:
The complaint centers on the accuracy of Triterras' and senior
managements' statements concerning the company's dependence on -
and the financial condition of - Rhodium Resources, a business
controlled by Triterras CEO Srinivas Koneru.
More specifically, according to the complaint, Defendants made
misleading statements about or concealed (1) the extent to which
Triterras revenue growth depended on referrals from Rhodium, (2)
Rhodium's dire financial condition, and (3) that as a result
Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the company.
Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on
Dec. 17, 2020 when Triterras announced Rhodium was seeking a
moratorium to shield itself from creditors while planning to
restructure debts and continue business as a going concern.
This news sent the price of Triterras shares crashing lower.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Triterras
intentionally misled them about the financial condition of its
admitted material related party, Rhodium, when and after the
company went public," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
If you are a Triterras investor and have significant losses, or
have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, discuss
your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Triterras 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 TRIT@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- 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]
ULMA PIPING: Amerifore Sues Over False Advertising of Flanges
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIFORGE CORPORATION, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULMA PIPING USA CORP.; and ULMA
FORJA, S.COOP., a/k/a ULMA Advanced Forged Solutions, Defendants,
Case No. 4:20-cv-04315 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 21, 2020) is an action for
false advertising and unfair competition under federal and Texas
state law.
According to the complaint, in May 2017, two of Ulma's competitors,
Boltex Manufacturing Co., L.P. and Weldbend Corporation sued Ulma
for false advertising and unfair competition in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Case No.
4:17-cv-1400 (Hon. Andrew S. Hanen). After two-and-a-half years of
litigation, the case went to trial.
The jury in the Boltex and Weldbend suit found against Ulma,
concluding that from May 5, 2013 through May 31, 2019, Ulma gained
at least $26 million in unjust profits from its false advertising
and unfair competition. Judge Hanen agreed with this finding, and
held that disgorgement was an appropriate remedy for Ulma's false
advertising. However, he reduced the jury's disgorgement award to
$5,720,000 -- about 22% of the full disgorgement award -- because
the Plaintiff and the Class were not represented in the Boltex and
Weldbend suit. Judge Hanen explained that "the harm the Lanham Act
addresses is one shared by all competitors in the market -- the
encroachment on the ability to compete in a fair market." Thus, "a
disgorgement award shared between all competitors in the market may
serve the Lanham Act's purpose of achieving equity between or among
the parties." But in the Boltex and Weldbend suit, the Court had
"only two of the many flange competitors before it." The jury's
verdict -- and Judge Hanen's judgment -- became final and
non-appealable on July 8, 2020.
Because Ulma's unjust profit "was gained at the expense of all
competitors in the flange marketplace," the Plaintiff brings this
class action on behalf of itself and other injured competitors to
seek disgorgement of the 78% of Ulma's unjust enrichment -- over
$20 million in profits -- that Ulma retains.
Ulma Piping USA Corp. manufactures iron and steel forging products.
The Company produces and distributes pipe fittings and other
related products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Saul Perloff, Esq.
Katharyn Grant, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
111 W. Houston Street, Suite 1800
San Antonio, TX 78205
Telephone: (210) 224-5575
Facsimile: (210) 270-7205
E-mail: saul.perloff@nortonrosefulbright.com
katharyn.grant@nortonrosefulbright.com
-and-
Marc B. Collier, Esq.
Peter Stokes, Esq.
Robert L. Rouder, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701-4255
Telephone: (512) 474-5201
Facsimile: (512) 536-4598
E-mail: marc.collier@nortonrosefulbright.com
peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com
robert.rouder@nortonrosefulbright.com
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Narrows Claims in First Amended LD Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LD, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, ET
AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254 YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted in part and denied in part two
motions to dismiss.
The two motions are filed by Defendants United and MultiPlan, Inc.,
seeking to dismiss all claims in the First Amended Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendants
United and MultiPlan for claims arising out of United's alleged
failure to reimburse their claims for Intensive Outpatient Program
("IOP") services at the Usual, Customary, and Reasonable Rate that
non-party Summit Estate, Inc. provided to the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' conduct caused them injury,
because it forced them to pay any amounts that United failed to
reimburse for the IOP services.
The Plaintiffs are members of active health insurance policies
administered by United. They bring the action on their own behalf
and on behalf of a proposed class of members "of a health benefit
plan either administered or insured by United" whose claims for
out-of-network IOP services were underpaid or repriced by
Defendants United and Viant: a claim against (1) both Defendants
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"); (2) United for underpaid benefits under Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"); (3) United for
breach of plan provisions under ERISA; (4) United for ERISA
disclosure violations under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(c)(1); (5)
United for breach of fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. Section 1109
and 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3); (6) United for violations of
ERISA's full and fair review statute; and (7) two claims against
both Defendants for equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(3).
On Aug. 26, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims in the initial complaint, and it did so with
leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a FAC, in which they assert,
on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of
similarly-situated subscribers of insurance policies administered
by United, claims under the ERISA and the RICO.
The FAC differs from the initial complaint in the following ways:
(1) the Plaintiffs modified some of their allegations; (2) the
Plaintiffs substituted MultiPlan for Viant as a Defendant; (3) the
Plaintiffs added a claim for conspiracy in violation of RICO
against both Defendants; (4) the Plaintiffs removed "Federal Health
offenses" as the predicate offenses for their RICO claims; and (5)
the Plaintiffs abandoned their claim under ERISA Section 502(c)(1)
for failure to comply with ERISA's disclosure and notice
obligations.
The Plaintiffs also now allege that United and Viant (MultiPlan's
"wholly owned subsidiary") sent them Patient Advocacy Department
letters that the Plaintiffs allege are misleading because they do
not explain that United's reimbursements for the IOP claims at
issue were not performed in accordance with the plans' terms.
The Defendants move to dismiss all claims in the complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that: (1)
all of the claims in the complaint continue to be inadequately
pleaded; and (2) the Plaintiffs lack RICO standing.
Judge Rogers granted MultiPlan's motion to dismiss with leave to
amend with respect to the claim under RICO Section 1962(c) asserted
against it. She finds that the Plaintiffs have not averred facts
raising the reasonable inference that MultiPlan engaged in at least
two acts of mail fraud or wire fraud upon which they relied that
constitute a pattern of racketeering activity. Although the
Plaintiffs have not averred any other details of these VOB calls,
such as the names of the persons who participated in such calls or
the dates of the calls, they have alleged sufficient factual matter
as to the circumstances constituting fraud so that United can
prepare an adequate answer from the allegations.
Because it is not clear that amendment of the FAC would be futile
to allege the details required by Rule 9(b) with respect to the
fraudulent communications that form the basis of the Plaintiffs'
RICO claim under Section 1962(c) with respect to MultiPlan, the
Judge granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to do
so.
The Judge also granted United's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claim for violations of 29 U.S.C. Section 1133 with prejudice. She
finds that the FAC is devoid of factual matter from which she could
reasonably infer that United failed to provide the Plaintiffs with
the procedures, disclosures, or appellate procedures required under
ERISA. In their opposition, the Plaintiffs do not address United's
motion to dismiss the claim, implicitly conceding that it is
subject to dismissal.
The Judge otherwise denied the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
Among other things, she finds that (i) the Plaintiffs aver
sufficient factual matter in the FAC to raise the inference that
Viant's database and pricing tool did not generate rates that are
consistent with the plans' requirements; (ii) the Plaintiffs have
pleaded a violation under Section 1962(c) with respect to United.
Plaintiffs also have alleged sufficient factual matter to raise the
inference that both Defendants conspired with the intent to further
and participate in the alleged scheme that satisfies the elements
of a substantive violation of RICO under Section 1962(c); and (iii)
the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a claim under
Section 502(a)(1)(B) for underpaid benefits and for breach of the
plan terms.
Given the upcoming holidays, the Plaintiffs may file an amended
complaint within 28 days of the date the Order is filed. The
Defendants may file a response to the amended complaint within 21
days of the date it is filed.
The Order terminates Docket Numbers 65 and 66.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ydfuzy92 from Leagle.com.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Court Tosses First Amended Pacific Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PACIFIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, ET AL., Plaintiffs v.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-02249 YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted
the motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by
Defendants United and MultiPlan, Inc.
The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendants
United and MultiPlan for claims arising out of United's alleged
failure to reimburse plaintiffs at "a percentage" of the Usual,
Customary, and Reasonable Rates ("UCR") for Intensive Outpatient
Program ("IOP") services, which the Plaintiffs provided to patients
with health insurance policies administered by United. The
Plaintiffs are out-of-network healthcare providers who provided IOP
services to patients who had health insurance policies that United
administered. The health insurance policies that United
administered are "health care benefit programs" covered by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
The Plaintiffs asserted the following claims on their own behalf
and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly-situated
out-of-network IOP providers in the United States: (1) a claim for
violations of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") against each
Defendant; (2) intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent
inducement; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) civil conspiracy;
(5) breach of oral or implied contract; (6) promissory estoppel;
(7) a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"); and (8) a claim under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.
On Aug. 25, 2020, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to
dismiss all claims in the initial complaint, and it did so with
leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a FAC, in which they assert,
on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of
similarly-situated out-of-network IOP providers, claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and RICO, and multiple claims under
California law.
In the FAC, the Plaintiffs continue to aver that United represented
during VOB calls that it would pay for IOP services at a percentage
of the UCR. They also continue to allege that their understanding
as to what United meant when it represented that it would pay a
percentage of the UCR was based on United's published definition of
UCR on its webpage describing out-of-network plan benefits,
suggesting that the UCR definition has a connection to the terms of
healthcare plans.
The FAC differs from the initial complaint in the following ways:
(1) the Plaintiffs deleted most of the allegations that the Court
relied upon in its order dismissing the initial complaint; (2) the
Plaintiffs added new allegations, some of which contradict the
allegations in the initial complaint upon which the Court relied in
its order dismissing that pleading; (3) the Plaintiffs substituted
MultiPlan for Viant as a Defendant; (4) the Plaintiffs added a
claim for conspiracy in violation of RICO; and (5) the Plaintiffs
deleted their request for injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.
