/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210108.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, January 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 1
Headlines
ACM RESEARCH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 19 Deadline
AGHSBH MARKETING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burke Suit Claims
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Thomson Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Fla.
ANGELLCO LLC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Saint Pierre Suit Claims
AQUION INC: La Stella Suit Remanded to New Jersey Superior Court
ATLANTIC WIRELESS: Underpays Sales Associates, Grice et al. Allege
AUTOZONERS LLC: Fails to Pay Staff on Timely Basis, Confusione Says
BANK OF NEW YORK: Third Cir. Vacates Judgment & Remands Butterline
BAUMGART RESTAURANT: Class of Deliverymen Certified in Ding Suit
BEAZER HOMES: Faces Sanni Suit Over Unpaid OT for Home Counselors
BIG HEART: E.D. California Narrows Claims in Roper Consumer Suit
BLINK HOLDINGS: Can Compel Arbitration in Jampol Suit, Court Says
BRE ICONIC GWR: McCauley Files Suit in Maryland
BUILDING YOUR DREAM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tarax Suit Claims
C&W FACILITY: Quezada Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
CASCADE PROCESS: Griffiths Sues Over Field Technicians' Unpaid OT
CD PROJEKT: Faces Multiples Class Actions Over Cyberpunk Launch
COMFORT ALL-STARS: Strickland Sues Over Unpaid OT for Laborers
CORRECTIONS CORP: February 4 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CORREVIO PHARMA: May 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Fifth Circuit Affirms Prelim Injunction in Daves
DIGITAL MEDIA: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Hooper Suit Claims
EPPING GARDENS: Co-Owner Fleds to Greece Amid Class Action
EQUITY TRUST: Order to Produce Documents in Jacobs Suit Reversed
EVERGREEN PACKAGING: Underpays Production Workers, Carreno Claims
FAIRFIELD, ME: Class Action Mulled Over PFAS Contaminated Wells
FLEET COURIER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Blount Says
FORDHAM FULTON: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, De Jesus Claims
GENZYME CORP: Wilkins Suit Moved From Indiana to Massachusetts
GOOGLE LLC: Astarita Sues Over Online Display Advertising Monopoly
GOOGLE: Privacy Suit Class Cert. Filing Deadline Set for July 16
GREAT ATLANTIC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Claims
GREAT CONSTRUCTION: Workers Collective Class Certified in Cruz Suit
HOMEXPRESS MORTGAGE: Beal Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
IDT DOMESTIC: Sedaghatfar Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Chauhan Suit Removed to S.D. New York
JAY INSLEE: Schumacher, et al., Seek to Certify Class
K12 INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
K12 INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
LOUISIANA: 2017 Class Certification Order Reinstated in Krielow
MALAYSIA: Class Action Mulled Over Unscheduled Water Disruptions
MARS WRIGLEY: Beers Sues Over Ice Cream Bars' Deceptive Labels
MDL 2924: 2 Ranitidine Product Liability Suits Moved to S.D. Fla.
MDL 2931: Zvi v. Delta Dental Antitrust Row Moved to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2967: 6 Narcolepsy Drug Antitrust Cases Moved to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2967: 9 Clearview Data Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Ill.
MDL 2968: 7 Generali Insurance Disputes Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks Arbitration of Xbox Controllers Class Action
MIDDLE KENTUCKY: Campbell Seeks Conditional Class Status
MINDFINDERS INC: Class Certification Deadline Stayed in Dew Suit
MOWI ASA: Faces Starr Suit Over Mowi's Salmon's Deceptive Labels
NEW YORK, NY: Homeless Students' WiFi Suit Heads to Trial
NEW YORK: Bid for Expedited Discovery Schedule in E.G. Granted
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Anfibio FDCPA Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration Bid
PEACHTREE INVESTMENT: Peskin Suit Alleges Unlawful SCE Strategy
PLAINS MARKETING: Settlement Class Certified in Price Trust Suit
POSTMATES INC: Immediato Wage & Hour Suit Goes to D. Massachusetts
QIWI PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of February 9 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Probes Securities Claims
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Investigates Securities Claims
QUDIAN INC: April 27 Proposed Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
SOLARWINDS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SOLARWINDS CORP: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
SOLARWINDS CORPORATION: Bremer Sues Over 8% Drop in Share Price
SP0N INC: Faces Sedaghatfar Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SPLUNK INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline
STARBUCKS CORP: Store Managers' Suit to Proceed in Federal Court
THEVEGASPACKAGE.COM: Fisher "TCPA" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TIVITY HEALTH: March 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
TUMINO'S TOWING: Kiley Suit Remanded to New Jersey Superior Court
TWITTER INC: Faces Securities Class Action From Shareholders
UNITED STATES: Deaton Sues Over Misclassification of XRP Currency
VIVINT SOLAR: Securities Suit Transferred From New York to Utah
VSL PHARMACEUTICALS: Maryland Court Narrows Claims in Starr Suit
WALMART INC: Tsui Sues Over Associates' Unpaid Military Leave
WORCESTER, MA: Faces Disability Discrimination Suit During Pandemic
YLLI CORP: Gonzales Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
[*] Bitcoin Industry Regulations Will Remain Amid Class Actions
[*] Lawyers Fail to Get COVID Insurance Cases Coordinated Into MDL
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln City Sued Over Mesothelioma Death
*********
ACM RESEARCH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of February 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against ACM Research, Inc. ("ACM" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACMR) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired ACM
securities between March 6, 2019 - October 7, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/acmr.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) ACM Research's revenues and profits were diverted to
undisclosed related parties, and (2) consequently, the company
materially overstated its revenues and profits.
On October 8, 2020, analyst J Capital Research ("J Capital")
published a report concerning ACM, in which J Capital concluded
that ACM "is a fraud, over-reporting both revenue and profit." The
report cited, among other things, J Capital's visits to "sites in
China, Korea, and California" and "more than 40 interviews." J
Capital asserted that "[w]hat real profit the company has is
apparently being siphoned off to related parties." The J Capital
report concluded that ACM's revenue was overstated by 15-20% and
claimed to have "evidence that undisclosed related parties are
diverting revenue and profit from the company." Following this
news, ACM's stock price dropped $1.09 per share, or 1.52%, to close
at $70.79 per share on October 8, 2020.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/acmr or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in ACM you
have until February 19, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
AGHSBH MARKETING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Burke Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BURKE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGHSBH MARKETING & DISTRIBUTION, LP d/b/a
AROOGA'S GRILL HOUSE & SPORTS BAR, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02425-CCC (M.D. Pa., December 28, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a manager between
April 2018 and December 2018. Before he became a Manager, the
Plaintiff has undergone the Defendant's Certified Training Program
as a Manager-In-Training (MIT), which is non-negotiable
prerequisite to the Manager position that is not waived on the
basis of prior managerial experience. The training lasted
approximately one month beginning on April 23, 2018 and ending on
May 20, 2018.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated MITs
performed non-exempt duties during their training and consistently
worked days that exceeded 10 hours and weeks that exceeded 40
hours. However, the Defendant systematically denied them of their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half
times their regular hourly wage for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to make,
keep, and preserve records to determine their lawful wages, actual
hours worked, and other conditions of employment as required by the
federal and state law.
AGHSBH Marketing & Distribution, LP d/b/a Arooga's Grill House &
Sports Bar operates a Pennsylvania-based restaurant chain in
Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, and Rhode Island. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market St., Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Faces Thomson Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER THOMSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:20-cv-03121 (M.D. Fla., December 31, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated manual laborers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manual laborer in
Hillsborough County, Florida from 2014 until 2020.
Amazon.com Services LLC is a company that provides online retail
and delivery services throughout Hillsborough County, Florida and
other surrounding counties in Central Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
LEE LAW, PLLC
1971 West Lumsden Road, Suite 303
Brandon, FL 33511
Telephone: (813) 343‐2813
E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com
ANGELLCO LLC: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Saint Pierre Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLE SAINT PIERRE, on her own behalf and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANGELLCO, LLC DBA LE RIVAGE RESTAURANT and
PAUL COLLANGE, Defendants, Case No. 9:20-cv-82480 (S.D. Fla.,
January 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
failing to properly record all their hours worked, and making
improper deductions from their pay.
Ms. Saint Pierre worked as a dishwasher, prep-cook, food preparer,
certain busser duties, merchandise stocker, maintenance and
cleaning of the restaurant, and activities related to the
restaurant's aesthetic from 2007 through August 2020.
Angellco, LLC, doing business as Le Rivage Restaurant, is an owner
and operator of a restaurant located in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
Telephone: (561) 853-2212
Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com
AQUION INC: La Stella Suit Remanded to New Jersey Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Plaintiff's renewed motion to remand to the New Jersey Superior
Court the case titled JENNIFER LA STELLA v. AQUION, INC. d/b/a
RAINSOFT, and HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., Case No. 19-cv-10082 (FLW)
(D. N.J.).
The matter arises out of a dispute over an in-home water
precipitation test. Plaintiff La Stella sues Defendants Aquion and
Home Depot under state law on behalf of a putative class of
consumers. La Stella alleges that Rainsoft violated the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA") by conducting deceptive in-home water
precipitation tests designed to "invariably fail" a household's
water supply and induce consumers to purchase expensive water
treatment systems.
The Plaintiff filed her complaint in New Jersey Superior Court, Law
Division, Hunterdon County, asserting three causes of action: a
violation of the NJCFA, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy.
Her Complaint defines the class as any consumer who purchased a
water treatment system after a precipitation test, and the class
period as April 2013 to March 2019.
On April 6, 2019, the Defendants removed the matter to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") contending that
the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In support, the
Defendants provided a declaration from Clifford Leegard, an Aquion
employee. Leegard stated that the Defendants sold at least one
water conditioning system drinking water system or water filtration
system to at least 4,626 customers in New Jersey since March 8,
2013. The Defendants then calculated purported damages per class
member as $2,000, added punitive damages and attorneys' fees, and
arrived at an amount in controversy well over $5 million.
On June 17, 2019, La Stella moved for remand, arguing that the
Defendants added all consumer sales in New Jersey to meet the
amount in controversy without adducing any evidence to show that
every sale followed an in-home water precipitation test.
Chief District Judge Freda L. Wolfson issued an order on Jan. 15,
2020, granting La Stella's motion. She found that as defined in the
Plaintiff's Complaint, the putative class members only include
those individuals, who were subject to an in-home water
precipitation test prior to their purchase of a Rainsoft product.
Contrary to the Defendants' contentions, the Plaintiff has not
specifically alleged that all sales of Rainsoft product are
accompanied by in-home water testing; rather, the Plaintiff's
consumer fraud allegations stem from the in-home water testing and
the class is limited to individuals who were subject to such
testing, and the alleged misrepresentations, Judge Wolfson notes.
Accordingly, neither the total number of sales to New Jersey
residents nor the total proceeds of all New Jersey sales is an
appropriate metric for determining the amount of controversy in the
action, because both figures include transactions which would fall
outside of the proposed class definition. Judge Wolfson then
ordered "limited jurisdictional discovery" to ascertain the
appropriate amount in controversy.
To prove the class size, Aquion submits a declaration and related
testimony from Curtis Charles Wunder, owner of Atlantic Water
Products ("AWP"), a New Jersey Rainsoft dealer. The Wunder
Declaration states that "at least half" of AWP's "at least 1,200"
Rainsoft sales from 2018-2019 followed an in-home precipitation
test. Wunder based the conclusion, not on first-hand knowledge or
data, but on his business experience, sales background, and
training program for salespeople.
Importantly, however, Wunder testified that the decision to perform
a precipitation test is "up to each salesman" and is not tracked by
AWP in any manner, he was not present for virtually any of AWP's
in-home sales between 2013 and 2018, and he would not know whether
a precipitation test was performed unless he was there. Without
adducing further documentary evidence, Aquion uses Wunder's
"educated guess" as to the test-to-sales ratio on this motion.
Judge Wolfson says that not only is the Wunder Declaration
insufficient evidence, but she finds that it is also unreliable. It
is important to reiterate that Wunder attests to just 1,200 sales
between 2018-2019 in his Declaration. To show the potential class
size from 2013-2019, the Defendants resort to extrapolating from
the warranty data. Even assuming that is an appropriate starting
point, Wunder never attests to the test-to-sales ratio during the
entire class period, but only the last year. The Defendants offer
no evidence whatsoever as to the ratio from 2013-2017. As such,
there is no basis for the inference that the fifty percent rate
should apply to sales not made in 2018-2019, even if the Court
takes it (as well as the warranty data) at face value.
More importantly, notwithstanding that deficiency, the Defendants
have not come close to bridging the gap between the Declaration and
the speculative conclusion that fifty percent of AWP's
sales--whether 2,901 or 1,200, i.e., during whatever time period --
followed a precipitation test, Judge Wolfson opines, citing Toribio
v. ITT Aerospace Controls LLC, No. 19-5430 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5,
2019).
The problem is that the Defendants fail to explain at all, much
less "in detail," exactly how Wunder arrived at a fifty percent
test-to-sales ratio or, more importantly, why that ratio is
realistic and reliable, Judge Wolfson writes, citing Wilder v. Roma
Food Enterprises, Inc., No. 14-8123 (D.N.J. Oct. 19, 2015). She
adds, among other things, that Wunder's Declaration also fails
because it shows that he cannot provide a number that should
readily exist, Hoffman v. Teleflora LLC, No. 15-4810 (D.N.J. Feb.
3, 2016).
Because it lacks a sufficient factual basis, the Court finds that
the Wunder Declaration is not reliable evidence to establish the
amount in controversy. As such, the Defendants have failed to prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction exists under
CAFA. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is, therefore, granted and
the matter is remanded to New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division,
Hunterdon County, for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 28, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y95zxeca from Leagle.com.
ATLANTIC WIRELESS: Underpays Sales Associates, Grice et al. Allege
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENTON L. GRICE and LATEQUA L. BROWN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATLANTIC WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00240-BO
(E.D.N.C., December 29, 2020) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendant for its alleged illegal practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Wireless
Retail Sales Associates, allege that the Defendant issued them
paychecks on a biweekly basis that did not properly record or
compensate them for all overtime hours that they worked.
Purportedly, the Defendant has been fraudulently accessing its
timekeeping system and manually reduced the actual number of hours
worked by the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated sales
associates.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to include in their regular rates of
pay their commissions and spiffs in their total weekly earnings
when computing their overtime pay rate. As a result, the Defendant
failed to accurately pay their overtime compensation at one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a workweek.
Atlantic Wireless Communications, Inc. owns and operates U.S.
Cellular branded retail stores located in North Carolina and
Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Esq.
GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Tel: (704) 612-0038
E-mail: phil@gibbonsleis.com
AUTOZONERS LLC: Fails to Pay Staff on Timely Basis, Confusione Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH CONFUSIONE and RANDOLPH BRANNIGAN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTOZONERS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00001 (E.D.N.Y., January 2, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the New York
Labor Law by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated workers on a timely basis and failing to provide wage rate
notice and basis of pay.
