/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210106.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 6, 2021, Vol. 23, No. -1 Headlines A10 CAPITAL: Washington Court Dismisses Amended Fruci Complaint ABITINO'S PIZZA: Siguencia Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages ALDI INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Underfilled" Coffee ALIBABA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 12 Deadline AMERICAN GENERAL: LSIMC Sues Over Insurance Interest Underpayment AMERICAN HOME: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls AMERICAN SECURITY: Underpays Security Workers, Forrester Claims ANTHEM INC: Fortier Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 9th Circuit ANYTIME TOWING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Moore Alleges APPLE INC: 9th Circuit Vacates in Part Dismissal of Processor Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Crockrom Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Cir. BANK OF NEW YORK: Walden Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties BERRY CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of January 21 Deadline BHS MANAGEMENT: Coviello Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plans BILL'S ELECTRIC: Underpays Master Electricians, Barker Suit Claims BIOGEN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of January 12 Deadline BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Waters ERISA Suit on Inadequate COBRA Notice BLISSY LLC: Bunting Alleges Violation under ADA BOKER USA: Angeles Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline BROTHER'S CONTRACTOR: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Alexander Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 4th Cir. CD PROJEKT: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Feb. 22 Deadline CITIZENS BANK: $612K in Counsel Fees Recommended in Kondash Suit CLARA CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls COINBASE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sale of XRP Cryptocurrency COINBASE: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Listing of XRP Tokens COLORADO: Judge Tosses ACLU Class Action Against Governor Polis CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Holtzman Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. Ill. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Decision to Remand Nevarez Suit Under Appeal COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Class Action Stayed DAIMLER AG: Settlement in Vancouver Alumni Suit Gets Final Approval DEL MAR, CA: Bid to Amend Hedayatzadeh Suit to Add Plaintiff Denied DENVER, CO: Class Action Over Homeless Encampments to Continue DOLLAR TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bessette Suit Alleges DOW JONES: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Winegard Suit Says EL TORITO: Santos Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Tailford Ruling in FCRA Suit to Ninth Cir. FANTASY SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class in Fischer Gets Conditional Certification FIRST AMERICAN: Abdelrasoul Ruling in Breach Suit to 9th Cir. FIRST AMERICAN: Campbell Ruling in Contract Breach Suit to 9th Cir. FIRST AMERICAN: Dinh Appeals Ruling in Data Breach Suit to 9th Cir. FORTRESS BIOTECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 26 Deadline GLOBAL RESPONSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to CSRs, Demeritte Says GLOCK INC: Johnson Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gonzales Says GREAT AMERICAN: Davis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Dancers GREGORYS COFFEE: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Bakers, De Jesus Claims GRIDDLE INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. HAIYING REN: Wang Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit HANNA ANDERSSON: Court Grants Preliminary Okay of Breach Settlement HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Podiatry Clinic Slams Denied COVID Loss Claims HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE: Rodriguez Seeks 6th Cir. Review in FDCPA Suit HISTORIC IMAGES: Buren et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime HOMES.COM INC: Pierucci TCPA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend HONDA MOTOR: Settles 5-Speed Transmission Class Action Lawsuit HP INC: Bid to Nix Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Pending HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Underway HP INC: Dismissal of Parziale Suit Under Appeal HP INC: York County Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop Ongoing IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action IDT CORP: Samara Putative Class Suit Dismissed IDT CORP: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Stauffer BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois INTERFACE INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of January 11 Deadline JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Amended Ponzo Complaint Tossed; May Replead JOYY INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, School District Says K12 INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Spack and Roper Suit KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions Underway KMI INDUSTRIAL: BakerHostetler Discusses CAFA Removal Standards LA FONDA REST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Cooks, Arias Suit Says LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gathmann-Landini Class Action Settled LVNV FUNDING: Class Certification Ruling in Davis Suit Reversed MASTERCARD: UK Supreme Court Allows Consumer Class Suit to Proceed MDL 2573: Counterparties' Contact Info to Be Given to Rust Inc. MDL 2968: Initial Meeting in Generali Travel Suit Set for Jan. 28 MDL 2984: Ashton Seeks Transfer of 5 Consumer Suits to C.D. Cal. MEDLEY CAPITAL: Pennsylvania Class Action Dismissed MESA AIR: IPO-Related Putative Class Lawsuits in Arizona Underway MIDLAND CREDIT: Christian Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter MIDLAND CREDIT: Jacobs Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter MORGAN STANLEY: Financial Advisors Sues Over Deferred Compensation NAVIHEALTH INC: Settlement in Bentley Suit Wins Prelim. Approval NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in MaxxForce Advanced EGR Suit Pending NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada NEONODE INC: Purported Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware Dismissed NEOVASC INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Jan. 5 Deadline NESTLE WATERS: Chong Ruling in Product Liability Suit to 9th Cir. NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California NEXTIER OILFIELD: Pays $125,000 to Woods Counsel as Attorneys' Fees NORTHERN DYNASTY: Faces Securities Class Actions in New York NORTHERN DYNASTY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline NORTHERN DYNASTY: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 2 Deadline ONEKIND.25 INC: Conner Asserts Breach of ADA ORACLE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending ORANGE COUNTY, NC: Class Action Certification Ruling Upheld PEPPER & PEACH: Brown et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Skimming PINTEREST INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 21 Deadline POWER & ENERGY: Faces Peters Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PRESSED JUICERY: Faces Tunkett Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal. PROTEOSTASIS THERAPEUTICS: Facing Aniello Putative Class Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Tosses Amended Securities Suit PRUITHEALTH INC: Underpays Health Care Workers, Coley Suit Claims RAINBOW USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, James Suit Alleges RCI HOSPITALITY: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending RESTAURANT BRANDS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline RESTAURANT BRANDS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline RESTAURANT BRANDS: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 19 Deadline RNT TAVERN: Maystrenko Alleges Discrimination at Ladies Bar Events SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Consolidate Duplicative Suits Granted SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Toss Maryland Putative Class Suit Pending SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Litigation Underway SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in CA Consumer Class Suit SARGENTO FOODS: Phan Sues Over Mislabeled Dairy Cheese Products SCRANTON SEWER: Gets Closer to Dissolving After Class Settlement SOCIAL RESTAURANT: Connery-Thomas Suit Alleges Tip Skimming SPEEDY CASH: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Delisle Consumer Suit SPLUNK INC: Facing Putative Class Action in California SPLUNK INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline STOCKX INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Data Security Breach Suit STRATEGIC SECURITY: Hinojosa Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT STRICKLAND WATERPROOFING: Misclassifies Workers, Farias et al. Say SUBARU CORP: Warranty Claims in Cracked Windshield Suit Dismissed SWEET COFFEE: Faces Salamanca Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. TILLY'S INC: Bid for Class Certification in Ward Suit Junked TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing TOTAL TANK: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Barr Suit Claims TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Faces Moore Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls TRITERRAS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline TRITERRAS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 19 Deadline TWIN RIVER: Ruotolo Sues Over Casino Staff's Unpaid Wages UNITED NATURAL: North Country Store Suit Concluded UNITED SHORE: Bhasin Sues Over Breach of Contractual Duties UNITED STATES: Peltier Alleges Pembina Judgment Fund Mismanagement UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Ross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation USHEALTH ADVISORS: Hirsch Ruling in TCPA Suit to Fifth Circuit VERINT SYSTEMS: Bid for Leave to Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending VERIZON WIRELESS: Langere's Appeal From Voluntary Dismissal Nixed VIACOM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders Class Suit VIVINT SOLAR: Crumrine Securities Suit Removed to District of Utah WALMART INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Data Breach Lawsuit WEB TO DOOR: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices WORLD FINANCIAL: Files Ninth Circuit Appeal Against USDC-CASF YRC INC: Alvarez Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to Ninth Circuit ZINUS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Angeles Suit Says [*] Michigan AG's Office Negotiated Historic Settlements in 2020 ********* A10 CAPITAL: Washington Court Dismisses Amended Fruci Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FRUCI & ASSOCIATES, PS, for itself and on behalf of a class of similarly situated businesses and individuals, Plaintiff v. A10 CAPITAL LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. C20-864 RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle: (i) granted Defendant Sound Community Bank and Washington Trust Bank's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); (ii) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; and (iii) denied as moot Defendant Mountain West Bank's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Under FRCP 12(b)(1). The case presents the Court with a novel legal claim arising out of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") that it created. The Plaintiff asserts that it acted as an agent for loan applicants seeking loans from the Defendant banks under the PPP and that it is therefore entitled to "agent fees" that the banks have not paid. To date, at least 10 courts have dismissed claims similar to the Plaintiff's after finding them insufficiently plead or lacking an adequate legal basis. The Plaintiff initiated the action against 11 Defendant banks which acted as lenders under the PPP for agent fees, the Defendants allegedly owed the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not lodge separate allegations as to each Defendant. Rather, in the parts most relevant to the motion, it makes allegations, based on its "information and belief," against all of them. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants funded PPP loans for Borrowers represented by the Plaintiff and the proposed Class, received their Lender Fees from the Federal Government, and failed to pay the Agent Fees earned by the Plaintiff and proposed Class out of the Lender Fees received. The Defendants have either failed and refused to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage of, the monies owed in Agent Fees to the Plaintiff and the proposed Class, thus, retaining for themselves all of the statutory fees allotted by the Government for Agents as part of the PPP despite the work performed by the Agents in assisting the Borrowers in securing their PPP loans. The matter is before the Court on motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants that have appeared in the action. Judge Martinez finds that even under the more liberal standards of the standing inquiry, the Plaintiff fails to establish standing in the matter. He concludes that the Plaintiff has adequately alleged an injury in fact as it has alleged that the Defendant banks have not paid it funds that it is entitled to. These simple allegations are sufficient, Judge Martinez finds. The Plaintiff cannot, however, establish causation and redressability. Its allegations fail to establish that it represented applicants receiving PPP loans or that those applicants obtained funding from the Defendant banks. As such, the Plaintiff's allegations do not establish whether these Defendants--or other lenders--have caused the Plaintiff's alleged injuries. Judge Martinez finds opines that the Plaintiff's failure to adequately establish causation dooms its arguments for redressability. Even if it proves its legal claims, it does not establish that it has brought the proper lenders before the Court such that the Plaintiff's injuries can be redressed. As the Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint fails to allege facts giving rise to standing, it must be dismissed. Having failed to establish standing, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint also fails under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)'s plausibility standard. The Plaintiff has failed to make factual allegations supporting the plausibility of its alleged claims. Its Amended Class Action Complaint establishes the possibility that the Defendant banks may be liable to the Plaintiff, but lacks allegations establishing why the Defendant banks' liability is plausible. Having found that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the Defendant banks are responsible for its alleged harms, the Judge does not consider the Plaintiff's additional legal claims separately. Those claims fail on account of the same inadequate pleading. In addition to joining a motion to dismiss, Defendant Mountain West Bank files a separate motion seeking dismissal on the basis that the Plaintiff's claims are not ripe. However, it indicates that the Court need not reach the motion unless it denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss. As the Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, he denies Defendant Mountain West Bank's motion as moot. Finally, the Plaintiff has amended its complaint once as a matter of right. It has requested that if the Court dismisses the action "in full or in part" that it be granted leave to amend to file a second amended Complaint. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts, consistent with the challenged pleading, which could survive dismissal. Accordingly, he grants the Plaintiff leave to amend. Having reviewed the Defendants' motions to dismiss, the briefing of the parties, the supplemental authorities, and the remainder of the record, Judge Martinez (i) granted Sound Community and Washington Trust's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; (ii) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; and (iii) denied as moot Defendant Mountain West Bank's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend. Within 30 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff may file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yak8e4cw from Leagle.com. ABITINO'S PIZZA: Siguencia Sues Over Delivery Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEGUNDO SIGUENCIA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. ABITINO'S PIZZA 49TH STREET CORP. d/b/a ABITINO'S PIZZERIA, ABITINO'S PIZZA & RESTAURANT, INC. NO. II d/b/a ABITINO'S PIZZERIA, ABITINO'S JFK LLC d/b/a ABITINO'S PIZZERIA, MAMMA ANNA 730 LLC d/b/a ABITINO'S PIZZERIA, MARIO ABITINO SR., MARIO ABITINO JR., SALVATORE ABITINO, and DOMINICO ABITINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10761 (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2020) brings this class and collective action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff as hired by the Defendants to work as a delivery person in or around March 2019 until in or around April 2019. The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked 42 hours per week for the Defendants. Although he received a paycheck on a weekly basis throughout his employment with the Defendants, every single check he received from the Defendants bounced. As a result, he did not receive any wages for all his hours worked. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide him with proper wage notices at hiring and annually thereafter, and failed to provide him itemized listings of deductions taken on a wage statement with every payment of wages. The Corporate Defendants operate a chain of pizzerias as a single integrated enterprise under the trade name "Abitino's Pizzeria", commonly owned and operated by the individual Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 124 West 24th St., Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 ALDI INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Underfilled" Coffee -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Gordon, Esq., of Reed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that iast week, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Aldi Inc. regarding certain Beaumont Coffee products sold in its stores. According to the complaint, the packaging for the coffee product states that a single package will make "Up to 210 6 oz Cups." According to package instructions, the plaintiffs assert that a single serving consists of one tablespoon of ground coffee and one serving of water. To make the advertised 210 servings, the plaintiffs allege that the package would need to contain 210 tablespoons of ground coffee, not the 137 tablespoons contained in the purchased package. When compared to the advertised cups of coffee available to be made with this product, the plaintiffs allege that the product is underfilled by over 34%. Despite one of the named defendants residing in Illinois, and the complaint being filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the complaint alleges that the packaging constitutes false advertising pursuant to several California and New York unfair or deceptive acts or practices statutes, including the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. Takeaway: Most slack fill cases involve allegations that a product contains too much empty space commensurate with the overall package size. In this case, however, the plaintiffs allege that the package is underfilled based on the claims of contained on the package itself. Advertisers that make claims about number of servings per package should ensure that such claims match with the instructions and nutrition facts label. [GN] ALIBABA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of January 12 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba" or the "Company") (NYSE: BABA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-10267, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Alibaba securities between July 20, 2020 and November 3, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Alibaba securities during the Class Period, you have until January 12, 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://bit.ly/3pMM8JK for information about joining the class action] Alibaba is an online and mobile commerce company. Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest in Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company that is best known for operating Alipay, one of the largest mobile and online payments platforms. On July 20, 2020, Ant Group announced that it had begun the process of a concurrent initial public offering ("IPO") on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock exchanges. On October 26, 2020, Ant Group priced its IPO and was set to raise $34.5 billion, making it the largest public offering in history. The complaint 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: (i) Ant Group did not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (ii) certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business; (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's IPO was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On November 2, 2020, Financial Times reported that Chinese regulators had met with Ant Group's controller Jack Ma, executive chairman Eric Jing, and Chief Executive Officer Simon Hu. The article stated that, though regulators did not provide details, "the Chinese word used to describe the interview - yuetan - generally indicates a dressing down by authorities." The article also included a statement from Ant Group that it will "implement the meeting opinions in depth." On November 3, 2020, the IPO was suspended because Ant Group "may not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements due to material matters" related to the meeting with regulators the previous day and "the recent changes in the Fintech regulatory environment." On this news, Alibaba's American Depository Share price fell $25.27 per share, or 8%, to close at $285.57 per share on November 3, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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] AMERICAN GENERAL: LSIMC Sues Over Insurance Interest Underpayment ----------------------------------------------------------------- LSIMC, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-11518 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2020) alleges that the Defendant has cheated Plaintiff and other owners of life insurance policies issued in California out of tens of millions of dollars by deliberately under-paying interest owed on amounts deposited with AmGen in violation of the terms of their standardized form contracts. The complaint contends that AmGen has breached the terms of the policies by redetermining credited rates based on factors other than its expectations of future investment earnings. For at least the past four years, AmGen has redetermined the credited interest rates on Plaintiff's policy at 3.0% -- which is the guaranteed minimum set forth in the policy -- despite changes in AmGen's expectations of future investment earnings amidst dramatic fluctuations in the Treasuries, bonds, equities, and other assets in which AmGen invests policyholder account value. American General Life Insurance Company is life insurance company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com AMERICAN HOME: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HOME IMPROVEMENT INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11506 (C.D. Cal., December 21, 2020) arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around October 2019 in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in placing its calls that were not for emergency purposes without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive such ATDS calls. Due to the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages by incurring certain charges or reduced telephone time for which she previously paid, and invading her privacy, the suit says. American Home Improvement Inc. is a home renovation company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com AMERICAN SECURITY: Underpays Security Workers, Forrester Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHA FORRESTER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SECURITY AND PROTECTION SERVICE LLC, and F. MICHAEL JONES, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00204-TBR (W.D. Ky., December 22, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants seeking unpaid wages and damages for their alleged unlawful pay practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid non-exempt security worker from approximately March to November 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not compensate him and other similarly situated security workers for the 10-15 minutes pre-shift and post-shift duties they performed which are indispensable and integral part of their principal duties. Although they routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime compensation for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records of the unpaid work performed by its security workers. American Security and Protection Service LLC provides various security services in multiple states, with regional offices located in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Georgia. F. Michael Jones is the owner, operator, Chairman, and CEO of the corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 824-5770 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and – Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com ANTHEM INC: Fortier Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Marie Fortier filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit entitled MARIE FORTIER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM, INC., ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-04952-MCS-MAA, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action brought by the Plaintiff to address Anthem's practice of improperly denying claims for percutaneous neuromodulation therapy devices made by members under Anthem plans. According to the complaint, Anthem Inc. acts as a fully integrated company that is in the business of insuring and/or administering group health plans within the meaning of 29 Code of Federal Regulations, most of which are employer-sponsored and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Those ERISA-governed group health plans are hereinafter referred to as "Anthem plans." Ms. Fortier seeks to review the Court's order dated Dec. 11, 2020, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Marie Fortier v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-56361, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 22, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Marie Fortier Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 29, 2020; -- Appellant Marie Fortier opening brief is due on February 19, 2021; -- Appellees Anthem UM Services, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. answering brief is due on March 22, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARIE FORTIER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Adrian Jorge Barrio, Esq. Robert Steven Gianelli, Esq. Joshua S. Davis, Esq., Esq. GIANELLI & MORRIS ALC 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 1645 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-1600 E-mail: adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com - and - Martin Nebrida Buchanan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN N. BUCHANAN 655 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-2426 E-mail: martin@martinbuchanan.com Defendants-Appellees ANTHEM, INC. and ANTHEM UM SERVICES, INC. are represented by: Virginia Bell Flynn, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 301 S. College Street, Suite 3400 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 998-4050 E-mail: virginia.flynn@troutman.com - and - Chad R. Fuller, Esq. Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 509-6000 E-mail: chad.fuller@troutman.com jessica.lohr@troutman.com ANYTIME TOWING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Moore Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN MOORE, individually, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. ANYTIME TOWING & RECOVERY, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00540-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn., December 21, 2020) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and damages for its alleged violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a vehicle driver. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and other similarly situated drivers at least the minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour for all hours they worked within weekly pay periods and overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per week. The Defendant allegedly compensated them only at a percentage of the Company's tow and recovery charges to customers, and pay their overtime hours at the same rate of pay as it paid them for hours under 40 per week. Moreover, the Defendant failed to record all the hours they worked and failed to keep proper time and payroll records. Anytime Towing & Recovery, LLC owns and operates a mixture of larger tow trucks and smaller "snatch" trucks which tows and recovers vehicles in Knoxville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com APPLE INC: 9th Circuit Vacates in Part Dismissal of Processor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re: APPLE PROCESSOR LITIGATION, ANTHONY BARTLING; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-16720 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacates in part the district court's order granting Apple's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and remands for further proceedings. The Plaintiffs in the putative class action are purchasers of Apple products who assert various state-law causes of action for consumer fraud, unfair practices, and unjust enrichment. They allege that Apple failed to disclose that their devices were potentially vulnerable to hacking and that the patches Apple applied to address the vulnerabilities degraded the devices' performance. The district court granted Apple's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit notes that the allegations in the operative complaint that the Plaintiffs' devices declined in resale value after Apple announced the vulnerabilities and installed the patches, suffice to plead an economic injury that is concrete and particularized. The complaint alleges that a regression analysis of 76,000 transactions in the secondary smartphone market showed a decline in the value of devices owned by the Plaintiffs after the announcement of the vulnerabilities and patching, and concluded that the decline was caused by these events. Whatever the merits or eventual admissibility of the analysis at the pleading stage, it provides a metric from which an effect on the resale value of the Plaintiffs' devices can be plausibly inferred. Assuming Apple's alleged actions and omissions give rise to a claim upon which relief can be granted, an issue the district court pretermitted, the alleged injury is "fairly traceable" to that conduct, according to the Memorandum. Other factors may have caused the decline in value, but the Plaintiffs allege that the regression analysis controlled for such factors, an allegation that the Court must accept at this stage. And, their claimed injury, if proved, would be redressable through damages. Although the Court can affirm the dismissal upon any basis fairly supported by the record, it declines to address Apple's Rule 12(b)(6) arguments in the first instance, leaving that task to the district court on remand. Circuit Judge Atsushi Wallace Tashima dissented. The gravamen of the Plaintiffs' complaint is summarized by the majority as their allegation "that Apple failed to disclose that [Plaintiffs'] devices were potentially vulnerable to hacking and that the patches Apple applied to address the vulnerabilities degraded the devices' performance." Judge Tashima notes that the majority concludes that this allegation is sufficient to show that the Plaintiffs "suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." He disagrees. To begin, he opines, that the Plaintiffs' "devices were potentially vulnerable to hacking" is not an actual injury that is concrete and particularized. He insists that every device is potentially vulnerable to hacking. It is, rather, conjectural and hypothetical, not concrete and particularized. The Plaintiffs' complaint does not tell us whether leaving the devices vulnerable to hacking, without patches, would or would not also result in a decline in resale value and, if so, by how much, Judge Tashima writes. He concludes, as did the district court, that the Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to allege an injury in fact. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycqajjdy from Leagle.com. BANK OF AMERICA: Crockrom Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Du'Bois A. Crockrom filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated November 17, 2020, and Judgment dated November 17, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled DU'BOIS A. CROCKROM, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Case No. 20-cv-13, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an Order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2); and 2. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and 3. directing the Clerk of Court to close the case. The Court said the Plaintiff argues his noncompliance with the Deposit Agreement's notice provision should be excused because BANA materially breached the Deposit Agreement by assessing the overdraft fees. The Plaintiff does not explain, however, why BANA's coding errors -- events that the Deposit Agreement acknowledges may occur -- and the resulting overdraft fees rise to the level of a material breach, or a breach "so substantial that it defeats the object of the parties in making the contract." In enforcing the Deposit Agreement's notice requirement, the Court follows a well-trodden path. New York courts regularly deny relief to account-holders who "failed to timely notify the defendant [of a problem] as required by the agreement of the parties." The Plaintiff Du'Bois A. Crockrom brings this putative class action against the Defendants, claiming that Defendants breached their Deposit Agreement for personal deposit accounts. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendants assessed overdraft fees for his and other account-holders' non-recurring purchases, in contravention of "the express terms of the Deposit Agreement." Mr. Crockrom is seeking an appeal to review the above order by Judge Oetken. The appellate case is captioned as Crockrom v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 20-4197, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Du'Bois A. Crockrom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas K. Landry, Esq. LANDRY LAW 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 349-2900 E-mail: tklandry@landrylaw.com Defendants-Appellees Bank of America, N.A. and Bank of America Corporation are represented by: Angela Aziza Smedley, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 294-6700 E-mail: asmedley@winston.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Walden Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN WALDEN and LESLIE WALDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION and BNY MELLON, N.A., Case No. 20-1972 (W.D. Pa., Dec. 21, 2020) is a class action arising out of BNY Mellon's multiple breaches of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs and similarly-situated bank customers, BNY Corp.'s aiding and abetting of the bank's breaches, and both Defendants' breach of contract and deceptive trade practices. The Plaintiffs and the other Class members are current and former customers of BNY Mellon's wealth management division, each of whom transferred funds to BNY Mellon and entrusted the Bank to invest those funds at the bank's prudent discretion. According to the complaint, instead of offering unbiased services pursuant to a fiduciary standard, BNY Mellon abandoned its fiduciary duties and, instead, advanced its own financial interests over those of its clients, improperly used client assets to purchase preselected, affiliated, and conflicted mutual funds and other investment vehicles that BNY Corp. or its affiliates managed, issued, or sponsored, or to which it was otherwise financially related. BNY Mellon selected these funds not because they were based on independent assessments of its clients' best interests, but rather to enrich itself and its affiliates. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, commonly known as BNY Mellon, is an American investment banking services holding company headquartered in New York City. BNY Mellon, National Association provides banking services. The Company offers institutional asset management, mutual funds, private wealth management, asset servicing, human resources, investor solutions, and treasury services. BNY Mellon serves clients worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert F. DiCello, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 E-mail: rfdicello@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com - and - Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 1101 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 975-2288 E-mail: bbernstein@dicellolevitt.com - and - Stephen D. Councill, Esq. Joshua P. Gunnemann, Esq. COUNCILL & GUNNEMANN LLC 1201 Peachtree Street N.E. Building 400, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (404) 407-5250 E-mail: scouncill@cogunn.com jgunnemann@cogunn.com BERRY CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of January 21 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Dec. 31 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Berry Corporation ("Berry" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:BRY) violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's July 26, 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO"), or between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before January 21, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/35dySG6 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. Berry overstated both its operational efficiency and stability. The Company's poor efficiency and instability would eventually require significant operational improvements that would raise costs and disrupt operations. These required improvements would negatively impact the Company's revenues. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements and Offering Documents were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Berry, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] BHS MANAGEMENT: Coviello Sues Over Mismanaged Retirement Plans -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW W. COVIELLO; NATHAN BYRNE; and VICTORIA HALSTED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BHS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BHS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-30198-KAR (D. Mass., Dec. 30, 2020) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during December 30, 2014 through the date of judgment, the putative Class Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the BHS Partnership 403(b) Pension Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's recordkeeping costs. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of ERISA. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, the suit says. BHS Management Services, Inc. operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization provides various health care management, facilities, administrative and technical support services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Hellman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC 195 Church Street, 10th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 691-8762 Facsimile: (203) 823-4401 E-mail: jeff@jeffhallmanlaw.com -and- Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com -and- Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com BILL'S ELECTRIC: Underpays Master Electricians, Barker Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAURICE BARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BILL'S ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-05225-PKH (W.D. Tex., December 21, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid master electrician from December 2017 to December 2019. The Plaintiff claims that he was not properly compensated by the Defendant for all hours he worked despite he regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, the Defendant did not include the 10 to 45 minutes which it required him and other similarly situated master electricians to perform work for the Defendant before they are allowed to clock in. Although their hours worked were recorded via an electronic time clock, which logged their hours into a payroll system maintained by the Defendant, the Defendant rounded their hours down in 15 minutes increments. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly paid master electricians' lawfully earned overtime compensation were not properly paid by the Defendant at the applicable overtime rate required by law. Bill's Electric, Inc. offers electrical design, installation and maintenance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (800) 615-4946 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BIOGEN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of January 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on Dec. 30 disclosed that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. 