The Defendants move to dismiss all claims in the complaint on the
grounds that (1) the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and RICO fail for lack of statutory standing; (2) the
Olaintiffs' state-law claims are preempted by ERISA; and (3) all
claims in the FAC continue to be inadequately pleaded.
Judge Rogers granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss with
respect to the Plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO claims, and the
Plaintiffs' state-law claims to the extent that they arise out of
the alleged under-reimbursement of claims for IOP services that are
covered by ERISA plans, with prejudice.
Judge Rogers says she cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs have
antitrust standing. Because their lack of antitrust standing
requires the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim, the
Judge need not address the Defendants' alternative arguments with
respect to that clim. The Judge cannot also conclude that the
Plaintiffs have RICO standing. Because their lack of RICO standing
requires the dismissal of their RICO claims, the Judge need not
address the Defendants' alternative arguments with respect to
whether such claims are adequately pleaded.
The Judge also granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss with
leave to amend with respect to the Plaintiffs' state-law claims to
the extent that the claims arise out of the alleged
under-reimbursement of claims for IOP services that are covered by
plans that fall outside of the scope of ERISA. She concludes that
the Plaintiffs' state-law claims are preempted under ERISA Section
514(a) to the extent that they arise out of allegedly
under-reimbursed claims for IOP services that are covered by ERISA
plans, because such state-law claims depend on the existence and
terms of ERISA plans based on the allegations. The Plaintiffs have
not shown that a different conclusion is warranted with respect to
these claims.
As to the Plaintiffs' state-law claims that arise out of the
alleged under-reimbursement of claims for IOP services covered by
healthcare plans that are not subject to ERISA, the Judge concludes
that the FAC lacks allegations to raise the reasonable inference
that the healthcare plans in question fall outside of the scope of
ERISA. Although certain types of employer-sponsored healthcare
plans are exempted from ERISA, such as governmental and church
plans, the FAC is devoid of allegations showing that any of the
plans at issue falls within any of the exceptions to ERISA
coverage.
Accordingly, in light of the totality of the Plaintiffs'
allegations, the Judge cannot conclude at this juncture that the
Plaintiffs' state-law claims fall outside of the scope of ERISA
preemption on the basis that the healthcare plans upon which they
depend are not subject to ERISA. She, however, granted the
Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect to these
claims.
The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the
date the Order is filed. The Defendants may file a response to the
amended complaint within 30 days of the date it is filed. The
Judge granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
sur-reply.
The Order terminates Docket Numbers 71, 72, and 80.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ybg5oqfn from Leagle.com.
UNITED KINGDOM: Court Made Certification of Class Actions Easier
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a key decision, the UK Supreme Court has given guidance on the
threshold for certifying a class action for breach of competition
law. The Court's judgment in Mastercard v Merricks will make it
easier to obtain class certification and will likely encourage a
significant increase in class actions in the UK.
On 11 December 2020 the UK Supreme Court gave judgment in
Mastercard v Merricks. The appeal is the first time the Supreme
Court has considered the test for whether a class action should be
certified. The UK class action regime, which applies to claims for
breach of competition law, allows opt-out or opt-in class actions
and was introduced in 2015.
The background to the case is the much-litigated issue of
Mastercard's multilateral interchange fee ("MIF"), applying to
debit and credit card transactions. In 2007 the European Commission
found that Mastercard's MIF breached European competition law.
Relying on that decision, in 2016 Walter Merricks brought a £14
billion opt-out follow-on damages claim against Mastercard on
behalf of all adults who had made purchases in the UK in shops
accepting Mastercard over a 15 year period - a class of 46.2
million people.
Claims must be certified as being "eligible" by the Competition
Appeal Tribunal (the "CAT") to proceed as a class action. This
requires the CAT to determine if the claims are suitable for
inclusion in a class action. In 2017 the CAT refused to certify the
Merricks claim. It decided that it was not "suitable" on two
grounds: First, the claim was not suitable for an award of
aggregate damages. Second, the proposed method of distributing the
damages did not meet the compensatory principle because it did not
reflect "even a very rough and ready approximation" of each
individual claimant's loss. The CAT's decision was overturned by
the Court of Appeal in April 2019 and the case has now been decided
by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal by a 3:2 majority. The
majority judgment makes a number of key rulings that will be
relevant to all future cases:
Whether a claim is "suitable" must be understood as meaning whether
"collective proceedings are suitable relative to individual
proceedings". In other words, are there advantages in bringing the
claims as a class action, rather than many individual claims?
Showing that claims are suitable for aggregate damages is one of
many factors to consider, not a required condition. In addition,
whether a claim is suitable for aggregate damages is also a
relative test, i.e., is it more suitable than individual damages.
Caution is required before imposing restrictions on claimants in
class actions that do not apply to individual claims. Critically,
this means that difficulties with quantifying damages, which would
be overcome in individual claims using the "broad axe" of
estimation or even "informed guesswork", ought not to stand in the
way of class certification.
The proposed method of distributing aggregate damages to class
members does not have to reflect each claimant's individual loss.
The Supreme Court's judgment lowers the threshold for certification
in key respects and it may now prove relatively straight-forward
for claimants to demonstrate that a class action offers advantages
over bringing many individual claims. As the Supreme Court's
dissenting judgment noted, it appears to "very significantly
diminish" the limitations that certification places on collective
proceedings. The majority judgment relies heavily on the policy of
wanting to facilitate mass claims under the regime, and in so
doing, overrules some of the checks and balances reflected in the
CAT's judgment and the strong dissenting judgment in the Supreme
Court.
Next steps
A number of collective proceedings that have already been issued
were awaiting the outcome in Merricks. Now that the Merricks log
jam has been broken, this first wave of collective proceedings will
proceed. A number of further claims are also understood to be
waiting to be issued and more claims can be expected given the
encouragement provided by this judgment.
The Merricks claim itself will be remitted to the CAT to reconsider
its certification decision. It still remains to be seen how the CAT
will apply the new test, and the CAT remains the sole arbiter of
questions of fact on certification applications. Moreover, as no
case has yet gone beyond the certification stage, it is still
unclear how class actions will fare once they proceed to a
substantive trial. [GN]
UNITED STATES: J.O.P Suit Wins Rule 23 Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.O.P., et al. v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-01944-GJH
(D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George J. Hazel entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and Appointment of Class Counsel;
2. granting the Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel;
3. certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 defined as:
"all individuals nationwide who prior to the effective
date of a lawfully promulgated policy prospectively
altering the policy set forth in the 2013 Kim Memorandum
(1) were determined to be an Unaccompanied Alien Child
(UAC); and (2) who filed an asylum application that was
pending with the United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS); and (3) on the date they filed their
asylum application with USCIS, were 18 years of age or
older, or had a parent or legal guardian in the United
States who is available to provide care and physical
custody; and (4) for whom USCIS has not adjudicated the
individual's asylum application on the merits";
4. appointing Plaintiffs J.O.P., M.A.L.C., M.E.R.E., and
E.D.G. as class representatives;
5. granting in part, and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend the Preliminary Injunction;
6. directing that the Defendants, during the pendency of this
litigation and until further Order of this Court, are:
a. preliminarily enjoined and restrained from relying on
the policies set forth in USCIS's May 31, 2019
Memorandum (the "2019 Redetermination Memorandum") as a
basis to:
i. Decline jurisdiction over asylum applications of
individuals previously determined to be UACs; or
ii. Subject an asylum applicant to the one-year time
limit for filing described at 8 U.S.C. section
1158(a)(2)(B); or for any other purpose;
b. preliminarily enjoined and restrained from rejecting
jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by the
Plaintiffs and members of the class whose applications
would have been accepted under the 2013 Kim Memorandum;
c. preliminarily enjoined and restrained from deferring to
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
determinations in assessing jurisdiction over asylum
applications filed by Plaintiffs and members of the
class; and
d. preliminarily enjoined and restrained during the removal
proceedings of any Plaintiff or member of the class
(including EOIR proceedings before immigration judges
and members of the Board of Immigration appeals) from
seeking any of the following where such individual's
asylum application is pending before USCIS:
i. Denials of continuances or other postponements in
order to await adjudication of an asylum application
that has been filed with USCIS;
ii. EOIR exercise of jurisdiction over an asylum claim
where USCIS has initial jurisdiction under the terms
of the 2013 Kim Memorandum; or otherwise taking the
position in such individual's removal proceedings
that USCIS does not have initial jurisdiction over
the individual's asylum application;
7. directing the Defendants USCIS to retract any adverse
decision rendered on or after June 30, 2019 that is based
in whole or in part on any of the actions enjoined and
restrained by subparagraphs 6(a), 6(b), or 6(c) above.
8. granting the Plaintiffs' request to file a Second Amended
Complaint in order to encompass USCIS's alleged expansion
of the "affirmative act" exception from the 2013 Kim
Memorandum;
9. granting the Plaintiffs to leave to file a second amended
complaint within 21 days;
10. granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Stay Summary
Judgment Schedule;
11. directing the Parties to contact chambers to schedule a
status call; and
12. granting the Parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Parties'
Proposed Protective Order.
The Court said, "The Defendants' final vagueness argument again
centers on the term "pending" and whether Plaintiffs' class
definition uses the term in the same way that Defendants use it
internally. However, the Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that
"pending" should be given its ordinary meaning, which is
sufficiently clear: "an application is pending during that period
between submission and action taken by USCIS." Thus, the
Plaintiffs' class definition is not too vague to enable the court
to readily identify members of the class. Therefore, the Plaintiffs
have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that their class
definition meets the threshold "readily identifiable" requirement
implicit in Rule 23. The Plaintiffs' proposed class meets the
threshold "readily identifiable" requirement, satisfies all four
parts of Rule 23(a), and satisfies Rule 23(b)(2), and thus this
Court will grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel."