Plaintiffs Confusione and Brannigan were employed as sales clerks
at the Defendant's store from September 2014 to February 2020 and
from June 2019 to February 2020, respectively.
AutoZoners, LLC is a retailer and distributor of automotive
replacement parts and accessories, headquartered in Memphis,
Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
BANK OF NEW YORK: Third Cir. Vacates Judgment & Remands Butterline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacates the
District Court's judgment and remands for further proceedings the
case entitled MARK BUTTERLINE, Individually and as Administrator of
the Estate of Lisa Butterline, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Appellant v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, FKA The Bank of New York Trust
Company, N.A., as successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as
trustee for Residential Asset Mortgage Products, Inc., Mortgage
Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-RP1 I/P/A Bank
of New York Trust, Co.; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; PHILADELPHIA
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 18-2908 (3d Cir.).
Mark and Lisa Butterline sued the City of Philadelphia and the
Philadelphia Sheriff's Office over the Sheriff's Office's failure
to collect and distribute excess proceeds from the sale of their
foreclosed property. The District Court denied the Butterlines
leave to assert their procedural due process claim on the ground
that the claim was time-barred.
In November 2007, the Bank filed a foreclosure action against the
Butterlines, who had fallen behind on their mortgage. The
foreclosure action resulted in a judgment of $62,764.79 against the
Butterlines. Their home was subsequently listed for a sheriff's
sale.
On Nov. 1, 2011, after a competitive bidding process, the Bank won
the sale with a bid of $93,000. The sum of the foreclosure judgment
and the sheriff's costs was $79,055.90. The winning bid exceeded
that amount by $13,944.10. Under Pennsylvania law, the Butterlines
had five years from the time of the sale to claim the excess funds.
If the funds were unclaimed, they would be retained by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, the Sheriff's Office never
collected the entire bid amount or filed a schedule of
distribution. Instead, the Butterlines' property was deeded to the
Bank on July 23, 2012, after the Bank had paid only the sheriff's
costs. The deed, however, stated that the transfer of title was for
the entire bid amount. The deed was recorded on Oct. 31, 2012.
After unsuccessfully attempting to have the sheriff's sale set
aside, the Butterlines filed a claim with the Sheriff's Office's
Defendant Asset Recovery Team ("DART") to claim the excess funds.
In its Dec. 18, 2014 letter, denying the Butterlines' claim, DART
informed the Butterlines that, whenever an executing creditor in a
foreclosure wins the sale of the foreclosed property, the creditor
has to pay only the sheriff's costs. Since the Sheriff's Office
never received any excess funds, the DART concluded, the
Butterlines were "not due any monies" from the sale, and their case
was considered closed.
On March 19, 2015, the Butterlines filed a putative class action
against the City under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming that the
City had violated their right to procedural due process by
depriving them of their interest in the excess funds to which they
were entitled. The Butterlines later moved to amend their
complaint. However, the District Court partially denied the motion,
and, in particular, denied the Butterlines leave to renew their
procedural due process claim, which previously had been dismissed
without prejudice.
The District Court initially observed that the Butterlines brought
their suit in March 2015 and that their procedural due process
claim had a two-year statute of limitations. Since the property
interest at stake was the Butterlines' "right to receive the excess
proceeds from the sheriff's sale of their home," the District Court
determined that their injury "would have occurred no later than
when the City gave the Bank complete title to the Property without
(1) requiring it to pay that portion of the purchase price
representing the excess proceeds and (2) distributing those
proceeds to them."
Thus, the District Court determined that the injury would have
occurred no later than October 2012, when the deed was recorded,
and the statute of limitations would have expired by the time the
Butterlines sued. In addition, it held that the Butterlines could
not rely on the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations
because they could not show that they had acted with reasonable
diligence in discovering their injury. Having concluded that the
Butterlines' procedural due process claim was untimely and not
subject to tolling, the District Court denied the Butterlines leave
to amend on the basis of futility. The Butterlines appealed.
The District Court determined that the Butterlines' procedural due
process claim accrued and the statute of limitations began to run
in October 2012. It found that was the point when the Butterlines
should have known both that excess proceeds existed and that the
City had not distributed any money from the sale to them.
Judge Roth finds that that determination is erroneous. A procedural
due process violation is not complete when the deprivation occurs;
it is not complete unless and until the State fails to provide due
process. If there is a process that apparently provides adequate
procedural remedies, a plaintiff must avail himself of that process
before bringing a procedural due process claim. Because the City
provided the DART process, the Butterlines were required to -- and
did -- avail themselves of that process. It was not until the
Sheriff's Office notified them in December 2014 that it had failed
to collect the entire bid amount that their procedural due process
claim became viable and that the statute of limitations began to
run. Their suit, filed about three months later, was thus timely,
Judge Roth holds.
Even assuming the statute of limitations had begun to run in
October 2012, the Panel concludes that the discovery rule would
have tolled its running until Dec. 18, 2014. Under Pennsylvania
law, the discovery rule tolls the running of the applicable statute
of limitations until the point where the complaining party knows or
reasonably should know that he has been injured and that his injury
has been caused by another party's conduct. To invoke the rule, a
plaintiff must exercise reasonable diligence in discovering his
injury, which means he must establish that he exhibited those
qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment which
society requires of its members for the protection of their own
interests and the interests of others.
The District Court's ruling hinged on the fact that the Butterlines
could have submitted their request to the DART earlier. According
to the District Court, this fact refutes any claim that they acted
with reasonable diligence and precludes the application of the
discovery rule,
The Appellate Court disagrees. Judge Roth avers that the
Butterlines were reasonably diligent, or at least reasonable minds
could disagree over whether they were. The City, consistent with
Pennsylvania law, announced in print that the entire winning bid
amount for the sold property would be collected and the City would
distribute any excess to the Butterlines, based on a schedule it
would file. Although the Sheriff's Office failed to file a schedule
of distribution or to distribute any excess funds to the
Butterlines, the Butterlines initially attempted to have the sale
set aside, were denied in that attempt, and then timely pursued
their claim to the excess funds that the sale should have
generated. They submitted a request to the DART before the funds
would be considered abandoned and unclaimed.
The District Court acknowledged that the Butterlines' DART claim
was timely but stated that the timeliness of their DART claim does
not render their procedural due process claim timely given their
failure to exercise diligence in pursuing proceeds from the
sheriff's sale. Judge Roth believes that the timeliness of the
Butterlines' DART claim is a significant factor in determining
whether they exercised reasonable diligence. To hold that
reasonable diligence indisputably required the Butterlines to have
inquired earlier would alter the standard beyond what is
reasonable.
More importantly, Judge Roth says, it finds no support in law since
the discovery rule applies when the plaintiff has no reason to
believe he may have been injured. That being the case, irrespective
of the accrual date, the discovery rule would have tolled the
statute of limitations on the Butterlines' procedural due process
claim until December 2014 when their DART claim was denied. The
Butterlines' suit, thus, was timely.
The Appellate Court vacates the District Court's judgment,
dismissing their claims and remands the case for further
proceedings consistent with its Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 28, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc65or6k from Leagle.com.
Daniel C. Levin -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- Levin, Sedran & Berman, at
510 Walnut Street, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
William T. Wilson, Bailey & Ehrenberg, at 120 North Church Street,
in West Chester, Pennsylvania, Counsel for Appellant.
Craig R. Gottlieb -- craig.gottlieb@phila.gov -- Jennifer
MacNaughton -- jennifer.macnaughton@phila.gov -- City of
Philadelphia Law Department, at 1515 Arch Street, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Counsel for Appellee.
BAUMGART RESTAURANT: Class of Deliverymen Certified in Ding Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GUI HUA DING, et al., Plaintiffs v. BAUMGART
RESTAURANT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-10358 (D.N.J.),
Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and collective action.
Plaintiffs Gui Hua Ding and Zhi Qiang Li, former deliverymen at the
Defendants' restaurant, seek to certify a class of employees
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Section 216(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Plaintiff Ding filed the
Complaint in the matter on June 10, 2018, alleging that the
Defendants failed to pay him minimum wage and compensate him for
overtime work as required by the FLSA and New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law ("NJWHL"). He further alleges that the Defendants had a policy
and practice of underpaying other non-exempt and nonmanagerial
employees. On July 9, 2019, Plaintiff Li filed a consent to join
as a Plaintiff in the matter.
Mr. Ding was hired as a deliveryman at Defendant Baumgart
Restaurant, Inc. on Oct. 1, 2015. Defendants Steve Wu, Marsha Wu,
and Gou-Fu Wang are founders of the Baumgart enterprise, which
includes Baumgart Cafe, and had the power to hire, fire, determine
wages, and establish work schedules for employees. Ding also
alleges that Defendant Thean Choo Chang was the owner/operator of
Baumgart Next Door, and also had the power to hire, fire, determine
wages, and establish work schedules.
Mr. Ding states that between October 1, 2015 and September 30,
2017, he worked 10.5-hour shifts five days a week and a five-hour
shift once a week. Thus, Ding regularly worked 57.5 hours per
week. From about Oct. 1, 2017 to April 29, 2018, Ding worked 10.5
hours per day, five days a week, and was on driver duty three to
four days a week. On average, Ding worked approximately 58 hours a
week during this time frame. He was paid $325 per week and an
additional $15 each day he was on driver duty. Ding was never
given any breaktime throughout his employment.
Mr. Li was also a deliveryman for Baumgart Cafe from Aug. 1, 2015
through March 10, 2019. Between Aug. 1, 2015 and Sept. 30, 2017,
Li worked approximately 58 hours a week, and was on driver duty
three or four days a week. Thus, Li worked an average of 64 hours
a week during this time period. Li was paid $300 a week plus an
additional $15 each day he was on driver duty. Between Oct. 1,
2017 and March 10, 2019, Li worked an average of 52.5 hours a week,
and was on driver duty three to four days a week. Accordingly, Li
worked a total of approximately 58 hours a week during this time,
and was paid $325 a week, with an additional $15 for each day he
was on driver duty. He also contends that he was not given any
time for breaks.
Messrs. Ding and Li both allege that the Defendants had a policy of
refusing to pay minimum wage, as well as overtime, to other
non-exempt and non-managerial employees. They continue that the
policy violates the FLSA and the NJWHL's requirements for employers
to provide one and a half times the wage rate for every hour worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs seek several forms
of relief, including compensation for unpaid minimum and overtime
wages.
On April 19, 2019, Ding filed a motion to conditionally certify and
provide notice to a class of similarly situated, non-managerial
employees for his FLSA claims. In support of the claim that other
putative class members (all non-exempt, non-managerial employees in
the three-year period prior to the filing of the claim) are
"similarly situated," the Plaintiff submitted an affidavit
regarding the hours and pay rates of other employees. The Court
denied Ding's motion without prejudice because Ding failed to
provide sufficient evidence of a factual nexus between his
experiences and those of all non-managerial employees.
Plaintiffs Ding and Li filed the instant motion to certify a class
pursuant to the FLSA and Rule 23 on April 12, 2020. They again
seek to certify a class of all non-managerial employees and, in the
alternative, seek to certify a class of deliverymen. The
Plaintiffs also seek court-facilitated notice for their FLSA
claims.
As to the FLSA Collective Action, Judge Vazquez finds that the
Plaintiffs demonstrate "a modest factual showing of a factual
nexus" between their work and of other deliverymen at Baumgart
Cafe. The Plaintiffs establish that they both worked more than 40
hours a week and were paid approximately $350 a week. Moreover,
they explain that at least two other deliverymen worked the same
hours beginning in 2017 and were paid the same amount as them.
They Plaintiffs further demonstrate that they know these employees'
hours because they worked together every day, and learned their pay
through "employee chat." This evidence is sufficient to satisfy
the Plaintiffs' lenient burden to conditionally certify a class as
to deliverymen.
The Plaintiffs, however, still fail to establish that they are
similarly situated with all nonmanagerial employees at Baumgart
Cafe. As with their first motion to certify, the Plaintiffs state
that the Defendants had a common policy to not pay employees
overtime. In the January 30 Opinion, the Court explained that Ding
could not rely solely on the conclusory statement and needed to
show that other employees' FLSA rights were violated. Now, the
Plaintiffs provide additional information about certain employees'
compensation, but the evidence undermines their assertion of a
common policy.
Judge Vazquez notes that the Plaintiffs only establish that they
learned what other deliverymen were paid. Without the critical
information about compensation for some employees, and in light of
their evidence demonstrating a substantial pay disparity with other
employees, the Judge cannot determine whether all non-managerial
employees were similarly situated to the Plaintiffs. Thus, because
the Plaintiffs only provide evidence demonstrating that they were
similarly situated to other deliverymen, he will only conditionally
certify a class of Baumgart Cafe deliverymen.
Turning to their request for Court facilitated notice, the
Plaintiffs argue that if the Court grants their motion to certify a
class for the FLSA claims, the Court should order Defendants to
produce a list of all non-managerial Baumgart Cafe employees from
June 10, 2015 to the present. The Plaintiffs also request that the
Court orders that the Defendants provide contact information for
these employees. They also contend that the opt-in period should
extend to three years before the Complaint was filed, rather than
two, due to the Defendants' willfulness.
The Judge agrees that the allegations sufficiently allege a
reckless disregard. Accordingly, he will extend the opt-in period
from two to three years. However, he finds that the Plaintiffs
fail to provide any further information or explanation as to how
the impacted Plaintiffs' ability to vindicate their rights or
otherwise amounts to an extraordinary circumstance. As a result,
he will not toll the statute of limitations at this time.
Lastly, because the Plaintiffs' motion is only granted for a subset
of Baumgart Cafe employees, the parties are required to meet and
confer regarding the proposed notice and consent form. The parties
are further ordered to submit the proposed notice, with any
objections, to the Court for review and approval within 30 days.
As to the Rule 23 Class Action, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a
Rule 23 class for the NJWHL claims. They contend that they
establish commonality because the Defendants have a
straightforward, centralized, uniform policy regarding the pay of
employees' compensation at flat rates regardless of the hours
worked. But Li and Ding's affidavits actually establish that there
are large discrepancies in how much different categories of
employees were paid. Thus, the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the
commonality requirement for a class of all nonmanagerial Baumgart
Cafe employees, Judge Vazquez opines. The Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a Rule 23 class, therefore, will be denied.
For the reasons he stated, and for good cause shown, Judge Vazquez
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. He certified a class of deliverymen at Baumgart
Cafe from June 10, 2015, to the present pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b). The Defendants will provide a list of names and
contact information for these employees to facilitate class
notice.
In addition to these employees' names, the Defendants must also
provide the date(s) of employment; and last known contact
information, including all known telephone number(s), email
address(es), and last known WhatsApp, WeChat and/or Facebook
username(s). To the extent the information exists in an electronic
format, the Defendants will provide it in such a format.
In addition, the parties are required to meet and confer regarding
the proposed notice and consent form, and must submit the proposed
notice, with any objections, to the Court for review and approval
within 30 days.
The Plaintiffs' motion is otherwise denied. An appropriate Order
accompanies the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y6pk4pum from Leagle.com.