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. HP Inc. (NYSE: HPQ)Class Period: November 6, 2015 - June 21, 2016Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 4, 2021 The HPQ lawsuit alleges HP Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during the class period 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. Learn about your recoverable losses in HPQ: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=11861&from=1 Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB)Class Period: October 22, 2019 - November 6, 2019Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021 During the class period, Biogen Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding the effectiveness of aducanumab, Biogen's investigational human monoclonal antibody studied for the treatment of early Alzheimer's disease; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data provided by the Company to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in BIIB: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11861&from=1 Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021 The NAK lawsuit alleges that Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in NAK: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=11861&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 Building350 Fifth Avenue59th FloorNew York, NY 10118jk@kleinstocklaw.comTelephone: (212) 616-4899Fax: (347) 558-9665www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] BJ'S WHOLESALE: Faces Waters ERISA Suit on Inadequate COBRA Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ THADDEUS WATERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-03064 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 22, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to provide the Plaintiff and the putative class adequate notice of their right to continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. According to the complaint, the Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. Team Member Benefit Plan, has repeatedly violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health insurance coverage following an occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute. The Plaintiff was a participant in the plan prior to her termination, a qualifying event within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1163(2). BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. operates as a warehouse club. The Company provides electronics, furniture, fitness, video games, health, toys, home decor, computers, landscaping, jewelry, and grocery products. BJ's Wholesale Club serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. 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: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com BLISSY LLC: Bunting Alleges Violation under ADA ----------------------------------------------- Blissy LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Blissy LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06304 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 29, 2020). Blissy sells 100% Pure Mulberry Silk Pillowcase made of the highest quality 22-Momme silk materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BOKER USA: Angeles Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOKER USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-10760-MKV (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Right Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her computer. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by her and other blind or visually-impaired people. When the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's Website, www.bokerusa.com, on multiple occasions to make a purchase, the last occurring in December 2020, she was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual because the Defendant's Website allegedly lacked of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred her from being able to determine what specific products were offered for sale. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. Moreover, the Defendant failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their discriminatory conduct. The Plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA; compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines; pre- and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' and expert fees; and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Boker USA, Inc. is a knife manufacturing company that owns and operates the Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE:BSX) Investors Affected: April 24, 2019 - November 16, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Boston Scientific Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants 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. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=11874&from=1 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=11874&from=1 Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR) Investors Affected: April 29, 2019 - October 28, 2019 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Restaurant Brands International Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11874&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] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or the "Company") (NYSE: BSX) 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-05894, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Boston Scientific securities between April 24, 2019 and November 16, 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 Boston Scientific securities during the Class Period, you have until February 2, 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://bit.ly/3otfWep for information about joining the class action] Boston Scientific develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical specialties worldwide. The Company's products include, among others, the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System, which is a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ("TAVR") product. Boston Scientific announced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") approval for the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System in April 2019. 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) 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. On November 17, 2020, Boston Scientific announced a global recall of all unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System, citing "complexities associated with the product delivery system." Boston Scientific further announced that "[g]iven the additional time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire LOTUS product platform immediately." On this news, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00 per share, or 7.89%, to close at $35.03 per share on November 17, 2020. 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] BROTHER'S CONTRACTOR: Faces Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ MANUEL ESPINOZA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BROTHER'S CONTRACTOR, INC., and MAGNO VELESACA, as an individual, arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class members required overtime wages, failing to provide a written notice and recordkeeping, and failing to provide wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around July 2019 until in or around July 2020 whose primary duties were construction work and other miscellaneous duties. The Brother's Contractor, Inc. is a construction company in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Alexander Ruling in FDCPA Suit to 4th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Ashly Alexander, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ASHLY ALEXANDER and CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of themselves individually and similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02369-RDB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on Dec. 11, 2020. Plaintiffs Alexander and Bishop bring the putative class action on behalf of themselves individually and similarly situated persons against their mortgage servicer, Defendant Carrington. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant improperly charged them a $5 fee to make their mortgage payments online, in violation of: (1) the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (Count I), (2) the prohibitions against usury found in Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Section 12-105(d) (Count II) and, in the alternative, (3) the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Count III). The Plaintiffs seek an appeal to review the said order by Judge Bennett. The appellate case is captioned as Ashly Alexander v. Carrington Mortgage Services, Case No. 20-2359, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Dec. 22, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on February 1, 2021; and -- Response Brief is due on March 3, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ASHLY ALEXANDER and CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of themselves individually and similarly situated persons, are represented by: Phillip R. Robinson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC 8737 Colesville Road Silver Spring, MD 20910-0000 Telephone: (301) 448-1304 E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com Defendant-Appellee CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC is represented by: Valerie L. Hletko, Esq. Scott T. Sakiyama, Esq. John Bell Williams, III, Esq. BUCKLEY LLP 2001 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 349-8054 E-mail: vhletko@buckleyfirm.com ssakiyama@buckleyfirm.com jwilliams@buckleyfirm.com CD PROJEKT: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of Feb. 22 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on Dec. 31 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of CD Projekt S.A. (OTC Pink: OTGLY) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: January 16, 2020 and December 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in OTGLY: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?id=11869&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that CD Projekt S.A. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Throughout the class period, defendants were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and the Company would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3) consequently, the Company would suffer reputational and pecuniary harm; 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. Shareholders have until February 22, 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 OTGLY 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] CITIZENS BANK: $612K in Counsel Fees Recommended in Kondash Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DARREN KONDASH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00288-WES-LDA (D.R.I.), Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island recommended that the Court grants the Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. Magistrate Judge Sullivan recommended the following payments out of the Settlement Fund: (i) reimbursement for costs and expenses of $13,544.84; and (ii) attorney's fees for the Class Counsel of $612,500, which amounts to one-third of the Settlement Fund. The Class Counsel initiated the action in June 2018 alleging that the Defendant made multiple prerecorded nonconsensual robocalls to the cell phones of Class Representative/Plaintiff Kondash, and over 283,000 class members in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Following a period of contested discovery, the parties participated in a mediation presided over by the Hon. Morton Denlow (ret.) of JAMS. The mediation resulted in a settlement agreement requiring the creation of a non-reversionary Settlement Fund of $1,837,500. According to the settlement, the net Settlement Fund (after payment of the costs of notice and administration and any award the Court may make for attorney's fees and expenses to the Class Counsel and an incentive award to the Class Representative) is to be allocated among the class members who submit timely proofs of claim. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 2, 2020, and, except for reserving regarding attorney's fees and expenses, finally approved it by an Order that issued on Nov. 12, 2020. Regarding the Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and expenses, which was supported by the Declaration of Attorney Alexander Burke, the Court directed the Class Counsel to supplement his motion, including to provide additional information regarding costs. The Class Counsel complied and filed a supplemental brief and a second Declaration of Attorney Alexander Burke. The motion has been referred to Magistrate Judge Sullivan for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B). The motion seeks $612,500 as an award of attorney's fees based on one-third of the Settlement Fund and expenses of $13,544.84. The Magistrate Judge finds that the percentage method of calculating the fee award should be the basis for payment of the Class Counsel. Mindful of the holistic factors listed in Loestrin and the mimic-the-market approach used in Cabletron, she further finds that one-third of the Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable and appropriate compensation for the work done by the Class Counsel to create the Settlement Fund. For all of these reasons, she recommends that the Court approves an attorney's fee for the Class Counsel of $612,500, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. Turning to the costs and expenses, the Magistrate Judge finds that the most significant expense was almost $10,000 for the mediation, which was presided over by a well-qualified JAMS-based retired jurist. Otherwise, the expenses are de minimis. Importantly, in recognition that it is a contingency engagement, the Class Counsel did not include any of his or local counsel's overhead in the requested amount. Finding that the amount requested appears reasonable, the Magistrate Judge recommends that all requested expenses ($13,544.84) be approved for reimbursement from the Settlement Fund. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Sullivan recommended that the Court grants the Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and approves the following payments out of the Settlement Fund: (i) reimbursement for costs and expenses of $13,544.84; and (ii) attorney's fees for the Class Counsel of $612,500, which amounts to one-third of the Settlement Fund. Any objection to the Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be served and filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of its receipt. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7mxda4x from Leagle.com. CLARA CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLARA CAPITAL LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11534 (C.D. Cal., December 21, 2020) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In an attempt to promote its services, the Defendant placed a call on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around February 2019. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) or a spoofed telephone number to mask its identity to avoid accountability from placing illegal robocalls. The Defendant also did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive such ATDS calls or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4, 2008. The Plaintiff claims that he was harmed and damaged by the Defendant's unsolicited call by causing her to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which she previously paid, and invaded her privacy. Clara Capital LLC provides funding to small businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com COINBASE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Sale of XRP Cryptocurrency ----------------------------------------------------------------- PYMNTS reports that a week after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit against Ripple Labs and some of its executives, alleging the company illegally skirted laws by classifying its XRP cryptocurrency as a commodity rather than a security, a Missouri man has sued Coinbase over its role selling XRP. Thomas Sandoval argued in his complaint that he and other investors in XRP were denied adequate insight into the risks associated with the investment because it wasn't treated as a security when it should have been. He alleged Coinbase employees knew XRP was a security when they facilitated trading in it -- transactions for which Coinbase collected a commission. Sandoval's arguments closely track those contained in a civil suit the SEC filed Dec. 22 against Ripple Labs. The government alleged in the complaint that Ripple Labs and some executive raised $1.3 billion illegally since 2013 by calling XRP a commodity when in reality it was more like a security, according to a press release. SEC Enforcement Division Director Stephanie Avakian said in the release issued when the government's complaint was filed last week: "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. We allege that Ripple, [Co-Founder Chris] Larsen, and [CEO Brad] 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." Marc P. Berger, deputy director of the SEC's Enforcement Division, added in the release: "The registration requirements are designed to ensure that potential investors -- including, importantly, retail investors -- receive important information about an issuer's business operations and financial condition. Here, we allege that Ripple and its executives failed over a period of years to satisfy these core investor protection provisions, and as a result, investors lacked information to which they were entitled." Garlinghouse said in an interview prior to the filing of the suit, but anticipating it, that government litigation would be an "attack" on all cryptocurrency and innovation. Coinbase's chief legal officer issued a statement Monday (Dec. 28) saying the company would suspend trading of XRP as of Jan. 19. [GN] COINBASE: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Listing of XRP Tokens -------------------------------------------------------------- coingeek.com reports that it has begun -- a Coinbase user has initiated a class action suit against the cryptocurrency exchange, seeking recovery for customers who paid commissions for XRP trading. It claims Coinbase's actions in making XRP available for trading violated California's unfair competition laws, and that Coinbase was aware XRP constituted an unregistered security, rather than a commodity digital asset. Coinbase's actions were both unlawful and fraudulent, it adds. Suit follows expected SEC action against Ripple, XRP The class action follows the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) advice that it plans to bring its own action against XRP creators Ripple Labs, Inc. and two of its senior executives. In response, exchanges such as Coinbase and OKCoin have announced they will suspend XRP trading on their platforms in January while the matter is being settled. Both the SEC action and the private suit should serve as a warning to digital asset exchanges that there are consequences for improperly listing digital assets for customers to trade. It is known that some in the Bitcoin BSV community are seeking to prove in court that only BSV is Bitcoin, and others (such as BTC) is an imposter and its promoters are engaging in illegal activity by claiming the "Bitcoin" name. Should this eventuate, it is highly likely to have flow-on effects similar to those Ripple Labs and XRP-trading exchanges are beginning to see. The new Coinbase suit was filed for plaintiff Thomas Sandoval of Missouri (and others) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It alleges that, based on Coinbase's "technological integration into XRP's nodes" and statements made by Ripple executives, the exchange would have known XRP was a security and not a commodity. Coinbase is "a commodities broker for cryptocurrencies," it reads, and is not licensed to sell securities. As for XRP, its value (and investors' potential profits) was "entirely linked to the success or failure of Ripple Labs Inc. and the managerial actions of its executives." Why are people saying XRP is a security and not a commodity? Allegations that XRP is an unregistered security and not a commodity digital asset have been around for years. However, a listing on a major digital asset trading platform can be seen as an endorsement of its legitimacy. This matters whether trading customers were aware of the allegations or not. The suit continues that XRP is a security because Ripple "has sole control over the purported cryptocurrency's nodes and is therefore a common enterprise" under U.S. federal securities laws. Furthermore, Ripple's existence as a corporation depended on the sale of XRP tokens to the public, and it used income from this sale to fund its operations. It describes a node as a computer server that stores a ledger of all an asset's transactions, and processes transactions. Ripple/XRP therefore represents something different to other (non-security) cryptocurrencies which use "decentralized nodes" not controlled by any one company. This makes Ripple/XRP a "common enterprise" with a single point of failure, a circumstance that does not exist with other digital assets like Bitcoin. As well as seeking recovery for any commissions paid to Coinbase for XRP sales/trades, plaintiffs are also asking for compensatory damages and legal costs. They are also demanding a trial by jury. As Dr. Craig Wright has said in the past, the law may move slowly on matters concerning blockchain and digital assets, but it will catch up. Ripple and XRP have been around for over seven years—and has been a prominent, high-trading-volume and top-five listed asset for most of that time. By bringing its action against Ripple, the SEC demonstrates it is interested in more than just obscure ICO token scams, and that no name is too big to escape regulatory scrutiny. The coming years are set to be definitive for the digital asset industry in many ways, and compliance with the law is set to be one of the most significant new changes. Follow CoinGeek's Crypto Crime Cartel series, which delves into the stream of groups -- from BitMEX to Binance, Bitcoin.com, Blockstream, ShapeShift and Ethereum -- who have co-opted the digital asset revolution and turned the industry into a minefield for naïve (and even experienced) players in the market. [GN] COLORADO: Judge Tosses ACLU Class Action Against Governor Polis --------------------------------------------------------------- Lucy Haggard, writing for The Colorado Sun, reports that a judge has dismissed a lawsuit demanding that Gov. Jared Polis take action to reduce Colorado's prison population amid rising coronavirus cases. The ACLU of Colorado was incorrect in suing Polis over matters that are more relevant to the Department of Corrections, Denver District Court Judge Kandace Gerdes wrote in the ruling handed down on Dec. 24. The dismissal also stated that the court could not force the governor to take action granted to him by the authority of the executive branch, such as pardoning prisoners or commuting sentences, and could not rule on the governor's lack of action. As of Wednesday, Dec. 30, 7,125 prisoners have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic started; there are about 13,473 people currently incarcerated. 24 have died during the pandemic -- four in the past week alone. "The court does not have the power to declare the governor's alleged failure to act unconstitutional, as the decision to exercise or refrain from exercising his constitutional or statutory powers is within his discretion as head of the executive branch," Gerdes wrote. The ACLU filed the class action lawsuit in May as coronavirus cases in state prisons skyrocketed, arguing that the governor was not doing enough to address prisoners' risk of contracting COVID-19. Colorado Department of Corrections executive director Dean Williams was also named as a defendant in the case, but the ACLU resolved the portion of the suit involving the DOC in November in a consent decree, which includes improved access to hygiene products and masks for prisoners. Earlier in December ACLU lawyers asked the court to issue an emergency order releasing some prisoners in an attempt to mitigate viral spread, but that order was not granted. The Colorado Sun asked both the ACLU of Colorado and Polis' office for comment but had not received one from either party at the time of publication. [GN] CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Holtzman Insurance Suit Removed to S.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Holtzman Enterprises, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Continental Casualty Company and CNA Financial Corporation, Case No. 20-L-1558, was removed from the Madison County Circuit Court of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 11, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01333-MAB to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. Continental Casualty Company offers a broad portfolio of property and casualty business insurance solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 P.O. Box 959 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 Facsimile: (618) 656-5230 E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com tom@ghalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph H. Guffey, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480-1814 Facsimile: (314) 480-1505 E-mail: joe.guffey@huschblackwell.com - and - Joshua Grabel, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 2415 E. Camelback Road Suite 500 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (480) 824-7890 Facsimile: (480) 824-7905 E-mail: josh.grabel@huschblackwell.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020, for the quarterly period ended November 22, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-01340; E.D. Cal.). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company has moved to dismiss or strike portions of the complaint. In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking penalties under Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454; Sonoma County Superior Court). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the federal action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Decision to Remand Nevarez Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020, for the quarterly period ended November 22, 2020, that the decision to remand the case, Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.), has been appealed. On March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state court. The remand is being appealed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020, for the quarterly period ended November 22, 2020, that the settlement in the case, Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438; Santa Clara Superior Court), has received preliminary court approval. In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action, alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438; Santa Clara Superior Court). The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement on a class settlement, which received preliminary court approval in July 2020. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Class Action Stayed -------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020, for the quarterly period ended November 22, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Kristy v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No. 20CV366341, has been stayed. In April 2020, an employee, alleging underpayment of sick pay, filed a class and representative action against the Company, alleging claims under California law for failure to pay all wages at termination and for Labor Code penalties under PAGA. Kristy v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 20CV366341; Santa Clara County Superior Court). A motion to dismiss was filed as to the plaintiff's amended complaint, and the case has been stayed due to the plaintiff's bankruptcy. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. DAIMLER AG: Settlement in Vancouver Alumni Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, VANCOUVER ALUMNI ASSET HOLDINGS INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DAIMLER AG, DIETER ZETSCHE, BODO UEBBER, and THOMAS WEBER, Defendants; and MARIA MUNRO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. DAIMLER AG, DIETER ZETSCHE, BODO UEBBER, and THOMAS WEBER, Defendants, Master File No. 16-cv-02942-DSF-KS and Case No. 16-cv-03412-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the motion for final approval of class action settlement filed by Lead Plaintiff Public School Retirement System of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri. As of April 20, 2020, the Parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, as amended by their Agreement Regarding Amendments to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated Sept. 14, 2020, together with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement of the Action and the claims alleged in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on Oct. 11, 2016, on the merits and with prejudice. Pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date for Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement, entered Sept. 22, 2020, the Court scheduled the Settlement Hearing for Dec. 14, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. The Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; and the Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, advised potential Settlement Class Members of the date, time, place, and purpose of the Settlement Hearing. The Notice further advised that any objections to the Settlement were required to be served on counsel for the Parties such that they were received by Nov. 23, 2020. On Nov. 9, 2020, Lead Plaintiff Public School Retirement System of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri moved for final approval of the Settlement, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The Settlement Hearing was duly held on Dec. 14, 2020. Judge Fischer has considered the Lead Plaintiff's motion, the affidavits, declarations, supporting memoranda of law, the Stipulation, as amended, and all of the submissions and arguments presented with respect to the proposed Settlement. Judge Fischer affirmed the Court's determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certified, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class of: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Daimler American Depositary Receipts and/or Global Registered Shares, in the United States, during the period from Feb. 22, 2012 through April 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were allegedly damaged thereby." Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and for purposes of the Settlement only, the Judge re-affirmed the determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certified Kansas City as the Class Representative for the Settlement Class; and finally appointed the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as the Liaison Counsel for the Settlement Class. There has been one objection to administrative aspects of the Settlement by Siobhan Esposito, who reports that she received her notice packet on Dec. 1, 2020. Ms. Esposito's objection to the timing of her notice and the description of the Settlement Class is overruled. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Judge approved the Settlement and finds that said Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, it is approved in all respects unless inconsistent with the Judgment and will be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as amended. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, filed on Oct. 11, 2016 is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice as of the Effective Date and without costs to any Party. The Parties are directed to consummate the Stipulation, as amended, and to perform its terms. The Judge will enter a separate order regarding the Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses as allowed by the Court. A separate order will also be entered regarding the proposed Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund. Such orders will in no way disturb or affect this Judgment and will be considered separate from the Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Final Order & Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybu7voju from Leagle.com. DEL MAR, CA: Bid to Amend Hedayatzadeh Suit to Add Plaintiff Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KAHILA H. HEDAYATZADEH, Plaintiff v. CITY OF DEL MAR, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-842-BEN (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Leave of Court to Amend the Class Action Complaint and Add an Additional Lead Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant City of Del Mar violated her Fourth Amendment rights by applying chalk marks on the tire of her vehicle to enforcing parking space time limits. She alleged that between May 3, 2017, and May 3, 2019, she received at least one or two parking tickets for exceeding the time limit on parking spots imposed in the City. Ms. Hedayatzadeh further alleges that the Defendant regularly and systematically uses a process of "chalking," which consists of applying a small chalk mark to a car tire, to determine whether a car has over-stayed the parking spot time limit. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant chalks vehicles without consent, purportedly violating the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Defendant admits it uses chalking to enforce parking regulations but denies that chalking violates the Fourth Amendment. The Plaintiff sought to certify a class of at least 5,500 people who have had their tires chalked and a subclass of at least 4,000 people who have allegedly paid parking tickets. On July 23, 2020, the Court denied her motion for class certification. The Court found that she did not meet the typicality requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) such that she would be a proper representative party because her standing in this case was so tenuous that it threatened to become the focal point of the litigation. Based only on her pleadings, the Court agreed the Plaintiff had alleged standing, but it also expressed serious doubt that she would be able to prove her standing at later stages of litigation when the Court looked beyond the pleadings for evidence supporting her injury in fact. Enter Kaveh Hedayatzadeh, the Plaintiff's brother, who--only one month after the Court's order denying class certification--happened to receive a parking ticket from the Defendant, allegedly based on its use of chalking on his car tire. Kaveh Hedayatzadeh has a copy of his citation, which he allegedly paid. The Plaintiff asks the Court to grant her leave to amend her Complaint, adding her brother as an additional representative Plaintiff. She argues amendment is appropriate because her brother actually has a record of his parking citation, alleviating the "typicality" issues that plagued her Motion for Class Certification. She further argues her Motion to Amend (1) is made in good faith, (2) is timely following the Court's ruling on her Motion for Class Certification, (3) does not unduly prejudice the Defendant, and (4) would not be futile. The Defendant opposes, arguing (1) the Plaintiff's lack of standing bars amendment, and (2) the factors set forth in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), weigh against granting leave to amend. Judge Benitez finds that that because the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is made solely to rectify a potential standing defect and amendment may not be used to retroactively create jurisdiction, he is not persuaded that amendment would be proper. Even if he considered the Foman factors, the Judge holds that the result would be the same because the proposed amendment comes after unreasonable delay and would cause undue prejudice to the Defendant. First, the early and extensive discovery conducted by the Defendant in July 2019 put the Plaintiff on notice of her standing issues, which she chose not to address for over one year while awaiting the Court's action on her Motion for Class Certification. Second, the amendment would needlessly consume the Defendant's resources on procedural issues of recertification while avoiding the merits of the Plaintiff's claims. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Benitez denied the Motion. The Plaintiff may pursue her claim on an individual basis and the proposed intervenor may file his own lawsuit should he so choose. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7tny2w6 from Leagle.com. DENVER, CO: Class Action Over Homeless Encampments to Continue -------------------------------------------------------------- Conrad Swanson, writing for Denver Post, reports that a class-action lawsuit meant to stop Denver officials from breaking up homeless encampments during the coronavirus pandemic will continue this month, though a ruling will take longer, an attorney involved in the case said. That attorney, Andy McNulty, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court of Colorado in October on behalf of about 10 people experiencing homelessness in the hopes of stopping the so-called encampment sweeps. Breaking up illegal encampments makes it more difficult for those living on the streets to find work and stable housing and endangers them and the rest of the community by increasing the danger of exposure to COVID-19, he said. A hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction began in mid-December and continued for two days, McNulty said. That hearing, which will continue early next year, is meant to determine whether Denver must stop the sweeps -- which city officials call large-scale cleanups -- for the duration of the lawsuit. People experiencing homelessness are at greater risk if they contract the virus, McNulty said, because they more commonly suffer from underlying health conditions and have less access to medical care. And without offering a substantial amount of new housing options for the homeless, the city should not break up illegal encampments, he said. It's a common refrain from public health experts and homeless advocates alike. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also has issued guidance on the topic, recommending that governments avoid breaking up encampments unless they're able to offer alternative housing options to those who would be displaced. And while city officials -- who did not respond to requests for comment -- often have said Denver is following CDC guidelines, it's less clear whether that's actually the case. Two sanctioned encampments opened in December, but they only provide enough room for a maximum of 70 people, just a fraction of the overall homeless population. City officials have also worked to open more shelter space, though many fear for their safety and health in those congregate facilities. And the sweeps are continuing. McNulty said his lawsuit against the city focuses on two recent and high-profile sweeps and he not only hopes to stop those practices in the future but also is seeking monetary damages for those whose property was destroyed or thrown away during the sweeps. In two days of testimony, McNulty said elected officials, public health experts and nonprofit representatives offered their thoughts on the sweeps. The testimony will continue Jan. 11 and a ruling is expected in the days or weeks following, he said. [GN] DOLLAR TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bessette Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN D. BESSETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20CV375151 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Dec. 12, 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 Bessette was employed by the Defendants as store manager. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. conducts business as a joint issuer of debt. The Company operates as a dual issuer of unsecured notes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mlke Arlas, Esq, Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Craig S. Momita, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com a1fredo@asst1awyers.com craig@asstlawyers.com DOW JONES: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Winegard Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JAY WINEGARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC. d/b/a THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06321-FB-RER (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2020) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant has denied the Plaintiff, who is deaf and deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals' access to goods and services provided to non-disabled individuals through its Web site www.wsj.com, and in conjunction with its physical location of offices, video, television and blog studios, newspaper publishing, live events, telecommunication offices, advertising offices and hosting locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the American with Disabilities Act. The Defendant has videos on its Web site without closed captioning, or with limited closed captioning, which are inaccessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Without closed captioning, deaf and hard-of-hearing people cannot understand the audio portion of the videos on the Web site. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. provides business news and information services. The Company offers business publications, pan-regional daily newspapers, financial weeklies, and real-time news and information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL, P.C. 