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. section 551
et seq. (APA), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, a group of undocumented immigrants
who entered the United States as unaccompanied children, on behalf
of themselves and a class of all others similarly situated, brought
this action against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and several of its officials and components. The Plaintiffs allege
that the government unlawfully modified policies governing
treatment of asylum applications by unaccompanied immigrant
children (UACs) in a May 2019 Memorandum.
On August 2, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), enjoining enforcement of the May
2019 Memorandum, and on October 15, 2019, granted the Plaintiffs'
consent motion, converting the Order into a preliminary
injunction.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37MSsuM at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ordered Into Supervision for Coverage Denials
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Swanson at kstp.com a federal judge in California has
ordered United Behavioral Health into court-monitored supervision
after ruling the health insurance company improperly denied mental
health treatment claims to thousands of patients, according to a
federal, class-action lawsuit.
UnitedHealth Group, the Minnesota-based parent company of UBH, will
be required to re-train its employees and reprocess more than
67,000 mental health and substance use disorder treatment claims.
A special court-appointed master will monitor the company over the
next 10 years, the November ruling from Chief Magistrate Judge
Joseph C. Spero said.
This comes after a landmark ruling in the mental health parity
case. In 2019, Judge Spero found UnitedHealth Group liable for
wrongfully denying coverage, stating the insurer used its own
internal guidelines that were "tainted by. . . financial interests.
. ." and benefited the company financially.
"I can't think of another case, another recent case, where a
managed behavioral health organization was essentially found of
such pervasive misconduct," said attorney Meiram Bendat of Psych
Appeal, the California-based law firm leading the class-action.
Bendat called this a watershed moment that exposes a loophole in
the federal mental health parity law and said that the decision
should serve as a stern warning to other health insurance
companies.
"UBH is not the only company that engages in these kinds of
practices," he said.
In 2019, 5 INVESTIGATES found families in Minnesota fighting mental
treatment denials from other insurers, according to medical, state
and court records.
"I believe that any insurer looking at this case is going to be
well served to re-evaluate its conduct," Bendat said.
Dee Dee Tillitt, who lives in Minneapolis, joined the class-action
lawsuit as a named plaintiff after her son, Max, died of an
overdose.
After being arrested in 2015, a judge ordered Max into treatment
for heroin addiction. Tillitt says her son spent 20 days at
Beauterre Recovery Institute in Owatonna until United Healthcare
cut funding for Max's treatment.
"You don't have to be a clinician to know 20 days of in-patient is
not enough to cure a three-year heroin habit," Tillitt said in a
recent interview.
Tillitt said she was thrilled with the court's ruling.
"We basically got everything we were seeking," she said. "Having a
special master in there watching them, they won't be able to slip
back into doing the bad practices."
In a statement to 5 INVESTIGATES, a UnitedHealth Group spokesperson
said the company has taken "concrete steps to improve access to
quality care," that includes expanding its provider network and
increasing access to telehealth.
"We are focused on ensuring our members get the quality,
compassionate care they need, and will continue working closely
with people across the behavioral health community on this
important issue," the statement read.
Glancing at a photograph of Max on her fireplace mantle, Tillitt
thinks what he would say about the ruling.
"Oh, he would love this," she said. "Max always wanted to help
people. I didn't want any other family to go through what I went
through." [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Castro Seeks Tuition Fee Refund
------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Castro, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. The University of Chicago, Defendant, Case
No. 20-cv-07280 (N.D. Ill., December 9, 2020), seeks disgorgement
of all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus
housing, and meals, injunctive relief including enjoining
University of Chicago from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies
paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals, reasonable
attorney's fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest on any amounts awarded and such other and further relief
as may be just and proper, refunds of all tuition fees paid on a
pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting from breach
of contract and unjust enrichment.
The University of Chicago is a private research university in
Chicago, where Castro was an undergraduate student during the
Spring 2020 quarter and is expected to graduate in June 2021. He
was charged approximately $19,214.00 in tuition. The University of
Chicago decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and
transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of
the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Castro claims to be deprived the
benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities,
student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for
which they had already paid fees and tuition. The University of
Chicago refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and
other costs. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
Kathleen Lally, Esq.
Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com
klally@carlsonlynch.com
nlange@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Edward Ciolko, Esq.
Nicholas Colella, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: eciolko@carlsonlynch.com
ncolella@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Tel: (516) 873-9550
Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Jeremy Francis, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 969-7810
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
VALENTINO U.S.A.: Rosario Seeks Collective Action Status Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIANA ROSARIO, as
Administratrix for the Estate of Josefina Benitez, ZION BRERETON,
ALICIA LEARMONT, JAMES CHOI and ANDREYA CRAWFORD on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VALENTINO U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court for an order pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act:
a. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action;
b. permitting the Plaintiffs to circulate a Notice of Lawsuit
and Consent to Join to similarly situated employees;
c. approving the text of the Plaintiffs' Notice of Lawsuit
and Consent to Join;
d. requiring the Defendant to provide Plaintiffs' counsel
with a complete list in electronic form of names, mail
addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of all
current and former non-executive corporate and retail
employees, who were employed by Defendant in the United
States from December 13, 2016 to the present;
e. requiring the Defendants to post a copy of the Notice of
Lawsuit at all their locations in Colorado, Georgia,
Florida, California, Boston, Texas, Las Vegas, New York,
and Hawaii;
f. permitting all similarly situated individuals 60 days to
opt into this case;
g. tolling the statute of limitations for all similarly
situated individuals from the date of the motion to
certify until the date the Court issues an order on the
motion; and
h. Granting such other relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Dec.
22, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3mLK1UM at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
chaya@norinsberglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Keith A. Markel, Esq.
John B. Fulfree, Esq.
Fred H. Perkins, Esq.
Christopher W. Pendleton, Esq.
MORRISON COHEN, LLP
909 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 735-8736
Facsimile: (212) 735-8708
E-mail: kmarkel@morrisoncohen.com
jfulfree@morrisoncohen.com
fhperkins@morrisoncohen.com
cpendleton@morrisoncohen.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Emissions Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
A VW emissions class action lawsuit has been dismissed after former
owners and lessees argued they should be compensated even though
they sold their vehicles or ended their leases before September 18,
2015.
That's the date when the public learned Volkswagen had been selling
illegal diesel vehicles in the U.S. since 2009.
Those nearly 500,000 Audi and VW "clean diesel" vehicles were
equipped with emissions defeat devices installed to fool consumers
and regulators.
The vehicles were advertised as good for the environment and fuel
efficient, when in fact defeat devices were used to evade federal
and state regulations. The diesel vehicles emitted legal levels of
nitrogen oxides when undergoing testing, but during normal driving
the vehicles emitted nitrogen oxides (NOx) up to 40 times over
legal limits.
Current owners and lessees eventually were awarded buyback offers
and compensation, but former owners and lessees complain they
should also be compensated.
VW's Motion to Dismiss the Emissions Class Action Lawsuit
The class action lawsuit had already been partly dismissed, and
even with the remaining claims the judge said it "may be
challenging for Plaintiffs to prove the amount that they paid
specifically for low emissions."
Judge Charles R. Breyer also previously found "it is doubtful that
Plaintiffs' overpayment would have been equivalent to the entire
cost of the package if the package also included features that
Plaintiffs received" like strong fuel economy and better driving
performance.
Volkswagen argued the plaintiffs had the burden of showing they
were injured despite the inflated resale and residual value of
their diesel vehicles. And VW said the plaintiffs failed because
their experts "did not measure any emissions premium or calculate
whether and by how much it depreciated."
The motion to dismiss also argued the expert evidence submitted by
the plaintiffs was unreliable.
VW said the depreciation analysis offered by the plaintiffs assumed
without support that a "vehicle's overall rate of depreciation can
be applied to measure the depreciation of the alleged emissions
premium."
The automaker also told the judge empirical evidence shows diesel
vehicles generally depreciate more slowly than gasoline vehicles.
And "diesel-specific attributes (such as the level of NOx
emissions) depreciate differently, and may not depreciate at all."
According to the judge:
"Without a reliably calculated emissions premium, Plaintiffs'
depreciation analysis is useless because it lacks a starting point
from which to calculate a decline in value for low emissions.
Plaintiffs assume that the value of an emissions premium declines
at the same rate as the overall vehicle. That is plainly wrong."
VW said the plaintiffs didn't suffer any damages at all because
they sold their vehicles or ended their leases before VW's fraud
was known.
The judge went on to use a purse as an analogy.
"Consider a counterfeit Louis Vuitton purse, sold as authentic for
$1,000 and later resold as authentic for $800. Was the first
purchaser harmed? Maybe. If a known inauthentic purse would have
cost $100 and resold for $80, then the first purchaser would have
recouped all but $20, instead of all but $200, upon resale."
The judge said in that case the first purchaser was injured for
$180.
"If the first purchaser could provide evidence of the authentic and
counterfeit purses' relative depreciation, the first purchaser
could prove an injury. Note that the first purchaser's initial
overpayment of $900 is plainly larger than any injury -- were the
first purchaser awarded $900 after reselling the purse for $800,
the first purchaser would get a significant windfall."
However, the judge said the subject of the lawsuit is more
complicated.
"Authenticity is a single variable that the first purse buyer did
not receive and later did not give. But here, Plaintiffs paid a
premium for some features they did receive (better fuel economy and
driving performance) and another feature they did not (low
emissions). This makes the low emissions premium and its
depreciation more difficult to isolate and measure."
Judge Breyer granted VW's motion to exclude the expert evidence
submitted by the plaintiffs, denied a motion from the plaintiffs to
exclude VW's expert evidence and dismissed the entire lawsuit for a
lack of jurisdiction.
The Volkswagen emissions class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California - In Re:
Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation.