BEAZER HOMES: Faces Sanni Suit Over Unpaid OT for Home Counselors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADENIKKE SANNI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEAZER HOMES TEXAS, L.P. and BEAZER HOMES
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00003 (S.D. Tex., January
2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated new home counselors overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a new home
counselor from approximately June 2019 to April 2020.
Beazer Homes Texas, L.P. is a home construction company, with its
corporate office located at 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 1200,
Atlanta, Georgia.
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. is a home construction company, with its
corporate office located at 1000 Abernathy Road, Suite 260,
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
S. Gessner Road, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Telephone: (713) 223-8855
E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
service@tranlf.com
BIG HEART: E.D. California Narrows Claims in Roper Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PENNIE ROPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00406-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale
E. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff Roper originally filed her complaint in Stanislaus County
Superior Court on Feb. 13, 2019. Therein, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant has labeled and advertised a series of products
with the representations "All Natural." However, the Products
allegedly contain non-natural, artificial, and synthetic
ingredients, including sodium tripolyphosphate, synthetic vitamins
and minerals, citric acid, and lactic acid.
The Plaintiff asserts that she and the other consumers relied on
the Defendant's natural representations when purchasing the
products and would have either not purchased them or paid
significantly less. At all relevant times, the Defendant made the
natural representations because consumers "perceive all natural
foods as better, healthier, and more wholesome." They knew what
representations it made about the Products and knew what
ingredients were added to them since it formulated and
manufactured, or oversaw the formulation and manufacturing of, the
Products and then listed all the Products' ingredients on the
packaging. The Products are governed by federal regulations that
control the labeling of the Products, and some of the ingredients
have been federally declared to be synthetic substances.
Despite being misled, the Plaintiff says she would likely
repurchase the Products in the future if the Products were
reformulated to be free of the allegedly unnatural ingredients.
However, she will remain unable to rely on the natural
representations in the future because she has no way of determining
whether the Products would be free of the challenged ingredients.
The Plaintiff brings the case as a class action for all California
residents who purchased any of the Products for personal, or
household purposes. Based upon her allegations, the Plaintiff
asserts seven causes of action, including: (i) Violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (ii) Violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (iii) Violation of
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (iv) Breach of Express
Warranty; (v) Breach of Implied Warranty; (vi) Intentional
Misrepresentation; and (vii) Breach of Quasi-Contract/Unjust
Enrichment/Restitution under California Law.
On March 29, 2019, the case was removed by the Defendant from the
Stanislaus County Superior Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
On April 18, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss all of
the Plaintiff's claims. On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her
opposition to the motion to dismiss and the Defendant replied on
July 2, 2019. On Dec. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a request for
leave to file supplemental authority.
Judge Drozd will deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation cause of action. He
finds that the Defendant's points are potentially well taken in
that it appears to be undisputed that their Products no longer bear
the "All Natural" label. However, in her complaint, the Plaintiff
alleges she purchased her Products in 2016, before the Defendant
changed the labeling. Thus, her claims for past damages incurred
remain viable. In any event, the Judge cannot consider evidence in
assessing the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and
will therefore not consider the alleged label changes in ruling on
the pending motion.
The Judge then holds that the Plaintiff's claims for injunctive
relief survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss. He finds that
the Plaintiff's allegations of future harm presented in the pending
complaint fit squarely into the categories recognized by the Ninth
Circuit. Moreover, even if the Defendant changed its label from
reading "All Natural" to "Natural," the Judge does not find at the
motion to dismiss stage a sufficient basis upon which to conclude
that all harmful conduct has ceased.
Turning to the parties' arguments regarding the sufficiency of the
Plaintiff's claims as alleged, the Judge first concludes that the
Plaintiff may pursue her equitable claims for injunctive relief to
the extent they are premised on alleged future harm. Because she
both has standing to seek injunctive relief and has sufficiently
alleged that she has no adequate remedy at law, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss with respect to the Plaintiff's FAL claim will be
denied.
Second, because the Plaintiff here seeks only injunctive relief,
the Defendant's arguments regarding the notice requirement are
inapplicable. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
CLRA claim will be denied. Lastly, the Judge concludes that a CLRA
or FAL violation properly falls into the category of a state,
federal, or local law. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's UCL claim brought under the "unlawful"
prong will be denied.
Addressing the Plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation claim, the
Plaintiff has alleged a cognizable breach of express warranty claim
despite the label's modifying language of "added vitamins, minerals
and nutrients" because she has plausibly alleged that language
could be interpreted to mean only natural vitamins, minerals, and
nutrients were added to the Products. Accordingly, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss plaintiff's express warranty claim will also be
denied.
Next, because the alleged representations here are written
advertisements and because the Plaintiff has stated a plausible
claim for breach of express warranty, the vertical privity rule
does not bar the Plaintiff's implied warranty claim, the Judge
states. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's implied
warranty claim will, therefore, also be denied.
The Judge agrees with the Defendant that Rule 8 does not allow a
plaintiff invoking state law to assert an unjust enrichment claim
while also alleging an express contract. A breach of an express
warranty covers the same subject matter as a breach of an express
contract. Because the Plaintiff may not assert a quasi-contract
claim while also alleging an express warranty claim, the Judge will
grant the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
quasi-contract restitution claim.
Finally, the Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages will be
dismissed with leave to amend only in connection with her
intentional misrepresentation claim. The Judge holds that the
Plaintiff's only potential punitive damages claims come under her
intentional misrepresentation claim and her CLRA claim. First,
because the Plaintiff's CLRA claim seeks only injunctive relief,
any claim for punitive damages in connection with that claim is
moot. Second, the Defendant correctly argues that the Plaintiff
has failed to identify any officer, director, or managing agent who
committed an act of oppression, fraud, or malice in the allegations
of her complaint and therefore cannot seek punitive damages in
connection with her intentional misrepresentation claim.
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Drozd granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's
seventh cause of action for breach of quasi-contract is dismissed
without leave to amend. Her requests for punitive damages are
stricken with leave to amend only in connection with her
intentional misrepresentation claim. The action now proceeds on
the Plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation, express warranty,
implied warranty, CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims. Any amended complaint
will be filed within 21 days from the issuance of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3l3hgkk from Leagle.com.
BLINK HOLDINGS: Can Compel Arbitration in Jampol Suit, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON JAMPOL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLINK HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 2760 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine
Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and
stayed the action.
Plaintiff Jampol brings the proposed class action against Defendant
Blink, a company that operates gyms under the "Blink Fitness"
moniker, alleging that the Defendant improperly charged Blink gym
members a full monthly membership fee for the month of March 2020
despite closing its gyms for roughly half the month due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff seeks redress for himself and the
members of the proposed class in the form of recovery of fees paid
for the time the Defendant's gyms were closed, among other claims
for relief.
The Plaintiff filed the initial complaint in the action, on behalf
of himself and the members of the proposed class, on April 2, 2020.
On May 19, 2020, the Defendant filed a letter seeking a pre-motion
conference to pursue an anticipated motion to compel arbitration,
or in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint. On May 22, 2020,
the Plaintiff filed a letter opposing the Defendant's motion for a
pre-trial conference on the grounds that he planned to file an
amended complaint, and therefore the Court denied the Defendant's
motion for a conference without prejudice on May 26, 2020.
Thereafter, on June 3, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Defendant bringing claims for unjust
enrichment, money had and received, conversion, breach of contract,
and violation of New York General Business Law Section 349. On
June 17, 2020, the Defendant filed a second letter seeking a
pre-motion conference to pursue a motion to compel arbitration,
which motion the Plaintiff opposed on June 22, 2020. The next day,
the Court denied the Defendant's request for a pre-motion
conference and instead set a briefing schedule for the Defendant's
anticipated motion to compel arbitration, or in the alternative, to
dismiss.
On July 24, 2020, the Defendant filed the instant motion, pursuant
to the Federal Arbitration Act, to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's claims and to stay the case pending the outcome of that
arbitration, or in the alternative, to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6), along with a supporting memorandum and several
declarations. It argues that these claims are governed by Blink
Fitness' Terms of Use, which contains a broad arbitration
provision.
The Plaintiff filed his opposition papers on Aug. 24, 2020, arguing
his claims are not covered by the Terms of Use. The motion became
fully briefed and ripe for review when the Defendant filed its
reply papers on Sept. 14, 2020.
The parties do not dispute that the Plaintiff assented to the Terms
of Use, and that it is a valid, binding agreement. Judge Failla,
therefore, focuses her analysis on the core area of disagreement
between the parties--namely, whether the Plaintiff's claims are
within the scope of the Arbitration Agreement.
The Defendant argues that the broad language of the Arbitration
Agreement clearly covers the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff
does not dispute that the language in the Arbitration Agreement is
broad, nor that--as read--it encompasses the claims asserted.
Rather, he relies solely on the argument that the Terms of Use does
not apply because the Membership Agreement displaces it.
The Judge holds that the Terms of Use's Arbitration Agreement
applies to the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff is correct that
his claims are covered by the Membership Agreement. However, he is
incorrect when he concludes that his claims, therefore, cannot be
covered by the Arbitration Agreement as well. The Arbitration
Agreement has extremely broad language, stating that any dispute,
claim, or controversy regarding any aspect of relationship with the
Defendant, will be resolved exclusively and finally by binding
arbitration. And that wording is similar to other arbitration
clauses that the Second Circuit has called "classically broad."
Standing alone, such a broad clause compels arbitration.
Nor does the Membership Agreement's lack of an arbitration
provision vitiate the Arbitration Agreement, the Judge finds. The
Court easily concludes that the Arbitration Agreement in the Terms
of Use remained in full force and effect, despite the subsequent
(though virtually simultaneous) execution of the Membership
Agreement. Furthermore, nothing in the Membership Agreement
"specifically precludes" the application of the arbitration clause.
The circumstances surrounding the Plaintiff's signing of the
Membership Agreement confirm that it was not meant to "specifically
preclude" application of the Arbitration Agreement.
Finally, the Plaintiff argues that the Membership Agreement should
be read to displace the Terms of Use and its broad arbitration
provision because the Membership Agreement contains a merger
clause. However, the Judge opines that the merger clause states
only that the Membership Agreement "constitutes the entire
agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the
subject matter thereto and supersedes any oral or other written
understanding." But the "subject matter" in the Membership
Agreement is distinct from that of either the Terms of Use and/or
Arbitration Agreement, and thus the merger clause cannot be read to
supersede those agreements on its own terms.
For the reasons stated in her Opinion, Judge Failla granted the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The Clerk of Court is
ordered to terminate the motion at docket entry 17 and to stay the
case. The parties are ordered to update the Court by April 29,
2021, regarding the status of any arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4gtyye3 from Leagle.com.
BRE ICONIC GWR: McCauley Files Suit in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bre Iconic GWR Owner
LLC in Maryland Circuit Court on Dec. 29, 2020. The case is styled
as Kathleen McCauley, in behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bre Iconic GWR Owner LLC and Grand Wailea Resort Hotel
& Spa, Defendants, Case No. 484393V.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as contract.
Bre Iconic GWR Owner LLC is located in Wailea, HI, United States
and is part of the Hotels, Motels & Resorts Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
BUILDING YOUR DREAM: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tarax Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE ARMANDO ARGUETA TARAX; LUIS ARGUETA TARAX; and EDGAR DAVID
ARGUETA TARAX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BUILDING YOUR DREAM INC. (D/B/A BUILDING
YOUR DREAM INC.); and ANTONIO DASILVA FILHO (A.K.A. ANTHONY),
Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00008 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.
BUILDING YOUR DREAM INC. own, operate, or control a construction
company, located at New Rochelle, NY 10801 under the name "Building
Your Dream Inc.". [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
C&W FACILITY: Quezada Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JORGE RUIZ QUEZADA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C&W
FACILITY SERVICES INC. and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No.
20CV373449, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on December 31, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-09480 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all
overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest
period premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed
meal period premiums, failure to pay wages timely during
employment, failure to pay all wages earned and unpaid at
separation, failure to indemnify all necessary business
expenditures, and failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements.
C&W Facility Services Inc. is a facility services provider with its
principal place of business in Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Justin M. Curley, Esq.
Ryan McCoy, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: jcurley@seyfarth.com
rmccoy@seyfarth.com
CASCADE PROCESS: Griffiths Sues Over Field Technicians' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MEGAN GRIFFITHS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASCADE PROCESS CONTROLS, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01464 (W.D. Tex., December 28, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for failing to pay overtime premiums to its
employees.
The Plaintiff asserts that throughout her employment with the
Defendant, she consistently worked more than 40 hours per workweek,
but she never received overtime premiums for any hours worked over
40 per workweek. The Defendant allegedly failed and refused to pay
the Plaintiff at a rate not less than one and one-half times her
regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid field
technician. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective
action seeking to recover all unpaid back wages and liquidated
damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, attorneys' fees
and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and declaratory and
injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant for further violations.
Cascade Process Controls, Ltd. provides turn-key construction and
electrical and instrumentation services to the oil and gas industry
throughout the State of Texas and Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberley, TX 786-0567
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
CD PROJEKT: Faces Multiples Class Actions Over Cyberpunk Launch
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Adler, writing for Escapist Magazine, reports that you may
have heard that Cyberpunk 2077 has been having some problems.
Following a notoriously delayed launch, the game debuted to
countless bugs, embarrassing performance issues, and a PR debacle
that led to the game's removal from the online PlayStation Store.
But those problems were just the beginning, as the game's
developer, CD Projekt Red (CDPR), is now the subject of multiple
class action lawsuits involving the game's botched launch.
But what are the lawsuits really about? And are they likely to
succeed?
The Short Version of the CD Projekt Class Action Lawsuits
The lawsuit is about fraud. The plaintiffs allege that CD Projekt
lied to its investors about the state of the game. I don't think
it's likely to succeed, since they would essentially have to prove
that CD Projekt knew the game's launch would be disastrous, which
is a high bar.
Now, the Long Version
Even though the case relates to Cyberpunk 2077, it's not really
about video games -- the suits against CD Projekt are not brought
by jaded gamers, and they do not allege false advertising as to
Cyberpunk 2077 itself. Instead, the lawsuit is a classic example of
securities fraud.
CD Projekt is based in Poland, but it is a publicly traded company
and its shares are offered for sale in the United States. The basic
claim asserted in the lawsuit is that CD Projekt and its executives
defrauded their investors by lying about the state of Cyberpunk
2077 and failing to disclose that the game's launch would be a
disaster. The theory is that, by overstating the quality of the
game and failing to disclose the performance issues, the defendants
artificially increased demand -- and thus increased the price --
for CD Projekt stock. Once the truth came out, the stock price
plummeted, resulting in loss to each of the defrauded investors.