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 415-0100 Facsimile: (516) 706-6631 EL TORITO: Santos Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- IVAN GABRIEL SANTOS, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated current and former employees v. EL TORITO MEXICAN RESTAURANT, INC., A Virginia Corporation, and JOSE SOTO, individually, Case No. 7:20-cv-00763-TTC (W.D. Va., Dec. 23, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other damages owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former tipped employees of Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. Plaintiff Ivan Gabriel Santos was employed by Defendants as a tipped employee (server & bartender) at their El Torito restaurant in Galax, Virginia from roughly 2017 until approximately November 20, 2020. El Torito Restaurants Inc. is one of several Mexican cuisine restaurant chains operated by Xperience Restaurant Group. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Johneal Moore White, Esq. GLENN ROBINSON CATHEY MEMMER & SKAFF, PLC 400 Salem Avenue, S.W., Suite 100 Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540) 767-2206 Facsimile: (540) 767-2220 E-mail: jwhite@glennrob.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Tailford Ruling in FCRA Suit to Ninth Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Theresa Tailford, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Theresa Tailford, Sanford Buckles, Jeffrey C. Ruderman, and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-02191-CJC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiffs seek a review of the court's order, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The appellate case is captioned as Theresa Tailford, et al v. Experian Information Solutions, Case No. 20-56344, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Sanford Buckles, Jeffrey C. Ruderman and Theresa Tailford Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 28, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 19, 2021; -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021; -- Appellants Sanford Buckles, Jeffrey C. Ruderman and Theresa Tailford opening brief is due on March 29, 2021; -- Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc. answering brief is due on April 26, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants THERESA TAILFORD, SANFORD BUCKLES, JEFFREY C. RUDERMAN, and all similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Robert S. Green, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com - and - Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 8383 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 456-8638 E-mail: pbishop@ssbla.com - and - Miles Clark, Esq. Matthew I. Knepper, Esq. KNEPPER & CLARK LLC 5510 So. Fort Apache Road, Suite 30 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: (702) 825-6060 E-mail: Miles.Clark@knepperclark.com Matthew.Knepper@knepperclark.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (4050 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com - and - David Krieger, Esq. KRIEGER LAW GROUP, LLC 2850 W. Horizon Ridge Boulevard, Suite 200 Henderson, NV 89052 Telephone: (702) 848-3855 - and - James Robert Noblin, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone: (562) 391-2487 E-mail: jrn@classcounsel.com Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. is represented by: Edward San Chang, Esq. Ryan Ball, Esq. Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq. Justin Andrew Potesta, Esq. John A. Vogt, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612-4408 Telephone: (949) 851-3939 E-mail: echang@jonesday.com rball@jonesday.com rgrabowski@jonesday.com jpotesta@jonesday.com javogt@jonesday.com FANTASY SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fischler Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANTASY SPORTS SHARK, LLC d/b/a Monkey Knife Fight, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06203-LDH-RLM (E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Right Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's Website, www.monkeyknifefight.com, the last occurring on or about December 19, 2020, he encountered multiple access barriers that denied him equal access and the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Website offered to the public. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide him and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers; compensatory damages, including all applicable statutory damages, punitive damages and fines; pre- and post-judgment interest; and reasonable attorneys' and expert fees. Fantasy Sports Shark, LLC d/b/a Monkey Knife Fight offers online fantasy sports services, through its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWER LLP 420 Lexington Ave., Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Tel: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com FEDERAL EXPRESS: Class in Fischer Gets Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTA B. FISCHER, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-04924-JMG (E.D. Pa.), Judge John M. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Fischer's Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice, but only for the putative opt-in Plaintiffs, who worked for FedEx Express in Pennsylvania during the relevant period. For the better part of the last decade, Fischer and Andre Saunders worked as security specialists at their respective FedEx Ground facility assignments in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Although they are employed by FedEx Express, security specialists provide various loss-prevention and site monitoring services at FedEx Ground locations pursuant to a Professional Services Agreement. Ms. Fischer and Mr. Saunders allege that, during their time as security specialists, they regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. However, because FedEx Express classified them as salaried employees who were exempt from overtime pay requirements, they were not paid for those extra hours worked. As a result, Ms. Fischer and Mr. Saunders brought suit alleging that, by misclassifying security specialists as exempt employees, FedEx Express failed to pay them proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Fischer filed her Complaint in the action on Oct. 22, 2019. On Dec. 21, 2019, Mr. Saunders filed a notice of consent to become a party Plaintiff. Ms. Fischer filed a Motion for Conditional Certification on May 15, 2020. The Defendants' filed their Response in Opposition on July 1, 2020. Following a status conference on Oct. 22, 2020, the Court ordered the Parties to file supplemental briefs providing additional arguments concerning conditional certification, jurisdictional limitations that may apply thereto, and the possible joint employer relationship between the Defendants. The Parties each filed their supplemental briefs on Nov. 20, 2020. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees alleging a breach of the Act's provisions by their employer may bring suit on behalf of themselves and any other similarly situated employees. The "collective action" mechanism enables plaintiffs to vindicate their rights under the Act at lower cost to each individual and promotes judicial economy by consolidating each employee's claim into a single proceeding. Ms. Fischer and Mr. Saunders seek conditional certification of a nationwide collective comprised of all security specialists employed by FedEx Express and FedEx Ground who were improperly classified as overtime exempt. However, district courts disagree as to whether the Supreme Court's holding in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., precludes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over opt-in plaintiffs alleging violations that occurred outside of the state. Ms. Fischer and Mr. Saunders seek conditional certification of an FLSA collective consisting of any individual employed by FedEx Express or FedEx Ground as a Security Specialist II, Security Specialist III, or Senior Security Specialist within the past three years that did not receive proper overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per workweek. Judge Gallagher finds that, while it is a close call, the Plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that they and other putative class members are similarly situated. They have, therefore, satisfied the requirements for conditional certification. However, the Plaintiffs' proposed collective is subject to the strictures of personal jurisdiction and must be conditionally certified in a more limited form than they proposed. After assessing the "economic reality" of the Plaintiffs' relationship with the Defendants, the Judge finds that the evidence weighs heavily against the existence of a joint employer relationship between FedEx Express and FedEx Ground. Security specialists are hired by FedEx Express, not FedEx Ground. FedEx Ground has no authority to hire, fire, or discipline security specialists. FedEx Express interviewed and hired Ms. Fischer. When Ms. Fischer resigned her position, she only notified FedEx Express management. The Judge, therefore, finds that FedEx Ground was not the Plaintiffs' joint employer during the relevant period. As a result, he need not consider whether joint employer liability confers general jurisdiction over out-state-state claims against FedEx Ground. He will certify a collective action consisting of individuals employed by Federal Express in Pennsylvania as a Security Specialist II, Security Specialist III, or Senior Security Specialist within the past three years who allegedly did not receive proper overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per workweek. Finally, disputes regarding the form and content of court-sanctioned notice should be resolved by the Parties. The Parties therefore will be afforded sufficient time to confer and resolve any objections regarding the form and scope of the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice and Consent Form. Should the Parties fail to reach a consensus, they will submit their proposed language to the Court within the time period prescribed in the accompanying Order and the Court will determine which is the appropriate form of notice, subject to possible modifications. Judge Gallagher concludes that the Plaintiffs have made a modest factual showing that they and the other putative class members are similarly situated. Therefore, he granted the Motion for Conditional Certification, but only for the putative opt-in Plaintiffs, who worked for FedEx Express in Pennsylvania during the relevant period. The Parties will meet and confer regarding the proper form and scope of notice to be distributed to potential members of the collective. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdkmrah from Leagle.com. FIRST AMERICAN: Abdelrasoul Ruling in Breach Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Thaer Abdelrasoul filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled THAER ABDELRASOUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-01305-DSF-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants are the largest title insurer in the country. A real-estate developer discovered that all of First American's 885 million confidential customer documents were publicly accessible on its website. The developer contacted First American, but First American allegedly refused to respond or to take any ameliorative action. The developer then contacted a journalist, who wrote an article stating that all of First American's 885 million documents were publicly accessible. First American then terminated access to the documents on its website. At least 21 class actions have been filed against First American relating to this exposure of confidential customer documents. The Plaintiff seeks a review of the court's order on Nov. 17, granting dismissal with prejudice after granting a motion to compel arbitration. Under the order, the Plaintiff takes nothing, that the action be dismissed with prejudice, and that Defendants recover costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. The appellate case is captioned as Thaer Abdelrasoul v. First American Title Company, et al, Case No. 20-56345, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Thaer Abdelrasoul Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 28, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 19, 2021; -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021; -- Appellant Thaer Abdelrasoul opening brief due is due on March 29, 2021; -- Appellees First American Financial Corporation and First American Title Company answering brief is due on April 28, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant THAER ABDELRASOUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Brian D. Chase, Esq. BISNAR CHASE 1301 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 E-mail: jbeligan@bisnarchase.com - and - Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq. ESENSTEN LAW 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 273-3090 E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com - and - Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 350-0527 E-mail: ingo@rcfllp.com Defendants-Appellees FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, a California corporation, are represented by: Isabella Christine Hsu, Esq. Paul Kakuske, Esq. Ronald David Kent, Esq. Joel David Siegel, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-6141 E-mail: isabella.hsu@dentons.com paul.kakuske@dentons.com ronald.kent@dentons.com joel.siegel@dentons.com FIRST AMERICAN: Campbell Ruling in Contract Breach Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Roger Campbell, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROGER CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01533-DSF-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants are the largest title insurer in the country. A real-estate developer discovered that all of First American's 885 million confidential customer documents were publicly accessible on its website. The developer contacted First American, but First American allegedly refused to respond or to take any ameliorative action. The developer then contacted a journalist, who wrote an article stating that all of First American's 885 million documents were publicly accessible. First American then terminated access to the documents on its website. At least 21 class actions have been filed against First American relating to this exposure of confidential customer documents. The Plaintiffs seek a review of the court's order on Nov. 17, granting an order for dismissal with prejudice after granting a motion to compel arbitration. Under the order, the Plaintiffs take nothing, that the action be dismissed with prejudice, and that Defendants recover costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1920. The appellate case is captioned as Roger Campbell, et al. v. First American Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 20-56346, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Roger Campbell and Gillian Schaadt Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 28, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 19, 2021; -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021; -- Appellants Roger Campbell and Gillian Schaadt opening brief is due on March 29, 2021; -- Appellees First American Financial Corporation and First American Title Company answering brief is due on April 28, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ROGER CAMPBELL and GILLIAN SCHAADT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Brian D. Chase, Esq. BISNAR CHASE 1301 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 E-mail: jbeligan@bisnarchase.com - and - Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq. ESENSTEN LAW 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 273-3090 E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com - and - Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 350-0527 E-mail: ingo@rcfllp.com Defendants-Appellees FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, a California corporation, are represented by: Isabella Christine Hsu, Esq. Paul Kakuske, Esq. Ronald David Kent, Esq. Joel David Siegel, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-6141 E-mail: isabella.hsu@dentons.com paul.kakuske@dentons.com ronald.kent@dentons.com joel.siegel@dentons.com FIRST AMERICAN: Dinh Appeals Ruling in Data Breach Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Ben Dinh filed an appeal from court rulings entered in the lawsuit entitled BEN DINH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01105-DSF-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action against the Defendants for data breach. The Defendants failed to secure its website which contains the Plaintiff and the class sensitive personal information. According to the complaint, the Defendants allowed the data breach to occur, despite it being caused by a relatively common website design error called Insecure Direct Object Reference, which occurs when a link to a webpage with sensitive information is created and intended to only be seen by a specific party, but there is no method to actually verify the identity of who is viewing the link. As a result, anyone who discovers a link to one document can view it - and can discover any of the other documents hosted on the site by simply modifying the link. Mr. Dinh is seeking an appeal to review the Court's rulings, granting motion to dismiss Plaintiff Lasheeda Forney voluntarily without prejudice, granting motion to compel arbitration, denying motion to joint First American Title Ins. Co., granting in part and denying in part motion to strike, and denying motion for reconsideration. The appellate case is captioned as Ben Dinh v. First American Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 20-56342, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Ben Dinh Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 28, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 19, 2021; -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021; -- Appellant Ben Dinh opening brief is due on March 29, 2021; -- Appellees First American Financial Corporation and First American Title Company answering brief is due on April 28, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BEN DINH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Brian D. Chase, Esq. BISNAR CHASE 1301 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 E-mail: jbeligan@bisnarchase.com - and - Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq. ESENSTEN LAW 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 273-3090 E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com - and - Ivy T. Ngo, Esq. ROCHE CYRULNIK FREEDMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 350-0527 E-mail: ingo@rcfllp.com Defendants-Appellees FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY are represented by: Isabella Christine Hsu, Esq. Paul Kakuske, Esq. Ronald David Kent, Esq. Joel David Siegel, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 243-6141 E-mail: isabella.hsu@dentons.com paul.kakuske@dentons.com ronald.kent@dentons.com joel.siegel@dentons.com FORTRESS BIOTECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Dec. 30 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Fortress Biotech, Inc. ("Fortress" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FBIO) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December 11, 2019 and October 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before January 26, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, 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. Fortress' majority-controlled subsidiary Avenue Therapeutics Inc. submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") for its IV Tramadol product in December 2019. In fact, IV Tramadol was not safe for use with its intended patients. Based on these safety problems, it was not likely that the FDA would approve the NDA for IV Tramadol. Based on this news, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Fortress, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN] GLOBAL RESPONSE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to CSRs, Demeritte Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE DEMERITTE; and TAMISHA LAFALAISE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL RESPONSE, LLC; Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-62693 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 30, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as customer service representatives. Global Response Services LLC provides administration services. The Company offers service such as hiring, placing of personnel, security services, cleaning, and waste disposal. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com -and- Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. Alana Karabal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17 th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com akrabal@sommerspc.com GLOCK INC: Johnson Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Steven C. Johnson, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GLOCK, INC., a Georgia Corporation, GLOCK Ges.m.b.H, an Austrian entity, JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through V, ABC CORPORATIONS I-X,XYZ PARTNERSHIPS, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS and/or JOINT VENTURES I-X, GUN COMPONENT MANUFACTURERS 1-V, Case No. RG20075498, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 11, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the Defendants' hand guns are defective and unreasonably dangerous because the common design of the hand guns will not prevent and has not prevented a "blow out" or "Kaboom" which can, and does, result in personal injury. The unsupported chamber defect results from the inadequate design, manufacturing, and testing of the hand guns, and the continued failure of the Defendants to remedy the defect. The defect has created an unreasonably dangerous situation for a person owning and/or possessing a hand gun, and has substantially reduced, or eliminated completely, the value of the hand guns. Glock Inc. is a global manufacturer of firearms. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Esq. Alex Michael Tomasevic, Esq. Jake William Schulte, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101-5005 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org jschulte@nicholaslaw.org The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Renzulli, Esq. Howard B. Schilsky, Esq. RENZULLI LAW FIRM, LLP One North Broadway Suite 1005 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 285-0700 Facsimile: (914) 285-1213 E-mail: crenzulli@renzullilaw.com hschilsky@renzullilaw.com - and - Lauren O. Miller, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 E-mail: lauren.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com - and - Marion Vincent Mauch, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 970 West 190th Street Suite 700 Torrance, CA 90502 Telephone: (310) 768-3068 E-mail: marion.mauch@bowmanandbrooke.com - and - Paul Gerard Cereghini, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 2901 N. Central Avenue Suite 1600 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 643-2400 Facsimile: (602) 248-0947 E-mail: paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gonzales Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAUL GONZALEZ; and ALEXANDER RIESKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY INC. d/b/a GEICO, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11722 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 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. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as auto claim adjusters. Government Employees Insurance Company provides insurance products. The Company offers automobile, motorcycle, renter, homeowner, life, mobile home, flood, condo, umbrella, and boat insurances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com GREAT AMERICAN: Davis Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages for Dancers --------------------------------------------------------------- TALIA DAVIS; YUTASHIA GAMBLE; and PAMELA MIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE GREAT AMERICAN DREAM, INC. d/b/a PIN UPS; CARY ADAMS; and JAMES W. LEE, SR., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05272-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly compensate the Plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage, tip credit compensation method, and the applicable overtime rate. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers. The Great American Dream, Inc. d/b/a Pin Ups owns and operates an entertainment club. [BN] 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 -and- David W. Hodges, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dghodges@hftrialfirm.com GREGORYS COFFEE: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Bakers, De Jesus Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMADOR DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREGORYS COFFEE MANAGEMENT, LLC; and GREGORY ZAMFOTIS, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-06305 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 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 De Jesus was employed by the Defendants as baker. Gregorys Coffee Management, LLC owns and operates a coffee shop. [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) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 GRIDDLE INC: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTO AMARO RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRIDDLE INC., and KONSTANTINOS LOUVROS, as an individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-06226 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class members required minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide a written notice and recordkeeping, and failing to provide wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around July 2016 until in or around July 2020 whose primary duties consisted of, among other things, preparing, assembling, and performing deliveries for Defendants' orders, cleaning, moping, serving as a busboy, stocking goods, and performing other miscellaneous job duties for the Defendants. Griddle Inc. is a restaurant based in Long Island City, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 HAIYING REN: Wang Appeals Order in FLSA Suit to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Ming En Wang filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated November 20, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled MING EN WANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HAIYING REN a/k/a Michael Chen a/k/a Michael Ren, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-5310, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself as well as other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. The Plaintiff seeks a review of the court's order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Wang v. Ren, Case No. 20-4216, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Ming En Wang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-2332 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com Defendant-Appellee Haiying Ren, AKA Michael Ren, AKA Michael Chen, is represented by: David Halsband, Esq. HALSBAND LAW OFFICES Court Plaza South, 21 Main Street, East Wing Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 487-6249 E-mail: halsbandlaw@optonline.net HANNA ANDERSSON: Court Grants Preliminary Okay of Breach Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin L. Bryan, Esq. -- kristin.bryan@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that in November the high-end children's clothing retailer Hanna Andersson agreed to pay $400,000 and implement new security measures as part of a class action settlement arising from litigation brought in the wake of a widespread data breach. The lawsuit stems from a security incident where hackers accessed Hanna Andersson's ("Hanna") third-party e-commerce platform and gained access to customers' personal information ("PII"). The breach affected the PII (including names, shipping and billing addresses, payment card numbers, CVV codes, and expiration dates) of over 200,000 customers who made online purchases using the Hanna website between September 16 and November 11, 2019. The hackers then exfiltrated and used this information to make fraudulent purchases using Hanna's customers' credit cards. Hanna notified its customers of the breach on January 15, 2020. Well, on Dec. 29 a federal court in California granted preliminary approval of the settlement and certified a settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), consisting of "[a]ll individuals residing in the United States who made purchases on the Hanna Andersson website from September 16, 2019 to November 11, 2019." As part of this ruling the court found that "[t]he terms of the Settlement Agreement do not improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual or segment of the Settlement Class and fall within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate." Settlement Class Members who (1) wish to opt-out and exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or (2) object to the settlement must provide notice by April 28, 2021. A final approval hearing was scheduled for June 17, 2021. Assuming no objectors derail final approval next year, the Hanna Andersson case will be the first class action settlement under the CCPA. Other CCPA litigants will be sure to look to the enhanced security requirements and monetary payout to the class as a starting point for CCPA settlements going forward. CPW will be there to cover those developments as they occur. Stay tuned. [GN] HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Podiatry Clinic Slams Denied COVID Loss Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ PODIATRY FOOT & ANKLE INSTITUTE P.A., individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Case No. 2:20-cv-20057-KM-ESK (D.N.J., Dec. 21, 2020) alleges that the Defendants wrongfully failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to provide coverage for, and pay, Plaintiff's business income losses and extra expense losses resulting from the suspension of their operations due to COVID-19. According to the complaint, the actions of the Defendants in improperly denying PF&AI's claim were in complete disregard of PF&AI's contractual rights, resulting in a material breach of Defendants' duties and obligation owed under the commercial insurance policy, depriving PF&AI of the benefit of its bargain, and causing serious financial damages to Plaintiff. Podiatry Foot & Ankle Institute P.A. is a podiatry specialist in Hackensack, New Jersey. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. provides a range of insurance products. The Company's products include property and casualty insurance, group benefits, and mutual funds. Hartford Financial Services Group operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com bgreenberg@litedepalma.com HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Defend Ross and Rogus Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging that HPE pays its California-based female employees "systemically lower compensation" than HPE pays male employees performing substantially similar work. The complaint alleges various California state law claims, including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a California-only class of female employees employed in certain "Covered Positions." The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint. On July 2, 2019, the court denied HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the putative class and granted HPE's demurrer as to the claims of the individual plaintiffs. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT, Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments. The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE: Rodriguez Seeks 6th Cir. Review in FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Kathryn Rodriguez filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated Dec. 18, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Kathryn Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-00240, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Ms. Rodriguez seeks a review of the court's order on Dec. 18, wherein her FDCPA claim is dismissed with prejudice, denying as moot. The appellate case is captioned as Kathryn Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp., Case No. 20-2247, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KATHRYN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Curtis Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 5 E. Market Street, Suite 250 Corning, NY 14830 Telephone: (888) 551-8685 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal Defendant-Appellee HIRSHBERG ACCEPTANCE CORP. is represented by: Kathleen Helen Klaus, Esq. MADDIN, HAUSER, ROTH & HELLER 28400 Northwestern Highway, 2nd Floor Southfield, MI 48034 Telephone: (248) 354-4030 E-mail: kklaus@maddinhauser.com HISTORIC IMAGES: Buren et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum Wages & Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ KATIE VAN BUREN and BRET VANDEPOLDER, Plaintiffs v. HISTORIC IMAGES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02917-MSN-cgc (W.D. Tenn., December 21, 2020) bring this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful payroll policies and practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendant as Image Cataloging Specialists. Plaintiff Buren started working with the Defendant on or about April 10, 2017, while Plaintiff VanDepolder was on or about April 24, 2017. Both ended their employment with the Defendant on July 10, 2020. Although the Defendant classified the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated as independent contractors, their jobs and working condition do not comport with the accepted definition of the term "independent contractor". Their services rendered for the Defendant were integral to the Defendant's principal business, and they were hired for an indefinite period rather than for a fixed period for the completion of the Defendant's discreet project. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed and refused to pay them the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 in any given workweek. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked well over 40 hours per week while working for the Defendant, but made on average less than $200 per week that is under the federal minimum wage. The Defendant terminated the Plaintiffs when it discovered that the Plaintiffs had outsourced certain portions of their work. Historic Images, Inc. offers comprehensive digitization solutions for photo and negative archives. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan G. Crone, Esq. Philip Oliphant, Esq. THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC 88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor Memphis, TN 38103 Tel: (800) 403-7868 Tel: (901) 737-7740 Fax: (901) 474-7926 E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com HOMES.COM INC: Pierucci TCPA Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LISA PIERUCCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMES.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-455 (E.D. Va.), Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Homes.com is a real estate website that generates leads for listings for real estate agents and markets its leads through text messages. On Feb. 27, 2020, Pierucci received an unsolicited text message on her cellphone from Homes. The Plaintiff did not consent to Homes contacting her in any way. The Plaintiff alleges that the text message was a nuisance that aggravated her, wasted her time, invaded her privacy, diminished the value of the cellular services she paid for, caused her to temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of her phone, and caused wear and tear to her phone's data, memory, software, hardware, and battery components. On March 4, 2020, the Plaintiff initiated a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), on behalf of herself and a putative nationwide class. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "all persons" who received unsolicited text messages similar to her and alleges that Homes.com sent substantively identical unsolicited text messages en masse to the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of consumers. The Plaintiff seeks a maximum of $1,500 in damages for each time Homes sent these unsolicited text messages. On June 8, 2020, the Defendant was granted a motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia. On Sept. 11, 2020, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On Sept. 29, 2020, the Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss. It also filed a Motion to Stay Defendant's motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court's Decision in Facebook v. Duguid as well as a Motion to Strike Class Definition. On Oct. 13, 2020, the Plaintiff responded in opposition to all three motions. On Oct. 19, 2020, the Defendant replied. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent her text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system. However, the Complaint only identifies a single instance, on Feb. 27, 2020, when the Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message. Judge Jackson finds that the text message, on its own, does not support the allegation that the Defendant used an AIDS to send the Plaintiff various text messages. Rather, the text message could plausibly support the reasonable inference that the Defendant did not use an ATDS because the text message is addressed specifically to the Plaintiff; identifies a specific sender, "Dion," and includes information about buying/selling homes in the Plaintiff's area. Additionally, the Complaint made the conclusory allegation, and argument, that Homes.com, or a third party acting on its behalf, utilized an automatic telephone dialing system; hardware and/or software with the capacity to store or produce cellular telephone number to be called, using a random or sequential number generator, or to dial telephone numbers from preloaded lists. The Judge similarly finds that the statement is conclusory because it merely states that the Defendant used an ATDS but does not provide any supporting facts for the Court to draw a reasonable inference. Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that it is evident from the circumstances surrounding the text message, including the text message's commercial and generic content, that the text message was unsolicited, and that the text message was sent from a landline phone number. However, the Judge finds that it is not evident on the basis of the complaint that the Defendant was using an ATDS because there is a lack of sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the Plaintiff's number was autodialed or that the Defendants used an ATDS. Therefore, the Judge says, the Plaintiff provided a threadbare recital of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, which does not suffice. The principle that a court must accept as true all of the complaint's allegations only applies to factual allegations; legal conclusions couched as factual allegations need not be accepted as binding. Further, a court need not accept "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Based on the foregoing reasons, Judge Jackson granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. He dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiff is granted Leave to Amend the Complaint within 15 days from the date of the Order. The Judge also dismissed as moot the Moot Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Supreme Court's Decision in Facebook Duguid as well as the Motion to Strike Class Definition. He directed the Clerk to provide a copy of the Order to the parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79sjfnj from Leagle.com. HONDA MOTOR: Settles 5-Speed Transmission Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- carcomplaints.com reports that a Honda 5-speed transmission class action settlement has been reached for consumers residing in California who were the original owners of any of the following vehicles with 5-speed automatic transmissions and continued being the owner as of December 7, 2015. 2003-2004 Honda Accord 2002-2004 Honda Odyssey 2003-2004 Honda Pilot 2001-2002 Acura MDX 2003 Acura TL 3.2 Type S with VIN range: 19UUA5 . . . 3A019062-093971 2003 Acura CL 3.2 Type S with VIN range: 19UYA42 . . . 3A005204-016337 The Honda transmission lawsuit was filed in 2009 alleging Honda created a "secret warranty" program which expanded or extended the warranty "beyond its stated limits and/or offered to pay for all of or part of the cost of repairing or replacing the transmission system in Class Vehicles." According to the 5-speed lawsuit, Honda knew but failed to disclose a defect in the 3rd clutch of the automatic transmission that makes the transmission system prone to premature failure. The class action alleges the 3rd clutch could cause the transmission to suddenly downshift from 5th gear to 2nd gear while driving at highway speeds. Honda denies there is a secret warranty and denies all allegations in the 5-speed automatic transmission class action lawsuit. Honda 5-Speed Transmission Settlement Terms Original Honda owners have a choice between two types of monetary relief, either reimbursement or a $25 credit towards the future purchase of Honda parts, but not both. The $25 credit may be used only towards the vehicle owned by you and may not be used for any other Honda or Acura vehicle. Honda customers who elect to receive the credit don't need to do anything because they will automatically receive the credit toward a future parts purchase. Owners who choose to be reimbursed must supply documentation and could receive 100% reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for Honda parts associated with replacing the 5-speed transmission. The replacement must have been performed before the vehicle reached 93 months or 109,000 miles from original purchase, whichever comes first. If an independent mechanic or repair shop replaced the transmission, a claim for reimbursement must include documents showing details of the replacement and that you, not an insurance company, paid for the replacement. If a Honda dealer replaced the 5-speed transmission, a claim for reimbursement must include documentation showing the cost of the repair. However, if "Honda investigates the claim and determines the repair was not paid for by the Settlement Class Member, or someone acting on the Settlement Class Member's behalf who is not an insurance-based entity or third-party warrantor, Honda reserves the right to reject the Claim for Reimbursement." The attorneys who sued Honda will receive more than $1 million, and a final approval hearing about the Honda 5-speed lawsuit settlement will be held on January 19, 2021. Owners can learn more about the Honda 5-speed transmission class action lawsuit settlement by visiting Honda5speedATclasssettlement.com. The Honda 5-speed transmission class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County California: Case, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. The plaintiff is represented by Esensten Law. [GN] HP INC: Bid to Nix Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending. On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies business, including HP's use of its four-box model to predict the demand for supplies. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP’s print business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. On October 2, 2020, HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. That motion is due to be fully briefed in early 2021. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Underway --------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in Israel entitled, Gensin v. HP Inc. On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion for certification as a class action alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law, 5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5) improper enrichment. The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide classes comprised of anyone who "owns an HP printer that has been blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink cartridges not manufactured by HP" or who "purchased ink cartridges not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers." Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees. On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v. HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf of similar nationwide classes. After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror case and designated Gensin as the lead matter. On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed nationwide class to be comprised of "all persons who have an HP printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP" and "all persons who purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the Blocked Printers." On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the amended petition. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Dismissal of Parziale Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the appeal on the court's decision in granting the motion to dismiss the suit Parziale v. HP Inc., is pending. On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201 et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A. Sections 817.41 et seq. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges." On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2) trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiff's causes of action under the Florida Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court denied HP's motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and on the request for injunctive relief and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass to chattels. Plaintiff sought class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On September 29, 2020, the Court granted HP's motion to dismiss, dismissing the case in full with prejudice. Plaintiff filed notice of appeal, and its opening brief is due in early 2021. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: York County Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 6, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP's printing supplies business, including information about HP's channel inventory management and sales practices. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 LLC Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class action suit initiated by JDS1, LLC. On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors. The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims between Straight Path and the Company related to potential indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as well as the sale of Straight Path's subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in connection with that settlement. That action was consolidated with a similar action that was initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class Plaintiffs. On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court. The parties are engaged in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and payment industries in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. IDT CORP: Samara Putative Class Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit initiated by Scarleth Samara, has been dismissed. On April 12, 2019, Scarleth Samara filed a putative class action against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana alleging certain violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2017, IDT Telecom sent unauthorized marketing messages to her cellphone. IDT Telecom filed a motion to compel arbitration. On or about August 19, 2019, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the pending court action. In November 2020, the matter was resolved for a de minimus amount. IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and payment industries in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. IDT CORP: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Rosales Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International continue to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Jose Rosales. On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in California state court alleging certain violations of employment law. Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members of the putative class in accordance with California law. The Company is evaluating the claims, and at this stage, is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims. In August 2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales alleging trade secret and other violations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and payment industries in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey. INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Stauffer BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MADISYN STAUFFER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, LLC and PATHFINDER SOFTWARE, LLC, d/b/a CENTEREDGE SOFTWARE, Case No. 19-L-0311, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division on Dec. 11, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01332-MAB to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by scanning the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' fingerprints for timekeeping and other purposes. Pathfinder provided fingerprint tracking technology to Innovative Heights and other innovative companies for the use of their respective employees. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kendall Canfield, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 103 W. Vandalia Street, Suite 300 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-7290 Facsimile: (618) 692-6099 E-mail: Kendall.Canfield@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Josh M. Kantrow, Esq. Thomas M. Wolf, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 550 West Adams Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 345-1718 Facsimile: (312) 345-1778 E-mail: Josh.Kantrow@lewisbrisbois.com Thomas.Wolf@lewisbrisbois.com INTERFACE INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of January 11 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Jakubowitz Law on Dec. 31 disclosed 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. Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ:TILE) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT TILE: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/interface-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11878&from=1 Class Period: March 2, 2018 - September 28, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 11, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface, inter alia, reported artificially inflated income and earnings per share (“EPS”) in 2015 and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its employees were under investigation by the 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. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT NAK: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=11878&from=1 Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT KNDI: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11878&from=1 Class Period: March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021 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. 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] JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: Amended Ponzo Complaint Tossed; May Replead ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PATRICK PONZO, on behalf of the inmates of Jefferson County, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-CV-1013 (LEK/TWD) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the Amended Complaint with leave to replead. On Aug. 16, 2019, Plaintiff Ponzo filed a putative class action against the County of Jefferson alleging violations of inmates' constitutional rights. On Sept. 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks granted the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended his Complaint be dismissed with leave to replead ("First Report-Recommendation"). The Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint on Oct. 23, 2019. The Court adopted Magistrate Judge Dancks' recommendations and deemed the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint the operative pleading, necessitating further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e). On May 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with leave to replead ("Second Report-Recommendation"). As the Plaintiff has not filed objections, Judge Kahn reviews the Second Report-Recommendation for clear error, and finds none. For this reason, he adopted the Second-Report-Recommendation in its entirety. The Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the Decision and Order. The Clerk will serve a copy of the Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8un6vbn from Leagle.com. JOYY INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of JOYY Inc. ("JOYY" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: YY) between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired JOYY securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than January 19, 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. JOYY investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the JOYY Securities Class Litigation JOYY, headquartered in Guangzhou, China, describes itself as a global social media platform, offering users around the world a uniquely engaging and immersive experience across various video-based content categories, such as live streaming, short-form videos and video communication. The Company was formerly known as YY, Inc. and changed its name to JOYY, Inc. on December 20, 2019. The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) the majority of users were bots; (3) the Company utilized these bots to effect a round-tripping scheme that manufactured the appearance of revenues; (4) the Company overstated its cash reserves; and (5) the Company's acquisition of Bigo was designed to benefit corporate insiders. On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters Capital ("Muddy Waters") published a report entitled "YY: You Can't Make this Stuff Up. Well…Actually You Can." According to the report, JOYY was "a multibillion-dollar fraud" with "component businesses . . . a fraction of the size it reports, and . . . reported user metrics, revenues, and cash balances [that] are predominantly fraudulent." Citing a "year-long investigation," Muddy Waters concluded that JOYY "is about 90% fraudulent." Following this news, the price of JOYY's American Depositary Receipts ("ADR") fell $26.53 per ADR, or 26.48%, to close at $73.66 per ADR on November 18, 2020. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] JUUL LABS: E-Cigarettes Target Youth Market, School District Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 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, Case No. 3:20-cv-09259-WHO (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2020) alleges Defendants' violations of the Maryland Public Nuisance Law, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The complaint contends that the Defendants developed a strategy to create a nicotine product that would maximize profits through addiction, designed a nicotine delivery device intended to create and sustain addiction to vulnerable young population, implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that Juul products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe and intentionally marketed products to young people. The Defendants' conduct has created a public health crisis in Plaintiff's community, which has forced Plaintiff to divert significant and unexpected amounts of time and resources to address the pervasiveness of youth e-cigarette use in its community, imposing a significant drain on Plaintiff's resources, the suit says. Montgomery Schools is a school district located in Montgomery County, Maryland. JUUL Labs, Inc. designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories. [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 - and - Dean Kawamoto, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Alison S. Gaffney, Esq. Felicia J. Craick KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com agaffney@kellerrohrback.com fcraick@kellerrohrback.com - and - Stephanie P. Williams, Esq. MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Office of the General Counsel 850 Hungerford Drive, Room 156 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (240) 740-5600 E-mail: Stephanie_Williams@mcpsmd.org K12 INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of K12 Inc. (NYSE: LRN) between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important January 19, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for K12 investors under the federal securities laws. To join the K12 class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1989.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) 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 lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about K12’s business, operations, and prospects. 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 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-1989.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] KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Dec. 30 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. KNDI Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1 QSR Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1 OTGLY Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI) KNDI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. 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. Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR) QSR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 29, 2019 - October 28, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Restaurant Brands International Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. CD Projekt S.A. (OTCPINK:OTGLY) OTGLY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 16, 2020 - December 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=11866&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, CD Projekt S.A. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Throughout the class period, defendants were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation Store, and Sony, Microsoft and the Company would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3) consequently, the Company would suffer reputational and pecuniary harm; 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. 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 https://www.zlk.com [GN] KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Spack and Roper Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Kaspien Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the consolidated "Spack" and "Roper" class action suit. There are two pending class actions. The first, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017. The Spack Action alleges that the Company misclassified Store Managers (SMs) as exempt nationwide. It also alleges that Trans World improperly calculated overtime for Senior Assistant Managers (SAMs) nationwide, and that both SMs and SAMs worked "off-the-clock." It also alleges violations of New Jersey and Pennsylvania State Law with respect to calculating overtime for SAMs. The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in the Northern District of New York, August 2017. The Roper Action also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim on behalf of SMs. Both actions were consolidated into the Northern District of New York, with the Spack Action being the lead case. The Company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs for both store manager class actions. The Company reserved $425,000 for the settlement as of October 31, 2020. Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns, inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide. KASPIEN HOLDINGS: Suit Over Magazine Subscriptions Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaspien Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 15, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a punitive class action suit in Massachusetts state court related to VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine subscriptions. On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated magazine subscriptions. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's "negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers' consent. The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions, and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf. On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit. On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed lawsuit filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden Cty.), based on the same allegations, but this time seeking to represent only a class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were charged for VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine subscriptions. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and, if the new case is not dismissed in full, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action. Kaspien Holdings Inc. provides marketing solutions. The Company offers digital marketing, review generation, paid social campaigns, inventory management, supply chain support, brand control, and creative services. Kaspien Holdings serves customers worldwide. KMI INDUSTRIAL: BakerHostetler Discusses CAFA Removal Standards --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Goodman, Esq. -- mgoodman@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, reports that Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act to address perceived problems with the handling of class actions by courts. Among its provisions was one permitting removal of more class action claims to federal court. The Ninth Circuit in particular was unfriendly to these new provisions, but, we had thought, the Supreme Court put the matter to rest in 2014 (See our December 16, 2014 blog), and last year we noted that the Ninth Circuit seemed to have accepted and was applying the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court (See our September 30, 2019 blog). We may have spoken too soon, at least with respect to some Ninth Circuit panels. CAFA Removal Principles The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) gives federal courts jurisdiction over specified class actions if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the parties are minimally diverse, and the putative class consists of at least 100 individuals. Concerning the first requirement, the defendant must establish that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. To satisfy this burden, the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have held that the defendant may "simply allege or assert that the jurisdictional threshold has been met" and that the notice of removal "need not contain evidentiary submissions but only plausible allegations of jurisdictional elements." See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Sys. Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014); Arias v. Residence Inn by Marriott, 936 F.3d 920, 921 (9th Cir. 2019). Removing Wage and Hour Class Actions Under CAFA -- Facial and Factual Attacks To meet this burden in practice, employers in wage and hour cases often submit an employee declaration that sets forth facts and allegations supporting their conclusion that more than $5 million is in controversy. The declarations often consist of reasonable assumptions about the amount in controversy, which are based on the putative class size, the putative class's workweeks, and the violation rate of the claims at issue. As long as these assumptions are reasonable and unchallenged by the plaintiff, a class defendant's plausible case that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million will suffice - even in the absence of a proffer of evidence. That said, in Salter v. Quality Carriers, the Ninth Circuit departed from the holdings in Owens and Arias and suggested the possibility that a defendant's showing, even if plausible, might be insufficient to remove under CAFA in the absence of extrinsic evidence substantiating the jurisdictional allegations. 974 F.3d 959, 963-964 (9th Cir. Sep. 8, 2020). The panel explained that if a plaintiff-employee mounts a "factual," as opposed to a "facial," attack on the defendant's jurisdictional allegations, this would shift the burden back to the employer to produce competent proof supporting its allegations. The court noted this proof would be examined under the same evidentiary standard that governs in the summary judgment context. However, given the plaintiff's purely "facial" attack in Salter (a misclassification wage and hour class action venued in California), the Court did not explain what a "factual" attack would look like in the wage and hour context. Instead, the panel merely repeated its view that a factual attack is one that challenges the rationality, or the factual basis, of an employer's assertion. But in a recent case decided about two months after Salter, the Ninth Circuit identified and analyzed a factual attack in a wage and hour case under the Salter dicta. See Harris v. KMI Industrial, Inc. 980 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2020). In Harris, the plaintiff alleged in state court that the employer failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required under California law. The employer invoked CAFA to remove the case. And to meet its burden to show that the jurisdictional amount was met, it introduced a declaration from its human resources director. Relying on the putative class size (442), the approximate number of workweeks the putative class worked (39,834), the average rate of pay for the putative class, and an assumption that the class members missed one meal break and two rest breaks each workweek, the director concluded that more than $7.1 million was in controversy. The plaintiff brought a motion to remand, which was granted by the district court, and the employer appealed. In analyzing the employer's jurisdictional showing as set forth in the declaration, the Ninth Circuit found that while, on its face, the director's conclusion appeared reasonable, the declaration left out a critical piece of information: it did not establish that the putative class members worked shifts long enough to entitle them to a meal or rest break. It simply assumed that all 442 putative class members worked full eight hours shifts and were thus entitled to meal and rest breaks for each shift worked. But because employees in California are only entitled to a meal break if they work more than 5 hours and to a rest break if they work more than 3.5 hours, the Court held that the plaintiff had successfully attacked the employer's conclusion that more than $5 million was at stake. The Court explained that this was a "factual," rather than "facial," attack on the employer's amount-in-controversy calculations because it contested the truth of the underlying factual assumptions -- i.e., that each class member worked shifts long enough to entitle them to a meal or rest break. Challenged in this way, the court stated, the employer was required to submit competent evidence that the class members did indeed work shifts long enough to entitle them to meal and rest breaks. But because they failed to do so - either in support of its removal notice or in its opposition to plaintiff's motion to remand - the employer was unable to carry its burden of proving the statutory amount in controversy. Accordingly, the Court, over a dissent, affirmed the lower court's remand of the class action. Adding insult to injury here was the fact the employer, as its counsel explained at oral argument, did indeed have evidence that would substantiate its contentions. In other words, evidence that the workweeks the employer used for its calculations consisted of full-time shifts, which would have entitled the class members to one meal and two rest breaks per shift. But according to this panel at least, its failure to include any of this evidence in the record proved fatal to its removal efforts. In light of this case, it is likely that plaintiffs will now seek to assert what they claim to be factual challenges to removal notices in the Ninth Circuit, an approach some district courts have already accepted. Bottom Line The Harris decision establishes that even though an employer's assumptions may appear reasonable and plausibly show more than $5 million is at stake, in the Ninth Circuit at least, it may still be prudent to explain that calculation in greater detail, and offer evidence substantiating the allegations, in a declaration accompanying the removal notice. [GN] LA FONDA REST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Cooks, Arias Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FIDELA ARIAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA FONDA REST CORP. (d/b/a LA FONDITA RESTAURANT) and ERICA HERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06182 (E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for their alleged unlawful pay practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook at the restaurant located at 49-11 69th Street, Woodside, New York, 11377 from approximately August 2018 until on or about August 1, 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that although she worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Defendants failed to appropriately pay her minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for all the hours that she worked. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- The Defendants failed to provide her any breaks or meal periods of any kind; -- The Defendants did not require her to keep track of her time, thereby failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours she worked; and -- The Defendants failed to provide her an accurate wage statements, and any notice of her rate of pay and employer's regular pay day. La Fonda Rest Corp. operates a Mexican restaurant owned by Erica Hernandez. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gathmann-Landini Class Action Settled ---------------------------------------------------------- lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended November 1, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc., has been settled. On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation. This matter was settled on September 30, 2020 for an immaterial amount. lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments, Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada. LVNV FUNDING: Class Certification Ruling in Davis Suit Reversed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LVNV FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellant v. CASEY DAVIS, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Guillermo Macia, Individually and on Behalf of Class Defined Herein, Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellee, (Alegis Group, LLC; Resurgent Capital Services LP; and Sherman Financial Group, LLC, Third-Party Defendants-Appellants), Case No. 5-19-0380 (Ill. App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois for the Fifth District remanded the Aug. 5, 2019 order of the circuit court of St. Clair County that granted Davis's motion to certify a class as to Count I of his counterclaim. On Dec. 26, 2012, LVNV filed a complaint against Guillermo Macia in the circuit court of St. Clair County. The complaint requested payment for a debt Macia owed to Chase Bank USA for use of a credit card. According to the complaint, Chase Bank USA assigned, for value, its rights under the credit card agreement to LVNV "per Exhibit B." Thereafter, Macia filed a class action counterclaim against LVNV, as well as third-party claims against Defendants Alegis Group, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services LP, and Sherman Financial Group, LLC. Macia's counterclaim alleges that LVNV is a licensed debt collection agency that is in the business of purchasing or acquiring defaulted debts, including debts originally owed to others and incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. Count I of the counterclaim requests money damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged violation of section 8b of the Collection Agency Act. In particular, count I alleges that the Defendants violated section 8b of the Act in the following ways: (1) filing suit without having an assignment in the form specified by section 8b and (2) filing suit without attaching an assignment in the form specified by section 8b. On Jan. 21, 2014, the circuit court was informed that Macia had died, and Davis was substituted as the representative for his estate. On April 30, 2018, Davis filed an amended motion for partial class certification, requesting class certification for count I of the class action counterclaim only. On Aug. 14, 2018, after full briefing by the parties, the circuit court held a hearing on the amended motion for partial class certification and took the matter under advisement. On Aug. 5, 2019, the circuit court entered an order certifying the Illinois Class: "All individuals who have been named as a defendant in a collection lawsuit filed in an Illinois court, since Jan. 1, 2008, to this date, where any of the 'debt collectors' was a named Plaintiff, and the lawsuit, on the date it was filed, did not comply with the provisions of the Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/1 et seq., in that the debt collector was not in possession of a valid assignment of the purported debt and/or failed to attach same to the Complaint." Further, the Court finds that the term 'debt collector,' as defined by the Illinois Class, means: "Debt Collectors": Counter-Defendant and Third Party Defendants and any other entities or individuals associated in fact with the above or which are owned, wholly or in part, managed, agents, employed by, or otherwise controlled by the above. On Sept. 4, 2019, the Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal from the circuit court's order certifying the class. On Oct. 2, 2019, the Court entered an order allowing the appeal. The Defendants ask the Court to consider whether there is a private right of action under the Act and to reverse the class certification on the basis that no such private right of action exists. The Appellate Court opines that by referring specifically to assignments for collection, the plain language of section 8b indicates that the legislature intended to exclude sales of an account to a debt buyer from the section's reach. Accordingly, while a debt buyer is required to meet the requirements of section 2-403(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-403(a) (West 2018)), which requires that the assignee and owner of a cause of action allege on oath in the pleading that he or she is the actual bona fide owner thereof, and set forth how and when he or she acquired title, a debt buyer is not subject to the requirements of section 8b of the Act. The Appellate Court also opines that the requirements of section 8b of the Act (225 ILCS 425/8b (West 2018)) do not apply to debt buyers pursuing collection litigation on their own behalf. As such, count I fails to state a claim against the Defendants based on the facts alleged in the complaint. As a result, the circuit court erred in granting Davis's motion to certify a class as to count I of his complaint. Finally, the Defendants seek to have the Court review an order of the circuit court denying the motion to dismiss as to Sherman Financial Group, LLC, based on a lack of jurisdiction, as well as an order compelling them to produce certain documents. The Court holds that these orders are outside of its scope of review. Its jurisdiction over the appeal is based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(8) (eff. Oct. 1, 2019), which permits an interlocutory appeal by permission of an order denying or granting class certification. The propriety of the order denying class certification is in no way dependent on the merits of the order denying the motion to dismiss as to Sherman Financial Group, LLC, nor the order compelling discovery. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to review those orders as part of the appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the Appellate Court reversed the Aug. 5, 2019 order of the circuit court of St. Clair County that granted Davis' motion for partial class certification as to count I of Davis's counterclaim, which alleges a violation of section 8b of the Collection Agency Act, and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yazqhok5 from Leagle.com. Nabil G. Foster and Louis J. Manetti Jr. -- LManetti@hinshawlaw.com -- of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, for appellants. David Cates, of Cates Mahoney, LLC, of Swansea, and Sean K. Cronin -- INFO@DRNPC.COM -- of Donovan Rose Nester, P.C., of Belleville, for appellee. MASTERCARD: UK Supreme Court Allows Consumer Class Suit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Bell, Esq. -- robert.bell@rosenblatt-law.co.uk -- and Danielle Carr, Esq. -- danielle.carr@rosenblatt-law.co.uk -- of Rosenblatt, in an article for JDSupra, report that in a watershed judgment handed down on 11th December 2020 the UK Supreme Court gave the go ahead for a GBP14 billion collective proceedings damages claim for breach of competition law against card issuer, Mastercard. This will be the largest class action to date in the UK. The central issue was whether it was appropriate for the Courts to certify a collective proceedings action (and therefore allow it to procced to trial) where: -- the class representative was claiming an aggregate award on behalf of the entire class instead of damages for each individual class member; and -- each member of the class would receive a fixed sum from the aggregate award regardless of the potential loss they had each suffered during the infringement period. The Supreme Court answered both the above points in the affirmative. The decision in this case breathes new life into the English collective proceedings' regime in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It will unblock a number of collective proceedings actions currently stayed before the Courts awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling. It will also give the green light to future mass collective proceedings which seek an aggregate award and where the members of the class each receive an award which may differ from their actual loss. Background The Consumer Rights Act 2015 had introduced a refreshed collective proceedings regime in the UK and amended the Competition Act 1998 ("the Act"). Actions for competition law breaches could be commenced in the Competition Appeals Tribunal ("CAT") by an appropriate representative acting for a class of claimants, provided the CAT approves such a class action. Section 47B of Act states that the CAT may make a collective proceeding order only: (a) if it considers that the person who brought the proceedings is a person who, if the order were made, the CAT could authorise to act as the representative in those proceedings in accordance with subsection (8) [just and reasonable person to bring the claim], and (b) in respect of claims which are eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings. S47B(6) of the Act further states that "Claims are eligible for inclusion in collective proceedings only if the CAT considers that they raise the same, similar or related issues of fact or law and are suitable to be brought in collective proceedings". In 2016, former financial ombudsman, Walter Merricks, brought collective proceedings on behalf of 45 million UK resident Mastercard cardholders under the collective proceedings' provisions of the Act, seeking an award of damages for the whole class (an aggregate award), rather than damages for each individual class member. The claim arose out of a 2007 European Commission decision under which the Mastercard payment organization, consisting of several thousand financial institutions, was held to be an association of undertakings that had infringed Article 101(1) TFEU (Article 81(1) EC as it was then) by fixing a high default "multilateral interchange fee" which applied to cross border transactions between May 1992 and December 2007. This was a fee paid by the retailers to Mastercard for use of their payment card network. The CAT refused to certify the collective proceedings action on the basis that claims were not suitable for an aggregate award of damages and the proposed distribution of any award did not satisfy the compensatory principle in common law. Merricks appealed to the Court of Appeal which found in his favour. Mastercard in turn appealed to the UK Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed Mastercard's appeal and remitted the case back to the CAT for certification. The Court held that the CAT had erred in law for a number of reasons. The principal grounds for which the Supreme Court approved certification were as follows. The "Broad Axe" Principle: Courts frequently must deal with difficult issues in calculating damages. Courts do not deprive an individual claimant of a trial merely because of these quantification issues, provided there is a triable issue that the claimant has suffered more than nominal loss. If these issues would not have prevented an individual consumer's claim from proceeding to trial, the CAT should not have stopped the collective proceedings claim at the certification phase The Court stated that it is a fundamental requirement of justice that the court must do its best on the available evidence to calculate damages with the information available. This was the "broad axe" principle, and it applied to competition cases. The Supreme Court held the CAT had erred in considering that difficulties with incomplete data and interpreting that data was a good reason to refuse certification. Civil courts and tribunals frequently face problems with quantifying loss and the CAT owes a duty to the class to carry out the task in a case of proven breach of statutory duty coupled with a realistically arguable case that some loss was suffered. Act Dispenses with Common Law Compensatory Principle in Collective Proceedings: - The Court held that the CAT was wrong to require Merricks' proposed method of distributing aggregate damages to take account of the loss suffered by each class member. A central purpose of the power to award aggregate damages in collective proceedings is to avoid the need for individual assessment of loss and the Act expressly modifies the ordinary requirement for the separate assessment of each claimant's loss (Section 47C of the Act). In short, the Supreme Court's decision clarifies the manner in which certification may proceed, with important implications for future collective proceedings (and the approach to damages) in the competition space. It may be expected to prompt a renewed appetite for pursuing mass collective proceedings in the CAT. [GN] MDL 2573: Counterparties' Contact Info to Be Given to Rust Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: LONDON SILVER FIXING, LTD., ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions, Case No. 14-MD-2573 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the Defendants to promptly provide the requested contact information of their Counterparties to Rust, Inc., the agent they chose to effectuate the required notice. On Aug. 5, 2020, the Court entered the Order Approving Class Notice Plan, Preliminarily Approving Distribution Plan for Class Action Settlement with Defendant Deutsche Bank, and Scheduling Hearing for Final Approval of the Settlement. The Deutsche Bank Settlement Order requires that the Settlement Administrator will be responsible for effectuating the Class Notice plan, including by running potential members of the Settlement Class' addresses through the National Change of Address Database to obtain the most current address for each person. The Plaintiffs wish that notice be provided to counterparties who engaged in relevant Silver transactions with the Defendants during the Settlement Class Period. The parties have agreed that the Defendants may use an agent of their choosing to send their Counterparties the notice required by the Deutsche Bank Settlement Order. Therefore, Judge Caproni ordered the Defendants to provide the requested contact information of their Counterparties (including name, address, and telephone number, to the extent addresses and telephone numbers are reasonably accessible from a common database) to Rust promptly after their engagement of the agent. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8xdv6hp from Leagle.com. MDL 2968: Initial Meeting in Generali Travel Suit Set for Jan. 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE GENERALI COVID-19 TRAVEL INSURANCE LITIGATION. ORDER NO. 1, Master File No. 20-md-2968 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered all the parties to appear for the initial conference on Jan. 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. by telephone ((888) 363-4749, with access code 8140049). To minimize costs and facilitate a manageable conference, the parties are not required to attend the conference, and parties with similar interests are expected to agree to the extent practicable on a single attorney to act on their joint behalf at the conference. Persons who are not named as parties in the litigation but may later be joined as parties or are parties in related litigation pending in other federal and state courts are invited to attend the conference call. The conference will be held for the purposes specified in the Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth Edition. The Counsel is encouraged to advise the Court as soon as possible of any items that should be added to or deleted from the agenda. Attorneys admitted to practice and in good standing in any United States District Court are admitted pro hac vice in the litigation. Association of local co-counsel is not required. Each Defendant is granted an extension of time for responding by motion or answer to the complaint(s) until a date to be set at the conference. Pending the conference, all outstanding disclosure and discovery proceedings are stayed and no further discovery will be initiated. All parties are reminded of their obligation to preserve evidence that may be relevant to the actions. All orders by transferor courts imposing dates for pleading or discovery are vacated. The Order will also apply to related cases later filed in, removed to, or transferred to the Court. Judge Koeltl intends to appoint the Plaintiffs' lead counsel and/or their liaison counsel. Applications for these positions must be filed with the Clerk's office by Jan. 21, 2021. The Judge will only consider attorneys who have filed a civil action in the litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd332ubq from Leagle.com. MDL 2984: Ashton Seeks Transfer of 5 Consumer Suits to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Shelly Ashton, Jay Schoener, Ramon Ibarra, and Ellen Moser seek approval from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 11, 2020, to transfer related actions to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under MDL No. 2984, IN RE: Folgers Coffee Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The actions include: -- Frederick Tan v. The Folger Coffee Company et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-09370 (C.D. Cal.); -- Shelly Ashton et al v. The J.M. Smucker Co. et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00992 (C.D. Cal.); -- Sorin, v. The Folger Coffee Company, Case No. 9:20-cv-80897 (S.D. Fla.); -- Moser v. The J. M. Smucker Company et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07074 (N.D. Ill.); and -- Mawby v. The Folger Coffee Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00822 (W.D. Mo.). Each of the related actions allege that Folgers deceptively markets its ground coffee canisters by misrepresenting the "up to" serving representation displayed prominently on the front of each canister. The briefing schedule in the motion to transfer states that: -- Notices of Appearance is due on or before December 29, 2020; -- Corporate Disclosure Statements are due on or before December 29, 2020; -- Responses due on or before January 5, 2021; and -- Reply, if any, is due on or before January 12, 2021. The Folger Coffee Company retails packaged coffee. The Company offers ground, instant, single serve, and iced coffees through through grocery stores, drug stores, and other large chain retail stores, as well as online retailers. The J.M. Smucker Company is the parent company of Folger Coffee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com sbraden@carlsonlynch.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle Shamberg, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com - and - Aubry Wand, Esq. THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 590-4503 Facsimile: (310) 590-4596 E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com MEDLEY CAPITAL: Pennsylvania Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Medley Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the Pennsylvania Class Action has been dismissed. Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15, 2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No. 3:18-cv-100. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy, Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:18-cv-101. Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc. (as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747. The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in, American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1. In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives had not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan. In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various times from February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan in 2017. On October 26, 2020, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were served with a new complaint in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles P. McDaniel v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed October 22, 2020, in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia, as Case No. 20-C-169. The plaintiff in the West Virginia Class Action Complaint filed his putative class action alleging claims arising West Virginia state law's regulating interest rates and other fees in connection with consumer lending activities. By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October 29, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims. On April 16, 2020, the parties to Class Action 1 reached a settlement reflected in a Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement was subject to court approval. At a hearing on November 4, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to approve the settlement and ordered the parties to mediation in front of Judge Novak of the Eastern District of Virginia in December of 2020. On October 29, 2020, the parties to the Pennsylvania Class Action reached a settlement pursuant to which AWL agreed to pay the plaintiffs $200,000 and to forgive loans that they owed AWL. The Medley Defendants obtained a full release and bore none of the settlement amount. The Pennsylvania Class Action was dismissed with prejudice on November 2, 2020. The Medley Defendants and the other defendants believe the alleged claims asserted in the Virginia Class Action and the West Virginia putative class action are without merit and they are defending these lawsuits vigorously. Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity securities of small and middle market companies. The company is based in New York, New York. MESA AIR: IPO-Related Putative Class Lawsuits in Arizona Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mesa Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend two putative class action suits related to it initial public offering in August 2018 ("IPO"). The Company is subject to two putative class action lawsuits alleging federal securities law violations in connection with its initial public offering in August 2018, one in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona and one in U.S. District Court of Arizona. These purported class actions were filed in March and April 2020 against the Company, certain current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's IPO. The state and federal lawsuits each make the same or similar allegations of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements in, or omitting material information from, the company's IPO registration statement. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Mesa Air said, "We do not currently believe that this matter is likely to have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, cash flows, or our financial position. However, any litigation is inherently uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive relief entered against us or any adverse settlement could materially and adversely impact our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects." Mesa Air Group, Inc. operates as an airlines company that provides regional air services in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The Company also operates as an online retailer of apparel and accessories. Mesa Air Group, Inc. was formerly known as Mesa Air Shuttle, Inc. The Company was founded in 1982 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona. MIDLAND CREDIT: Christian Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- SELENA CHRISTIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06458 (E.D. Penn., December 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Credit One Bank, N.A., specifically for its telecommunication services. Credit One Bank purportedly sold the alleged debt to the Defendant Midland Funding, who then contracted Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about August 5, 2020, Defendant MCM sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant Midland Funding regarding the alleged debt currently owed to Credit One Bank. However, the Defendants' letter is deceptive, misleading, and unfair because it failed to inform the Plaintiff the true ramifications of making a payment, that making a partial payment with an acknowledgement of the debt will restart the statute of limitations for a lawsuit to occur. The Defendants allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) and Section 1692e(2)(A) for omitting material information creating a false and misleading representation of the status of the debt, and for falsely representing the character, amount or legal status of the debt. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief that the Court my deem just and proper. The Corporate Defendants are debt collectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 326-9179 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Jacobs Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARQUITA JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06466 (E.D. Penn., December 23, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Synchrony Bank, specifically an Old Navy credit card. According to the complaint, Synchrony purportedly sold the alleged debt to the Defendant Midland Funding, who then contracted Defendant MCM to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about September 17, 2020, Defendant MCM sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant Midland Funding regarding the alleged debt currently owed to Synchrony Bank. The collection letter provided the Plaintiff three options to settle its alleged debt. However, third option was inadequately explained which resulted in two different possible interpretations. The Defendants' debt collection efforts violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) & 1692e(2) by making a false and misleading representation, and for providing a letter that is open to more than reasonable interpretation. The Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief that the Court my deem just and proper, the suit says. The Corporate Defendants are debt collectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 326-9179 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com MORGAN STANLEY: Financial Advisors Sues Over Deferred Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that Morgan Stanley on Dec. 30 was hit with a proposed class action claiming the investment bank refused to pay deferred compensation to many financial advisors (FAs) who left the company, in violation of the federal law governing employee benefit plans. Matthew Shafer, a former Morgan Stanley FA represented by Motley Rice, filed a complaint in Manhattan federal court claiming the company denied him more than $500,000 in deferred compensation he had earned when he left before fully vesting in a company benefit plan. [GN] NAVIHEALTH INC: Settlement in Bentley Suit Wins Prelim. Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JILL KATHLEEN BENTLEY, Plaintiff v. NAVIHEALTH, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1298 TWR (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Todd W. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California grants Bentley's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Judge Janis L. Sammartino took the Motion under consideration on the papers without oral argument following which the Action was transferred to Judge Robinson. Having reviewed the Plaintiff's Motion, the Settlement Agreement, and the exhibits and declarations thereto, Judge Robinson finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement Agreement appears to be within the range of reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately be given final approval by the Court. Accordingly, he grants the Plaintiff's Motion. For purposes of the Settlement only, the Judge conditionally certifies the following two classes of Class Members: a. California Class Members: Any and all persons who are or were employed by naviHealth Inc. as Care Management Employees (which includes all employees occupying the various job titles categorized under naviHealth's Clinical job family, including but not limited to the following job titles: Care Coordinator, including the job titles Lead Care Coordinator, Home Health Care Coordinator, Pre-Service Care Coordinator, Flex Team Pre-Service Care Coordinator, Lead Pre-Service Coordinator, Patient Care Coordinator, Inpatient Care Coordinator, Skilled Inpatient Care Coordinator, Skilled Inpatient and Transitional Care Coordinator, Centralized Care Coordinator, Transitional Care Coordinator, Telephonic Care Coordinator, Telephonic Care Coordinator Team Lead, Regional Care Coordinator, UM Care Coordinator, UM Team Lead, and Post-Acute Care Coordinator; Case Manager or Care Manager, including the job titles High Risk Case Manager, Telephonic High Risk Case Manager and Team Lead, Intensive Case Manager, Clinical Care Manager; Utilization Review Coordinator; and Appeals and Denials Coordinator, Denials Coordinator, Denials-Appeals Team Lead, Quality Improvement Organizational Appeals Coordinator) in the State of California from May 15, 2015 through June 24, 2020 and who have not previously signed a release covering the claims alleged in the Bentley Action; and b. FLSA Class Members: Any and all persons who are or were employed by naviHealth Inc. as Care Management Employees (which includes all employees occupying the various job titles categorized under naviHealth's Clinical job family, including but not limited to the following job titles: Care Coordinator, including the job titles Lead Care Coordinator, Home Health Care Coordinator, Pre-Service Care Coordinator, Flex Team Pre-Service Care Coordinator, Lead Pre-Service Coordinator, Patient Care Coordinator, Inpatient Care Coordinator, Skilled Inpatient Care Coordinator, Skilled Inpatient and Transitional Care Coordinator, Centralized Care Coordinator, Transitional Care Coordinator, Telephonic Care Coordinator, Telephonic Care Coordinator Team Lead, Regional Care Coordinator, UM Care Coordinator, UM Team Lead, and Post-Acute Care Coordinator; Case Manager or Care Manager, including the job titles High Risk Case Manager, Telephonic High Risk Case Manager and Team Lead, Intensive Case Manager, Clinical Care Manager; Utilization Review Coordinator; and Appeals and Denials Coordinator, Denials Coordinator, Denials-Appeals Team Lead, Quality Improvement Organizational Appeals Coordinator) in California from May 15, 2015 through June 24, 2020 and who have not previously signed a release covering the claims alleged in the Mae Barbee, et al. v. naviHealth, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-00119 putative class and collective action filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee on Feb. 6, 2019 and/or Bentley Action. The Judge approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice of Settlement to Class Members and finds that the method selected for communicating the preliminary approval of the Settlement to Class Members is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, constitutes due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice, and therefore satisfies due process. For Settlement purposes only, the Judge appoints Plaintiff Jill Bentley as the class representative. Further, he preliminarily approves the Service Award to the Plaintiff in an amount not to exceed $12,000. The Service Award will be subject to final approval of the Court. The Judge appoints London D. Meservy--london@meservylawpc.com--Meservy Law, P.C., 401 West A Street, Suite 1712, San Diego, CA 92101, Telephone: 858.779.1276; and Matthew S. Dente--matt@dentelaw.com--Dente Law, P.C., 5040 Shoreham Place, San Diego, CA 92122, Telephone: 619.550.3475 as the Class Counsel for Class Members. Further, he preliminarily approves a Class Counsel Fees Award not to exceed $670,000 and a Class Counsel Costs Award not to exceed $30,000. The Class Counsel Fees Award and the Class Counsel Costs Award will be subject to final approval of the Court. The Judge also appoints Simpluris as the Settlement Administrator to administer the Notice of Settlement pursuant to the terms in the Settlement Agreement. No later than 30 calendar days after the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Defendant will provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class Information. No later than 14 calendar days after receipt of the Class Information, the Settlement Administrator will use the Class Information to mail the Notice of Settlement to the Class Members after conducting a national change of address search and a skip trace for the most current address of all former employee Class Members and will update such addresses as necessary. No later than 45 calendar days after the date the Settlement Administrator mails the Notice of Settlement to Class Members (i.e., the Response Deadline), any Class Member requesting exclusion from the Settlement MUST SUBMIT his/her Request for Exclusion by mail to the Settlement Administrator as instructed in the Notice of Settlement. The Final Approval Hearing is set for May 5, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. The Parties will file all papers in support of final approval of the Settlement no later than 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. The Class Counsel will file their motion for the Class Counsel Fees Award and the Class Counsel Costs Award no later than 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing. Pending further Orders of the Court, all proceedings in the matter except those contemplated in the Preliminary Approval Order and in the Settlement Agreement are stayed. The Court expressly reserves the right to adjourn or continue the Final Approval Hearing from time to time without further notice to the Class Members. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y93aok2x from Leagle.com. NAVISTAR INT'L: Appeal in MaxxForce Advanced EGR Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the appeal taken by intervening class members from the court's denial of their request for exclusion from a class action settlement remains pending. On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. (NI) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Subsequently, seventeen additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts. Some of the U.S. Actions named both Navistar International Corporation (NIC) and NI, and alleged matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, one or more of the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions seek to certify a class of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and NI failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs. In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") issued an order consolidating before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits that were pending on October 3, 2014 (the "MDL Action"). In May 2019, the parties completed negotiation of a settlement agreement to resolve the U.S. Actions. The plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to the court for preliminary approval on May 28, 2019. The Settlement Agreement class consists of entities and natural persons who owned or leased a 2011-2014 model year vehicle equipped with a MaxxForce 11 or 13 liter engine certified to meet EPA 2010 emissions standards without selective catalytic reduction technology, provided that the vehicle was purchased or leased in the U.S. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement requires that (1) the parties establish a non-reversionary common fund consisting of cash (the "Cash Fund") and rebates (the "Rebate Fund") with a total value of $135 million (the "Settlement Fund"); (2) NIC and NI contribute $85 million to the Cash Fund, which will be used to pay all settlement fees and expenses, service awards, attorneys' fees and costs, and cash payments to members of the settlement class; (3) NI commit to make available rebates with a face value in the aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4) the settlement class release NIC and NI and their affiliates from all claims and potential claims arising from or related to the allegations in the U.S. Actions, except for claims for personal injury or damage to third-party property. The Settlement Agreement further provides that dollars or value remaining in either the Cash Fund or the Rebate Fund after claims are processed will be used to pay approved claims from the other fund if the other fund is oversubscribed (the Waterfall). The Settlement Agreement states that NIC and NI deny all claims in the U.S. Actions, deny wrongdoing, liability or damage of any kind, and deny that NIC and NI acted improperly or wrongfully in any way. Any Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund is capped at $35 million. The company is waiting for the final adjudication of the claims by the administrator. It is possible that a Waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund could occur. On June 12, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. Members of the class were provided notice of the Settlement Agreement and an opportunity to object or opt out. Any members of the class who opted out would not receive any benefit from the Settlement Agreement or be bound by it. Four class members filed a consolidated objection to the Settlement Agreement on October 10, 2019. On January 3, 2020, the court entered an order rejecting the objection and finding the settlement to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." The court also granted the motion of lead counsel for the class plaintiffs for approval of an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2020, the court entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Final Order and Judgment. On February 3, 2020, NIC and NI funded $85 million to the Cash Fund. In February 2020, three class members intervened in the MDL Action and filed motions asking the court to exclude them from the settlement or to permit them to opt out after the opt out deadline. In April and June 2020, the court denied these motions. In May 2020, two of the intervening class members appealed the court's April 2020 order to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company's opposition brief was filed on August 19, 2020. Oral argument was held on November 2, 2020. Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks and diesel engines worldwide. Navistar International Corporation was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois. NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Engine EGR Suits in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company, together with Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks, continues to defend class action suits related to MaxxForce Engine EGR Warranty. On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation (NIC), Navistar, Inc. (NI), Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Subsequently, seven additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in various courts in Canada, including Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. On November 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of British Columbia certified a Canada-wide class comprised of persons who purchased heavy-duty trucks equipped with Advanced EGR MaxxForce 11, MaxxForce 13, and MaxxForce 15 engines designed to meet 2010 EPA regulations. On August 1, 2018, the appellate court affirmed the November 2016 decision and certified three additional narrow issues on whether misrepresentations were made in Navistar's advertising materials. Navistar said, "The next step will be an attendance before the case management judge regarding the details of the notice of certification to be given to the class. No date for this attendance has been set." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks and diesel engines worldwide. Navistar International Corporation was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois. NEONODE INC: Purported Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Neonode Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 27, 2020, that the purported class action suit initiated by a putative stockholder of the company has been dismissed. On August 26, 2020, a putative stockholder of Neonode Inc. filed a purported class action lawsuit (C.A. No. 2020-0701-AGB) in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and the Board of Directors of the Company for alleged breach of fiduciary duty in connection with disclosure of information concerning Proposal 5 and Proposal 6 in the proxy statement filed by the Company on August 20, 2020 for the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders of the Company. These proposals for shareholder approval related to the private placement by the Company on August 5, 2020 in which two directors and the chief executive officer of the Company participated. The relief sought by the plaintiff included a preliminary injunction to enjoin the stockholder votes on Proposal 5 and Proposal 6. On September 13, 2020, the plaintiff amended his complaint to also enjoin the stockholder vote on Proposal 1 in the Proxy Statement concerning election of directors. In response, the Company filed definitive additional materials to the Proxy Statement on September 18, 2020. The plaintiff withdrew his motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder votes on Proposals 1, 5, and 6 based upon the definitive additional materials to the Proxy Statement. On November 23, 2020, the Court entered an order to dismiss the lawsuit. Neonode Inc. develops and licenses user interfaces and optical infrared touch technology. The Stockholm, Sweden-based Company's patented technology offers features, including the ability to sense an object's size, depth, velocity, pressure, and proximity to any type of surface. The company is based in Stockholm, Sweden. NEOVASC INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of Jan. 5 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Neovasc, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVCN) securities between October 10, 2018 and October 27, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 5, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Neovasc is a specialty medical device company that develops, manufactures and markets products for cardiovascular diseases, including the Tiara technology and the Reducer. The Company's Reducer is a medical device that treats refractory angina by altering blood flow in the heart's circulatory system. On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company announced that an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against the safety and effectiveness of the Reducer. The panel noted concerns with the Company's clinical data, including "that the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret." As a result, the panel reached a consensus "that additional premarket randomized clinical data was necessary." The complaint, filed on November 5, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the results of COSIRA, Neovasc's clinical study for the Reducer, contained imbalances in missing information present in the control group versus the treatment group, including significant missing information for secondary endpoints but none for the primary endpoint; (2) that the imbalance in missing information indicated that control subjects were aware of their treatment assignment (not blinded) and less inclined to participate in additional data collection; (3) that blinding is critical when studying a placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) that the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to interpret; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was reasonably likely to require additional premarket clinical data; (6) that, as a result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely to be approved without additional clinical data; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased Neovasc securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by [url="]filling+out+this+contact+form.[/url] There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit [url="]www.bespc.com[/url]. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] NESTLE WATERS: Chong Ruling in Product Liability Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Connie Chong filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Connie Chong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nestle Waters North America Inc., and Does 1 through 10., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-10901-DMG-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks restitution, disgorgement and/or the imposition of a constructive trust upon all profits, benefits and compensation that Nestle Waters North America obtained from the sale of their "Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water" resulting from unjust enrichment/breach of quasi contract and violation of California's Business and Professions Code and Civil Code. Chong alleges that Nestle misrepresented that their bottled water is made from 100% Arrowhead Mountain spring water as shown on their label (with the background picture of the Arrowhead Mountain and the lake in front of the mountain) despite the fact that it is only one of their six sources. Ms. Chong seeks a review of the Court's Order dated Nov. 30, 2020, granting Defendant Nestle Waters North America, Inc.'s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Connie Chong v. Nestle Waters North America, et al., Case No. 20-56373, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 23, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Connie Chong Mediation Questionnaire is due on December 30, 2020; -- Appellant Connie Chong opening brief is due on February 22, 2021; -- Appellees Does and Nestle Waters North America, Inc. answering brief is due on March 24, 2021 and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CONNIE CHONG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Juan Hong, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUAN HONG 4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 509-6505 E-mail: jhong48@gmail.com Defendant-Appellee NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Deema Abini, Esq. Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433 Telephone: (213) 620-7732 E-mail: dabini@whitecase.com bmerryman@whitecase.com NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- NetApp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 3, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of its executive officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements with respect to our financial guidance for fiscal 2020, as provided on May 22, 2019. Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date we provided revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020. The complaint alleges unspecified damages based on the decline in the market price of our shares following the issuance of the revised guidance on August 1, 2019. NetApp said, "We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NetApp, Inc., incorporated on November 1, 2001, provides software, systems and services to manage and store customer data. The Company enables enterprises, service providers, governmental organizations, and partners to envision, deploy and evolve their information technology (IT) environments. The company is based in Sunnyvale, California. NEXTIER OILFIELD: Pays $125,000 to Woods Counsel as Attorneys' Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 30, 2020, that they subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the class action suit entitled, Woods v. Batzer, et al., C.A. No. 2019-590-JRS. On June 16, 2019, Keane Group, Inc. and C&J Energy Services, Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Keane and C&J agreed to combine their respective businesses in a merger of equals (the Proposed Transaction). On July 16, 2019, Keane filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a Registration Statement on Form S-4, which also served as a draft of the joint proxy statement/prospectus to be sent to Keane's stockholders to solicit stockholder approval, in connection with the Proposed Transaction, of a proposed issuance of Keane common stock (the Share Issuance Proposal). On July 31, 2019, the members of Keane's board of directors were named as defendants in a stockholder class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by one of Keane's stockholders. The suit is captioned Woods v. Batzer, et al., C.A. No. 2019-590-JRS. The complaint alleged that Keane's directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and/or disclosure by failing to disclose to Keane stockholders all material information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. After the complaint was filed, while maintaining that no supplemental disclosures were required under applicable laws, Keane made additional disclosures concerning the Proposed Transaction in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on October 11, 2019, to moot the claims asserted in the Woods action. On October 21, 2019, the Court approved a notice under which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to himself only, but without prejudice as to any other putative class member. The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the Form 8-K filed on October 11, 2019. On October 31, 2019, Keane and C&J completed the Proposed Transaction, and immediately thereafter Keane changed its name to NexTier Oilfield Solutions Inc. NexTier subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the action. The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness. Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities. Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Houston, Texas. NORTHERN DYNASTY: Faces Securities Class Actions in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex DeMarban, writing for Anchorage Daily News, reports that the company behind the controversial Pebble copper and gold mining proposal in Southwest Alaska faces lawsuits from investors claiming it misled shareholders, contributing to plunging stock values since this summer. Two lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in New York in December assert that Northern Dynasty Minerals violated federal securities laws when Pebble executives did not fully and accurately provide information about the project. Northern Dynasty's stock price has plunged 85% since the summer. Developer Pebble Limited Partnership and parent company Northern Dynasty have for years sought to build the mine about 200 miles southwest of Anchorage. The proposal drew fierce pushback because it would be built near the headwaters of the valuable Bristol Bay salmon fishery. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late November denied Pebble's effort to win a permit, causing Northern Dynasty stocks to lose half their value that day alone. Pebble says it is appealing that decision. The lawsuits are an additional challenge for a company that has seen its fortunes plunge this year, including after two executives were caught discussing the project in secretly recorded videos that were released by an environmental group in September. The mine was also condemned by both of Alaska's Republican senators. A lawsuit filed Dec. 4 features McCarthy Lodge co-owner Neil Darish as the lead plaintiff. Like the second lawsuit filed in mid-December, it accuses Pebble officials of making "materially false and misleading statements." It also says they failed to disclose, among other things, that the project was not in line with federal law and that the company planned a much larger project than proposed. Sean Magee, with Northern Dynasty, said the company could not comment on the lawsuits. Pebble has called the Corps' permit rejection "political," and said the agency had previously found that the mine could safely coexist with the fishery. Northern Dynasty has said it has no formal, defined plans for Pebble beyond the 20-year plan submitted to the Corps for approval. Additional development beyond the submitted plan, the company has said, would require new state and federal reviews. Northern Dynasty's stock on Dec. 30 sold for 33 cents a share. It sold for $2.23 in late July. In an interview on Dec. 30, Darish said he bought Northern Dynasty stock starting in 2017, with the hope that the project could be built without putting salmon at risk while still bringing economic benefits to Alaska. But in September, Northern Dynasty President Ron Thiessen and now-former Pebble CEO Tom Collier were caught in the secretly recorded videos making statements that top Alaska politicians have said are false. They described a vision for the mine that was much broader than the 20-year project the company has applied for. Darish said Collier lost his credibility. Collier's statements harmed communities and people that could have benefited from the project, Darish said. Darish said he lost more than $10,000 because of his Pebble investment. He said he agreed to be named in the lawsuit to "shine a light on the truth." "I'm seeing contradictions (from Pebble) and I can also see that Pebble made big giant mistakes," he said. [GN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Dynasty" or "the Company") (NYSE:NAK) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated , thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December 21, 2017 and November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before February 2, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/3ndJ1ZO to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, 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. Northern Dynasty's Pebble Project was at odds with the guidelines of the Clean Water Act as well as the public interest. The Company's plan for the Pebble Project was larger in scope and longer in duration than what it conveyed to the public. Due to these facts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would deny the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Northern Dynasty, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com www.schallfirm.com [GN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 30 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. 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=11876&wire=1Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021Class 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. 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=11876&wire=1Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021Class 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. Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=11876&wire=1Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021Class Period: March 28, 2019 - December 9, 2020 Allegations against QIWI include 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. 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 BroadwaySuite 304New York, NY 10002Tel. 212.425.1140Fax. 866.699.3880E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] ONEKIND.25 INC: Conner Asserts Breach of ADA -------------------------------------------- Onekind.25, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Onekind.25, Inc. doing business as: Cocokind, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06298 (E.D. N.Y., Dec. 29, 2020). Onekind.25 LLC is located in Bloomfield Hills, MI, United States and is part of the Food Wholesalers Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com ORACLE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Oracle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2020, for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit, is pending. On August 10, 2018, a putative class action, brought by an alleged stockholder of Oracle, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, its Chief Technology Officer, its then-two Chief Executive Officers, two other Oracle executives, and one former Oracle executive. As noted above, Mr. Mark Hurd, one of the company's then-two Chief Executive Officers, passed away on October 18, 2019. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants made or are responsible for false and misleading statements regarding Oracle's cloud business. Plaintiff further alleges that the former Oracle executive engaged in insider trading. Plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified declaratory/injunctive relief. On April 19, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On December 17, 2019, the court granted this motion, giving plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint, which plaintiff filed on February 17, 2020. On April 23, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the court held a hearing on this motion on September 24, 2020. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. Oracle said, "We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it." Oracle Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, sells, hosts, and supports application, platform, and infrastructure solutions for information technology (IT) environments worldwide. The company provides services in three layers of the cloud: Software as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. The company was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. ORANGE COUNTY, NC: Class Action Certification Ruling Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of North Carolina recently upheld the class action certification of a group of plaintiffs in Orange County, North Carolina, being represented by Brooks Pierce attorneys Matt Tynan and Bob King. This ruling allows the lawsuit, which could result in millions of dollars in impact fees being returned to residential developers and individuals, to proceed as a class action on behalf of all people similarly situated. At issue in the lawsuit, Zander v. Orange County, are fees charged to individuals and builders who constructed new residences in Orange County between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2016. During that time, the County charged a purported "school impact fee" for all new residential construction, with fees as high as $11,423 for a single family home. The named plaintiffs in the suit bought a property in Chapel Hill to build a home for themselves, with a construction budget of about $200,000. The school impact fee ended up costing them more than 5 percent of their total construction budget. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Orange County and Chapel Hill, challenging the legality of the fees on behalf of themselves and other individuals and developers who built homes in Orange County while the fees were in place. The lawsuit argues that, while state law may have allowed the imposition of impact fees, the fees charged by the defendants were unlawful. Plaintiffs also contend that an Orange County ordinance requires the County to refund certain portions of the fees collected. To have the case certified as a class action, Brooks Pierce had to show that numerous parties who paid the fees possessed common issues of law or fact that predominated over individual issues. Shortly after the Superior Court Order certifying the class action was entered in August 2018, the defendants filed a notice of appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court contending that the classes could not be certified because certain statutes of limitations had run and therefore many class members could not recover. In an Opinion issued on Dec. 18, 2020, the Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The case will now return to the trial court for a determination of liability and the amount of damages suffered by class members. Additional information regarding the case can be found at www.brookspierce.com/impactfeeclassaction. [GN] PEPPER & PEACH: Brown et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Tip Skimming ---------------------------------------------------------------- DELVAKIO BROWN, CAMERON WALLS, BRIANNA EDWARD, and TYLER GRANT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEPPER & PEACH, LLC, JUAN EDGERTON, and TAMI LENORE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01092 (M.D. Tenn., December 21, 2020) bring this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants for their alleged illegal pay practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid employees, allege that the Defendants kept a portion of tips earned by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers through cash transactions from the Defendants' customers and kept all tips they earned through electronic transactions, including credit card and debit card transactions. Additionally, the Defendants regularly failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers for all the hours they worked, including their work in November 2020 and early December 2020. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay them the full minimum and overtime wage for all time they worked. The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA. Pepper & Peach, LLC operates Pepper + Peach Hot Chicken restaurants and Peach Cobbler Factory stores in Davidson and Rutherford Counties in Tennessee. The Individuals Defendants are owners of the Corporate Defendant who are responsible for its employment decisions and for all its day-to-day operations. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union St., Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3792 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com PINTEREST INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of January 21 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Dec. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinterest, Inc. ("Pinterest" or the "Company") (NYSE: PINS) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Pinterest between May 16, 2019 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Pinterest investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Pinterest made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its maximum capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (iii) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue; (iv) and as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. On October 31, 2019, the Company announced its financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2019. The Company reported disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in the U.S. MAUs year over year, reaching 87 million, only 8 million more than the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also missed its consensus projections and reported lower than expected U.S. advertising revenue. The Company only marginally increased its full year 2019 guidance, implying further deceleration in the future quarters. On this news, the price of the Company's shares steeply declined by 17%, to close at $20.86 on November 1, 2019. In addition, a derivative action was filed against certain officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty and asserting other claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding these matters, 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. The deadline for investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Pinterest pursuant to the Offering and/or during the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit is January 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] POWER & ENERGY: Faces Peters Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- LONNIE PETERS, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWER & ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00473-NT (D. Maine, December 21, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maine Payment Wage Law, and the Maine Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff, who worked as a Commissioning Engineer for the Defendants from approximately June 2019 until August 2019, brings this complaint to challenge the Defendant's alleged misclassification of its employees as exempt from overtime. The Plaintiff asserts that he routinely worked over 70 hours in a given week as reflected and recorded in the Defendant's pay and time records. But, instead of receiving overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, the Defendant paid him "straight time" pay for overtime hours worked. Power & Energy Systems, Inc. provides technical support to power generation companies, including project management, engineering, and construction/start-up services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq. SOLIDARITY LAW, PLLC 9 Longmeadow Rd. Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110 Tel: (207) 844-4243 E-mail: Jyoung@solidarity.law - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PRESSED JUICERY: Faces Tunkett Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON TUNKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRESSED JUICERY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09287 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2020) is a class action on behalf of hourly workers employed by the Defendant for wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay its non-exempt hourly employees at the correct overtime rate when they worked greater than eight hours in one day or 40 hours in one week and failed to provide for meal and rest breaks. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly employee store manager, selling cold-pressed juices and vegan and dairy-free foods at Defendant's retail stores. Pressed Juicery is a company that provides cold-pressed juices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 480 S. Ellsworth Ave. San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com PROTEOSTASIS THERAPEUTICS: Facing Aniello Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on December 9, 2020, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Aniello v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08578. On August 22, 2020, Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. (PTI), Yumanity Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Yumanity Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (Holdings) and Pangolin Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of PTI, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as amended. Following the announcement of the proposed Merger and as of the filing of these Supplemental Disclosures, nine lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of the Company challenging the proposed Merger. The first lawsuit, brought as a putative class action, is captioned Aniello v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08578 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 14, 2020). The remaining lawsuits, brought by the plaintiffs individually, are captioned Culver v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08595 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 15, 2020); Donolo v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-01400 (D. Del. filed Oct. 16, 2020); Straube v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08653 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 16, 2020); Beck v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08783 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 21, 2020); Dreyer v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-05193 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 28, 2020); Kopkin v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-12103 (D. Mass. filed Nov. 23, 2020); Merritt v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-10275 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 6, 2020); and Koh v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-10296 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 7, 2020). The complaints name the Company and the Company's board of directors as defendants. The Aniello complaint names Yumanity as an additional defendant. The Donolo complaint names Yumanity and Merger Sub as additional defendants. While the Company believes that the disclosures set forth in the Definitive Proxy Statement comply fully with all applicable law and denies the allegations in the pending actions described above, in order to moot plaintiffs' disclosure claims, avoid nuisance and possible expense and business delays, and provide additional information to its stockholders, the Company has determined voluntarily to supplement certain disclosures in the Definitive Proxy Statement related to plaintiffs' claims with the supplemental disclosures. Nothing in the Supplemental Disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal merit, necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. On the contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations in the complaints described above that any additional disclosure was or is required or material. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/34TRUkD. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., is an innovative biopharmaceutical company committed to the discovery and development of novel therapeutics that treat diseases caused by an imbalance in the proteostasis network, a set of pathways that control protein biosynthesis, folding, trafficking and clearance. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Tosses Amended Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Master File No. 2:19-cv-20839-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.), Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Prudential is a large and well-established company engaged in the sale of insurance and in the provision of other financial products and services, in the United States and internationally. Consistent with the nature of life insurance contracts, Prudential collects premiums from policyholders and, in return, assumes an obligation to make a payment to the policy beneficiaries upon the death of the insured policyholder. The Amended Complaint recognizes that life insurance policies are long-duration contracts. The securities fraud action seeks to recover losses allegedly sustained as a result of an insurance company's failure to speak truthfully about the insufficiency of policy reserves. According to the Amended Complaint, the market reacted poorly and drastically to the news of the second quarter reserve charges and related negative news. It avers that Prudential's stock price decline more than 10%, from a close of $101.31 per share on July 31, 2019, to a close of $91.09 per share on Aug. 1, 2019, on massive, abnormally high volume of over than 7.6 million shares traded. Lead Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System brings the putative class action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Prudential Financial, Inc. between Feb. 15, 2019, and Aug. 2, 2019, inclusive. The Amended Complaint asserts two causes of action: (1) a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) a control person claim pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In brief, the Plaintiff contends that Prudential disregarded indications that certain policies in its life insurance business presented an increased mortality risk, which required that additional funds be set aside, or reserved, to cover the risk. It alleges that, in spite of its awareness of the negative mortality information, and contrary to the assurances provided to investors, Prudential failed, during the Class Period, to update mortality estimates and actuarial assumptions and to take what the Plaintiff contends would have been a corresponding increase in reserves. The claimed securities fraud violation consists of allegedly misleading statements about the adequacy of reserves, the method for setting and updating reserves, and the overall strength of Prudential's earnings and income. Presently before the Court is the motion filed by Defendant Prudential and individual co-Defendants Charles Lowrey, Kenneth Y. Tanji, and Robert M. Falzon to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff has opposed the Motion. The Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the Rule 10b-5 claim on several grounds. Among other deficiencies, they argue, the Amended Complaint fails to set forth particularized facts indicating why the alleged actionable statements and omissions were misleading. They further argue that the Rule 10b-5 claim fails for two additional reasons: failure to plead scienter with the requisite particularity and failure to plead loss causation. Judge Chesler has divided the claims into two groups: statements allegedly misrepresenting the adequacy of reserves and statements allegedly misrepresenting facts related to the process for setting and updating reserves. Judge Chesler opines that the Amended Complaint as a whole rests on a shaky and ultimately unsound foundation. It leaps from repots of two quarters of adverse mortality experience in certain life insurance policies to the claim that the Defendants knowingly understated the company's reserves. Missing, however, are facts which plausibly connect the Hartford block's allegedly poor performance beginning in July 2018 and some known deficiency in reserves or even a detected need to update assumptions sooner than the 2019 annual review process. Also missing are any facts indicating that, from mid-February 2019 through July 2019, the Defendants knew or disregarded that the reserves were insufficient. In 2013, Prudential expanded its Individual Life business by acquiring 700,000 insurance policies, with a collective face amount of $141 billion, which had been issued by another insurance company known as The Hartford. (Hereinafter, the Court will refer to these acquired policies as the "Hartford block.") The quality of the Hartford block, and in particular its purportedly insufficient underwriting, forms the bedrock of Plaintiff's claim that Defendants misled investors about the soundness of its Individual Life reserves and related matters. Plaintiff bases its allegations concerning the overall weakness of the Hartford block mainly on information provided by three former employees of Prudential, identified in the Amended Complaint as FE1, FE2, and FE3. Even assuming the well-pleaded facts of the Amended Complaint are true, and one line of insurance policies experienced greater-than-expected policyholder deaths, there is simply no plausible demonstration that the Defendants made misleading statements about reserves during the Class Period, Judge Chesler writes. At most, and drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, it appears that Prudential may have incorrectly predicted the reserves needed to meet its future obligations in the Individual Life business. An error does not, however, constitute fraud, and as previously noted, clairvoyance as to future developments--in the case, the reserve charge taken as a result of the 2019 annual assumptions review--is not the standard applied to securities fraud actions. For these reasons, Judge Chesler granted the Defendants' motion and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Moreover, because there is no indication that the Plaintiff could allege facts curing the deficiencies in the Amended Complaint, leave to further amend is not be granted. An appropriate Order will be filed. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb4s5xaa from Leagle.com. PRUITHEALTH INC: Underpays Health Care Workers, Coley Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TAKISHA COLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRUITHEALTH, INC., PRUITHEALTH - FRANKLIN, LLC, and PRUITHEALTH - AUSTELL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05198-ELR (N.D. Ga., December 23, 2020) arises from the Defendants alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid health aide from approximately December 2017 through September 2019 in the Defendant's Austell, Georgia nursing rehabilitation center. The Plaintiff asserts that she and other similarly situated hourly-paid health workers regularly worked "off the clock", but were not compensated by the Defendant because the Defendant did not allow them to "clock in" when they are working during overtime hours. In addition, the Defendant allegedly altered its employees' time records to reduce their recorded hours in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid health care workers were not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. The Corporate Defendants operate nursing and rehabilitation centers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Orlando, Esq. THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C. 315 West Ponce De Leon Ave, Suite 400 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: (973) 898-0404 E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com - and – Lotus Cannon, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com RAINBOW USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, James Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- DARRENIA JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAINBOW USA, INC., dba New York Rainbow USA Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11714 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 29, 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 James was employed by the Defendants as staff. Rainbow USA, Inc. owns and operates a chain of apparel stores. The Company retails dresses, tops, sweaters, blazers, jackets and coat, jeans, skirts, pants, leggings, shorts, lingerie, shoes, hosiery, jewelry, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Kristabel Sandoval, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com RCI HOSPITALITY: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 14, 2020, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841, is pending. In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various alleged transactions by the Company and management. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall); and Grossman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall). The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to consolidate the purported class actions. On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating the Hoffman, Grossman, and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The consolidated case is styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841. On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition to naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall, the amended complaint also adds director Nourdean Anakar and former director Steven Jenkins as defendants. On April 24, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. RCI said, "As of December 12, 2020, briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete, and we are currently waiting for the court to rule on the motion. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. This action is in its preliminary phase, and a potential loss cannot yet be estimated." RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States. The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media and websites related to their operations. The company is based in Houston, Texas. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR) ("Restaurant Brands") investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Restaurant Brands on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands common stock between April 29, 2019, and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands common stock during the Class Period may, no later than February 19, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please click https://www.ktmc.com/restaurant-brands-international-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=restaurant_brands. Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation and headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is one of the world's largest restaurant chains with over 27,000 Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories. On April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced a new strategy designed to improve performance within its Tim Hortons brand. Specifically, the "Winning Together Plan" would focus on three key pillars: restaurant experience; product excellence; and brand communications. Then, on March 20, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced "Tims Rewards" - a new loyalty program for Tim Hortons customers in Canada. Under the Tims Rewards program, customers would be eligible for a free hot brewed coffee, hot tea, or baked good after every seventh paid visit to a participating Tim Hortons restaurant. On April 10, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced that it was expanding the Tims Rewards program to include customers in the United States. The Class Period commences on April 29, 2019, when Restaurant Brands filed its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2019 with the SEC. Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported 0.5% system-wide year-over-year sales growth for Tim Hortons on system-wide sales of $1.547 billion. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants repeatedly touted the implementation and execution of Restaurant Brands' Winning Together Plan and Tims Rewards loyalty program. On the heels of Restaurant Brands touting the benefits of these initiatives, the company completed two stock offerings on or about August 12, 2019, and September 5, 2019, collectively resulting in proceeds of approximately $3 billion to insiders. However, on October 29, 2019, the truth about Restaurant Brands' execution of its Winning Together Plan and Tims Rewards loyalty program was revealed when the company announced disappointing financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2019. Among other things, Restaurant Brands reported a 0.1% system-wide year-over-year sales decline for Tim Hortons -- representing a 1.4% same-store sales decline -- on system-wide sales of $1.774 billion. Following this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock declined $2.59 per share, or approximately 4%, from a close of $68.45 per share on October 25, 2019, to close at $64.86 per share on October 28, 2019. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Restaurant Brands' Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about Restaurant Brands' business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. Restaurant Brands investors may, no later than February 19, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com [GN] RESTAURANT BRANDS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on Dec. 31 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in QSR: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11870&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Restaurant Brands International Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders have until February 19, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the QSR 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] RESTAURANT BRANDS: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Dec. 31 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=11868&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. Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11868&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021 Class Period: April 29, 2019 - October 28, 2019 Allegations against QSR include that: (1) the Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:TRIT) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/triterras-inc-f-k-a-netfin-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=11868&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021 Class Period: August 20, 2020 - December 16, 2020 Allegations against TRIT include that: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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] RNT TAVERN: Maystrenko Alleges Discrimination at Ladies Bar Events ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALEX MAYSTRENKO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RNT TAVERN, INC., individually and dba CAMEL'S BREATH INN, TANYA ARMAS, STELLA BENTON, WILD PAUL, INC. and DOES 1-50, Case No. 37-2020-00047469-CU-CR-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Dec. 23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence and violations of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 and the Business & Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated several of California's anti-discrimination statutes by advertising, promoting, and hosting discriminatory "Ladies Night" events at Defendant Camel's Breath bar during which females only were offered and/or provided discounts on alcoholic beverages, while male and non-binary persons were not offered the and/or provided the same full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services, solely on the basis of sex and/or gender identity. The disparate, sex-based treatment occurred in relation to multiple events during 2018 and 2019. RNT Tavern, Inc. is doing business as Camel's Breath Inn situated in the County of San Diego, State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL J. WILLIAMS 3990 Old Town Ave., Ste. 202-A San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 259-0285 Facsimile: (619) 923-3253 E-mail: djw2esq@gmail.com SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Consolidate Duplicative Suits Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the motion to consolidated all duplicative cases into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before the judge presiding over the Oklahoma case, has been granted On January 27, 2017, Sanderson and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and our subsidiaries and another poultry producer. The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support thereof. That motion was denied. On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and briefing was completed on September 4, 2018. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On January 6, 2020, the Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2020, plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case moved for leave to amend their complaint. The Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 21, 2020. The Oklahoma case is ongoing. On May 27, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina under the first-to-file rule. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 17, 2020, and the Company filed its reply on July 1, 2020. The motion is fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision. On September 18, 2020, another named grower plaintiff filed another duplicate class action in the District Court of Kansas against the same defendants as the Colorado action. On October 13, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the first-to-file doctrine because it is substantively identical to the earlier-filed cases pending in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Colorado. Briefing on that motion was completed on December 15, 2020. On October 8, 2020, new named grower plaintiffs filed another duplicate class action in the Northern District of California against the same defendants as the Colorado and Kansas actions. The Company waived service of the Complaint on December 11, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the District Court of Kansas stayed proceedings in that action (other than those related to the first-to-file motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the MDL consolidation motion discussed below. On November 12, 2020, the District Court of Colorado stayed proceeding in that action (other than those related to the first-to-file motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the MDL consolidation motion discussed below. On October 6, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Oklahoma action moved to consolidate all of these duplicative cases into a MDL before the judge presiding over the Oklahoma case. Briefing on that motion was completed on November 6, 2020, and oral argument on the motion occurred on December 3, 2020. On December 15, 2020, the panel ordered that all actions be consolidated in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pretrial proceedings. Given the panel's ruling on consolidation, the Company does not expect rulings on the first-to-file motions in the various actions described above. Sanderson said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Toss Maryland Putative Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated putative class action suit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland remains pending. On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc. ("WMS), were named in a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Three other nearly identical putative class action complaints, each seeking to represent the same putative class, also were filed. The complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present. The plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways: (1) attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida; (2) receiving Agri Stats reports, as well as surveys taken and published by WMS; and (3) directly exchanging wage and benefits information with plant managers at other defendant broiler producers. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated complaint on or before November 14, 2019. Defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed on November 22, 2019. Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or before February 28, 2020; however, after the defendants filed their motions to dismiss, on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified defendants that they intended to file an amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 20, 2019. Plaintiffs name as defendants Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as ten other broiler chicken producers and their affiliates; three turkey producers and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and WMS. Plaintiffs bring their amended consolidated complaint on behalf of employees at broiler chicken and turkey processing plants and allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them. On January 9, 2020 and January 27, 2020, the court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two of the three nearly identical putative class action lawsuits. On March 12, 2020, the Court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the third nearly identical putative class action lawsuit. On March 2, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The Company also filed an individual motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the Company. Plaintiffs' oppositions were originally due on April 24, 2020 and defendants' replies were due on May 21, 2020. However, on March 20, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Second Amended Standing Order 2020-02, extending all filing deadlines set to fall between March 16, 2020 and April 24, 2020 by 42 days. On April 10, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order 2020-07, extending all filing deadlines set to fall between March 16, 2020 and June 5, 2020 by 84 days. On May 22, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order 2020-11, which affirmed the prior Order's 84-day extension but did not extend deadlines further. Pursuant to Standing Order 2020-07, plaintiffs' filed their omnibus opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on July 17, 2020. Defendants filed replies on August 13, 2020. On September 16, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants motion without prejudice, finding that plaintiffs' allegations against certain defendant corporate families, including the Company, were deficient. On October 16, 2020, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants must answer or move to dismiss the second amended complaint by December 18, 2020. Briefing on motions to dismiss the second amended complaint will be complete by February 25, 2021. No discovery has taken place to date. Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Litigation Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend the class action lawsuit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. As detailed below, the Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding captioned In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats, Inc. On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint. Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats, Inc. On August 6, 2020, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. The Court granted the end-user consumer plaintiffs' motion on September 22, 2020 and deemed the version of the complaint filed on August 7, 2020 operative on October 19, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their seventh amended complaint. Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in CA Consumer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the consumer class action suit in California. On October 11, 2019, three named plaintiffs (Daniel Lentz, Pam La Fosse, and Marybeth Norman) filed, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a nationwide class action against the Company on behalf of a putative class of all individuals and businesses throughout the United States who purchased one or more of the Company's chicken products in the prior four years. The lawsuit alleges that the named plaintiffs and other class members purchased the Company's chicken products based on misleading representations in the Company's advertising. Specifically, the plaintiffs, in this case, allege that the Company's advertising (including, but not limited to, on its website, television commercials, radio advertisements, social media, print magazines, billboards, and trucks) misleads consumers into believing that (i) the Company's chickens were not given antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals, (ii) the chickens were raised in a "natural" environment, (iii) there is no evidence that the use of antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) the Company's chicken products do not contain antibiotic or pharmaceutical residues. Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Company "routinely" feeds antibiotics and pharmaceuticals to its chickens, (ii) the Company raises its chickens indoors in "unnatural" indoor conditions amounting to "intensive confinement" and without natural light (iii) there is "extensive" reliable evidence that the use of antibiotics in poultry contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) the Company's chickens have been found to contain antibiotic and pharmaceutical residue. The original Complaint asserted five causes of action under California and North Carolina law. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief directing the Company to correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws nationwide. The plaintiffs also sought monetary damages, as well as fees and costs. On December 20, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On February 10, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part, denied it in part, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint. On March 23, 2020, two of the three original plaintiffs (Pam La Fosse and Marybeth Norman) filed a First Amended Complaint in which they were joined by five additional named plaintiffs purporting to assert claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers and businesses who purchased the Company's chicken products in the prior four years. The core allegations and theories set forth in the First Amended Complaint are the same as in the original complaint. The First Amended Complaint asserted one cause of action under federal law and sixteen causes of action under the laws of various states. The plaintiffs again sought injunctive relief directing the Company to correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws nationwide, as well as monetary damages, fees and costs. On May 6, 2020, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which the Court granted on July 2, 2020 with leave to amend. On July 23, 2020, plaintiffs Pam La Fosse and Sharon Manier filed a Second Amended Complaint on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased the Company's chicken in California in the prior four years. Like the earlier iterations of the complaint, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that the remaining plaintiffs and other class members purchased the Company's chicken products based on misleading representations in the Company's advertising, including for the reasons set forth in their prior complaints. The plaintiffs again seek injunctive relief, monetary damages, fees and costs. On August 6, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in part, requesting dismissal of plaintiffs' new implied warranty of merchantability claim. On August 20, 2020, plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to withdraw their new implied warranty claim. Discovery commenced in October 2020. Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SARGENTO FOODS: Phan Sues Over Mislabeled Dairy Cheese Products --------------------------------------------------------------- QUYNH PHAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SARGENTO FOODS INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-09251 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2020) is a class action complaint for equitable relief and damages against the Defendant regarding the deceptive labeling, marketing, and sale of its dairy cheese products with the claim "No Antibiotics." Contrary to representations on the products' labeling and advertising, consumers, including the Plaintiff, received products that are made with milk from cows allegedly raised with antibiotics and products that themselves sometimes still contained those antibiotics. Sargento Foods Inc. produces, packs, and markets cheese products offering mozzarella, cheddar, parmesan, provolone, jarlsberg, ricotta, and monterey jack cheese. Sargento Foods operates in the State of Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jaimie Mak, Esq. Kim Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW AND POLICY 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (718) 705-4579 Facsimile: (718) 228-8522 E-mail: jmak@richmanlawgroup.com krichman@richmanlawgroup.com SCRANTON SEWER: Gets Closer to Dissolving After Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- thetimes-tribune.com reports that four years after selling the Scranton sewer system, the skeleton Scranton Sewer Authority continues to operate in 2021 because it still has some unfinished matters to complete, officials said. When the authority will end remains unknown, but resolving outstanding items brings the agency closer to finally dissolving. The SSA closed the $195 million sale of the Scranton/Dunmore sewer system to Pennsylvania American Water on Dec. 29, 2016. In developing the sale, the SSA discovered that about 600 easements inexplicably were never secured many decades earlier. The authority offered affected homeowners a choice of $100 per easement or facing condemnations. Some residents who had no idea sewer lines ran under their properties saw $100 as a pittance for properties they now viewed as greatly devalued. They filed the class-action lawsuit in early November 2016. The class-action suit remained the authority's biggest outstanding issue, and resolving it consumed much of the past four years. The suit finally ended last month, when Lackawanna County Senior Judge Robert Mazzoni on Dec. 11 approved a $7 million settlement between the authority and most of the 600 affected property owners. About three dozen property owners opted out of the settlement, and the authority now has to negotiate with, and secure easements from, those owners, SSA solicitor Jason Shrive said. "We have opt-outs that we have to work through, so we're going to be dealing with that," Shrive said during a SSA special meeting on Dec. 18. Executing facets of the settlement also remains underway. "We continue to work with plaintiffs' attorneys and water company counsel to finalize all of the provisions of the settlement," Shrive said. "We still have to work through the finalization of the settlement for the class members." To that end, the SSA held the special meeting to take various actions following court approval of the settlement. Actions included authorizing the disbursement of funds, transfer of money, payments of bills and indemnity expenses, and resolving indemnity legal language. SSA Chairman Michael Parker, member Kevin Whelan of Scranton and member Beth McDonald Zangardi of Dunmore approved several motions related to carrying out the settlement. The board also approved a motion to adopt an audit of the 2019 fiscal year. Meanwhile, the authority has some other pending litigations to resolve, and also continues to work with the water company on various sewer lien issues, Shrive said. [GN] SOCIAL RESTAURANT: Connery-Thomas Suit Alleges Tip Skimming ----------------------------------------------------------- KELLY CONNERY-THOMAS; EWA PINKOWSKA; KRISTINA HUDSON; LEAH MEBRAHTU; and MICHELE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOCIAL RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC t/a PROVISION NO. 14, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03851 (D.D.C., Dec. 30, 2020) alleges that the Defendant deprived the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees of earned minimum wages throughout their employment by unlawfully availing themselves of a tip credit and paying tipped employees subminimum wages. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as bartenders. Social Restaurant Group, LLC t/a Provision No. 14 owns and operates as a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 335 18th Pl. NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 744-1407 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com -and- Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com -and- Frank Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 E-mail: fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com SPEEDY CASH: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Delisle Consumer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Speedy Cash filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CINDY DELISLE and ROBERT DOUGHERTY, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPEEDY CASH, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02042-GPC-RBB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Speedy Cash offers loans through its physical stores, as well as through online loan portals. Plaintiffs Cindy Delisle and Robert Dougherty (Plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint alleging a putative class action against Defendant Speedy Cash on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated. The Plaintiffs assert claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Speedy Cash seeks a review of the court's order denying motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings upon remand. The appellate case is captioned as Cindy Delisle, et al v. Speedy Cash, Case No. 20-56356, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 21, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Speedy Cash Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 28, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 20, 2021; -- Transcript is due on February 19, 2021; -- Appellant Speedy Cash opening brief is due on March 31, 2021; -- Appellees Cindy Delisle and Robert Dougherty answering brief is due on April 30, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CINDY DELISLE and ROBERT DOUGHERTY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Nicholas Ryan Barthel, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com - and - Jason Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com - and - Ahren A. Tiller, Esq. BLC LAW CENTER, APC 1230 Columbia St., Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 894-8831 E-mail: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com Defendant-Appellant SPEEDY CASH is represented by: Wynter L. Deagle, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 509-6073 E-mail: wynter.deagle@troutman.com SPLUNK INC: Facing Putative Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------ Splunk Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the company is facing a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed on December 4, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, its CEO and its CFO. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial guidance. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 21, 2020 to December 2, 2020. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Splunk Inc. provides innovative software solutions that ingest data from different sources including systems, devices and interactions, and turn that data into meaningful business insights across the organization. The company is based in San Francisco, California. SPLUNK INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in SPLK: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/splunk-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11865&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that 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. Shareholders have until February 2, 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 SPLK 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] STOCKX INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Data Security Breach Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re StockX Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 19-12441 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted StockX's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. Eight individuals bring the putative class action against StockX seeking to represent a nationwide class and several subclasses of individuals who allegedly have been harmed by StockX's failure to protect their confidential and personal information from a data breach. StockX is an e-commerce platform where users can purchase and sell luxury goods, fashion clothing, rare sneakers, and accessories. The eight named Plaintiffs are registered users of StockX: (1) Kansas resident I.C., a minor by and through his natural parent, Nasim Chaudhri; (2) New Jersey resident M.S., a minor by and through his natural parent, Shuli Shakarchi; (3) Kansas resident Adam Foote; (4) New York resident Anthony Giampetro; (5) Georgia resident Kwadwo Kissi; (6) New York resident Richard Harrington; (7) Florida resident Johnny Sacasas; and (8) California resident Chad Bolling. To create a StockX account, each Plaintiff had to complete the registration process, which involved manually and affirmatively checking a box indicating that he agreed to the then-current version of the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. All the Plaintiffs created their StockX account in 2016 or later. Since Nov. 10, 2015, StockX has revised its Terms twice--on Oct. 17, 2017 and Oct. 9, 2018. Because all the eight Plaintiffs agreed to the Current Terms, they are the relevant version of the Terms governing the dispute. StockX's Current Terms--like earlier versions of its Terms--contain a mandatory arbitration provision which provides that any and all disputes or claims that arise between StockX users and StockX must be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration. Unlike earlier versions of StockX's Terms, the Current Terms also contain a delegation provision that delegates the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The action arises from a data breach to StockX's system which occurred sometime in May 2019. The Plaintiffs filed the action and three other similar actions in 2019 and early 2020. In March 2020, the Court entered a stipulated order consolidating the cases. The Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in May 2020. The Plaintiffs say StockX sent an email to its users on Aug.t 1, 2019 requiring a password reset because it had completed "system updates." They allege that in reality, StockX suffered a data breach with more than 6.8 million user accounts stolen by a cyber thief, who listed the data for sale on the "Dark Web," where the data was then sold multiple times and later re-listed on other underground hacker forums. They allege that some Plaintiffs began to suffer identity theft and other fraudulent activities shortly after the breach. The Plaintiffs bring their claims on behalf of a nationwide class and several subclasses of individuals who allegedly have been harmed by StockX's failure to protect their confidential and personal information and by StockX's deceptive statements relating to the data breach. StockX moves to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. Judge Roberts holds that there is "clear and unmistakable" evidence that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability. She finds that the Plaintiffs' infancy defense is a question of arbitrability reserved for the arbitrator. StockX has also demonstrated that the matter should be referred to arbitration, and the Plaintiffs fail to show that StockX's motion to compel arbitration should not be granted. For these reason, StockX's motion to dismiss is granted in part and moot in part. The Judge granted StockX's motion to compel arbitration; its other arguments for dismissal are moot. The Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycuv3do7 from Leagle.com. STRATEGIC SECURITY: Hinojosa Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LAURO HINOJOSA, and JACQUELINE FUENTES, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STRATEGIC SECURITY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00315 (W.D. Tex., December 23, 2020) bring this collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay scheme that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as security guards, claim that the Defendant did not include the health and welfare premium payments when calculating its security guards' regular rate of pay. As a result, they were not accurately paid by the Defendant for their overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. The Plaintiffs seek all unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount of liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, post-judgment interest, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Strategic Security Corporation provides security services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Benoit, Esq. TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 1331 Texas Ave. El Paso, TX 79901 Tel: (915) 585-5118 Fax: (956) 544-3789 E-mail: cbenoit@trla.org - and – Nicole Bucheri, Esq. TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 1206 E. Van Buren Brownsville, TX 78520 Tel: (956) 982-5540 Fax: (956) 541-1410 E-mail: nbucheri@trla.org STRICKLAND WATERPROOFING: Misclassifies Workers, Farias et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ HECTOR FARIAS, DAVID DE JESUS, OSMELY PEROZO-FERREIRA, and ANTONIO LUNA, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STRICKLAND WATERPROOFING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00076-NKM (W.D. Va., December 22, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Law, and the Virginia Misclassification Law. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as construction workers, claim that although they were non-exempt from overtime because they performed work for the Defendant within the usual course of the Defendant's business, and were not engaged in work that is customarily an independently established trade, the Defendant required them and other similarly situated construction workers to sign a document agreeing to be treated as independent contractors. Despite they frequently work more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate required by law. Moreover, the Defendant violated Virginia laws for illegally deducting the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated construction workers' wages that were not for payroll, wage, or withholding taxes, and required them to sign a document forfeiting their wages. Strickland Waterproofing Company offers waterproofing services on construction projects in Virginia and other states. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Nadas, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 777 6th Street, NW - Eleventh Floor Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 899-2991 E-mail: rnadas@hfajustice.com - and – Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N Glebe Rd, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Tel: (703) 665-9529 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com SUBARU CORP: Warranty Claims in Cracked Windshield Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- torquenews.com reports that new information in the Subaru defective windshield lawsuit covers the 2017-2020 Subaru Forester, Outback, Crosstrek, Impreza, Legacy, and 2019-2020 Subaru Ascent models. In November, Torque News reported the defective windshield class-action lawsuit against Subaru of America included 2.5 million vehicles in the U.S. covering the Subaru models listed above. According to records obtained from Justia US Law, a court ruling has also granted in part and denied in part Subaru of America's motion to dismiss. Christine Powell, represented by Attorneys Carlson Lynch, LeVan Law Group, Moon Law APC, and Freed Kanner London & Millen, contends the Subaru models have "defective and dangerous" windshields that are prone to "cracking, chipping and otherwise breaking." Torque News reported in February; the lawsuit added 15 new plaintiffs to the case. In March, Subaru asked the Court to dismiss the case stating the plaintiffs have never owned the model years they say have the same defective windshields. In the new ruling, Judge Noel Hillman will not dismiss the defective windshield lawsuit against Subaru, and the Camden, N.J. automaker's motion for a more definitive statement is denied. But the Court did dismiss some claims against Subaru. The Judge dismissed the plaintiff's breach of express warranty and implied warranty claims. Five breaches of express warranty claims are dismissed because plaintiffs didn't bring their vehicles to Subaru for windshield repairs. Subaru of America says the new car limited warranty "requires the vehicle must be presented to an authorized Subaru retailer for warranty repairs." Also, the N.J. judge dismissed implied warranty claims made by two plaintiffs because the owners weren't in "strict vertical privity" with Subaru. According to the Judge, all Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims are dismissed because jurisdictional requirements demand 100 named plaintiffs be listed on a class action. The number of named plaintiffs on the Subaru class action is far below 100. The Judge also dismissed a claim under the Song-Beverly Act from one plaintiff. What should owners do if they have a cracked windshield for no apparent reason? If you own a 2017-2020 Subaru Forester, Outback, Crosstrek, Impreza, Legacy, or 2019-2020 Subaru Ascent model, you can file a complaint with the NHTSA or call 1-888-327-4236. Stay tuned to Torque News for more Subaru defective windshield lawsuit updates. [GN] SWEET COFFEE: Faces Salamanca Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ DIANA CAROLINA SALAMANCA, WILFREDO GUTIERREZ, and LUIS GUADARRAMA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SWEET COFFEE BAKERY, INC., PARISCIEN BAKERY, CORP., PARISCIEN BAKERY #2, CORP., and ROMIRO MOSQUERA, JONY MOSQUERA, and MICHELLE MOSQUERA, as individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-06223 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and Class members required minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide spread of hours pay, failing to provide a written notice and recordkeeping, and failing to provide wage statements. Plaintiff Salamanca was employed by the Defendants to work as a counter person at Defendant Sweet Coffee Bakery, Inc. located at 297 Wyckoff Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, from in or around January 2015 until in or around July 2020. Plaintiff Gutierrez was employed by the Defendants to work as a cook and a baker from in or around December 2015 until in or around July 2020. Plaintiff Guadarrama was employed by the Defendants to work as a waiter, cleaner, and cook from in or around August 2014 until in or around February 2020. Sweet Coffee Bakery, Inc., Pariscien Bakery, Corp. and Pariscien Bakery #2, Corp. are bakery companies in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 TILLY'S INC: Bid for Class Certification in Ward Suit Junked ------------------------------------------------------------ Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the motion for class certification filed in Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, has been denied. In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against the company and dismissed the complaint. Specifically, the court agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion overturning the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff's allegations stated a claim. In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the Court of Appeal's decision. The California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Since the case was remanded back to the trial court, the parties have been engaged in discovery. In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. In July 2020, the company filed its opposition to the motion for class certification. In September 2020, the plaintiff filed her reply brief in support of the motion for class certification. In October 2020, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do." Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses; and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses, headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. TILLY'S INC: Settlement Talks in Gonzales Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the parties in Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC, have agreed to continue their settlement. Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC. In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action against the company, alleging various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint, denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses. In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") against the company seeking penalties on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration agreement which plaintiff signed with the company's co-defendant, BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at the Company. In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed. The parties mediated the PAGA case with a well-respected mediator in March 2020. Although the case did not settle at the mediation, the parties have agreed to continue their settlement discussions with the assistance of the mediator. The court has not yet issued a trial date. By agreement between co-defendant BaronHR and Tilly's, BaronHR is required to indemnify Tilly's for all of Tilly's losses and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so. We believe that a loss is currently not probable or estimable under Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC 450, "Contingencies," and no accrual has been made with regard to the verdict." Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses; and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses, headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. TOTAL TANK: Misclassifies Oilfield Workers, Barr Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN BARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL TANK SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01460 (W.D. Tex., December 23, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an operator from approximately mid-201 through October 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant improperly classified him and other similarly situated oilfield workers as exempt from the overtime requirements. Although they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours each week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Total Tank Services, LLC is an oilfield company that provides services throughout the U.S., including Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Faces Moore Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE MOORE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07666 (N.D. Ill., December 22, 2020) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed nine calls on the Plaintiff's residential phone line number (630) XXX-1188, which has been continuously registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for more than 10 years, in an attempt to sell him newspaper delivery service by using multiple spoofed caller IDS. The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided his prior express consent to be contacted by the Defendant, and he sent a certified mail letter to the Defendant's CEO Terry Jimenez on October 12, 2020. However, the Defendant ignored the Plaintiff's letter and allegedly refused to respond or engage in such discussions with the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons suffered damages and harmed by being harassed and their privacy has been invaded, the suit says. Tribune Publishing Company is a publicly-traded media company that publishes numerous newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 909 Davis St., Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Tel: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com TRITERRAS INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 19, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Triterras, Inc. ("Triterras" or the "Company") f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. ("Netfin") (NASDAQ: TRIT, TRITW) securities between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Triterras 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/triterras-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. Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance. It operates Kratos, a commodity trading and trade finance platform that connects commodity traders to trade and source capital from lenders directly online. Triterras formed via merger of Netfin and Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd., which closed on November 11, 2020. Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") is a commodity trading business controlled by Srinivas Koneru, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"). Rhodium enabled the launch of the Kratos platform, and substantially all of the Company's users were referred to it by Rhodium. On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated that Rhodium was seeking a moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going concern. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or 31%, to close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's warrant price fell $1.09, or 35%, to close at $2.01 per warrant on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Triterras securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 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. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] TRITERRAS INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 19 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby+McInerney+LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Triterras, Inc. ("Triterras" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TRIT) securities during the period from August 20, 2020 through December 16, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 19, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance. The Company operates Kratos, a commodity trading and trade finance platform that connects commodity traders to trade and source capital from lenders directly online. Triterras formed via merger of Netfin and Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd. ("Triterras Fintech"), which closed on November 11, 2020 (the "Merger"). Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") is a commodity trading business controlled by Srinivas Koneru, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"). Rhodium enabled the launch of the Kratos platform, and substantially all of the Company's users were referred to it by Rhodium. On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated that Rhodium was seeking a moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going concern. On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or approximately 31%, to close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Company's warrant price fell $1.09, or approximately 35%, to close at $2.01 per warrant on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The lawsuit 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) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Triterras securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out the contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby+McInerney+LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer 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 LLP's website: https://www.kmllp.com/. [GN] TWIN RIVER: Ruotolo Sues Over Casino Staff's Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER E. RUOTOLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWIN RIVER WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC. and UTGR, INC. d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO HOTEL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00530-WES-PAS (D.R.I., Dec. 21, 2020) arises from the Defendants failure to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, the mandated federal and/or state minimum wage rate for all hours worked and overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act and the Rhode Island Payment of Wages Act. From approximately August 2015 through the present, Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants at their casino property located in Lincoln, Rhode Island. During her employment, Plaintiff has worked as a payroll clerk/scheduler and table games dealer (both hourly, non-exempt positions). TRWH is a casino entertainment company with principal place of business located in Rhode Island. UTGR's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: V. Edward Formisano, Esq. FORMISANO AND COMPANY, P.C. 100 Midway Place, Suite Cranston, RI 02920 Telephone: (401) 400-4402 Facsimile: (401) 944-9695 E-mail: edf@formisanoandcompany.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com mrahmberg@mceclellandlawfirm.com UNITED NATURAL: North Country Store Suit Concluded -------------------------------------------------- United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the Court granted final approval of the settlement in North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc., and this matter is now closed. In November 2018, a putative nationwide class action was filed in Rhode Island state court, which the Company removed to U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. In North Country Store v. United Natural Foods, Inc., the plaintiff asserts that the Company made false representations about the nature of fuel surcharges charged to customers and asserts claims for alleged violations of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the Company's fuel surcharge practices. On March 5, 2019, the Company answered the complaint denying the allegations. At a court-ordered mediation on October 15, 2019, the Company reached an agreement, which is immaterial in amount, to avoid costs and uncertainty of litigation. On August 10, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the settlement, and this matter is now closed. United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food products in the United States and Canada. The company operates through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. UNITED SHORE: Bhasin Sues Over Breach of Contractual Duties ----------------------------------------------------------- RISHI BHASIN, ANNE JAMES, NELSON OTERO, FIRST PLUS FUNDING, INC., FIRST ALLIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and RELIANCE MORTGAGE SERVICE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNITED SHORE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC (d/b/a UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, "UWM"), Case No. 2:20-cv-13278-LJM-RSW (E.D. Mich., Dec. 11, 2020) is a class action brought by Plaintiffs who are contractually entitled to commissions or charged back commissions for bringing Defendant UWM customers who acquired mortgages after March 18, 2019 but before September 19, 2019 and had not paid off their loans within 180 days of funding. The complaint alleges that UWM breached its contractual duties owed to Plaintiffs by withholding commissions or charged back commissions on the said loans. The Defendant similarly breached its Wholesale Lending Agreement by amending its "Early Payoffs" provision without proper notice and to retroactively apply to loans that had been closed and funded prior to the amendment. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC provides mortgage lending services. The Company offers online financing services and mortgage loans to home purchasers. United Wholesale Mortgage serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-2126 E-mail: tkashima@sommerspc.com - and - Scott Glovsky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT GLOVSKY 343 Harvard Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (626) 243-5598 UNITED STATES: Peltier Alleges Pembina Judgment Fund Mismanagement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leslie Ann Wilkie Peltier, Chrystel Aurora Cornelius, Delvin Cree, Carol Ann Davis, Andrea Laverdure, Roberta Morin Lord, Coreena Joy Patnaude, Barbara Ann Marie Poitra, Larry Joseph Morsette, Jr., William Dallas Wade Sun Child, John Wayne Gilbert, Carol Sue Doney Hofeldt, Leona Kienenberger, Larry James Salois, Dawn Louise Roath, Eunice Mae Bellanger, Wilfred Vernon Dentz, Dorothy Marilyn Gay, Frank Stephen Lhotka, Bernadette Anne Spahr, Regina Ruth Howard, Claire Mae Roath, Charlene Big Knife, Twila Marie Jerome, Toby Lee Lamere, Dale Roger Pesch, Gladys J. Torkelson, Deanna M. Trottier Wirtzberger, Gail Eagleman, Gaile Lynn Torres, Chane Weymer Salois, Maryjo Elizabeth Rust, Lavonne Marie Brown, Shane Michael Brien, Tacey Lynn Foster, Richard Edward Lawson, Peggy Ann Pena, Daniel Boyd Williams, Mikealinda Marae Grant, Annette Marie Charette, Robert S. Decoteau, Lola Greatwalker, Andrew L. Laverdure, Tammy Jean Wilkie Poitra, Lee William Wilkie, Kenneth Zane Blatt St. Marks, Josephine Oats Corcoran, Yvonne Marie Hill, Kathleen Ann Franklin, Deborah Lea Ronneng, Amelia Evette Lafriniere Roy, Joyce Elaine Demarre Stewart, Aaron Vasecka, Andrew Leslie Vasecka, Devi Cole, Peter Fredrick Doney, Debra Josephine Newgard, Marie Louise Nielsen, James Melvin Weigand, Georgi Ann Mitchell, Tammie May Simmons, Tina Marie Taylor, Jeremy John Lee Rindahl, Belinda May Harvill, Edward Timothy Ramsted and, Kathleen Butcher, for and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated V. David Bernhardt, Secretary of the Interior, Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury and the United States of America, Case No. 1:20-cv-03775 (D.D.C., Dec. 21, 2020) is an action to redress breaches of trust by Defendants. The complaint is brought by the Plaintiffs with respect to Defendants' accounting and management of two Judgment Awards of the Indian Claims Commission (ICC), for claims in ICC Docket Numbers 18-A, 113, 191, and 221 brought by the Pembina Band of Chippewa Indians seeking additional compensation for certain lands that the Pembina Band ceded to the United States. The first Judgment Award was in 1964 and the second was in 1980. The 1964 Award and the 1980 Award are known commonly and collectively as the "Pembina Judgment Fund" (PJF). According to the complaint, Defendants have not complied with their specific statutory fiduciary obligations to account for properly and invest prudently the PJF on behalf of PJF beneficiaries. Defendants have failed to account for PJF funds and they have mismanaged PJF funds by failing to invest the funds, failing to invest the funds timely, under-investing the funds, imprudently investing the funds, and otherwise poorly investing or mismanaging the funds. The Defendants are the trustee for the PJF. Plaintiffs belong to more than 38,000 individuals, as determined by Interior, to be beneficiaries of the PJF. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melody L. McCoy, Esq. Kim Jerome Gottschalk, Esq. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND 1506 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (720) 647-9691 (720) 647-9252 Facsimile: (303) 443-7776 E-mail: mmccoy@narf.org UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Ross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JESSIE J. ROSS, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC, d/b/a ALLIED UNIVERSAL and d/b/a ALLIEDUNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-02649-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan., December 22, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against the Defendant for its alleged failure to properly pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked with the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly-paid security shift supervisor from on or about June 20, 2019 until he was terminated on or about December 29, 2019 for complaining about his incorrect wage amount. The Plaintiff asserts that although he routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant failed to pay him the proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay because the Defendant failed to pay him his agreed-upon wage of $14.25 for all his hours worked. The Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff because of his wage complaints by suspending him on or about December 7, 2019, and he was then terminated for the same reason. According to the complaint, the Defendant has breached its employment agreement with the Plaintiff by failing and refusing to properly pay his agreed rate of pay. Universal Protection Service, LLC provide security solution services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg N. Tourigny, Esq. THE TOURIGNY LAW FIRM, LLC 4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 945-2861 E-mail: greg@tourignylaw.com - and – Sophie Woodworth, Esq. HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC 4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 283-8739 E-mail: swoodworth@hslawllc.com USHEALTH ADVISORS: Hirsch Ruling in TCPA Suit to Fifth Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Aaron Hirsch filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled AARON HIRSCH, ET AL., v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 4:18-CV-245, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order denying the Motion for Class Certification, on behalf of: "all natural persons in the United States who, from March 29, 2014 to the date of the Court's Order granting class certification: (a) received more than one telephone solicitation call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of USHealth more than 31 days after registering the landline, wireless, cell or mobile telephone number on which they received those calls with the National Do-Not-Call Registry, or (b) received one or more calls after registering the landline, wireless, cell, or mobile telephone number on which they received the calls with USHealth's Internal Do-Not-Call list." The Court held that, because Hirsch failed to show common questions predominate over questions only affecting individual members, he failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). No amount of additional discovery or further rounds of lengthy motions would change this outcome. Mr. Hirsch brings this case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which prohibits certain telephone solicitations to residential phones after the number is listed on either a national or internal do-not-call list. Hirsch alleges the Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs USHealth Advisors, LLC and USHealth Group, Inc. and their agents, after he listed his number on both do-not-call lists, solicited health insurance to his cell phone. The Defendants deny this allegation and counterclaim that Hirsch fraudulently represented his interest in the Defendants' product's repeatedly inveigling the Defendants' agents to call him -- solely to bring this TCPA claim. Hirsch seeks a review of the said court's order, denying the motion for class certification. The appellate case is captioned as Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors, Case No. 20-90050, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Dec. 21, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that response/opposition is due on December 31, 2020. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner Aaron Hirsch, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jamshyd Michael Zadeh, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JIM ZADEH, P.C. 1555 Rio Grande Avenue Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 335-5100 Defendants-Respondents USHealth Advisors, L.L.C. and USHealth Group, Incorporated are represented by: Jeffrey A. Backman, Esq. GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A. 200 E. Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-0000 Telephone: (954) 761-2597 E-mail: jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com - and - Daniel Lay Bates, Esq. DECKER JONES, P.C. 801 Cherry Street Burnett Plaza Unit 46 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 336-2400 E-mail: dbates@deckerjones.com VERINT SYSTEMS: Bid for Leave to Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2020, that the motion for leave to appeal in the Tel Aviv suit against the company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited, is pending. In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited (VSL) (Case Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate Comverse Technology, Inc. (CTI) (Case Number 1335/09). Also, in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel, commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited (Case Number 3444/09). In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended filing delay period that is discussed in our and CTI's historical public filings. On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate and amend their complaints against the three defendants: VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's shareholders (the Comverse Share Distribution). In the period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties. As a result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the District Court did not rule on this motion. In February 2017, Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc. On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell company in a merger transaction (the CTI Merger). As a result of the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing legal actions. However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement entered into in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution, the company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses the company may suffer in its capacity as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal actions. Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016, the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the merits of the case would be evaluated under New York law. As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff, Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause of action exists under New York law based on the parties' expert opinions. Following two unsuccessful rounds of mediation in mid to late 2018 and in mid-2019, the proceedings resumed. On April 16, 2020, the District Court accepted plaintiffs' application to amend the motion to certify a class action and set deadlines for filing amended pleadings by the parties. CTI submitted a motion to appeal the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court, as well as a motion to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending the resolution of the appeal. On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion for a stay. On July 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their response on the merits of the motion for leave to appeal, and the parties are waiting for further instructions or decisions from the Supreme Court. Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. VERIZON WIRELESS: Langere's Appeal From Voluntary Dismissal Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAMIAN LANGERE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-55747 (9th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismisses Langere's appeal from his own voluntary dismissal. Mr. Langere is a Verizon Wireless customer who purchased the company's extended warranty program for his cellphone. He was unhappy to find out that the Verizon warranty offers similar protections to those already provided by his cellphone's manufacturer for the first year. He, therefore, brought the putative class action against Verizon for the violation of federal and state consumer-protection statutes. Verizon moved to compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings under 9 U.S.C. Section 4. The district court obliged and granted the motion to compel arbitration. It also denied Langere's later motion for reconsideration. Ordinarily, a plaintiff in this position has two choices to appeal: arbitrate the claims to completion and then appeal as of right, see 9 U.S.C. Section 16(a)(1)(3), (b)(1)-(3), or hope that the courts approve an interlocutory appeal. But Langere tried something different. Finding himself in a "procedural bind," Langere voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice, as he was entitled to under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), without leave from the district court. He did so because arbitration was not "economically feasible," and he felt that appealing the arbitration order was his only viable option. He assured the district court that he was not refusing to prosecute his claims, but only refusing to do so in a way that he thought would be futile and uneconomical. Langere then appealed his own voluntary dismissal, and the district court's orders, to the Court. Verizon moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. A motions panel of the Court denied that motion without prejudice to renew during the merits consideration of the case. Verizon so renewed its concern about appellate jurisdiction before the Court. The Court now grants that motion. In Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2010), the Circuit Court previously answered in the affirmative the question on whether a plaintiff can avoid arbitration and manufacture appellate jurisdiction simply by voluntarily dismissing his claims with prejudice after being compelled to arbitrate by court order. But a later decision of the Supreme Court in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017) has forced it to reconsider. After finding that its previous approach is clearly irreconcilable with that it outlined, the Ninth Circuit changes its answer. It opines that Omstead has been effectively overruled by the Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft. A plaintiff does not create appellate jurisdiction by voluntarily dismissing his claims with prejudice after being forced to arbitrate them. The Court explains that class certification and compelling arbitration are not the same. But the ultimate, fundamental question is whether a plaintiff may bypass a regime for discretionary appellate review through a voluntary dismissal. Because the Supreme Court has clearly rejected that tactic, the Court must do so as well. At its core, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Microsoft is clearly irreconcilable with the Court's approach in Omstead. First and foremost, Langere's voluntary-dismissal tactic undermines the discretionary appellate-review scheme designed by Congress in the FAA. Second, Langere's voluntary-dismissal tactic invites protracted litigation and piecemeal appeals. Third, like in Microsoft, the dismissal tactic is one-sided: only the Plaintiffs, never the Defendants, may force the immediate appeal of an order compelling arbitration. After careful consideration of its own precedent, and that of the Supreme Court, the Circuit Court concludes that the voluntary dismissal of claims following an order compelling arbitration does not create appellate jurisdiction. It, therefore, dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yanpgtxt from Leagle.com. Jordan S. Esensten -- jesensten@esenstenlaw.com -- (argued) and Robert L. Esensten -- resensten@wccelaw.com -- Esensten Law, in Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Julia B. Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- (argued) and David W. Moon -- dmoon@stroock.com -- Stroock Stroock & Lavan LLP, in Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee. VIACOM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE VIACOM INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 2019-0948-JRS (Del. Ch.), Judge Joseph R. Slights, III, of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. According to the Court's Memorandum Opinion, Delaware's General Corporation Law ("DGCL") is a prime example of codified law that "elegantly and flexibly" enables those it regulates to fulfill their vital and multi-faceted purposes. As a "counterpoint" to the DGCL's enabling and contractarian features, "the ex post judicial review of the actions of corporate officers and directors, measured by fiduciary principles" exists as a means to ensure that those charged with the management of the corporation act with a loyal purpose when exercising their broad powers over corporate property and processes. The ex post judicial review is presumptively deferential in recognition of both the managerial primacy of the board of directors, as provided for in the DGCL, and the prudence of encouraging managerial "creativity and risk-taking." Indeed, for these reasons, as a general matter, the conduct of corporate fiduciaries is given less judicial scrutiny than the conduct of trust fiduciaries. But courts of equity, where judicial review of fiduciary conduct abides, have long been on qui vive for the self-dealing fiduciary who steers the corporation into transactions that enrich the fiduciary to the potential detriment of the stockholders. In these instances, the duty of loyalty is rigorously enforced by requiring the fiduciaries to justify as intrinsically fair any transaction in which they had a financial interest. Consistent with the nuance that infuses the common law, Delaware is more suspicious when the fiduciary who is interested in a transaction is a controlling stockholder. Thus, the court is, and should be, skeptical when a controlling stockholder seeks a pleading stage dismissal of breach of fiduciary duty claims brought on behalf of public stockholders who challenge the bona fides of a transaction where the controller indisputably stands on both sides of the transaction. Indeed, when a controlling stockholder engages in self-dealing, she should assume, if challenged, that the Court will perform its "ex post review" function with vigor, and that it will generally allow public stockholders who might challenge the self-dealing transaction an opportunity to proceed beyond the pleadings to test the fairness of the transaction. The instant case, involving one of the more visible, hotly contested instances of alleged controlling stockholder self-dealing in recent memory, is no exception. A putative class of Viacom stockholders allege that the controlling stockholders of both Viacom and CBS Corp., defined as the NAI Parties, caused Viacom and CBS to merge and become the combined entity now known as ViacomCBS, Inc. According to the Plaintiffs, the NAI Parties are controlled by Shari Redstone. Ms. Redstone is alleged to have exerted her control over other Viacom fiduciaries in a manner that caused them to negotiate and approve the Merger out of loyalty to her on terms detrimental to Viacom and its public stockholders. The Plaintiffs' complaint spins a tale of Ms. Redstone's unrelenting drive to attain the status of "media magnate" that would rival or surpass the legacy of her father, Sumner Redstone. According to the Plaintiffs, in 2016, Ms. Redstone initiated a campaign to consolidate the media empire her father had built. Her first step was to augment her control of the NAI Parties. She then attempted to leverage her control of the NAI Parties to cause the entities they controlled, Viacom and CBS, to merge on three separate occasions, in 2016, 2018, and then again (successfully) in 2019. In 2016 and 2018, when her attempts to effect a Viacom/CBS combination failed, she took steps to remove the obstacles and tried again. In 2018, Ms. Redstone convinced an allegedly compromised Viacom transaction committee to push for a merger with CBS (for the second time), but her insistence that Viacom CEO and alleged NAI loyalist, Robert Bakish, be named to the board of the pro forma company prompted CBS to reject the deal and stop talking. Undeterred, Ms. Redstone was back again in 2019, pushing the same conflicted Viacom transaction committee to push the same transaction that CBS had rejected the year before, but this time she insisted that CBS agree that Bakish would not only have a seat on the board but also be named CEO of the pro forma company. CBS sensed that Ms. Redstone's fixation on installing her compatriot Bakish as CEO of the combined company could be exploited, and its special committee insisted that Viacom make a commensurate "significant concession" on price in exchange for its governance priorities. The Viacom transaction committee did just that, ultimately agreeing to accept approximately $1 billion less in the Merger than it had bargained for just a year before. The Plaintiffs bring breach of fiduciary duty claims against the NAI Parties, Bakish and the members of Viacom's transaction committee for their role in consummating the Merger. Each Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint. In doing so, they urge the Court to review the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims under the deferential business judgment rule since the Plaintiffs have alleged nothing more than that the NAI Parties stood on both sides of the merger. According to the Plaintiffs, a controller's mere presence on both sides of a transaction is not enough to trigger entire fairness review; they must also well plead that the controller exploited its control position to the tangible detriment of the minority stockholders. Citing the seminal Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., the Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendants' position plainly misstates Delaware law, which has, for decades, recognized that, the requirement of fairness is unflinching in its demand that where one stands on both sides of a transaction, he has the burden of establishing its entire fairness, sufficient to pass the test of careful scrutiny by the courts. According to them, the controller's presence on both sides of a transaction is "inherently coercive" with respect to other corporate decision makers, and entire fairness scrutiny, therefore, is required to gauge whether the transaction replicated what would have been secured for the corporation and its stockholders at arms-length. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs argue their complaint more than adequately pleads that the NAI Parties, and Ms. Redstone in particular, secured value from the Viacom/CBS Merger that was not shared with other Viacom stockholders. The parties' fundamental disagreement over the supposedly settled state of the law regarding whether the controller's "mere presence" on both sides of a merger is enough to trigger entire fairness review is interesting to be sure, but ultimately academic, says Judge Slights. After carefully reviewing the complaint, Judge Slights is satisfied it adequately pleads a reasonably conceivable basis to infer that the controller achieved a non-ratable benefit from the Merger to the detriment of Viacom's public stockholders. Thus, at this stage, and without prejudice to the Defendants' right to argue otherwise on a more developed record, he is satisfied that NAI's conduct with respect to the Merger should be reviewed for entire fairness. NAI could have agreed to the dual protections under Kahn v. M&F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014) ("MFW"), to avoid entire fairness review but explicitly directed the special committees of both Viacom and CBS to proceed on the assumption that NAI would not agree to allow the minority stockholders of either company to decide whether to proceed with the Merger. If implemented, the dual protections provided to minority stockholders under the MFW framework would have sufficiently neutralized the NAI Parties coercive influence over the process. Absent these protections, a conflicted controller standing on both sides of a transaction cannot avoid entire fairness review of that transaction. Here, the complaint well pleads that the Merger was not entirely fair. It follows, then, that the motion to dismiss the claims against the NAI Parties must be denied. The Plaintiffs also assert claims against the members of Viacom's transaction committee who negotiated the transaction on Viacom's behalf and recommended its approval, alleging these fiduciaries not only maintained relationships with Ms. Redstone that conceivably compromised their independence, but also labored under a "controlled mindset" that caused them to succumb to the will of the controller. In other words, they allege that the willingness of the fiduciaries who served on Viacom's transaction committee to allow Ms. Redstone to dominate their decision-making rendered them servile tools in Ms. Redstone's relentless pursuit of a Viacom/CBS combination to advance her interests. Thus, notwithstanding the Section 102(b)(7) provision in Viacom's charter, the Plaintiffs maintain they have stated viable, non-exculpated claims against each member of the Viacom transaction committee. The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that their complaint states non-exculpated breach of loyalty claims against the members of the Viacom transaction committee. The well-pled facts relating to the controller's past predations, her direct involvement in Merger negotiations and her relationships with the members of the Viacom transaction committee are enough to allow pleading-stage inferences that these fiduciaries did not act independently and in the best interests of Viacom's minority stockholders when negotiating and ultimately consummating the Merger. Thus, notwithstanding the exculpation clause in Viacom's charter, the motion to dismiss the claims against these Defendants must also be denied. The same cannot be said of the motion to dismiss brought by Bakish, Judge Slights opines. Regardless of the applicable standard of review, the law requires that a plaintiff plead a factual basis to support a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. In other words, the complaint must put the fiduciary on notice of what he is alleged to have done wrong. Given that not a single allegation in the complaint alleges actionable wrongdoing by Bakish, the claim against him, as set forth in Count III, must be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Slights denied the Motion to Dismiss as to Counts I and II of the Complaint, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the NAI Parties and the Viacom Committee Defendants, respectively. He granted the Motion as to Count III, which purports to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Bakish. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 29, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y728jxze from Leagle.com. Gregory V. Varallo Esquire -- Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esquire -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Edward G. Timlin, Esquire -- edward.timlin@blbglaw.com -- Andrew E. Blumberg Esquire, and Daniel E. Meyer Esquire, of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff California Public Employees' Retirement System. Chad Johnson, Esquire -- ChadJ@rgrdlaw.com -- Noam Mandel Esquire -- Noam@rgrdlaw.com -- and Desiree Cummings Esquire -- dcummings@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, New York, New York; Christopher H. Lyons Esquire, of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, in Nashville, Tennessee, Attorneys for Additional Plaintiff Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago. Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esquire -- mail@bottinilaw.com -- and Anne B. Beste Esquire, of Bottini & Bottini, Inc., in La Jolla, California, Attorneys for Additional Plaintiff Louis M. Wilen. Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire -- mfischer@potteranderson.com -- Michael A. Pittenger, Esquire -- mpittenger@potteranderson.com -- Christopher N. Kelly, Esquire, J. Matthew Belger, Esquire, Jacqueline A. Rogers Esquire, and Callan R. Jackson Esquire, of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, and Victor L. Hou, Esquire, Rahul Mukhi Esquire, and Mark E. McDonald Esquire, of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Defendants National Amusements, Inc., NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC, and Shari E. Redstone. Gregory P. Williams, Esquire -- williams@rlf.com -- Blake Rohrbacher Esquire -- rohrbacher@rlf.com -- and Kevin M. Regan Esquire, of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware and Robert H. Baron, Esquire, Gary A. Bornstein Esquire, and Rory A. Leraris Esquire, of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Defendants Thomas J. May, Judith A. McHale, Ronald Nelson and Nicole Seligman. Jon E. Abramczyk, Esquire -- jabramczyk@mnat.com -- D. McKinley Measley, Esquire -- mmeasley@mnat.com -- Alexandra M. Cumings Esquire, of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Stuart J. Baskin Esquire, and Randall Martin Esquire, of Shearman & Sterling LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Defendant Robert M. Bakish. VIVINT SOLAR: Crumrine Securities Suit Removed to District of Utah ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled JASON CRUMRINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC.; DAVID BYWATER; and DANA RUSSELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05777, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on Dec. 30, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-00919 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Daphne A. Oberg. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Vivint Solar Inc. provides renewable energy. The Company offers designing, installing, and maintaining affordable solar solutions in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com -and- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com WALMART INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Data Breach Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia de la Torre, Esq. -- lydia.delatorre@squirepb.com -- and Raisa Dyadkina, Esq. -- raisa.dyadkina@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that The Lavarious Gardiner v. Walmart Inc. et al. case is anything but typical. As a re-cap, back in July 2020, plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Walmart alleging that Walmart suffered a data breach which they never disclosed. As evidence of the breach, plaintiff presented claims that the personal information associated with his Walmart account had been discovered on the dark web and presented the results of security scans performed on Walmart's website, which allegedly show certain vulnerabilities. In other words, plaintiff filed suit on the suspicion that Walmart's systems had been breached, which Walmart denies. On December 12, Walmart filed a Motion to Dismiss all plaintiff's claims, (which include, among others, a claim under the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA") and a claim under California Unfair Competition Law ('UCL')) arguing that plaintiff failed to state viable claims. In addition to the specific arguments discussed below for the CCPA and UCL claims, the motion presents several additional arguments, including the allegation that plaintiff "cannot make the requisite showing of cognizable harm." Specifically with respect to the alleged CCPA violation, Walmart argues that plaintiff failed to allege when the breach occurred, which makes it impossible to determine if the CCPA even applies. The CCPA expressly provides that it is not operative until January 1, 2020, and it contains no express language establishing that it applies retroactively.[1] Walmart's motion argues that the court should follow the precedent set by Judge Koh in In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., which reached the conclusion that a claim under the recently amended California Customer Records Act ("CRA") had to be dismissed where the plaintiffs failed to allege when the alleged violation occurred.[2] The motion also urges the court to dismiss the UCL claim on the grounds (among others) that a UCL claim cannot be based on alleged violations of the CCPA. On its face, the CCPA states that "nothing in this title shall be interpreted to serve as the basis for a private right of action under any other law."[3] Furthermore, during negotiations for the passage and the amendment of CCPA two separate California Senate Judiciary Committee reports acknowledged CCPA eliminates the possibility of a private right of action outside the narrow claim related to data breaches.[4] In sum, the resolution by the court of the motion to dismiss could shed light on two interesting questions related to CCPA litigation: (1) whether CCPA could be read to apply to data breaches that occurred before its effective day but were subsequently discovered; and (2) whether CCPA may allow for a private right of action outside of the narrow provision on data breaches. As always, CPW will be there to discuss additional developments in this and other data privacy litigation cases. Stay tuned. [1] See, Cal. Civ.Code Section 1798.198(a). [2] 2017 WL 3727318, at *38 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017) ("Because the CCAC does not allege when Defendants discovered the 2013 Breach, the Court cannot determine which version of the CRA was in effect at the time that Defendants allegedly violated the CRA . . .") [3] See, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.150(c). [4] See, Cal. Sen. Judiciary Committee Report on 2018 CA A.B. 375, June 26, 2018, p. 22. (acknowledging before the passage of CCPA's Section 1798.150(c) that CCPA "eliminates the ability of consumers to bring claims for violations of the Act under statutes such as the [UCL]") and Cal. Sen. Rules Committee Report on CA A.B. 1355, September 12, 2019, p. 6. (stating that section 1798.150 is the "only enforcement mechanism made available to consumers pursuant to the CCPA . . ." ) [GN] WEB TO DOOR: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------- MARK WILLIAMS, JORGE MEDINA and DERRIELL THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. WEB TO DOOR CORP., a Nevada corporation; SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., a Florida corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-588382 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 11, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the laws due to their failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse employees for required expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, failure to provide wages when due, and unfair business practices. Plaintiff Mark Williams has been employed by the Defendants since December 2019, as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff Jorge Medina was employed by the Defendants from April 2019 to March 2020, as a non-exempt employee. Plaintiff Derriell Thomas has been employed by the Defendants since 2017, as a non-exempt employee. Web to Door provides last mile delivery courier service, including same-day delivery routes, business-to-business, business-to-customer, and less than truckload delivery services in California. South East Personnel Leasing, Inc. is a staffing agency. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite C204 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 WORLD FINANCIAL: Files Ninth Circuit Appeal Against USDC-CASF ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants World Financial Group, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Tricia Yeomans, et al. v. World Financial Group Ins., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00792-EMC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied (i) the Defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action against Defendants World Financial Group Insurance Agency (a California corporation), World Financial Group Inc. (a Florida corporation), and Does 1 to 100, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professional Code, and California Wage Orders (and asserting a claim of unjust enrichment) based on the Defendants' purported misclassification of the Plaintiffs as independent contractors, as opposed to employees. The Defendants represent themselves as a financial- and insurance-products marketing company; they recruit individuals as "Associates" and purport to give people the tools to build and operate their own financial services business. However, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants conduct their business by way of a massive pyramid scheme, wherein recruiting new Associates is one of the main factors involved in achieving promotions. Once someone is an Associate, the Defendants pressure that person to purchase the Defendants' financial and insurance products and to sell financial and insurance products to the new Associates. The Defendants seek a writ of mandamus directing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco after it denied their motion to compel arbitration. The appellate case is captioned as WFGIA, et al v. USDC-CASF, Case No. 20-73758, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 22, 2020. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a California corporation, and WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Georgia corporation, are represented by: Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Timothy L. Johnson, Esq. Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq. Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 E-mail: jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com marlene.moffitt@ogletreedeakins.com spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com Plaintiffs-Real Parties in Interest TRICIA YEOMANS, ISMAIL CHRAIBI, ROBERT JENKINS, DOROTHY JENKINS, FATEMEH ABTAHI, ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and CAMERON BRADFORD are represented by: Joel Matthew Gordon, Esq. Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 E-mail: jgordon@marlinsaltzman.com ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Christina Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (909) 908-3059 E-mail: clucio@farnaeslaw.com YRC INC: Alvarez Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to Ninth Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Felipe Alvarez filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled FELIPE ALVAREZ, et al. v. YRC, INC., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01374-TJH-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from employment-related issues. The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's order dated November 17, 2020, denying Alvarez's and Schroeder's motion for partial summary judgment. Under the order, YRC's motion for summary judgment be, and hereby is, granted as to all of Alvarez's claims and as to Schroeder's claims for second meal break and third rest break violations. The appellate case is captioned as Felipe Alvarez, et al. v. YRC Inc., et al., Case No. 20-56350, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 18, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Felipe Alvarez Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 28, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 15, 2021; -- Transcript is due on February 16, 2021; -- Appellant Felipe Alvarez opening brief is due on March 26, 2021; -- Appellees YRC Inc., YRC Worldwide Inc. and Yellow Roadway Corporation answering brief is due on April 26, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FELIPE ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Jordan Domingo Bello, Esq. Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (323) 653-0086 E-mail: jbello@lelawfirm.com jlavi@lelawfirm.com - and - David M. Derubertis, Esq. THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC 4219 Coldwater Canyon Avenue Studio City, CA 91604 Telephone: (818) 761-2322 E-mail: david@derubertislaw.com - and - David Mara, Esq. Jill Marie Vecchi, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM PC 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com jvecchi@maralawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees YRC INC., DBA YRC Freight, YRC WORLDWIDE INC., and YELLOW ROADWAY CORPORATION are represented by: Lyn Agre, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-6140 E-mail: lagre@kasowitz.com - and - Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 555 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 615-6052 E-mail: ebronchetti@mwe.com - and - Pankit Doshi, Esq. Ronald J. Holland, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 415 Mission Street, Suite 5600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 218-3812 E-mail: pdoshi@mwe.com rjholland@mwe.com - and - Alexandra Howard Hemenway, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2425 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 474-3652 E-mail: ahemenway@littler.com - and - Daniel Saunders, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 288-7904 E-mail: dsaunders@kasowitz.com ZINUS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Angeles Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ZINUS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-10829 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2020) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination and seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Zinus Inc. wholesales and distributes household furniture and operates the said Website. The Company wholesales and distributes bed frames, sofas, platform beds, mattresses, and other related products. Zinus markets its products worldwide. [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 [*] Michigan AG's Office Negotiated Historic Settlements in 2020 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 13OnYourSide reports that Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's office has been busy the past 12 months, negotiating historic settlements, filing significant lawsuits, investigating serious threats and protecting consumers from an array of scams and deceptive business practices. As 2020 comes to a close, the wild election cycle very likely remains fresh in the collective conscious, but other significant events -- such as the lawsuit filed against major PFAS manufacturers or the $80 million settlement reached in Doe et al v. Michigan Department of Corrections -- also rank among milestone events coming out of the Michigan Department of Attorney General in 2020. "This year has been marked by a multitude of actions taken by my office and on behalf of other state departments, and I am extremely proud and grateful for the exemplary work performed by everyone at the Michigan Department of Attorney General," Nessel said. "While COVID-19 has presented logistical complications and new difficulties in enforcing our laws, my staff has risen to meet those challenges squarely in pursuit of justice on behalf of the people of this state. I am encouraged by the accomplishments we have achieved in 2020 and eagerly anticipate furthering those efforts as we look forward to 2021." A brief round-up of some notable events follows: Important Investigations Wolverine Watchmen -- Cases remain pending in court for the eight men charged in connection to an alleged domestic terrorism plot that involved storming the Michigan Capitol building and kidnapping elected officials, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Four of the defendants are scheduled to appear in court in February, with three more scheduled to appear in March. The eighth defendant -- Brian Higgins -- is awaiting extradition in Wisconsin. The Base -- Charges were filed in late October against the self-proclaimed leader of The Base -- a national white supremacist group with violent ideologies -- and an associate of the gang, following an investigation by Michigan State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A probable cause hearing for both defendants in Washtenaw County 14A-3 District Court took place Dec. 17 and was adjourned until 9 a.m. Feb. 4. Clergy Abuse -- The Department's investigation into clergy abuse hit the two-year mark in October, with 11 men seeing charges in that time span. The Attorney General's office continues to review the 220 boxes of paper documents and more than 3.5 million digital documents seized from the state's seven Catholic dioceses in 2018. As of late September, the office's Clergy Abuse Investigative Team had reviewed more than 2.24 million of the digital documents and 142 boxes of paper documents. Public Integrity -- Multiple public officials were subjects of investigations conducted by the Attorney General's office, including Macomb County Prosecutor Eric Smith and Chief Assistant Prosecutor Benjamin Liston. The office also reviewed cases involving alleged misconduct by police officers in Saginaw, Washtenaw and Jackson counties, along with a former Grand Traverse County jail administrator and technicians who were contracted to test and service breathalyzers used by law enforcement. Important Settlements Flint Civil Litigation -- The largest settlement in the State of Michigan's history was submitted to the court for preliminary approval after being announced in August. The State and other defendants have agreed to contribute $641.2 million to settle the litigation that was filed after the city of Flint switched its public water supply to the Flint River in 2014. Judge Judith Levy of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan reviewed the agreement as part of a motion for preliminary approval, and may issue a ruling on whether the settlement meets certain legal standards in January. Doe et al v Michigan Department of Corrections -- An $80 million settlement was announced in February for the class-action lawsuit filed by 1,300 youthful prisoners. The juveniles alleged they were victims of sexual assaults, and various other harms, while they were housed in adult prisons under the custody of the MDOC after being charged, convicted and sentenced as adults under Michigan law. Hill v. Whitmer -- In conjunction with the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Attorney General's office settled this class action arising out of the resentencing of juveniles sentenced to mandatory life-without-parole sentences (LWOP) in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Miller v. Alabama. Under Miller, offenders who were sentenced to LWOP were entitled to a hearing designed to consider their youth at the time of the offense along with other factors to determine if a LWOP was appropriate. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a LWOP would only be appropriate in the most extreme cases. The Michigan Legislature enacted a series of statutes that provided for specific minimum terms if the trial court did not resentence the offender to a LWOP and also prohibited the application of good time and disciplinary credits. The Hill class challenged the statute prohibiting the application of credits and also sought programming for those offenders waiting for resentencing and to set a schedule for the Miller hearings to be completed. On Nov. 6, the court approved a settlement that provided for the Hill class members to be eligible for programming, a timeline to notify the trial court that the prosecutors were ready to proceed with the Miller hearings, and for the Attorney General to provide assistance to the local prosecutors in charge of the resentencing hearings. Important Lawsuits PFAS -- The Attorney General's office in January filed suit against several major manufacturers of the "forever chemicals" PFAS. The lawsuit seeks damages, past costs, and remediation for PFAS contamination as a result of the chemicals' use in manufacturing. The case survived multiple motions to dismiss, and in August the Attorney General's office took legal action seeking damages, past costs, and remediation for PFAS contamination from firefighting foam known as AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam). All of these cases remain pending in court. Opioids -- In late 2019, Attorney General Nessel filed suit against Cardinal Health Inc., McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., and Walgreen Co. for their roles in distributing massive quantities of opioids in Michigan. In November 2020, the case survived an attempt to dismiss by the defendants and the court ruled that the AG's arguments based on violations of Michigan's Drug Dealer Liability Act could proceed. That case remains in litigation in Wayne County Circuit Court. Enbridge Line 5 -- Nessel continued her lawsuit that was filed in 2019 against Enbridge in Ingham County Circuit Court that seeks the permanent shutdown of the Straits Pipelines, based on the public trust doctrine, the common law of public nuisance and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act. In November, the Attorney General's office also filed another lawsuit against Enbridge on behalf of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources seeking to revoke and terminate the easement granted by the State in 1953 that allows Enbridge to operate its dual pipelines on the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. Antitrust -- In early December, Attorney General Nessel and 47 other state attorneys general filed a lawsuit against Facebook alongside a separate action by the FTC for anticompetitive behavior -- including the purchases of competitors like Instagram, to protect its monopoly. Also in December, Attorney General Nessel joined a lawsuit by the U.S. Department of Justice alongside California and Wisconsin against Google for anticompetitive behavior-- including entering into exclusionary business agreements to shut out competitors, to protect its monopoly. CARES Act Litigation -- In July, Attorney General Nessel and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra led a coalition in a court action against U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her attempt to divert more than 16 million dollars in COVID-19 relief funding from public schools in Michigan. Judge James Donato -- of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California -- on Nov. 9, approved a permanent injunction, formally closing the case on DeVos's efforts to rewrite a section of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Following his order to grant the permanent injunction, Judge Donato entered a judgment in favor of all plaintiffs. Consumer Protection Robocalls -- In an effort to strengthen the industry's collaboration with government on robocall enforcement, Attorney General Nessel's office in early May led a bipartisan coalition of 52 attorneys general in calling on USTelecom and its Industry Traceback Group (ITG) to bolster technological capabilities to improve enforcement against illegal robocallers. The coalition's letter was cosponsored by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. Price-gouging -- The COVID-19 pandemic led to numerous reports of price-gouging practices by retailers, and the Attorney General's office remains active in the enforcement of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act to hold businesses and sellers accountable. The most recent example of this is an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement the office reached with Smokehouse Distribution, an Oakland County business that was selling excessively high-priced face masks to consumers. Scams and Consumer Alerts -- The Attorney General's office issued a number of consumer alerts in 2020 to keep residents aware of the potential threats they could fall victim to. A variety of scams surfaced this past year, with one notable example being door-to-door scammers who were posing as government officials offering information on stimulus checks or unemployment benefits at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Election Integrity and Safety Lawsuits -- Prior to the election, Attorney General Nessel sued the U.S. Postal Service and Postmaster General Louis DeJoy to ensure mail-in ballots were being properly processed and delivered after operational changes instituted by the USPS could have resulted in a significant number of mail-in ballots not being counted. Security -- While there were a number of attempts to thwart the will of the people, the Attorney General's office was ready to defend democracy at every turn. One highlight involves a series of robocalls that targeted Detroit-area voters seeking to intimidate them from participating in the election by use of mail-in ballots. The Attorney General's office launched an investigation and charged Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl with multiple felonies. Education -- Working in tandem with Secretary of State Benson to ensure a safe and secure election, Attorney General Nessel's office aggressively protected the integrity of the democratic process while informing the public of their voting rights by hosting town hall events, informational calls and more. [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 2021. 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 ***