The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
and the Paynter Law Firm, PLLC. [GN]
WASTE PRO: Waste Disposal Drivers Class Wins Conditional Cert.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY WRIGHT,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WASTE
PRO USA, INC, et al., Case No. 0:19-cv-62051-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon Judge K. Michael Moore entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
motion to conditionally certify collective action and
facilitate notice to potential class members;
2. conditionally certifying the following class and the
Notice defining the class as:
"all current and former Waste Disposal Drivers, who
were/are employed by the Defendants, Waste Pro USA, Inc.
and Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., in Florida, and who
were/are paid on a job/day rate basis, within the
preceding three years from the date of the mailing of this
Notice";
3. directing the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with the
names, last known addresses, and e-mail addresses for
everyone in the class within 14 days of this Order;
4. approving that the Notice and the consent to join shall be
sent via first-class mail and e-mail and conspicuously
posted in all of the Defendants' Florida locations;
5. setting the Notice period to be 60 days and reminder
Notice shall be sent after 30 days via first-class mail
and e-mail; and
6. directing the putative class members to electronically
execute their consent forms.
The Defendant Waste Pro USA, Inc. is the parent company of
Defendant Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. The Defendants jointly operate
a waste disposal company. The Plaintiff was a waste disposal driver
jointly employed by the Defendants from October 1, 2014 until
February of 2016. In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged
that the Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff argued that (1) he has met the lenient burden for
conditional certification of a collective action; (2) the Court
should not make credibility determinations, address the merits, or
consider any factual disputes at this stage of the two-tier
analysis; and (3) the Court should authorize Plaintiff to send
notice to putative class members. The Defendants contended in their
Response that (1) Plaintiff failed to "sufficiently engage" the
Defendants' evidentiary submissions, which alone justifies denying
certification; (2) Plaintiff has not established that he is
similarly situated to the members of the proposed class; and (3)
the Court should deny Plaintiff's requests for the methods of
notice, the length of the notice period, the length of the
look-back period, and certain contact information of putative class
members."
After weighing several factors, Judge Moore found that Plaintiff
has met his burden in showing that there is a reasonable basis to
support his claim that there are other similarly situated
employees. However, he declined to grant Defendant's request for a
third-party administrator at this time. Defendants may request
such relief by motion pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, Judge Moore
added.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 22, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hho7Ya at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Gets Contractor's PPP Claims Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
law360.com reports that Texas federal judge ruled that
Houston-based general contractor DNM must submit to an arbitrator
its putative class action claims that Wells Fargo gave preferential
treatment to bigger borrowers for Paycheck Protection Program
loans.
U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett found that, under an
arbitration agreement that DNM Contracting Inc. signed with Wells
Fargo to open a business checking account in 2015, the
arbitrability of the contractor's claims must be decided by a
neutral arbitrator and not the court.
"The account application contains a provision stating that
plaintiff agrees to be bound by defendant's 'account agreement that
includes the arbitration agreement under which any dispute between
[plaintiff] and [defendant] relating to [plaintiff's] use of any
bank deposit account, product or service will be decided in an
arbitration proceeding before a neutral arbitrator as described in
the arbitration agreement,'" Judge Bennet said.
Wells Fargo had asked the judge in late August to rule that DNM
shouldn't be allowed to proceed with the case because of the
arbitration provision. But DNM contested that in a September
filing, arguing the arbitration agreement doesn't extend to its
fraud claims.
Judge Bennet said in his order that the arbitrability of the claims
and whether the arbitration agreement applies to DNM's putative
class action must be decided by an arbitrator.
In its claims, DNM argues Wells Fargo shafted many of its
small-business customers earlier this year by prioritizing larger,
more lucrative borrowers over smaller ones when processing
applications for the coronavirus relief loan program. Wells Fargo
removed DNM's suit from state to federal court in May, and on Aug.
28 asked the judge to dismiss the case and compel arbitration.
Wells Fargo argued that DNM failed to point to a concrete injury
that would demonstrate standing, noting the business didn't allege
it has been altogether shut out from getting funding through the
loan program, which had more than $130 billion in lending capacity
left over when it stopped taking new applications in early August.
The bank further contended that no legal mandate to process PPP
loan applications on a first-come, first-served basis has been
shown to exist the way DNM claimed, nor did DNM even plausibly
allege Wells Fargo had indeed prioritized larger PPP loan
applications over smaller ones.
On the contrary, statistics released by the government show Wells
Fargo's average PPP loan amount of $54,501 was the second-smallest
of the top 15 biggest lenders in the program and half of the
programwide average loan amount, the bank said.
On Sept. 17, DNM said Wells Fargo only began to quickly process
applications after it filed the present lawsuit in an attempt to
make up for damages.
The contractor said enforcing arbitration to its PPP claims would
stretch the dispute resolution clause beyond the scope of what was
intended to cover any and all disputes between itself and the bank,
as well as to issues unrelated to the use of its account and
banking services.
Counsel for both parties didn't immediately respond to requests for
comment.
DNM is represented by Alfonso Kennard Jr. of Kennard Law PC.
Wells Fargo is represented by Brendan Cullen and Christopher
Viapianoof of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP and Charles B. Hampton of
McGuireWoods LLP.
The case is DNM Contracting Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, case
number 4:20-cv-01790, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Mitchell Suit Moved From Tennessee to Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas L. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Western Division, grants the Defendant's
motion to transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania the case
titled CHRISTOPHER LEE MITCHELL and VIRGINIA ELLISON, Individually,
and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-02444-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn.).
The case is a collective action against the Defendant for violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant employed the
Plaintiffs as home mortgage consultants. During their employment,
the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the FLSA in three
ways.
First, that the Defendant required them to work "off-the-clock"
without paying them the FLSA minimum wage or overtime rate of pay.
Second, that the Defendant did not include commissions and bonuses
in determining the Plaintiffs' hourly rate of pay for the purpose
of calculating overtime compensation. As a result, the Plaintiffs
did not receive the correct amount of overtime pay. Finally, that
the Defendant engaged in "spreading" the Plaintiffs' earned wages.
This allegedly involved taking earned wages that the Defendant
already paid the Plaintiffs within a work week and using those
wages as an offset against their earned commissions in later
weeks.
The Plaintiffs bring the collective action on behalf of themselves
and all other current and former hourly-paid home mortgage
consultants, who have worked for the Defendant within the past
three years.
The Plaintiffs define the collective class as: All current and
former hourly-paid home mortgage consultants who were employed by
the Defendant and who (1) performed unpaid off the clock work, (2)
who had their overtime compensation miscalculated and/or (3) had
their wages spread to subsequent work weeks and used to offset
earned commissions in such later work weeks (deducted/recaptured),
occurring anywhere in the United States within the three years
preceding the filing of the action.
The Defendant now asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
collective action claims under Rule 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) or, in
the alternative, to stay or transfer the action. It argues that
the "first-to-file rule" applies because, before the Plaintiffs
sued the Defendant, a different plaintiff had already brought a
nationwide FLSA collective action against the Defendant for the
same class of individuals, and that case--Sandra Bruno v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:19-cv-00587-RJC--is still pending in
the Western District of Pennsylvania. As a result, the Defendant
argues that the first-to-file rule justifies dismissal (or stay or
transfer) of the Plaintiffs' collective action claims because the
two cases relate to the same alleged conduct, the same class, and
the same time period.
Judge Parker first considers the timeline of events. The plaintiff
in Bruno filed her original complaint on May 17, 2019 and then
amended it on March 16, 2020. The Plaintiffs sued on June 23,
2020. So the Bruno plaintiff sued the Defendant first. This
factor, therefore, weighs in favor of applying the first-to-file
rule.
The Judge next considers the similarity of the parties involved.
He finds that both the Bruno plaintiff and the Plaintiffs seek to
represent home mortgage consultants that worked for Defendant in
the past several years. Even though the named Plaintiffs are
different, the putative classes still overlap. The Judge,
therefore, finds that the parties are substantially similar.
The Judge now turns to the similarity of the issues. He finds that
that the claims substantially overlap too. The claims are almost
identical, and they clearly overlap. Thus, this factor weighs in
favor of the first-to-file rule.
The Judge now considers whether any equitable concerns weigh
against application of the first-to-file rule in the case. He
holds they do not. All in all, he finds that all three factors
weigh in favor of applying the rule. Plus, no equitable
considerations weigh against the Court applying the first-to-file
rule. As a result, the Judge considers whether he should dismiss,
stay, or transfer the Plaintiffs' collective action claims.
The Judge finds it appropriate to transfer the Plaintiffs'
collective action claims to the Western District of Pennsylvania,
the court presiding over the Bruno action. He, thus, transfers the
collective action claims to the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Because the Defendant did not seek relief for the Plaintiffs'
individual claims, those claims will not be transferred. They will
remain in the Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 18, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8klhjgj from Leagle.com.
WEST VIRGINIA: Court Certifies Class in Baxley Case
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN BAXLEY, JR., EARL
EDMONDSON, JOSHUA HALL, DONNA WELLS-WRIGHT, HEATHER REED, and DANNY
SPIKER, JR., on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. BETSY JIVIDEN, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of the West Virginia Division of Corrections and
Rehabilitation and THE WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-01526 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge
Robert C. Chambers entered an order:
1. granting in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification;
2. certifying the Plaintiffs' "Jail Class" consisitng of:
"all Persons who are, or who will be, admitted to a jail
in West Virginia;"
3. withholding judgment regarding the certification of
Plaintiffs' Disability Subclass, defined as:
"all persons who are, or will be, admitted to a jail in
West Virginia who meet the definition of a "qualified
individual with a disability" under the Americans with
Disabilities Act;"
4. directing the parties to provide the Court with memoranda
regarding the suitability of certification for that class.
The Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum is due by January
11, 2021. After Plaintiffs submit their memorandum,
Defendant will have 14 days to file a response.
5. directing the parties to meet to address the completion of
discovery and propose a new scheduling order. The parties'
Rule 26(f) report is due by January 11, 2021.
6. scheduling a scheduling/status conference on January 19,
2021 at 11:30 AM;
7. directing the Clerk to send a copy of this written Opinion
and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented
parties.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff class is readily identifiable
and now turns to the requirements of Rule 23. The Plaintiffs have
presented more than the one common question that is required by
Rule 23 and have therefore satisfied the commonality requirement.