CD Projekt class action lawsuit Cyberpunk 2077 CD Projekt Red CDPR
law legality Poland stock investors United States
The challenge with this kind of suit is that it is not enough for
the plaintiffs to prove that CDPR botched the launch or even that
CD Projekt's statements were false. In order to prevail, the
plaintiffs would have to prove that CD Projekt made false or
misleading statements, that it knew the statements were false or
misleading at the time they were made, and that its statements
caused the company to be overvalued.
As a simple made-up example, suppose that (1) on the day before
Cyberpunk 2077 was set to launch, the CEO of CD Projekt received a
report showing that the game was virtually unplayable on all
consoles; (2) the CEO then held an investor meeting and said
something like, "Cyberpunk 2077 runs at a solid 60 frames per
second on all consoles, and our QA team has not identified any bugs
in the current build," and (3) the CEO's statements resulted in an
immediate 30% increase in stock price. In that scenario, CD Projekt
investors would have a strong claim for market fraud, as the CEO
made a knowingly false statement that artificially increased the
price of CD Projekt shares, which resulted in investor losses when
his deception was realized.
The actual facts are not nearly as favorable to the plaintiffs. The
purportedly false or misleading statements are set out on pages 5-8
of the complaint and are not particularly beneficial to the
plaintiffs. For example, the complaint claims that CD Projekt lied
to investors when it announced -- in January 2020 -- that the
game's launch would be pushed back to September because the company
"needed more time to finish playtesting, fixing and polishing." The
purportedly misleading statement is that CD Projekt stated the game
was "complete and playable."
But viewed in context, that statement is not false or misleading.
From a developer's perspective, to say a game is "playable" simply
means that the game can be played. And to say a game is "complete"
means, in essence, that the first draft is done. But no one reading
that statement would view it as an endorsement of the game's
quality -- after all, the purpose of the announcement was to say
that the game would not be ready on schedule.
Let's look at some of the statements that were made on Nov. 25,
2020 -- closer to the game's launch. The purportedly false or
misleading statements are as follows:
"Positive impressions on the part of journalists, and in particular
their remarks which underscore the complexity and amazing ambience
of Night City make us very happy and confirm the remarkable
potential of Cyberpunk."
"(W)e believe that the game is performing great on every
platform."
"So, in terms of bugs, we are all aware of them. Of course, such a
big game can't be just bug free. That's kind of obvious, but we
believe that the level will be as low as to let gamers not see
them. . . . many of them are already fixed."
The first statement can hardly be considered false or misleading --
journalists did make positive remarks about Cyberpunk 2077 in the
runup to its launch, and the statement itself spoke more to CD
Projekt's subjective happiness.
The other statements are obviously more problematic. But even those
statements can't fairly be viewed as false or misleading. For one
thing, the statements reflect the speaker's (CD Projekt's CEO)
subjective views of the game's performance and were not presented
as an objective truth.
More importantly, the statement was made over two weeks before the
game's launch, meaning that CDPR may have concluded that it still
had time to fix the game's most egregious bugs. To highlight the
nuance, there is a big difference between, "(Given that we're two
weeks from launch) we believe that the game is performing great,"
and, "We believe that the game is performing great on every
platform (and is even ready to launch)." Lastly, and perhaps most
significantly, the very next sentence -- which is not quoted in the
complaint -- states that "not every platform should be great,"
signaling that performance would be much worse on the older
consoles.
The final statement also does not seem particularly misleading. To
the contrary, it acknowledges the bugs and expresses a
forward-facing subjective belief that significant bugs would be
fixed before the game's launch. Once again, that statement --
viewed by itself -- cannot fairly be characterized as objectively
false or misleading.
In sum, the claim of investor fraud seems fairly weak. Setting
aside the lack of deceptive statements, the fact remains that CD
Projekt and its CDPR developers have a compelling
counter-narrative: They screwed up. They underestimated the
quantity and significance of the bugs, thought that they would be
able to adequately address the bugs in the weeks before launch, and
were optimistic that they could address the remaining issues
through post-launch support. The complaint itself acknowledges --
and actually bolsters -- this counter-narrative, and it includes a
post-launch quote from the CEO stating that CD Projekt
"underestimated the scale and complexity of issues."
This counter-narrative is also much more plausible. It seems pretty
unlikely that CD Projekt would have gone ahead with the launch if
it knew the game were broken and if it knew that the game would be
taken off the PlayStation Store. In this regard, their actions are
consistent with their words: They screwed up, but they didn't lie.
And that should be enough to defeat these class actions. [GN]
COMFORT ALL-STARS: Strickland Sues Over Unpaid OT for Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY STRICKLAND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMFORT ALL-STARS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:20-cv-03120 (M.D. Fla., December 31, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated manual laborers overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manual laborer in
Hillsborough County, Florida from approximately June 1, 2020 until
approximately November 27, 2020.
Comfort All-Stars, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit air conditioning
enterprise, headquartered in Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
LEE LAW, PLLC
1971 West Lumsden Road, Suite 303
Brandon, FL 33511
Telephone: (813) 343‐2813
E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com
CORRECTIONS CORP: February 4 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Notice of Pendency of Class Action against
Corrections Corporation of America:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-02267
Honorable Aleta A. Trauger
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA/CORECIVIC, INC. SECURITIES BETWEEN FEBRUARY 27, 2012 AND
AUGUST 17, 2016, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an order of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee (referred to as the "District
Court"), that you may be a member of a class action pending in the
District Court.
The lawsuit captioned Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America,
et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02267, has been certified by the District
Court as a class action; and Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the
LongView Collective Investment Fund, was appointed as
representative for the Class. At this time, Class Members are not
required to take any action to remain in the Class. If any benefits
are eventually obtained for the Class as a result of this lawsuit,
eligible Class Members may be entitled to a payment.
Class Members may choose to exclude themselves from the Class. If
you exclude yourself, you will not be entitled to a payment if any
benefits are eventually obtained for the Class. If you do not
exclude yourself, you will be bound by any judgment in this
litigation, whether favorable or unfavorable. To remain a Class
Member and eligible for a payment if any benefits are eventually
obtained, you are not required to do anything at this time. To
request exclusion, you must submit a request in writing that
contains the information described in more detail in the full
Notice of Pendency of Class Action that is available at
www.CoreCivicSecuritiesLitigation.com or can be obtained by calling
(866) 779-6819. The deadline to exclude yourself is February 4,
2021.
For a full description of the litigation, including identification
of the Lead Plaintiff, Defendants, Class Counsel and the
allegations of securities fraud, as well as related Court
documents, please visit:
www.CoreCivicSecuritiesLitigation.com
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Shareholder Relations
Rick Nelson
1-619-231-1058 [GN]
CORREVIO PHARMA: May 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Jan. 4 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of Correvio Pharma Corp. common stock
(NASDAQ: CORV):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION
EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who purchased shares of Correvio
Pharma Corp. ("Correvio") common stock ("Correvio Securities")
during the period between September 5, 2018 and December 10, 2019,
inclusive (the "Settlement Class") and were damaged thereby:
Please read this notice carefully; your rights will be affected by
a class action lawsuit pending in this court.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $1,750,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.
A hearing will be held on May 14, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., before the
Honorable Valerie E. Caproni at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 443, 40 Foley Square, New York, New
York 10007, call in number 1-888-363-4749; access code 3121171, and
security code 1361, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated September 3, 2020
(and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net. You may also obtain copies of the Notice
and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re
Correvio Class Action Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services,
P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205, Media, PA 19063;
Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004; Fax: (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no
later than April 20, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and
do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion to the Claims Administrator such that it is received no
later than April 23, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than April 23, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Correvio, or
its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
info@rosenlegal.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Correvio Class Action Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004
info@strategicclaims.net
By Order of the Court [GN]
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Fifth Circuit Affirms Prelim Injunction in Daves
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the
district court's judgment granting preliminary injunction in the
lawsuit titled SHANNON DAVES; SHAKENA WALSTON; ERRIYAH BANKS;
DESTINEE TOVAR; PATROBA MICHIEKA; JAMES THOMPSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; FAITH IN TEXAS; TEXAS
ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND, Plaintiffs-Appellants
Cross-Appellees v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; ERNEST WHITE, 194th;
HECTOR GARZA, 195th; RAQUEL JONES, 203rd; TAMMY KEMP, 204th;
JENNIFER BENNETT, 265th; AMBER GIVENS-DAVIS, 282nd; LELA MAYS,
283rd; STEPHANIE MITCHELL, 291st; BRANDON BIRMINGHAM, 292nd; TRACY
HOLMES, 363rd; TINA YOO CLINTON, Number 1; NANCY KENNEDY, Number 2;
GRACIE LEWIS, Number 3; DOMINIQUE COLLINS, Number 4; CARTER
THOMPSON, Number 5; JEANINE HOWARD, Number 6; CHIKA ANYIAM, Number
7, Judges of Dallas County, Criminal District Courts,
Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants, MARIAN BROWN; TERRIE McVEA;
LISA BRONCHETTI; STEVEN AUTRY; ANTHONY RANDALL; JANET LUSK; HAL
TURLEY, Dallas County Magistrates; DAN PATTERSON, Number 1; JULIA
HAYES, Number 2; DOUG SKEMP, Number 3; NANCY MULDER, Number 4; LISA
GREEN, Number 5; ANGELA KING, Number 6; ELIZABETH CROWDER, Number
7; CARMEN WHITE, Number 8; PEGGY HOFFMAN, Number 9; ROBERTO CANAS,
JR., Number 10; SHEQUITTA KELLY, Number 11 Judges of Dallas County,
Criminal Courts at Law, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-11368
(5th Cir.).
The matter is an interlocutory appeal from a preliminary injunction
and related orders entered in a lawsuit brought under Section 1983
of the Constitution. The claim is that state judges in Dallas,
Texas, are unconstitutionally denying release to indigent
arrestees, who cannot pay the prescribed cash bail.
The district court certified the suit as a class action and allowed
three different categories of judges to be defendants. It court
determined that the Sheriff was not a proper defendant for Section
1983 purposes but did not yet dismiss her from the case. It held
there was a likelihood of success by the Plaintiffs on their
equal-protection and procedural-due-process claims and granted
injunctive relief against the judges and the County.
With one exception, the Appellate Court agrees with the district
court that the Plaintiffs have standing. It holds that the suit was
properly allowed to proceed against most of the judges and the
County. As for the Criminal District Court Judges, though, the
Appellate Court holds that they are not proper defendants because
the Plaintiffs lack standing as to them and cannot overcome
sovereign immunity.
The Appellate Court also disagrees with the district court and
holds that the Sheriff can be enjoined to prevent that official's
enforcement of measures violative of federal law. Finally, it was
correct to conclude that the Plaintiffs need not first pursue
habeas corpus relief. Hence, the Appellate Court affirms the
injunction -- with one revision -- and remands for further
proceedings.
Discussion
At the time of the briefing, Defendant Dallas County asserted that
the Plaintiffs' counsel had brought more than a dozen cases in
different states challenging the requirement of money bail for
indigent arrestees. Among these were five active cases in Texas:
the instant one in Dallas County, one in Galveston County, and
three in Harris County. A Harris County case resulted in three
Fifth Circuit opinions that are significant to the appeal.
The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 21, 2018, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas. An amended complaint was filed
a little more than a week later. The Plaintiffs include six
indigent individuals, who were arrested from Jan. 17 to 19, 2018,
and had allegedly been kept in jail in Dallas County because they
could not afford to pay the required cash bail.
The appellate record shows that those arrested for criminal
offenses in Dallas County are taken for an initial hearing before
Dallas County Criminal District Court Magistrate Judges. At that
hearing, a Magistrate Judge sets bail and considers whether to
release the arrestee on a secured or unsecured bond. Seven
Magistrate Judges are defendants; an affidavit states there are
twenty in the county.
Additional Defendants include Dallas County and its Sheriff, Marian
Brown. Also sued are 17 Dallas County Criminal District Court
Judges ("District Court Judges"), who handle felony offenses, and
11 judges of the Dallas County Criminal Courts at Law ("County
Court Judges"), with jurisdiction over misdemeanor offenses. The
District Court Judges appoint all the Magistrate Judges.
The district court's judgment has generated an appeal, three
cross-appeals, and a jurisdictional issue raised late in a letter
to the court. Combining where it can, the Appellate Court discusses
the issues in the order, which appears to be a logical sequencing:
I. Do the Plaintiffs have standing generally?
II. Should the court either abstain or first require the
Plaintiffs to exhaust state-court remedies?
III. Are the District Court Judges proper defendants?
IV. Is Dallas County a proper defendant?
V. Is the Sheriff a proper defendant?
VI. What relief, if any, should be granted to the Plaintiffs?
Both District Court and County Court Judges established a schedule
for Magistrate Judges to use in deciding the amount of bail needed
to release arrestees. The schedules were contained in broader
guidelines for these proceedings. They suggest specific bail
amounts for corresponding offenses. Further, in February 2018, the
month after the suit was filed, the District Court Judges directed
the Magistrate Judges to take an arrestee's ability to pay into
consideration when setting bail, based on financial affidavits
arrestees can fill out prior to the hearing. Nevertheless, the
district court here found that the Magistrate Judges routinely
treat these schedules as binding when determining bail.
The district court issued an opinion and injunction on Sept. 20,
2018. It found that the directive to Magistrate Judges to take
financial affidavits into account made no noticeable difference in
the practices for setting terms of release. Indigent arrestees, who
could not pay the bail amount suggested in the schedule and who did
not plead guilty, were "taken back to the Dallas County Jail" and
"kept in a jail cell until their next appearance," usually "weeks
or months" later.
The district court found "a clear showing of routine wealth based
detention." It also found "a clear showing this detention violates
procedural due process and equal protection rights." It concluded
that the Fifth Circuit decision as to Harris County had already
indicated the appropriate injunctive relief for such violations,
and accordingly the court imposed in the present case the model
injunction suggested in one of those earlier opinions.
On the issue whether the Plaintiffs have standing to bring suit
over bail policies, Judge Southwick notes that Article III standing
is a jurisdictional requirement. Though the Plaintiffs were
subjected to the claimed unconstitutional bail requirement before
they filed the original complaint, they were still in detention at
the time the complaint was filed and were being subjected to
"continuing, present adverse effects." Accordingly, with one
exception regarding the District Court Judges, the Plaintiffs'
complaint at the time of filing satisfied the redressability and
injury-in-fact requirements, Judge Southwick states.
The District Court Judges, in their cross-appeal, say the district
court should have dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit because it was
necessary for them to pursue the state habeas corpus remedy prior
to bringing this suit. Those judges rely first on Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).
The Appellate Court concludes that the declaratory judgment and the
injunction that were granted do not present a Preiser issue. The
relief of a more robust hearing would not necessarily lead to
"immediate release from that confinement or the shortening of its
duration." Requiring that a judicial officer consider whether the
detainee can afford money bail and, if not, whether there is some
option for release short of money bail that would protect the
County's legitimate interests does not short circuit state habeas
procedures.
Another issue is whether the Plaintiffs properly can seek to enjoin
the District Court Judges in their official capacity if the
Plaintiffs' claims against them fail to meet the causal-connection
and redressability elements for the existence of a case or
controversy, citing such caselaw as Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. at 560-61. The Panel concludes that state District Court
Judges act for the State when acting on bail. The district court in
the case, at least for purposes of Section 1983 and not sovereign
immunity, held that these judges were county officers. With
respect, the District Courts are not county courts, and their
judges are not county officers when acting regarding bail, Judge
Southwick opines.
The Appellate Court also concludes that because the District Court
Judges are state officers, so are the Magistrate Judges that the
District Court Judges appoint and to whom they provide guidance
such as with the bail schedule.
Notwithstanding these conclusions, victory or defeat for the
District Court Judges on the issue of their amenability to suit
cannot yet be declared, Judge Southwick says. Because this part of
the suit is against state judges in their official capacity, it is
in effect a suit against the State of Texas itself. A high hurdle
now looms for the Plaintiffs.
In sum, the Appellate Court's precedents show, on one end of the
spectrum, that a concrete statutory duty to enforce the challenged
law will invoke the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity.
On the other end, the Ex parte Young exception will not apply to a
defendant who has neither "some connection" nor a "special
relationship" to the enforcement of the challenged law.
The Panel concludes that the District Court Judges lack a
sufficient connection to the enforcement of the felony bail
schedules. The District Court Judges promulgated the bail schedule
used to set bail for felony arrestees. That alone is not enough to
satisfy Ex parte Young's requirements.
As a result, the Plaintiffs have neither standing to sue the
District Court Judges nor the ability to show a sufficient
connection between the District Court Judges and enforcement of the
felony bail schedule sufficient to satisfy Ex parte Young. The
Appellate Court's principles of standing and the Eleventh
Amendment, therefore, bar suit against the District Court Judges.
Regardless of any argument that County Court Judges, like the
District Court Judges, should be considered part of the state
judicial system, the Appellate Court does not see a distinction
between the judges for the Dallas County Court and those for the
Harris County Criminal Court in ODonnell that would justify the
Appellate Court's reaching a different conclusion.
Judge Southwick also opines that suit against the Criminal District
Court Judges is barred by sovereign immunity because they are
officials of the State of Texas and the Ex parte Young exception
does not apply, and also because the Plaintiffs lack standing as to
them. The Sheriff can be enjoined to prevent that officer's
enforcement of measures violative of federal law, regardless of
whether the sheriff is a proper defendant for municipal liability
purposes under Section 1983. So may the Magistrate Judges.
The Appellate Court affirms the injunction except for any
application to the District Court Judges and for its articulation
of the Sheriff's responsibilities as to bail orders. It remands for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Dec. 28, 2020, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybnfuemh from Leagle.com.
DIGITAL MEDIA: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Hooper Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAHAM HOOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 21-000003-CI (Fla. Cir., 16th Jud. Ct., Pinellas Cty.,
January 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone
dialing system in an attempt to promote various lending services
without prior express written consent. The Defendant's unsolicited
text messages caused the Plaintiff harm, including invasion of his
privacy and annoyance.
Digital Media Solutions, LLC is a company that provides digital
marketing solutions, headquartered in Clearwater, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
EPPING GARDENS: Co-Owner Fleds to Greece Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Neos Kosmos reports that Greek Australian co-owner of Epping
Gardens aged care home, which is under investigation over a major
class action following the deaths 38 residents from Coronavirus,
has fled to Greece, according to The Sunday Age.
Peter Arvanitis and his wife Areti reportedly left Melbourne two
weeks before Christmas after receiving a travel exemption from the
Australian Department of Home Affairs to attend to "essential
business" in Athens.
The backlash over poor conditions at Epping Gardens where 103
residents tested positive to COVID-19 and 86 staff got infected has
been overwhelming. The news of the Arvanitis' departure has
infuriated grieving relatives and affected staff even further.
"[Mr Arvanitis] has never taken any responsibility or shown any
compassion. We want him to come back to Melbourne and face up to
the families who have been destroyed by this," Sam Agnello, who is
lead plaintiff in a class action involving Heritage Care, said to
The Sunday Age. Mr Angelo's mother was a resident that died of
Covid-19.
"[I am] unsure of my return date, depending on business progress
here and of course requirements of international travellers
returning home. The plan is to be home sooner rather than later,"
Mr Arvanitis told The Sunday Age.
What is even more baffling is that the couple did not notify any
business associates of their departure.
"I did not inform Greg Reeve as my personal business has nothing to
do with Heritage Care. I do not have an executive or board role in
Heritage Care, and my investment is passive. My private business
has nothing to do with any employee of Heritage Care," Mr Arvanitis
explained to The Sunday Age.
Mr Arvanitis and business partner Tony Antonopoulos each own a 50
per cent stake in Heritage Care Pty Ltd, which has a portfolio of
10 aged care homes in both Sydney and Melbourne, including Epping
Gardens.
As The Sunday Age reports, Heritage Care chief executive Greg Reeve
was unaware of Mr Arvanitis' departure, however, the Greek
Australian mogul did resign from his role as director during the
turmoil back in September.
Meanwhile, the multimillionaire's mansion on Irving Road has been
listed for sale privately. The property could be sold for up to $40
million.
On that note, Mr Arvanitis told the news outlet: "Although I am not
actively looking to sell, everything has a price and only for a
significant premium. If I was to sell, I have several properties in
Toorak and interstate I could move into. My history in real estate
demonstrates this as I have sold over 60 properties in the last
five years."
While the Arvanitis couple escapes to Greece, the deadly outbreak
at Epping Gardens remains under investigation by WorkSafe and the
State Coroner, in collaboration with Police. The facility will also
be reassessed to determine whether or not it is still fit to hold
accreditation as an aged care facility.
Finally, Greek Community members are also questioning the
Arvanitis' decision to leave the country: "We also need to know on
what grounds Mr Morrison's government allowed them to leave
Australia when they were facing court and during the alleged border
closures. Indeed, separately, HOW many have been granted exemptions
Mr Morrison and why? But as to this couple, Mr Morrison should
personally phone the Hellenic PM and ask him to send them back,"
Ange T Kenos wrote on Twitter. [GN]
EQUITY TRUST: Order to Produce Documents in Jacobs Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WILLIE JACOBS, et al., Appellees v. EQUITY
TRUST COMPANY, et al., Appellants, Case No. 20CA011621 (Ohio App.),
the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain County,
reverses an order for the production of certain documents.
The Appellants, Equity Trust, Equity Administrative Services, Inc.,
Jeffrey Desich, and Richard Desich, Sr., appeal an interlocutory
order of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas ordering the
production of certain documents to the Appellees, Willie Jacobs,
Elias Zachos, and Gerald Watts.
Jacobs, Elias Zachos, and Gerald Watts filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Equity Defendants alleging claims
related to investment losses in their self-directed individual
retirement accounts. One of the allegations asserted by the
Plaintiffs involves Equity Trust failing to disclose and charging
fees on customers' uninvested cash in their accounts in
contravention of the Custodial Account Agreement. Equity Trust
modified the Agreement in July 2011, and the Plaintiffs sought
discovery regarding the revision of the Agreement.
After having received 6,600 documents, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion for an in camera inspection of approximately 1,260 documents
that the Equity Defendants withheld on various grounds of
privilege. After a status conference and further independent
discussions between counsel, the number of disputed documents was
eventually reduced to 225 documents.
Relative to the appeal, the Equity Defendants submitted 50 of the
225 disputed documents for an in camera inspection. These 50
documents were organized in a binder under 40 tabbed sections and
consisted of redacted emails and attached drafts of the Agreement
that were exchanged internally between employees of Equity Trust
and with legal counsel during June and July 2011 related to the
revision of the Agreement. Along with the binder, the Equity
Defendants filed two affidavits by Michael Dea, the CEO of Equity
Trust, and their billing statements from Ulmer & Berne, LLP, as
evidentiary support that the 50 documents were protected by
attorney-client privilege. Following an in camera review, the trial
court ordered the Equity Defendants to produce the documents
contained within 31 of the 40 tabs.
The Equity Defendants timely appeal asserting one assignment of
error. They assert that the trial court erred when it ordered them
to produce documents to the Plaintiffs that are protected by
attorney-client privilege.
The Appellate Court agrees. Generally, it states, it applies an
abuse of discretion standard when reviewing discovery orders,
citing Teodecki v. Litchfield Twp., 9th Dist. Medina No.
14CA0035-M, 2015-Ohio-2309, quoting Giusti v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr.,
178 Ohio App.3d 53, 2008-Ohio-4333. However, when the information
sought in discovery is alleged to be confidential and privileged,
it is a question of law that is reviewed de novo, says Judge Lynne
S. Callahan, writing for the Panel.
Because the discovery issue raised by the Equity Defendants
involves whether the redacted emails and draft revisions of the
Agreement are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Panel
reviews the matter de novo.
In the matter, the Equity Defendants have asserted the
attorney-client privilege to 1) redacted emails and the attached
draft revisions of the Agreement exchanged between employees of
Equity Trust, 2) draft revisions of the Agreement that were
attached to emails between outside counsel and Equity Trust
employees, and 3) draft revisions of the Agreement that were
attached to emails between Equity Trust employees.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Equity Defendants have failed to show
that the employees of Equity Trust were aware that the dominant
purpose of the communications was legal advice. Also, they argue
that the drafts created by Equity Trust were sent to counsel solely
to avoid disclosure. Lastly, the Plaintiffs argue that the
attorney-client privilege does not apply to the redacted emails and
the draft revisions of the Agreement because they do not reflect
legal advice, but rather business decisions.
Judge Callahan opines that when the dominant purpose of the
communication is a business decision and not legal advice, then
"the communication cannot be insulated from discovery just by
sending a copy of it to a lawyer." If the predominant purpose is
legal advice, then all parts of the communication, including the
non-legal portions, are protected by the attorney-client
privilege.
As a result of the Appellate Court's independent review, the Panel
concludes that Tabs 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39,
and 40 are privileged attorney-client communications. Accordingly,
the trial court erred when it ordered the Equity Defendants to
produce these documents to the Plaintiffs.
The Equity Defendants' sole assignment of error is sustained. The
interlocutory order of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas
ordering the Equity Defendants to produce the documents to the
Plaintiffs is reversed.
Judge Callahan finds that there were reasonable grounds for this
appeal. The Appellate Court orders that a special mandate issue out
of the Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of
Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry the judgment into execution. A
certified copy of the journal entry will constitute the mandate,
pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing thereof, the document will constitute
the journal entry of judgment, and it will be file stamped by the
Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review
will begin to run. The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed
to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to
make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R.
30.
Costs taxed to the Appellees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Journal Entry dated
Dec. 28, 2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7kbvuan from
Leagle.com.
Thomas R. Lucchesi -- tlucchesi@bakerlaw.com -- Brett A. Wall --
bwall@bakerlaw.com -- James H. Rollinson -- jrollinson@bakerlaw.com
-- and David F. Proano -- dproano@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler
LLP, for Appellants.
Stuart E. Scott -- Sscott@spanglaw.com -- Dennis R. Lansdowne --
Dlansdowne@spanglaw.com -- Nicholas A. Dicello --
NDiCello@spanglaw.com -- and Kevin C. Hulick, Spangenberg Shibley &
Liber LLP, for Appellees.
EVERGREEN PACKAGING: Underpays Production Workers, Carreno Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD CARRENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVERGREEN PACKAGING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:20-cv-01502-KGB (E.D. Ark., December 29 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
unlawful practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Production
Specialist from July 2020 through the present.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated production workers were classified by the Defendant as
hourly employees and non-exempt from the overtime requirements of
the FLSA. However, although they were regularly required by the
Defendant to work more hours than they were scheduled to wait for
the next person to show up for their shift, and their hours worked
were recorded via a digital fob, which logged their hours into an
electronic payroll system maintained by the Defendant, the
Defendant inadequately compensated them for all hours they worked.
The Defendant allegedly rounded down their hours worked in 15 to 30
minutes increments. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated production workers were deprived by the Defendant of their
lawful overtime premium for all hours they worked over 40 each
week.
Evergreen Packaging, LLC owns and operates a paper mill in
Jefferson County. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
FAIRFIELD, ME: Class Action Mulled Over PFAS Contaminated Wells
---------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Shelly, writing for Morning Sentinel, reports that as the
state continues to investigate water and farmland in Fairfield that
are contaminated with "forever chemicals," the town and some of its
residents are mobilizing to come up with long-term solutions in
2021.
Lifelong Fairfield resident Stana McLeod, 74, has formed a Facebook
group that now has more than 40 members.
McLeod posts information to educate residents about the ongoing
investigation and a similar situation that unfolded more than 20
years ago, both involving the spreading of sludge.
So far, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has
discovered 18 wells in Fairfield that have levels of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances -- PFOA and PFOS -- that are higher than
the 70-parts-per-trillion limit allowed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
The discoveries came after a test was conducted by the Maine
Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry in February
that showed milk from Tozier Dairy Farm along Ohio Hill Road had
levels of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid that were higher than the
state-allowed limit of 210 parts per trillion.
Milk samples from the farm had levels of 12,700, 14,900 and 32,200
parts per trillion. The farm's products have been pulled from
shelves.
Jerri-Lee Cookson, 65, who lives less than a mile from two fields
owned by the Toziers and 3 miles from the farm, is among those who
have had their water sources tested.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection officials discovered
in September 2020 that Cookson's water contained such high levels
of PFOS and PFOA that she was advised to stop drinking it.
Cookson's neighbor, Judy Poulin, 77, had even higher levels of the
chemicals in her water and was told to stop using it, too.
"My right to clean water has been taken away from me, and I didn't
have anything to do with it," Poulin said in November 2020. "I'm
not a happy camper."
In October, Poulin began hauling five-gallon containers of fresh
water to her house for drinking and cooking.
"Those things are heavy," she said. "I have to wait for somebody to
come to bring them in the house for me."
PFAS are a group of manmade chemicals introduced in the 1940s. They
were used in consumer products, such as carpeting, fabric,
clothing, food packaging and pots and pans. They were also used in
firefighting foams used at airports, training facilities and
military bases.
They are called "forever chemicals" because their bond is strong
and they do not break down easily in the environment or in the
body.
Studies have shown exposure can cause health issues, such as
elevated cholesterol, thyroid disease, damage to the liver and
kidneys, adverse effects on fertility and low birth weight. Other
studies show links between PFAS and the elevated risk of certain
cancers, according to the U.S. EPA and other sources.
In 2021, McLeod said she will continue following the investigation
so she and other residents can file a class-action lawsuit through
Susan A. Faunce, a personal-injury lawyer from Lewiston.
"(Faunce) handles things like this, and they suggested that I -- as
people find out their wells are contaminated -- I would have them
call there and talk to her," McLeod said in December. "They will
keep a record of these people, and then we can talk about the
class-action lawsuit."
McLeod said she remembered a similar situation that arose from the
disposal of paper mill waste in a Fairfield landfill in the 1970s
and 1980s. From McLeod's grandmother's house, the landfill could be
seen glowing in the dark, sometimes catching fire, smelling
horrible and being connected to a cancer cluster.