The constitutional violations alleged by the Plaintiffs are within
the Court's jurisdiction, and the Court is not permitted to "shrink
from [its] obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all
persons, including prisoners."
With regards the Disability Subclass, Judge Chambers held that,
"Because the order grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant
Jividen on the ADA claims of all but one Plaintiff, Donna
Wells-Wright, the Court will require additional briefing from the
parties as to whether class certification is appropriate for the
"Disability Subclass."
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 21, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nSF2Tu at no extra charge.[CC]
WESTJET: Class Action Lawsuit Certified Over Travel Credits Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser at Vancouver Sun reports that a judge has certified a
class-action lawsuit against WestJet for its operation of a program
that deals with such things as credits for cancelled flights.
Tiana Sharifi, the representative plaintiff in the case, booked
flights with WestJet and later cancelled them.
She received $993.26 in credit for the cancellations and was able
to use $571.46 for a subsequent booking, but because WestJet's
credits expire after one year and she didn't use the remaining
$421.80 within that year, she lost the remaining money.
Sharifi is claiming that WestJet's travel bank program -- which
gives out "hard" credit for such things as a cancellation or change
to a reservation and "soft" credits for such things as lost luggage
and customer dissatisfaction -- amounts to prepaid purchase cards
or gift cards.
Her lawyers noted that consumer protection laws in many provinces
in Canada ban expiry dates on prepaid purchase and gift cards and
argued that the legislation should ban WestJet from imposing the
one-year expiry date for the travel bank credits.
The company's hard credits can be extended for an extra year for a
fee of $20, while the soft credits cannot be extended.
The plaintiff estimated that there were tens of thousands of people
in Canada who, like Sharifi, had had their WestJet credits expire.
In her ruling on the case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Amy Francis
noted that the certification analysis did not involve a
consideration of the merits of the claim and only dealt with
whether the lawsuit was properly brought as a class-action
proceeding.
That analysis involved determining a number of things, including
whether the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, whether there
was an identifiable class of two or more persons, and whether the
claim raised common issues.
The airline, which opposed the certification, argued that it was
"plain and obvious" that its credits were neither a gift card nor a
prepaid purchase card.
The company claimed that the hard credits were a return policy and
goodwill customer service gesture akin to the store credit for a
retail purchase wherein a retailer can grant store credit for
exchanged goods and such credit may be time-limited.
The judge said she could not find that the claim disclosed no
reasonable cause of action.
Francis said that while WestJet may be successful in its arguments
at a common issues trial, the plaintiff's claims were not bound to
fail. She certified the case as a class-action proceeding. [GN]
WHOLE FOODS: Fails to Label Foods With Allergens, Akridge Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD AKRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10900 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020) alleges that the
Defendant mislabeled its products under the store brands "Organic
365 Everyday Value," and the foods prepared for fresh consumption.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant has
engaged in a pattern of failing to properly disclose the presence
of allergens in its Products. In just over a year, from October
2019 to November 2020, the Defendant was forced to issue thirty-two
(32) recalls because of failing to properly identify major food
allergens.
Examples of failing to correctly identify allergens include "Whole
Foods Market Minestrone Soup sold in either clear plastic
deli‐style containers of various weights, or in clear plastic
bags weighing 7 lbs. 12 oz."
The Defendant was able to sell more Products at higher prices than
it otherwise would have, because establishing an accurate computer
labeling system would be costly and time consuming, which would be
a drag on quarterly profits.
Had the Plaintiff and class members known the truth of the
Defendant's practices, they would not have bought the Products or
would have paid less for them. The Products are sold at premium
prices relative to similar products, sold by the Defendant, for
packaged goods, and other entities, represented in a non-misleading
way.
Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. was founded in 1990. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of a range of canned
foods and dry goods. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021-5101
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WISCONSIN: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid. in West RLUIPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUFUS WEST v. KEVIN CARR,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00335-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William M.
Conley entered an order denying the plaintiff Rufus West's motion
for class certification.
Given the breadth and indefiniteness of the proposed class, as well
as the inherently individualized nature of Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claims, the court will deny
plaintiff's motion for class treatment, Judge Conley says.
The Plaintiff, an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution
(GBCI), is proceeding in this lawsuit against the defendant Kevin
Carr in his official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections (DOC), asserting violations of the
RLUIPA. Specifically, as a devout Muslim, West claims that the
DOC's practice of canceling in-person, congregate worship services
and study groups violates his rights under RLUIPA and breaches the
terms of a settlement agreement he reached with the DOC to resolve
an earlier lawsuit. West has also filed a motion to certify a class
of inmates for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to
his RLUIPA claim.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 21, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rp6iuV at no
extra charge.[CC]
[*] Clayton Utz Attorneys Discuss Employment Class Action Trends
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christy Miller, Esq., and Betsy Rutledge, Esq., of Clayton Utz,
report that 2020 saw a significant upswing in the identification
and disclosure of significant and systemic underpayments across a
range of companies, many of which are household names. The list and
quantity of underpayments identified continues to grow. But the
identification and rectification of underpayments is now not solely
the purview of unions or the Fair Work Ombudsman. Employees are now
using class actions with the support of litigation funders to seek
compensation. But what does this mean for employers and is it
likely to increase or decrease the pot for employees?
The regulatory landscape
Of the 97 Representative Proceedings (ie. class actions) currently
in progress across Australia, about 20% fall within the Employment
and Industrial Relations National Practice Area. As class actions
are increasingly used to drive underpayment claims, we can expect
to see additional complexities develop resulting from the
significant role litigation funders play in these proceedings.
The Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2020
(Cth) introduced on 24 July 2020 were designed to provide
regulatory oversight of litigation funders operating in Australia,
and required litigation funders to comply with requirements of
Australian Financial Service Providers.
The Amending Regulations were intended to subject litigation
funders to increased regulatory supervision in the interest of
improving accountability, disclosure, conflict management and
protection for group members while stemming the tide of class
action filings. But in terms of underpayment claims, it is the
requirement for Court approval prior to settlement that is of most
interest. Recent requirements to approve settlements identify
discrepancies in the amounts ultimately to be returned to employees
part of a class action (or "group members"), and raise questions
about the ability or appropriateness of litigation funders to
negotiate unpaid statutory entitlements on behalf of group
members.
Current trends in employment-related class actions
Justice Michael Lee noted a proposed settlement would leave group
members with "diddly squat" in an ongoing sham contractor class
action this year, Bywater v Appco Group Australia Pty Ltd [2020]
FCA 1537. UK-based Harbour Litigation Funding had proposed a
settlement agreement whereby it would receive 50% of the settlement
sum of $1.9 million, which would result in the group members
receiving between $770 and $2,320. Justice Lee's "difficulty" with
the proposed settlement was that the proposed return to group
members was "derisory" and that the settlement offered "virtually
no return to group members." On the basis of Justice Lee being
"very far from satisfied that the proposed settlement, on the
current state of the evidence, is fair and reasonable and in the
interests of group members," the settlement approval hearing was
adjourned to give the group member's legal representative an
opportunity to assess a more reasonable settlement sum.
A different issue was considered on 10 November 2020 in Augusta
Ventures Limited v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Limited [2020] FCAFC 194.
Augusta involved two class actions for alleged unpaid wages and
entitlements arising from mischaracterisation of employees as
casual employees. The Full Federal Court overturned an order that
Augusta Ventures (another UK-based litigation funder) provide in
excess of $3 million in security for Mt Arthur Coal's legal costs
on the basis that requiring the litigation funder to provide
security may "impede the funder's participation in the applicant's
proceeding" to the detriment of the group members.
It can be observed from the two above cases alone that the Court's
desire to ensure group members' interests are protected has led to
an almost hot and cold reception of litigation funders. As
concerned as Justice Lee was in Bywater about the percentage of the
settlement sum the litigation funder was seeking to retain, the
Full Federal Court would not put Augusta Ventures in a position
which would result in it being unable to pursue the claim on behalf
of the group members.
The decision in Augusta has been hailed a win for litigation
funders as it provided them with significant relief – employers
have now likely all but lost the ability to apply financial
pressure on litigation funders through seeking security for costs.
It is expected this will significantly increase the investigation
and prosecution of proceedings under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
(FW Act) by litigation funders. However, whether or not employees
will be similarly rejoicing is yet to be seen.
In the meantime, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations
and Financial Services' Report, released on 21 December 2020,
included two recommendations (Recommendation 1 and Recommendation
20) for legislative and procedural reform to promote the
proportionality of costs incurred in litigating a class action,
taking into consideration factors such as potential return to group
members, impacts on court resources, regulatory outcomes and the
public interest.
Potential risks to both employers and employees arising from the
use of litigation funders
The Full Federal Court found that requiring Augusta Ventures to
provide security for the employer's legal costs was "in substance a
condition, or the threat of a condition, being imposed on Mr
Turner's [the group member who commenced the two class actions]
right to proceed with a bona fide claim." Despite the fact the
order for security was made against Augusta Ventures and not the
group members, the Court considered the fact that the consequences
for failing to put up the security included dismissing the
proceedings "could not possibly be just." It does not take a long
draw of the bow to imagine there may soon be other instances where
litigation funders are protected from interlocutory applications on
the basis of negative flow-on effects to group members, to the
detriment of employers.
Additionally, as seen from Bywater, the Federal Court is
increasingly analysing what group members will actually receive
after litigation funders take their cut. This may lead to higher
settlements being paid out by employers to satisfy courts that
group members are receiving a "fair" final sum. The observation in
Augusta that the litigation funding agreement was "freely bargained
for and entered into" offers some comfort that employers should not
be expected to wear the full brunt of litigation funder
involvement, but the use of litigation funders in employment class
action filings, will almost certainly lead to greater risk of
reputational damage to employers, and increased legal costs.