With PFAS chemicals, the threat became insidious because the sludge
was billed as beneficial to farmland and lasting "forever,"
according to reports.
"I feel like we are doomed out here," McLeod said in an interview
in December, adding her efforts to bring the situation to the
attention of local and state officials were not getting through.
Meanwhile, Fairfield will continue providing bottled water to
residents who have been told to stop drinking from their wells
while the state installs filtration systems.
"The Department of Environmental protection has assured me that
they will continue to make water available to residents with
effected wells until they can install the granular activated carbon
filtration systems at each private home," Town Manager Michelle
Flewelling wrote in a Dec. 23 email.
"The Town provides updates to residents, that are received from
DEP, with the weekly water pick up. Those updates are then posted
to our website under the PFAS notification section."
In November, Poland Spring, the bottler of spring water, donated
960 gallons of water for the town to distribute to residents. The
town of Skowhegan has also donated 900 gallons of water that was
left from the apparent contamination of its drinking water system
that resulted in a "do not drink" order.
Fairfield is also looking to expand its water system as another
long-term solution.
"The Town is currently investigating the extension of the Kennebec
Water District's infrastructure so that public water can be
provided as a long term solution," Flewelling wrote in her email.
[GN]
FLEET COURIER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Blount Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REGINALD BLOUNT; DESMOND WHATLEY; DAVID BARTLESON; and KIRK L.
JIMMERSON, JR., Plaintiffs v. FLEET COURIER, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00009 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 4, 2021) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and provide accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as driver.
FLEET COURIER, INC. offers courier service for delivery. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carlos R. Pastrana, Esq.
Nathaniel Cade, Jr., Esq.
CADE LAW GROUP LLC
P.O. Box 170887
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Telephone: (414) 255-3802
E-mail: carlos@cade-law.com
nate@cade-law.com
FORDHAM FULTON: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, De Jesus Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ELIAS DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORDHAM FULTON REALTY, CORP. and
LOTUS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10951
(S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2020) alleges the Defendants of willful
violations of minimum and overtime provisions under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants from in or about October
2013 until April 17, 2020 as a porter, whose duties include
removing of garbage and cleaning the interior and exterior grounds
of the premises as well as cleaning of vacant apartments.
The Plaintiff contends that he was not paid by the Defendants the
lawful minimum wage and overtime compensation at a rate of one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over
40 each week.
The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
pre- and post-judgment interest.
Fordham Fulton Realty Corp. and Lotus Management Services, Inc. are
in the business of owning and renting properties, including
residential units, to members of the public.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq.
THE STEPHENS LAW FIRM PLLC
305 Broadway, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (212) 385-1400
Fax: (212) 385-1401
E-mail: firm@stephenslawny.com
GENZYME CORP: Wilkins Suit Moved From Indiana to Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TRINA WILKINS, JAMES BISHOP, LISA BISHOP, TONI
CORDOVA, JOHN CORTINA, JILL CORTINA, GEORGE DEMKO, MARY HELTON,
D.J., SYDNEY JOHNSON, DAMON LAFORCE, MICHAEL MASULA, ERIN MASULA,
JAMES MATTHEWS, THOMAS OLSZEWSKI, DARLENE COOKINGHAM, THOMAS
STANZIANO, WENDY STANZIANO, EDDIE VIERS, WILLIAM MCNEW, JEANNE
WALLACE, JAMES WALLACE, SAMUEL WALLACE, NATE BROOKS, AMBER BRITTON,
and DOVAN HELTON, Plaintiffs v. GENZYME CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-cv-00051-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton
Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, New Albany Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to
Transfer Venue.
Plaintiff Wilkins and numerous other Plaintiffs named in the
caption initiated the proposed class action lawsuit against Genzyme
for numerous claims involving health care pharmaceutical personal
injury and product liability. After the Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint, Genzyme promptly filed a Motion to Transfer
Venue, asking the Court to transfer the action to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. A video oral argument was
held on Dec. 16, 2020.
Genzyme asks the Court to transfer the case to the District of
Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). It argues
that the presence of ongoing or past litigation in the transferee
court that is similar to the case at hand is one of the most
significant factors when considering transfer. It also asserts
that transfer to Massachusetts is appropriate because the case
involves allegations surrounding events occurring in Massachusetts,
as well as evidence and witnesses primarily based in Massachusetts,
and it is centered on the actions of a Massachusetts-domiciled
corporation. Finally, Genzyme contends there is no compelling
reason to litigate the action in Indiana.
Responding in opposition to transferring the case, the Plaintiffs
assert that most of the witnesses and evidence related to Genzyme's
fraudulent scheme are not located in Massachusetts. They argue
that Genzyme has put forward only generic arguments that the
tortious conduct occurred where Genzyme is headquartered, but the
reality is that witnesses are located all over the country. The
documentary evidence is in electronic format and already has been
produced in the case of Schubert v. Genzyme Corporation, et al., a
Utah case. The Plaintiffs argue that the private and public
interests do not favor transfer.
If the case is transferred to Massachusetts, the Plaintiffs assert
that the case will be randomly assigned, so there is no guarantee
that the judge familiar with the case will even handle this matter.
They assert that the public interest factors favor keeping the
case in Indiana. Indiana has a public interest in providing a forum
for its citizens who have been injured.
After careful consideration of the parties' arguments and the case
law, Judge Pratt concludes that the factors of convenience and the
interests of justice favor transferring the case to the District of
Massachusetts. Genzyme's arguments and position are well-taken.
The Plaintiffs are located in Massachusetts, Virginia, Indiana, and
a number of other states spread across the country. Genzyme, like
some of the Plaintiffs, is located in Massachusetts. Witnesses are
spread across the country, but many of the witnesses with knowledge
concerning Genzyme's conduct giving rise to the claims are located
in Massachusetts. The location of material events is primarily in
Massachusetts, with some events occurring in states across the
country. Access to sources of proof and access to and distance
from resources are close to neutral whether in Indiana or
Massachusetts. These factors of "convenience" tend to favor venue
in Massachusetts.
The Judge further concludes that the factors of the "interests of
justice" also favor venue in Massachusetts. The efficient
administration of the court system, docket congestion, and likely
speed to trial in each forum point to Massachusetts. The Southern
District of Indiana is the second busiest federal district court in
the country based on weighted case load per judge. The District of
Massachusetts has 17 district court judges and ten magistrate
judges. The Southern District of Indiana has only six district
court judges and seven magistrate judges. As of March 31, 2020,
the District of Massachusetts had 3,685 pending civil cases whereas
the Southern District of Indiana had 10,064 pending civil cases.
According to the Local Rules of the District of Massachusetts, upon
transfer, the case would be assigned to the judge who previously
handled the related cases of Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corporation,
No. 1:11-cv-10739-DPW (D. Mass. Mar. 9, 2011) and Adamo v. Genzyme
Corporation, No. 1:13-cv-11336 (D. Mass. June 3, 2013). Given that
essentially the same case has been considered by the District of
Massachusetts, that district court's familiarity with the relevant
law, claims, issues, and parties is superior to the Court's
familiarity with such. Judicial efficiency would be served by
transferring the case.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pratt granted Genzyme's Motion to
Transfer Venue, and transferred the case to the District of
Massachusetts. The Clerk is directed to transfer the matter to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and close the
matter on the Court's docket.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y4qpocfq from Leagle.com.
GOOGLE LLC: Astarita Sues Over Online Display Advertising Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK J. ASTARITA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC; and ALPHABET INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00022 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Google leveraged its
monopoly in online search and search advertising to acquire an
illegal monopoly in brokering display advertising, the placement of
advertisements on other companies' websites. Google gained this
market dominance in part by acquiring rivals in the online
advertising space, conditioning access to its search-results data
and YouTube video advertising platform upon the purchase of its
separate display advertising services, and making its
intermediation systems incompatible with those of its competitors.
Google's scheme to monopolize the market for brokering display
advertising has vastly reduced competition in the purchase and
placement of this advertising and resulted in economic harm to
advertisers and publishers alike.
Because of its pervasive monopoly conduct, Google now controls the
"ad tech stack" comprising the intermediary services between
advertisers, which pay to place digital advertisements, and
publishers paid to publish those ads on their websites. Companies
that wish to place or publish online advertisements have little
choice but to pay Google for its advertising services, including
instantaneous auctions, and Google's exclusion of competition in
this intermediation market has enabled it to favor its own
advertising platforms. Google's extraction of monopoly rents
through fees charged to both advertisers and publishers has
resulted in higher prices paid by advertisers, higher consumer
prices, and lower payments to publishers of online display
advertisements.
Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.
Alphabet Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through
its subsidiaries, provides Web-based search, advertisements, maps,
software applications, mobile operating systems, consumer content,
enterprise solutions, commerce, and hardware products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dsharp@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
apolk@girardsharp.com
scottg@girardsharp.com
- and -
John D. Radice, Esq.
April Lambert, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
alambert@radicelawfirm.com
GOOGLE: Privacy Suit Class Cert. Filing Deadline Set for July 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: GOOGLE ASSISTANT PRIVACY
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:19-cv-04286-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Beth Labson Freeman entered an order terminating the current class
certification filing deadline.
The Court sets the new class certification filing deadline for July
16, 2021. This deadline is subject to extension, if necessary.
On January 4, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that
the Court (1) terminate the current class certification filing
deadline and (2) set a new class certification filing deadline
after the pending motion to dismiss is resolved.
Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38lLrkL at no extra charge.[CC]
GREAT ATLANTIC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREAT ATLANTIC TRADING COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-10970-PGG (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer.
The Plaintiff claims that when she visited the Defendant's Website,
www.caviarstar.com, on multiple occasions, the last occurring in
December 2020, she encountered multiple access barriers which
denied her of a shopping experience similar to that of sighted
individual. Due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, the Plaintiff was effectively barred 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 because it has failed 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.
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, including all applicable statutory and
punitive damages and fines; pre- and post-judgment interest;
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses; and other
relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Great Atlantic Trading Company is a caviar and gourmet foods
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
GREAT CONSTRUCTION: Workers Collective Class Certified in Cruz Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jorge Cruz, Carlos Cruz,
William Ordonez, and Segundo Ordonez, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, v. Great Construction Group
Corp., Great Construction Partners Corp., Everwood Construction
Inc., Jiri Osicka, and Kamil Svrcek, Case No. 7:20-cv-04380-KMK
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order:
1. approving for mailing the collective action notice
entitled "NOTICE OF LAWSUIT AND OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN,"
attached to the plaintiffs' letter of December 21, 2020,
and the opt-in form entitled "CONSENT TO JOIN COLLECTIVE
ACTION AND BECOME A PARTY PLAINTIFF," attached to the
plaintiffs' letter of December 21, 2020, to potential
collective action opt-in plaintiffs in English and Spanish
and any other language spoken by a significant number of
class members;
2. certifying the collective class of potential plaintiffs
consisting of:
"all current and former construction workers, including
carpenters and laborers, who were employed by Great
Construction Group Corp., Great Construction Partners
Corp., and Everwood Construction Inc. At at any time on or
after June 8, 2017, to the date of this Order;
3. directing the defendants, within 20 days of this Order, to
provide to the plaintiffs' counsel, in a spreadsheet or
other machine-readable form, the full names and last-known
addresses of all potential plaintiffs who who fit within
the collective class, and indicate the native languages
(if known) of any individuals for whom English is not
their native language;
4. directing the defendants to instead supply to the
plaintiffs' counsel telephone numbers and/or email
addresses, to the extent defendants possess this
information for any individuals for whom the defendants
lack valid addresses,
5. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to keep all information
supplied strictly confidential, and to use the information
solely for the purpose of locating potential opt-in
plaintiffs for the purpose of notifying them of the
pendancy of this action;
6. directing the Plaintiffs to mail the notice of collective
action and opt-in form, in English and any other native
language, to all potential collective action opt-in
plaintiffs no later than ten days following defendants'
disclosure of their names and addresses;
7. permitting the plaintiff's counsel to mail the notice to
any such persons again at any other address they may
determine is appropriate, if any notice to any potential
collective action opt-in plaintiff is returned as
undeliverable;
8. authorizing the Plaintiffs' counsel to send a reminder
mailing and/or email to all unresponsive collective action
members halfway through the notice period; and
9. directing all potential collective action plaintiffs to
opt-in no later than 60 days following the date of the
initial mailing of the collective action notice by
returning the executed forms.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bhS4Xc at no extra charge.[CC]
HOMEXPRESS MORTGAGE: Beal Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN BEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMEXPRESS MORTGAGE CORP. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-02516-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal., December 29, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -0980 beginning in
or about October 2020 in an attempt to promote its services. The
Defendant transmitted its text messages via its SMS Blasting
Platform, which is an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS)
on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone service for which the
Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not obtain his "prior
express consent" to receive text messages using an ATDS on his
cellular telephone. In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since 2003.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages for invading his privacy
and causing him to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time
for which he had previously paid.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting such unlawful
conduct of the Defendant in the future, statutory and treble
damages, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Homexpress Mortgage Corp. is a mortgage lending 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
IDT DOMESTIC: Sedaghatfar Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
NAHID SEDAGHATFAR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDT DOMESTIC TELECOM, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-11729
(C.D. Cal., December 29, 2020) brings this complaint as a class
action against the Defendant seeking damages and injunctive relief
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant transmitted multiple
unsolicited text messages on her cellular telephone number ending
in -9990 on May 19, 2020 in an attempt to send a spam advertisement
of its services. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" in transmitting text messages without the
Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive such text messages via
ATDS.
The Plaintiff asserts that he was harmed by the Defendant's
unsolicited text messages. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive
relief prohibiting such unlawful conduct of the Defendant in the
future, statutory and treble damages, and other relief that the
Court deems just and proper.
IDT Domestic Telecom, Inc. is a telecommunications 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
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Chauhan Suit Removed to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RAKESH CHAUHAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERCEPT
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MARK PRUZANSKI; and SANDIP S. KAPADIA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036-LJL, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 4,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00036 to the
proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act and is assigned to the Hon. Lewis J Liman.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and markets
biopharmaceutical products. The Company focuses on the development
and commercialization of therapeutics to treat chronic liver
diseases utilizing proprietary bile acid chemistry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
-and-
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
JAY INSLEE: Schumacher, et al., Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA SCHUMACHER, et al.,
v. JAY R. INSLEE, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05535-MJP (W.D. Wash.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class, consisting of:
"the Plaintiffs who have suffered the exact same
constitutional deprivations as similarly situated
Individual Providers (IP's) throughout the State of
Washington, all of whom were forced to affiliate with
Service Employees International Union 775 (SEIU 775) and
pay a portion of their wages in exchange for the privilege
of caring for disabled family members;"
2. appointing the Plaintiffs as the class representatives;
and
3. appointing Robert A. Bouvatte, Jr. and James G. Abernathy,
Freedom Foundation, as class counsel for representation of
the certified class.
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, certification of a class is appropriate for
the instant First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims
relating to the Defendants' unlawful deductions of union dues from
the wages of the Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed
class, which have been applied pursuant to the same authority and
using the same mechanism against all class members (including the
named Plaintiffs), and which therefore introduce only common
questions of law and fact as to numerous class members, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs all contend that union dues and other payments were
deducted from their wages without consent, and the Union's
principal basis for rebutting this, with respect to the Plaintiffs
as it will be for other class members.
SEIU 775 was formed in 2002 when home care and nursing home workers
from several different SEIU locals formed a labor union focused on
long-term care workers and issues.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 5,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rZtn7V
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert A. Bouvatte, Esq.
James G. Abernathy, Esq.
C/O FREEDOM FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507
Telephone: (360) 956-3482
Facsimile: (360) 352-1874
E-mail: rbouvatte@freedomfoundation.com
jabernathy@freedomfoundation.com
K12 INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Jan. 4 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, 2016
Lead 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=11906&from=1
K12 Inc. (NYSE:LRN)
Class Period: April 27, 2020 - September 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
The complaint alleges K12 Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) K12
lacked the technological capabilities, infrastructures, and
expertise to support the increased demand for virtual and blended
education necessitated by the global pandemic; (ii) K12 lacked
adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to prevent the
disabling of its computer system; (iii) K12 was unable provide the
necessary levels of administrative support and training to
teachers, students, and parents; and (iv) based on the foregoing,
Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects and/or
lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts.
Learn about your recoverable losses in LRN:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/k12inc-loss-submission-form?id=11906&from=1
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)
Class Period: March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
The KNDI lawsuit alleges that throughout 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in KNDI:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?id=11906&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
K12 INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of K12, Inc. (NASDAQ:BRY) investors that
acquired shares between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020.
Investors have until January 19, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
It is alleged in the complaint that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) K12 lacked the expertise, infrastructure, and
technological capabilities, to support the increased demand for
blended and virtual education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(2) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protections and protocols to
prevent the disabling of its computer systems; (3) K12 was unable
to provide the necessary levels of training and administrative
support to students, teachers, and parents; (4) and K12's officers
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about their
prospects, operations, and business.
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.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
LOUISIANA: 2017 Class Certification Order Reinstated in Krielow
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL KRIELOW, GLENDON MARCEAUX, PHILLIP J. WATKINS,
AND 44 SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Case Nos. 2019 CA 1696 and 2019 CW 1277
(La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the First Circuit
has entered an order:
(i) denying the Rice Growers' motion to dismiss the appeal;
(ii) vacating the Oct. 30, 2019 judgment containing the 2019
Certification order, and reinstating the previous 2017
Certification order contained in the judgment dated
Oct. 19, 2017;
(iii) denying as moot the Rice Boards' writ application, 2017
CW 1277; and
(iv) remanding the case for further proceedings.
The appeal involves a dispute over the modification of a class
definition in a previously certified class action that stems from
the Louisiana Supreme Court's declaration that La. R.S. 3:3534 and
La. R.S. 3:3544 ("Rice Statutes").
The Plaintiffs ("Rice Growers") filed a petition for declaratory
and injunctive relief on May 16, 2012. Their lawsuit challenged
the constitutionality of the Rice Statutes that authorized the
Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and
Forestry ("LDAF") to collect monetary assessments imposed on the
Rice Growers. The collected funds were then paid to the Louisiana
Rice Promotion Board and the Louisiana Rice Research Board to
promote the growth and development of the rice industry in
Louisiana.
The LDAF was the original named Defendant and the Rice Boards were
added as Defendants in the Rice Growers' first amended petition.
In 2013, the supreme court declared the Rice Statutes to be
unconstitutional, as an improper delegation of legislative
authority.
Following the supreme court's ruling, the Rice Growers amended
their petition a second time and sought class certification for the
restitution of the wrongful assessments common to all Rice Growers
that sold rice in Louisiana from Jan. 28, 1992, through 2014. The
LDAF and the Rice Boards filed various exceptions, including an
exception of prescription.
After a hearing in June 2014 and another hearing in October 2014,
the trial court signed a judgment on June 16, 2015, establishing
and certifying a 12-year class period. Additionally, it ruled on
the exception of prescription, finding that all of the Rice
Growers' claims for assessments paid more than ten years before the
Rice Growers filed their lawsuit in 2012 had prescribed.
Therefore, the trial court certified the class ("2015 Certification
order") to include all Rice Growers who had paid assessments from
May 16, 2002, through July 31, 2014.
While the trial court's ruling on the 2015 Certification was
pending, the Rice Boards urged an exception raising the objection
of no cause of action and sovereign immunity from unjust enrichment
claims. The trial court denied the Rice Boards' exceptions, and
the Appellate Court denied the Rice Boards' writ application and
request for a stay. The supreme court, however, granted a writ in
favor of the Rice Boards and instructed the trial court to
reconsider its rulings in light of a supreme court decision,
Canal/Claiborne Ltd. v. Stonehedge Development, LLC, 2014-0664 (La.
12/9/14). As a result, the trial court issued a new judgment that
acknowledged the Rice Boards' defense of sovereign immunity and
dismissed the Rice Growers' unjust enrichment claims.
On Aug. 3, 2015, the Rice Growers filed a third amending petition,
alleging that their payment of the unconstitutional assessments
amounted to their property being taken without due process of law.
They also filed a motion for new trial due to inconsistent
judgments on the unjust enrichment claims. The trial court issued
another judgment dated May 4, 2016, clarifying that the Rice
Growers' claims for unjust enrichment were dismissed with
prejudice, but that the Rice Growers still had claims for the
taking of their property without due process of law, conversion,
and any other claims available at law or in equity.
The Rice Boards sought supervisory review of the trial court's
ruling, and on July 21, 2016, the Appellate Court ruled that the
Rice Growers no longer have a cause of action for unjust enrichment
or "any other claims." It also noted that because the trial court
had previously ruled that all actions delictual in nature had
prescribed, it was unable to ascertain what causes of action, if
any, remained.
Almost a year later, on May 31, 2017, the Rice Growers filed a
motion to amend the class definition and a renewed motion to
approve the class notice and method of dissemination. They also
filed a fourth amended petition on Sept. 29, 2017, alleging that
the assessments constituted an unconstitutional taking and a
recurring intentional tortious act that constituted an unlawful
conversion.
On Oct. 19, 2017, the trial court signed a judgment amending the
class definition to include a much narrower three-year class
period, beginning one year before the lawsuit was filed and ending
two years after it was filed. Thus, the defined class ("2017
Certification order") included all Rice Growers' claims for paid
assessments levied on proceeds from rice sold in Louisiana from May
16, 2011, through July 31, 2014. The trial court also approved the
proposed class notice and method of dissemination related to the
amended class definition. No party sought review of the 2017
Certification order.
In November 2018, the Rice Growers once again sought to amend the
class definition, seeking to modify the 2017 Certification order to
create 23 (one-year each) subclasses to include all Rice Growers'
claims for paid assessments levied on proceeds from rice sold in
Louisiana from July 1, 1992, through July 31, 2014. The trial
court heard the Rice Growers' motion to amend on Jan. 7, 2019, and
took the matter under advisement. A Sept. 9, 2019-minute entry
indicates the trial court ruled that the class definition, notice,
and notice plan would be amended as requested ("2019 Certification
order"). The trial court did not sign a written judgment regarding
the 2019 Certification order until Oct. 30, 2019.
In the meantime, while the motions to amend and decertify were
pending under advisement, the trial court issued a case management
schedule that called for the class notice to be sent to class
members by July 12, 2019. The Rice Boards filed a motion to stay
the Rice Growers' issuance of the class action notice and operation
of a website that contradicted the 2017 Certification order. They
further requested that the Rice Growers be found in contempt of the
2017 Certification order and be ordered to send notice that the
disputed and expanded class notice was legally defective and
without court approval.
The trial court denied the Rice Boards' motion to stay in a minute
entry on Aug. 27, 2019. The LDAF and Rice Boards' motion to
decertify was not addressed by the trial court. The LDAF and Rice
Boards filed a writ application to seek review of the trial court's
denial of their motion to stay. That writ was referred to the
appeal panel.
Additionally, the Rice Boards filed a suspensive appeal from the
written judgment containing the 2019 Certification order dated Oct.
30, 2019, which was granted. The Court notes that the Oct. 30,
2019 judgment also contained the trial court's denial of the Rice
Boards' motion to stay. Because the Rice Boards timely filed an
application for supervisory writ seeking review of the trial
court's denial of the motion to stay, which, by order of the Court
is to be considered with the appeal, it will exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction to review the merits of the motion to stay
in the appeal of the 2019 Certification order.
The Rice Growers filed a motion in the Court to dismiss the Rice
Boards' suspensive appeal, urging that the 2019 Certification order
merely modified the class definition and is not an appealable
judgment. On March 3, 2020, the motion to dismiss was referred to
the appeal panel for consideration.
The Rice Boards assert two assignments of error in the appeal: (i)
the trial court erred in modifying the class definition to expand
the commencement of the class period from one year prior to the
filing of the lawsuit, to approximately 20 years prior to the
filing of the lawsuit; and (ii) the trial court erred in approving
the amended class notice and notice plan.
Before addressing the assignments of error, the Appellate Court
initially considers the Rice Growers' underlying motion to dismiss
the Rice Boards' suspensive appeal, because it concerns its subject
matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to well-settled principles of
statutory construction, the Appellate Court finds that the Rice
Growers are incorrect in reading the two subsections of La. Code
Civ. P. art. 592 in isolation, rather than together in their
entirety.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court denied the Rice Growers' motion to
dismiss the Rice Boards' suspensive appeal of the modification of
the class definition from three years to over 20 years, which it
finds to be a significant and material alteration and expansion of
the previously approved class certification. It exercises its
appellate jurisdiction to review the judgment containing the 2019
Certification order that greatly expanded the time period in the
class definition.
At the hearing on the Rice Growers' motion to amend the class
definition and notice plan, the Rice Growers did not introduce any
evidence to support the need to expand or clarify the class
definition for the class notice. There was no evidence of what the
class notice or proposed website for potential class members would
look like.
The Appellate Court's review of the record reveals a series of
court orders that were ultimately reflected in the 2017
Certification order of the three-year class period, as well as the
trial court's approval of the class notice plan that accompanied
the 2017 Certification order. The record is devoid of evidence of
any change in facts, or change in the law of the case, or new facts
or law that would support the drastically expanded class definition
reflected in the 2019 Certification order.
Thus, the Appellate Court concludes that the trial court abused its
discretion in issuing the 2019 Certification order that redefined
and expanded the class and approved a new class notice plan. While
the trial court may modify the size and status of a class
definition, the modification must be substantiated by detailed
findings of fact. Therefore, the Appellate Court is constrained to
vacate the Oct. 30, 2019 judgment containing the 2019 Certification
order and approval of class notice plan and method of dissemination
of the class notice.
Given its ruling vacating the trial court's 2019 Certification
order and approval of the amended class notice plan, the Appellate
Court finds that the Rice Boards' writ application regarding the
denial of their motion to stay is now moot. Therefore, it denied
the writ referred for consideration with the appeal. The case is
remanded for further proceedings.
Each party is to pay its own costs associated with the suspensive
appeal, related writ, and motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyv67lmc from Leagle.com.
Jerald P. Block -- jpb@blocklawfirm.com -- Kendall J. Krielow --
kjk@blocklawfirm.com -- Richard C. Breaux -- rcb@blocklawfirm.com
-- in Thibodaux, Louisiana.
Larry S. Bankston, Jenna H. Linn, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Gail N. McKay, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Cleo Fields, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Attorneys for
Plaintiffs-Appellees Carl Krielow, Glendon Marceaux, Phillip J.
Watkins, and Similarly Situated Plaintiffs.
Jeff Landry, Attorney General, Christina B. Peck, Asst. Attorney
General, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Freddie Pitcher, Jr. -- freddie.pitcher@phelps.com -- Shelton
Dennis Blunt -- dennis.blunt@phelps.com -- A. Paul LeBlanc, Jr. --
paul.leblanc@phelps.com -- Monica M. Vela-Vick --
monica.vela-vick@phelps.com -- in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Attorneys
for Defendants-Appellants, Louisiana Rice Promotion Board and
Louisiana Rice Research Board.
MALAYSIA: Class Action Mulled Over Unscheduled Water Disruptions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Tan, writihg for The Malysian Insight, reports that WANGSA
Maju MP Tan Yee Kew is set to lead 750 consumers in suing several
parties, including water authorities, over unscheduled water
disruptions that had affected them last year.
She said they had suffered from these water cuts, sometimes as many
as four times in a single month, causing them all kinds of
hardships. [GN]
MARS WRIGLEY: Beers Sues Over Ice Cream Bars' Deceptive Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BEERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARS WRIGLEY CONFECTIONERY US, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00002-CS (S.D.N.Y., January 1, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York
General Business Law, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and
misleading labeling and advertising of ice cream bars purporting to
be covered in milk chocolate under the Dove brand. The relevant
front label representations of the product include "Silky Smooth,"
"Dove Bar," "[Vanilla Ice Cream] with Milk Chocolate," several
chunks of chocolate and a bar being dipped into milk chocolate. The
representations of the product as "Milk Chocolate" is false,
deceptive and misleading because the "chocolate" portion of the ice
cream bar contains vegetable oil, ingredients consumers do not
expect in chocolate. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, want
chocolate in chocolate products to come from a real source such as
cacao beans. The presence of chocolate is understood by consumers
to mean a food does not contain vegetable oils, and has a material
bearing on price and consumer acceptance of the product. Had the
Plaintiff and class members known the truth, they would not have
bought the product or would have paid less for them.
Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC is a manufacturer of chocolate,
chewing gum, mints, and fruity confections, headquartered in
Hackettstown, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
MDL 2924: 2 Ranitidine Product Liability Suits Moved to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2924, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two actions to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and, with
the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The litigation consists of two actions pending in New Mexico and
Wisconsin. Defendants' ranitidine-containing medications allegedly
break down to form an alleged carcinogen known as
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Plaintiffs allege Defendants were
aware of this danger but continued to sell these medications to
consumers.
Defendants include GlaxoSmithKline,LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Chattem Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC,
Sanofi US Services Inc., Perrigo Research & Development Company,
Lannett Company, Inc., Novitium Pharma LLC, Aurobindo Pharma USA,
Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
USA, Appco Pharma LLC, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz Inc.,
Apotex Corp., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Strides Pharma, Inc.,
Teligent, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., CVS Health Corp., CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., The Kroger Co., Smith Food & Drug Centers, Inc.,
Fred Meyer, Inc., Target Corp., Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.,
Walgreens Co., Walmart Inc., and Pfizer Inc.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 16, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2XmcDJL
MDL 2931: Zvi v. Delta Dental Antitrust Row Moved to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case, Ben Zvi, et al. v.