Recovering costs - a more promising position
Finally, the decision in Augusta was not all good news for
litigation funders. While there are public policy grounds for
rendering the Fair Work jurisdiction a "no costs" jurisdiction for
parties to FW Act proceedings, there is a compelling argument to be
had for holding a commercially interested third party liable for
costs. Chief Justice Allsop confirmed that section 570 of the FW
Act, which provides that parties to FW Act proceedings bear their
own costs and do not bear the risk of the costs of each other, does
not apply to third parties, including litigation funders.
Consequently, litigation funders may be required to pay costs if an
employment class action is ultimately unsuccessful. This will
likely serve as an important check on litigation funders
prosecuting FW Act proceedings.
Conclusion: a continued upswing, but employers have some
reassurance
We expect to see a continued upswing of employment-related class
actions in the future, with an increasing number of these class
actions having litigation funders at the helm. As litigation
funders can be sheltered by the protected litigation environment of
group members' (employees) interests during proceedings and group
members are free to benefit from the funding provided by litigation
funders, they make for a relatively potent match. However,
employers should take some reassurance from the Court's frank
criticism of litigation funders seeking significant percentages of
settlement sums, and by the fact litigation funders can be required
to pay costs of an unsuccessful employment class action claim.
As always, however, undertaking regular payroll compliance checks,
managing and addressing early any identified underpayments and
having a proactive communication strategy with employees remains
the most effective way to manage this potentially complex litigious
issue. [GN]
[*] Clyde & Co Attorneys Discuss Wage Class Action Judgments
------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Luk, Esq. -- travis.luk@clydeco.com -- and John Moran, Esq.
-- john.moran@clydeco.com -- of Clyde & Co., reported that the
Federal Court has recently overseen a number of judgments in
'employment related' class actions that have generated significant
interest for class action lawyers and litigation funders.
As we saw with the advent of securities class actions and then the
Royal Commission related representative claims, these judgments and
the 'underpayment' scandals reported nationwide in 2020, suggest
large scale, high value employment representative actions will
become a common feature of the Australian class action landscape.
The most significant judgements signalling the trend are Workpac v
Rossato (permanent employees characterised and paid as casuals);
Bywater v Appco Group Australia (sham contracting) and Augusta
Ventures Limited v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd (mass employee
underpayment).
The key take aways from these decisions:
Classifying permanent employees as casuals: WorkPac Pty Ltd v
Rossato
In the landmark unanimous decision of WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato
[2020] FCAFC 84 (Rossato), on 20 May 2020 the Full Bench of the
Federal Court of Australia found that, a casual employee was in
fact a permanent employee and entitled to all the benefits that
came with that classification (i.e. paid leave, sick leave etc).
Key and novel to the judgment, marking out new territory in
employment law, as a permanent employee, Mr Rossato was entitled to
paid leave entitlements but also retained the casual loading
payments that formed part of his hourly pay. We discussed the
decision in our earlier publication on 29 May 2020 which you can
find at https://bit.ly/3ptq8DF.
The decision is discussed in more depth at our article at
https://bit.ly/3mWynX2, although in brief:
Was Mr Rossato a casual or permanent employee?
The hallmarks of casual employment are where the employee has "no
firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work". Given
that Mr Rossato was employed for an indefinite period of time under
six consecutive contracts and his employment was stable,
continuing, regular and predictable, he was found to have a "firm
advance commitment" and therefore, was a permanent employee.
Was the casual loading mistakenly paid? (Restitution Claim)
The Court found that, because the mistake was WorkPac's
characterisation of Mr Rossato's employment rather than his pay, Mr
Rossato was entitled to retain his casual loading. WorkPac had
independently assessed and determined the amount it should pay Mr
Rossato, above the award, to retain him. As a result, even if the
mistake was 'pay' related, it could not be identified and separated
for restitution purposes.
Can the casual loading set off Mr Rossato's leave entitlements?
(Set off Claim)
For a set-off claim, WorkPac would need to establish that there is
a "sufficiently close correlation between the agreed purpose of the
contractual payment and the nature of the award obligation". The
Court was not satisfied that there was a sufficiently close
correlation because:
the nature of casual loading was different to that of leave
entitlements;
Mr Rossato was seeking to be paid leave entitlements, not a payment
in lieu of them such that the double dipping provisions did not
apply; and
casual loading cannot discharge Mr Rossato's entitlements to leave
because it would be cashing out by pre-payment in breach of the
Fair Work Act 2009.
Implications of the Federal Court Decision
The Rossato judgment is now on appeal to the High Court and
industrial relations law reform targeted to this issue is imminent
- therefore certainty around the implications of the judgement
might be some way off.
That said, the Federal Government estimates there is between
$18billion to $39billion in issue on the permanent v casual
misclassification -- a lot to interest motivated representative
action funders in a competitive funding market.
Settlements: What if group members receive "diddly squat"?
In Bywater v Appco Group Australia Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1537 (Appco),
the Federal Court did not allow the settlement of a sham
contracting class action because of concerns that it leaves group
members with too little. Instead, the parties were allowed further
time to obtain evidence in support of the settlement and prevent
the appointment of a contradictor.
The claim is made on behalf of employees of Appco, seeking around
$65 million in compensation for underpayment of wages and
entitlements. The parties reached a proposed settlement of $1.9
million, with 50% of that being sought from the litigation funder.
At the settlement approval application on 9 October 2020, his
Honour Justice Lee raised concerns in relation to:
the class receiving only $910,000 after costs – an amount he
described as "diddly squat";
the fact that Appco only had net assets of $2.1 million which
seemed to be a result of steps taken by Appco upon commencement of
the class action (a new entity was created, the directors
transferred to that company and Appco was placed into voluntary
administration); and
an insurance policy that was initially thought to respond, but at
no stage was an application for indemnity brought before the Court
or proceedings against the insurer commenced.
Having regard to those matters, his Honour was very far from
satisfied that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and
in the interests of the group members
The application was adjourned to 30 November 2020 to allow the
parties further time to investigate methods to increase the amounts
payable to group members.
Key takeaway
Although the judgment has a lot to say on settlement approval
issues in representative actions generally, the comments from
Justice Lee suggest that reasonableness of the settlement will be
of keen interest where employee entitlements are concerned in these
types of class actions. A funder's fee of 50% of the settlement
will also raise eyebrows, 20% - 25% being the maximum we're seeing
in the market at the moment.
Are litigation funders immune to a security for costs order?
In an appeal to the Full Federal Court in Augusta Ventures Limited
v Mt Arthur Coal Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 194 (Augusta Ventures), a
litigation funder successfully avoided orders requiring it to
provide security for costs in two related class action proceedings
(see Turner v Tesa Mining).
The classes in both actions consist of employees of a mining
company seeking compensation for the alleged underpayment of wages
and entitlements. It appears that this is claim commenced off the
back of the Rossato judgment.
In considering whether or not the litigation funder should be
ordered to provide security for the costs of the class actions, the
Court had regard to a unique feature of employee class actions -
section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA). Section 570 of
the FWA displaces the usual rule that costs follow the event and
provides that parties are not required (in the absence of
unsatisfactory conduct) to pay the costs of another party.
As the claim would have been stayed if security was ordered and
that was deemed unfair to class members in the circumstances; the
Court held that an order for security for costs against the
litigation funder was not appropriate.
Implications
With the decisions of Rossato, not only has there been a
significant interest in employee class actions but at least for
claims under the Fair Work Act and where security would
disadvantage these types of group members, the major hurdle for
funders on these types of claims (and indeed in class actions
generally), security for costs, can be removed.
Where security for costs can reach into multiples of millions, the
reduction of capital requirements for funders to run these types of
class actions, has an obvious effect.
Key Takeaways
As the Rossato, Bywater and Augusta Ventures judgments indicate,
there are a number of factors which will make employee related
representative actions attractive to litigation funders and class
action law firms, including high value claims with large numbers of
potential class members, favourable security for costs conditions
and the likelihood the courts will approach settlement
reasonableness with a keen eye to whether the amount is in the
interests of group members.
We expect employment related class action risk is one insurers
operating in the Australian market will need to pay close attention
to and it is now an opportune time to review policy wordings and
any combined risk offerings to ensure they are indemnifying the
risks and what Underwriter's intended.
Given the importance now being placed on employment conditions and
the developing trend from regulators of strict compliance with
industrial relations legislation, we expect this to a target for
Commonwealth government reform, particularly as the economy emerges
from Covid, we may see the balance tipping back in favour of
employers and, by implication, their insurers.
For now, the favourable conditions existing for funders generally,
coupled with these recent decisions in employment class action
claims, makes this area a fertile ground for funders and developing
risk for insurers operating in this space. [GN]
[*] KWM Attorneys Discuss Class Action Litigation Funding Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Morris, Esq., Moira Saville, Esq., and Cathy Graville, Esq.,
of King & Wood Mallesons, disclosed that the report of the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial
Services ("the committee") into Litigation funding and the
regulation of the class action industry was released Dec. 21,
making 31 recommendations to reform the class action system. The
inquiry was referred in part due to concerns over the significant
growth in shareholder class actions and "excessive profits"
obtained by litigation funders. In making its recommendations, the
committee noted that there was virtually unanimous agreement that
the current regulatory arrangements are too 'light touch' and
greater oversight of the industry is required. The committee's
approach to reform was guided by the principle of reasonable,
proportionate and fair access to justice in the best interests of
class members.
The recommendations are summarised below and include making
permanent the temporary continuous disclosure regime introduced as
a result of COVID-19 and introducing a 90 day 'standstill' once a
class action is filed so any competing class actions can be
considered and filed.
Reasonable, proportionate and fair class action procedure
(Recommendations 1 to 9)
Commencing a class action
The committee recommended the Australian government investigate
legislative change which promotes 'procedural proportionality' in
class actions, that is, the time and expense of class actions
should be proportionate to what is at stake (Recommendation 1).
In doing so, the committee acknowledged there is value in ensuring
proportionality is a factor to be considered at the outset of a
class action, and processes to identify at an early stage the
quantum of claims and an estimate of legal costs to be expended
would assist the assessment of proportionality.
Resolution of competing and multiple class actions
The committee noted competing and multiple class actions add
unnecessary cost, delay and complexity for plaintiffs and
defendants, however, there is uncertainty associated with the
current Federal Court of Australia ("Federal Court") case
management practices. The committee also expressed the view that
measures should be introduced to limit a 'rush to the Court'
attitude.
Significantly, the committee recommended the Federal Court's Class
Action Practice Notice ("Practice Note") be amended to include a
requirement that the Federal Court:
holds a selection hearing to determine which of the competing or
multiple class actions should proceed; and
orders a 'standstill' for 90 days on the filing of a class action,
so that any other competing or multiple class actions can be
considered and filed, and that any book building that occurs during
that period should be given no weight by the Federal Court
(Recommendation 3).
In addition, the committee recommended the Federal Court of
Australia Act 1976 ("the Act") be amended to introduce an express
power to resolve competing and multiple class actions
(Recommendation 2) and that the government seek to ensure that
state and territory Supreme Courts with class action procedures
adopt a protocol with the Federal Court of Australia similar to
those adopted in respect of the Supreme Courts of NSW and Victoria
(Recommendation 4).
Class closure orders
The class action regime is 'open' meaning that it is commenced on
behalf of all group members irrespective of whether they have been
identified or consented to joining the class action, which can
create difficulties in the settlement context if the number of
class members and quantum of the claim are unknown. The power to
order 'class closure' prior to settlement (i.e. requiring group
members to opt out or register their participation in the class
action by a certain date) is not certain, and orders for class
closure are often challenged.
In light of this, the committee recommended:
the Act be amended to introduce an express power to order class
closure (Recommendation 5);
if an order to close the class is made, it should be final unless
the Federal Court thinks it is in the interests of justice to
re-open the class (Recommendation 6).
Common fund orders
The committee recommended legislation to address uncertainty in
relation to the Court's powers to order common fund orders
following the High Court's decision in Brewster (Recommendation 7).
Protecting class members from adverse costs
The committee considered that as a matter of principle, litigation
funders should indemnify a representative plaintiff from adverse
costs in every class action and that the practice should be
mandatory. The committee also considered that funders should
provide security for costs on the basis it is a necessary
protection for a defendant to a class action.
The committee consequently recommended that:
Part IVA of the Act be amended:
so that litigation funding agreements regarding class actions
expressly provide a complete indemnity in favour of the
representative plaintiff against an adverse costs order
(Recommendation 8); and
to include a statutory presumption that a litigation funder in a
class action provide security for costs (Recommendation 10);
the Federal Court not approve a litigation funding agreement unless
the agreement provides a complete indemnity for adverse costs
(Recommendation 9).
Court regulation of litigation funding fees
(Recommendations 11 - 17)
Approval of litigation funding agreements required
The committee recognised that the current implementation of the
Federal Court's supervisory and protective role in class actions is
weak and appears to favour the provision of profit to litigation
funders, and that uncertainty surrounding the Federal Court's power
to alter terms of the litigation funding arrangements undermined
its ability to regulate litigation funding fees. As such, the
committee recommended the Act be amended to require Federal Court
approval of litigation funding agreements in order to be
enforceable, and empower the Federal Court to reject, vary or amend
terms of litigation funding agreements in the interest of justice
(Recommendation 11).
Litigation funding agreements must be governed by Australian law
In addition, the committee noted that domestic scrutiny of
litigation funders is insufficient as a significant number of
foreign litigation funders are not incorporated in Australia,
recommending the Act be amended to require litigation funding
agreements to be governed by Australian law and litigation funders
to submit irrevocably to Federal Court jurisdiction for any
litigation funding agreement to be approved (Recommendation 12).
Cost assessors
The committee recognised that advice of counsel and opinion of cost
assessors retained by the plaintiff are inappropriate to assist the
Court in ensuring that litigation funding costs are reasonable,
proportionate and fair. To overcome the lack of expertise and
independence in the current mechanism, the committee considered it
critical that independent financial experts be appointed to assist
the Federal Court's assessment of litigation funding agreements.
The committee recommended:
the Practice Note be amended to empower the Court to appoint a
referee to act as a litigation funding fees assessor at any point
in a proceeding (Recommendation 13);
the appointed litigation funding fees assessor be a professional
with market capital or finance expertise (Recommendation 14);
the Act be amended to expressly allow the making of a costs order
against a litigation funder (Recommendation 15); and
the Practice Note be amended to state that the Court may order the
litigation funder to pay the costs of the work undertaken by an
appointed litigation funding fees assessor (Recommendation 16).
Increased transparency
The committee considered that increased transparency in the
litigation funding industry to enhance scrutiny and accountability
is warranted given the excessive profits obtained from class
actions.
The committee recommended the Federal Court should require certain
information to accompany an application for approval of a class
action settlement, which should then be published following the
judgment approving a settlement (including the settlement sum, the
funding commissions payable, the total costs, and payment to the
representative plaintiffs) (Recommendation 17).
Contradictors and the interests of class members (Recommendations
18 and 19)
The committee noted that class members faced significant barriers
to object to a settlement, which limited the representation of
class members' interests at the settlement stage. The committee
also recognised there is little incentive for other involved
parties to delay settlement approval, and the limited ability of
judges to champion the interests of group members. The committee
considered contradictors (an independent third party appointed to
represent the interest of class members, often a senior counsel)
are 'an effective tool' to represent the interests of class
members, leading to 'improved outcomes for class members'.
The committee recommended:
the Practice Note be amended to:
include a presumption in favour of the use of contradictors, where
there are complex matters at issue in a proposed settlement, or the
potential exists for significant conflicts of interest;
provide guidance on a range of scenarios likely to give rise to a
conflict of interest;
ensure the Federal Court continues to retain discretion to appoint
a contradictor, and to provide non-exhaustive guidance on when the
Federal Court may elect to do so; and
ensure that the Federal Court is able to order costs associated
with the appointment of a contradictor be paid by the plaintiff law
firm or litigation funder where justified (Recommendation 18).
the Australian government implement a procedure to facilitate
communication of class member's concerns and objections to the
settlement to a contradictor (Recommendation 19).
Reasonable, proportionate and fair litigation funding fees
(Recommendation 20)
The committee identified that the current percentage-based billing
practice significantly facilitated the making of excessive profits
by litigation funders. After considering a range of alternative
approaches, the committee recognised that a guaranteed statutory
minimum of the gross proceeds to class members was the most
appropriate solution to protect class members and maintain access
to justice.
In light of this, the committee recommended the Australian
government to consult on:
the best way to guarantee a statutory minimum return of the gross
proceeds of a class action;
whether a minimum gross return of 70 per cent is the most
appropriate floor; and
whether a graduated approach taking into consideration the risk,
complexity, length and likely proceeds of the case is more
appropriate (Recommendation 20).
Reasonable proportionate and fair legal costs (Recommendations 21
and 22)
Contingency Fees
The committee formed the view that a law firm that undertakes to
run a class action on a contingency fee basis (which is presently
only permitted in Victoria) should be subject to similar regulatory
arrangements as litigation funders.
As such, the committee recommended the Australian government review
the feasibility of applying the AFS Licence and managed investment
scheme regimes to lawyers operating on a contingency fee
arrangement in class actions (Recommendation 21).
Uplift Fees
The committee considered the charging of an uplift fee up to 25 per
cent, on the entirety of the legal costs when receiving payments at
regular intervals from the litigation funder, to be neither
reasonable nor proportionate with the risk assumed by lawyers (as
it does not reflect the level of risk assumed). As a result, the
committee recommended that the Australian government consider
establishing rules governing the ability of lawyers to charge an
uplift fee on the total amount of legal costs (Recommendation 22).
Conflicts of interest in litigation funded class actions
(Recommendations 23, 24 and 25)
The committee noted that the difference in interests between the
representative plaintiff, their lawyers and litigation funders can
become problematic when the interests of the litigation funder
determine and influence outcomes in the litigation, and when the
interests of the funder are prioritised over the interests of the
representative plaintiff and class members.
Ultimately the committee acknowledged that:
class action litigation as a mechanism for the vindication of legal
rights for a collective group of similar claims should not be
expropriated by litigation funders for their commercial gain and
that the representative plaintiff on behalf of the class and with
legal advice should have decision-making power on matters
pertaining to those claims and their case; and
a standard should be set that the lawyers and litigation funders
have an obligation to avoid conflicts of interest and where
conflicts arise there should be robust and appropriate disclosure
and management processes and requirements.
The committee recommended:
the Practice Note be amended to:
require that the first notice provided by legal representatives to
potential class members describe the formers' obligation to avoid
and manage conflicts and the details of any conflicts
(Recommendation 23);
require that in a funded class action the first notice also clearly
describe the obligation of litigation funders to avoid conflicts of
interest, the funder's obligations as an AFS Licensee and (if
applicable) as a responsible entity for a managed investment
scheme, and the details of any conflicts (Recommendation 24);
the representative plaintiff's lawyers and litigation funders be
required to disclose to the Federal Court any potential conflicts
of interest, any new or potential conflicts arising after the first
case management conference, and the conflict management policy when
they apply to the Federal Court for approval of a litigation
funding agreement (Recommendation 25).
Dual interests of lawyer and litigation funder in a class action
(Recommendation 26)
The committee noted that a conflict of interest arose where the
lawyer or law firm is in some way connected to the litigation
funding entity financing the case, that such conflicts were
unmanageable and compromised the lawyer's duties to the court and
to their client, and that there should be strict separation between
the funder and the representative plaintiff's lawyers.
The committee recommended that the conduct rules for solicitors and
barristers be amended to prohibit having a financial or other
interest in a third-party litigation funder that is funding the
same matter in which the solicitor, law firm or barrister is acting
(Recommendation 26).
Statutory standards of conduct (Recommendation 27)
The committee considered that litigation funders should be held to
the same standards as parties and lawyers to the litigation,
particularly given the level of control that funders can exert over
proceedings.
The committee recommended that the Australian government consider
options for the Federal Court to have the power to hold parties,
their lawyers and funders to the same standards of conduct in class
actions including:
amending sections 37N and 43 of the Act to oblige funders to act
consistently with the overarching purpose in section 37M of the Act
(the facilitation of the just resolution of disputed claims
according to the law as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as
possible) and to permit the Federal Court to order costs against
litigation funders for failure to act consistently with the
overarching purpose; and
amending the Act to reflect the overarching obligations and the
paramount duty in sections 16 to 26 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010
(Vic) including also the Federal Court having the express power to
order costs against litigation funders for non-compliance with the
overarching purpose of section 37N as well as the power to order
disciplinary sanctions (Recommendation 27).
Financial services regulation of litigation funding (Recommendation
28)
Since August 2020, litigation funders in class actions have had to
comply with the requirements of the AFS Licence and managed
investment scheme regimes. The committee considered that the AFS
Licence and managed investment scheme regimes were 'a step in the
right direction' but required certain modifications in order to
ensure that they did not impose an undue regulatory burden on the
litigation funding industry.
The committee recommended that the Australian government:
legislate a fit-for-purpose managed investment scheme regime
tailored for litigation funders; and
consult on the best way to exempt not-for-profit funders who held
charitable status at the time the regulations were issued, have run
no more than three class actions in the last five years, and exist
solely to support and protect the members of the associated
charitable entity (Recommendation 28).
Shareholder class actions and litigation funding (Recommendations
29 and 30)
The committee considered that shareholder class actions are
generally economically inefficient and not in the public interest,
as such claims can be easily triggered by an alleged breach of
Australia's continuous disclosure regime and successful actions
amount to shareholders suing themselves. In this regard the
committee quoted data collated by King & Wood Mallesons to show
that the transactions costs involved in shareholder class actions
are significant – consuming between 20 to 60% of settlement sums.
In addition, some submissions argued that class action lawyers and
litigation funders were taking advantage of Australia's continuous
disclosure regime to launch opportunistic shareholder class
actions.
With the impact of COVID-19, the continuous disclosure laws were
amended to enable companies and officers to provide guidance to the
market more confidently during the crisis, by removing the strict
liability associated with continuous disclosure such that
plaintiffs would be required to prove fault. The purpose of the
amendment was to help to reduce the prospect of class actions
against companies operating in the circumstances of the pandemic.
The committee considered that it was appropriate to retain the
fault element in order to raise the bar for establishing a breach
and stem the flow of opportunistic class actions, recommending that
the changes made as a result of COVID-19 be made permanent
(Recommendation 29).
The committee also considered it appropriate to limit the hearing
of claims pursuant to Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to the Federal Court
only in order to avoid additional challenges arising from competing
shareholder class actions being lodged in different jurisdictions
(Recommendation 30).
National consistency (Recommendation 31)
The committee noted that the Australian class action regime was
intended to operate nationally in a consistent way, however, issues
had arisen due to the inconsistencies in the approaches of
different jurisdictions to class actions regimes (e.g. Victoria is
the only jurisdiction in which continency fees are permitted). The
committee recommended that in order to increase certainty and
reduce complexity the federal, state and territory governments
should work towards achieving consistency in class action regimes
across jurisdictions (Recommendation 31). [GN]
[*] Manatt Financial Attorneys Discuss PPP Agent Fee Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Gottlieb, Esq. -- rgottlieb@manatt.com -- and Brett J.
Natarelli, Esq. -- bnatarelli@manatt.com -- of Manatt Financial
Services, reported that in its recent passage of the 2021 stimulus
bill, Congress may have vanquished the last hopes of the
plaintiffs' bar seeking to require Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP) lenders to pay agent fees for accountants in a wave of
putative class action lawsuits. Assuming the bill becomes law, the
legs of the pending PPP agent fee class actions will likely be
knocked out from under them. We explain why below.
What Happened
In March 2020, Congress passed and the President signed the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in
direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One component of the
CARES Act was the PPP loan program, a large-scale stimulus of
forgivable loans made broadly available to smaller businesses.
Lenders were invited to participate in the PPP lending platform,
which was bolted onto preexisting lending processes developed by
the Small Business Administration under its Section 7(a) loan
program. Under Section 7(a) as modified by the CARES Act, lenders
were entitled to receive a lender's fee for closing the loan, and
lenders or applicants could employ agents to assist them, with
agent fees paid by the lender if the parties contracted to do so
prior to loan closing.
Never one to miss an opportunity, however, plaintiffs' class action
lawyers quickly filed suits alleging that banks were wrongfully
prioritizing their own customers in processing PPP loan
applications. As we previously reported, in a second wave of class
actions, many of the same lawyers filed suit on behalf of alleged
agents for PPP applicants alleging that lenders were wrongfully
depriving them of agent fees for assisting applicants to secure the
PPP funds. But these agents were largely undisclosed ones, and the
lenders defended these suits by noting the absence of any agreement
to compensate them, among other defenses.
None of the suits have been successful to date. Federal district
courts across the nation have universally and broadly rejected the
lawsuits on a variety of grounds, including that the federal
statute provides no private right of action. Further, the courts
have concluded that, even if the statute provided standing, the law
does not require agents to be paid if they have not first
contracted with the lender to do so.
And yet numerous suits still remain, and the plaintiffs' bar is
taking some of the dismissals up on appeal, including some
consolidated litigation pending in the Second Circuit.
If the President signs the $2.3 trillion Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Act), which includes about $900 billion
in additional stimulus funds for the economy set forth in the
separately titled Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021, it will likely include the PPP provisions
Congress passed.
For lenders intending to participate in the next round of PPP
lending, the Act contains helpful language for lenders on agent
fees in the form of amendments to the Small Business Act. Section
7(a)(36)(P)(ii) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(36)(P)(ii)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
"If an eligible recipient [that is, the SBA loan applicant] has
knowingly retained an agent, such fees shall be paid by the
eligible recipient and may not be paid out of the proceeds of a
covered loan. A lender shall only be responsible for paying fees to
an agent for services for which the lender directly contracts with
the agent."
Further, Congress makes explicit that the change is intended to
have retroactive effect:
"EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY. -- The amendment made by paragraph
(1) shall be effective as if included in the CARES Act (Public Law
116–136; 134 Stat. 281) and shall apply to any loan made pursuant
to section 7(a)(36) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
636(a)(36)) before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act,
including forgiveness of such a loan."
In other words, Congress is making clear three things: (1)
accountants may now ask their customers to pay reasonable agent
fees that meet Small Business Act 7(a) requirements; (2) lenders
have no obligation to pay agents unless they have contracted with
them to do so, and, critically here, (3) this provision applies
retroactively to the March 27 enactment of the CARES Act. As a
result, whatever cases remain should now be dismissed, as Congress
has spoken, and with clarity.
Why It Matters
The clarifications to the Small Business Act should logically be
the final nail in the coffin for the hopes of plaintiffs' class
action lawyers seeking reimbursement for accountants and others
that are alleged to have assisted PPP applicants. Likewise, the
amendment plainly undermines plaintiffs' baseless legal theories
that somehow placed on lenders the onus to pay undisclosed agents
or, even where disclosed, those that assisted borrowers without
seeking an agreement from the lender to pay agents out of their own
proceeds.
Plaintiffs' lawyers will doubtless try to persuade judges of the
seeming inequity in having borrowers pay agents when the original
CARES Act made agent fees, where established, payable from lender
fees alone. While there is traditionally a common law presumption
against retroactivity, we expect courts to apply the language with
full retroactive effect because Congress said so expressly.
Likewise, we expect the statute will survive the usual
constitutional challenges (due process, takings, contract clause).
Manatt's financial service practitioners are currently advising
numerous clients on PPP lending matters, including with respect to
compliance as the program restarts in 2021. If you have any
questions on this topic, please contact the authors or any other
member of the team. [GN]
[*] Supreme Court Agrees to Review FCRA Class Action Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review a $40 million
class action trial judgment for statutory and punitive damages
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and its forthcoming decision
later this Term will likely be the Supreme Court's most important
ruling in the consumer financial services space since its 2016
ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
In TransUnion, LLC. v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court agreed to decide
the following question posed by TransUnion: "Whether either Article
III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast
majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an
injury anything like what the class representative suffered." In
this case, plaintiff Sergio Ramirez alleged that he suffered
difficulty in obtaining credit, embarrassment in front of family
members, and had to cancel a vacation after an automobile dealer
received a credit report incorrectly indicating that his name
matched a name found on a list of terrorists and narcotics
traffickers with whom U.S. companies may not transact business that
is prepared by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. He filed a
class action against TransUnion alleging violations of the FCRA.
Significantly, it was stipulated by the parties that, unlike
Ramirez, approximately 79% of the 8,185 class members did not have
a credit report disseminated to a third party during the class
period. The court certified the class despite TransUnion's
objections that most of the class members lacked standing and that
Ramirez was not typical of the class he represented. Unlike the
vast majority of class actions, the case proceeded to trial and the
jury awarded each class member $984.22 in statutory damages and an
additional $6,353.08 in punitive damages. On appeal, the Ninth
Circuit, ruling 2-1, upheld class certification, the jury verdict
in favor of the class, and the statutory damages amount, but
reduced the punitive damages to $3,936.88 per class member.
TransUnion's cert petition forcefully argued that "the Ninth
Circuit eviscerated critical Article III, Rule 23, and due process
constraints, thereby paving the way for one highly atypical
plaintiff to recover massive damages on behalf of thousands of
uninjured class members." Given the grant of certiorari in this
case and the current composition of the Supreme Court, it can
reasonably be anticipated that the Court's decision later this Term
will be favorable to TransUnion and to class action defendants
generally, and will likely enunciate more rigorous requirements for
standing under Rule 23 and Spokeo and for typicality under Rule
23(a)(3). [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 ***