Delta Dental of New York Inc., Case No. 20-cv-05628 (S.D. Cal.,
July 21, 2020), to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigns
it to Judge Elaine E. Bucklo for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
Delta Dental is a network of independent companies conducting
business in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico. Each individual plan contracts with dental service providers
to reimburse the providers for dental services provided to patients
with Delta Dental insurance contracts. Plaintiff alleges the plan
providers, who are meant to compete with each other, have agreed to
allocate exclusive geographic markets through license agreements
that limit and restrict competition outside of their respective
territorial markets.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 16, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/399XT6q
MDL 2967: 6 Narcolepsy Drug Antitrust Cases Moved to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Xyrem Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2967, Judge Karen
K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order transferring six
actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to
Judge Lucy H. Koh for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
The litigation consists of six actions pending in California and
New York.
Defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals allegedly engaged in anticompetitive
schemes to delay generic entry, entered into reverse settlement
agreements with Roxane, Amneal, Lupin, Par, Ranbaxy, Wockhardt,
Watson and Mallinckrodt (generic manufacturers), agreeing to
provide them substantial compensation in exchange for delaying the
entry of the generic sodium oxybate into the market.
Xyrem is a narcolepsy drug that accounted for over a billion
dollars annually -- over 70% -- of the company's revenue.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 16, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3hPt4HY
MDL 2967: 9 Clearview Data Breach Suits Transferred to N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Clearview AI Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL No.
2967, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order
transferring nine actions to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The litigation consists of actions pending in Illinois and New
York.
Clearview sells its facial recognition tools and has allegedly
collected Plaintiffs' biometrics and shared them to Illinois-based
entities without the requisite consent.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/35lzfyx
MDL 2968: 7 Generali Insurance Disputes Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Generali COVID-19 Travel Insurance Litigation, MDL No.
2968, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, has entered an order
transferring seven actions to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court,
assigned them to Judge John G. Koeltl for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The litigation consists of actions pending in Illinois, New York,
Kansas, Ohio, Texas and South Carolina.
The litigation involves common factual issues arising from Generali
travel insurance coverage that consumers purchased alongside rental
housing on vacation rental websites. Plaintiffs contend they were
unable to travel during the COVID-19 pandemic and cancelled their
trips. Generali allegedly has denied coverage under the policies.
A full-text copy of the Court's December 15, 2020 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3hSSDI5
MICROSOFT CORP: Seeks Arbitration of Xbox Controllers Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Robinson, writing for VGC, reports that Microsoft has called
for a class-action lawsuit over ‘drifting' Xbox controllers to be
taken out of the courtroom, by compelling arbitration.
The lawsuit, which was filed in April last year on behalf of
several Xbox users, alleges that drifting issues -- which see
controller movements incorrectly registered due to wear -- have
been experienced by a large volume of Xbox owners across various
controller models.
The suit alleges that the drifting issues are caused by a design
flaw in Xbox controllers, which it claims Microsoft is aware of and
failed to disclose to customers.
In October, an amended complaint was filed, adding an additional
seven plaintiffs and demanding a jury trial to address the
allegations against Microsoft.
Now a new motion by Microsoft has called on the Washington Court to
compel arbitration, which the corporation argues is in accordance
with the Services Agreement the plaintiffs agreed to when they
purchased their Xbox controllers.
Arbitration would see the individual drifting disputes resolved
outside of the courtroom by an impartial adjudicator, whose
decision would be final and binding.
According to Microsoft's motion, each plaintiff included in the
class-action agreed to Microsoft's Services Agreement -- and thus,
arbitration -- by using Xbox Live and the controllers themselves.
"Plaintiffs repeatedly agreed not to bring a lawsuit like this in
court," Microsoft wrote in its latest motion.
"Instead, they assented to the Microsoft Services Agreement
(‘MSA') and to warranty agreements in which they promised they
would arbitrate disputes on an individual basis using a
consumer-friendly process before the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA"). The Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcing
these agreements."
Last year, a Washington federal judge granted arbitration for a
similar ‘drifting' class-action against Nintendo, which could
possibly set a precedent in the Xbox case.
The original class-action claims that the Xbox drifting issue is
caused by a controller defect related to the potentiometer within
the joystick component -- the mechanism that translates the
physical movement of the thumbstick into movement within software.
It alleges that this component contains a known design flaw related
to a grease-like lubricant, which causes resistive material scraped
off a curved track to cause unwanted movement without input from
the user.
The lawsuit alleges that Microsoft is fully aware of the drifting
defect after numerous online complaints received from its
customers, and yet "failed to disclose the defect and routinely
refuses to repair the controllers without charge when the defect
manifests."
It claims that the plaintiffs' experiences are not isolated and
that "a large volume of consumers have been complaining about stick
drift on Xbox One controllers since at least 2014."
In October 2020 Microsoft confirmed it planned to extend the
warranty of its Xbox Elite Series 2 controller, just a few weeks
after the class-action lawsuit was amended to include the premium
game controllers.
Nintendo is arguing that Switch Joy-Con drift "isn't a real problem
or hasn't caused anyone any inconvenience", according to US law
firm CSK&D, which is working to pursue a class action lawsuit
through the arbitration process.
Last September, Nintendo was hit with a separate Joy-Con drift
lawsuit which accused the company of planned obsolescence - a
policy of producing goods designed to break down so that they need
to be replaced. [GN]
MIDDLE KENTUCKY: Campbell Seeks Conditional Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERTA CAMPBELL, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. MIDDLE KENTUCKY
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00222-REW-MAS
(E.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
conditionally certifying the case as a collective action and
permitting, under court supervision, notice to:
"all 'Drivers' employed by the Defendant, Middle Kentucky
Community Action Partnership, Inc., within the last three
years."
The Plaintiff seeks to facilitate notice to the limited class of
"Transportation Drivers" who were non-exempt employees and who were
not paid overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay proper overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Transportation Driver
whose duties included driving a company-owned vehicle (less than
10,000 pounds and designed to carry eight or fewer passengers) to
pick up clients in Kentucky, usually at their homes, and transport
them to various other locations, which were typically medical
appointments.
The Defendant provides vocational training and habilitation
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
collective action dated Jan. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s1KJRG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Corey Asay, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
333 W. Vine Street, Suite 1200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 286-8368
Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
E-mail: CAsay@forthepeople.com
MINDFINDERS INC: Class Certification Deadline Stayed in Dew Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EBONY DEW and KRYSTAL
OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. MINDFINDERS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02930-BAH (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Beryl A. Howell entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to stay class certification deadline.
The Court finds that a stay will best conserve the parties' and the
Court's resources. The Court further agrees with the plaintiffs
that the defendant, which has not yet appeared or conferred with
the plaintiffs, will not be prejudiced by the stay. A new deadline
for class certification will be set at a later date as part of a
discovery schedule.
Local Civil Rule 23.1(b) provides that a plaintiff must move for
class certification "[w]ithin 90 days after the filing of a
complaint," but the "Court in the exercise of its discretion" may
"extend[] this period[.]"
As previously reported in class action reporter, the Plaintiffs
contend that they had to attempt service of process numerous times
before they were ultimately successful on December 18, 2020.
Service here was particularly hard because it appears that
corporate officers for the Defendant are all working remotely
because of the pandemic and they did not respond to electronic
communications. Because the Class and Collective Action Complaint
was filed on October 13, 2020, without an extension, their motion
for class certification is due January 11, 2021. This is their
first request for an extension, and an extension will not affect
any other deadlines.
Further, no one has appeared yet on behalf of the Defendant and the
parties have not been able to confer. Extending the class
certification deadline would avoid piecemeal litigation and allow
the parties to propose a holistic schedule for discovery and motion
practice that builds in time for the discovery necessary to sustain
a motion for class certification, the Plaintiff adds.
Mindfinders was founded in 2001. The company's line of business
includes providing management consulting services.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective and
Classes, are:
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 -
Michael D. Lore, Esq.
MICHAEL D. LORE, P.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 782-5291
E-mail: mlore@lorefirm.com
MOWI ASA: Faces Starr Suit Over Mowi's Salmon's Deceptive Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABIGAIL STARR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOWI ASA, MOWI USA, LLC, and MOWI DUCKTRAP,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00488-LEW (D. Me., December 31,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
express warranty and unjust enrichment and violations of the New
York General Business Law and State Consumer Protection Statutes.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged false and deceptive
marketing and sale of Mowi's smoked Atlantic salmon products. The
products are labeled as "sustainably sourced" when in reality they
are made from salmon industrially farmed at Mowi's facilities using
unsustainable practices that are environmentally destructive and
inhumane. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, relied on the
products' "sustainably sourced" representation in their purchasing
decision. They would not have purchased the products had they known
the truth about Mowi's unsustainable industrial farming practices.
Mowi ASA is a Norwegian seafood company with a principal place of
business in Bergen, Norway.
Mowi USA, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of seafood company Mowi
ASA, with a principal place of business in Florida.
Mowi Ducktrap, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of seafood company
Mowi ASA, with a principal place of business in Maine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James B. Haddow, Esq.
PETRUCELLI, MARTIN & HADDOW LLP
Two Monument Square, Suite 900
Post Office Box 17555
Portland, ME 04112-8555
Telephone: (207) 775-0200
Facsimile: (207) 775-2360
E-mail: jhaddow@pmhlegal.com
- and –
Kim Richman, Esq.
Jay Shooster, Esq.
Margaret Sun, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW AND POLICY
1 Bridge Street, Suite 83
Irvington, NY 10533
Telephone: (718) 705-4579
Facsimile: (718) 228-8522
E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com
jshooster@richmanlawpolicy.com
msun@richmanlawpolicy.com
NEW YORK, NY: Homeless Students' WiFi Suit Heads to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Nicoll, writing for Business Insider, reports that a lawsuit
aimed at forcing New York City to provide WiFi for students in
homeless shelters is moving forward to trial.
US District Judge Alison Nathan ruled that the class-action suit
brought by homeless parents and the Coalition of the Homeless would
proceed to expedited discovery in preparation for a trial.
"Without internet connectivity, homeless students are deprived of
the means to attend classes," Nathan wrote in the opinion that
accompanied the decision. "And because homeless children who lack
internet access and reside in New York City shelters cannot attend
school for as long as that deprivation exists, the City bears a
duty, under the statute, to furnish them with the means necessary
for them to attend school."
Some homeless students are still unable to access the internet from
a shelter more than nine months since Mayor Bill de Blasio first
announced remote learning on March 15, 2020 at the start of the
coronavirus pandemic lockdown. New York City schools have
approximately 114,000 homeless students according to an Advocates
for Children report cited by the judge.
The city's original plan was to provide iPads with unlimited
cellular data to students without access to WiFi, first partnering
with T-Mobile. After students weren't able to access T-Mobile
service in many shelters, the city switched to Verizon, but some
students continued to be unable to connect to school.
On October 26, 2020 Mayor de Blasio announced that the city would
install WiFi in all shelters, but officials cautioned this wouldn't
be complete until the summer of 2021.
"It should come as no surprise that the City lacked any real legal
basis to prevent this lawsuit from proceeding," said Susan Horwitz,
supervising attorney of the education law project at the Legal Aid
Society, wrote in a press release.
"Despite months of pushing the City to address the root cause of
the problem, City Hall continues to advance ineffective solutions
while families in shelters suffer. We look forward to seeing all
shelters equipped with working WiFi, far in advance of the city's
stated goal of summer 2021."
City officials said they are working to get WiFi to students in
shelters.
"The Court's decision indicates that the City has worked hard to
provide internet connectivity to the plaintiffs and is continuing
to do so," Nick Paolucci, the spokesperson of New York City's Law
Department, wrote in a statement to Business Insider. "The City
shifted to remote learning in the context of an unprecedented
pandemic and we are working hard to address the needs of all
students." [GN]
NEW YORK: Bid for Expedited Discovery Schedule in E.G. Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, E.G., et al., Plaintiffs v. City of New York, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-9879 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alison J.
Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Plaintiffs' request to set an expedited discovery
schedule and schedule an evidentiary hearing.
The Court denied the Defendants' request that the Court dismisses
the motion for a preliminary injunction on the present record.
During the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, public schools in New
York City have been largely closed since March to in-person
learning. For all children, including the City's approximately
114,000 children who live in homeless shelters, education must be
accessed virtually. Just like getting to brick and mortal schools
requires reliable transportation, access to virtual school during
the pandemic requires access to reliable internet. At the time the
lawsuit was filed, however, almost none of the City's homeless
shelters housing school-aged children had broadband WiFi internet
installed.
The Plaintiffs, parents of school-age children who live in homeless
shelters and the Coalition for the Homeless, brought the putative
class action, alleging that the Defendants' failure to provide
adequate and reliable access to the internet has violated the
students' rights under state and federal statutory and
constitutional law to receive a sound basic education
notwithstanding their residence in homeless shelters.
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and
seek expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
In their response to the Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion,
the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a
claim on their federal and state constitutional and statutory
arguments. At base, the City contends that it is meeting its state
and federal law obligations by doing its best and working to
resolve the issues through a variety of means, including now
working expeditiously to install WiFi internet access in all
homeless shelters. The Defendants ask the Court to resolve these
preliminary legal arguments in advance of discovery and a hearing.
The issue underlying the Plaintiffs' claim under New York Education
Law Section 3209 is whether the Defendants have a duty to ensure
that homeless students have the means necessary to access the
internet when schooling is predominantly taking place remotely.
The Defendants argue that they have satisfied that duty through
their efforts to provide students with iPads that have unlimited
cellular service and their efforts to troubleshoot and remedy the
connectivity problems that some students reported shortly after the
iPads were distributed. But the Plaintiffs claim that despite
those efforts, their children, along with an as-yet-unascertained
number of homeless students residing in shelters, continue to lack
reliable access to the internet and that the City's plans for
installation of WiFi are insufficiently expeditious to meet the
statutory obligation.
Judge Nathan holds that resolution of these factual disputes cannot
be made before discovery and an evidentiary hearing. But at a
minimum, the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a
claim. To the extent that the Defendants' efforts to date have
failed to remedy the barriers that prevent homeless children from
being able to participate in remote learning, the question is not
whether those children are entitled to a particular accommodation
but to any accommodation that meaningfully fixes the problems that
have been identified. The Plaintiffs have adequately pled that
notwithstanding the City's efforts, significant barriers to
homeless students' education persist.
The same holds true for the Plaintiffs' claim under Section
3209(7). The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' Section 3209 claim
survives the Defendants' legal arguments. The Plaintiffs have
stated a claim that they are entitled to receive the means by which
homeless students may attend school, and they have pled that, at
least for some students, including the named Plaintiffs' children,
the Defendants' efforts to date have not remedied their injury. As
a result, the Judge rejects the Defendants' argument that the
Plaintiffs' Section 3209 claim fails as a matter of law. Having
determined that at least one of the Plaintiffs' claims survives,
she need not reach the viability of the Plaintiffs' remaining
claims at this juncture.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Nathan denied the Defendants' request
to deny the preliminary injunction motion based on the existing
record. All of the remaining issues that must be resolved prior to
the Court's determination of whether a preliminary injunction
should issue--and, if so, what that injunction should look
like--require discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
The Judge, therefore, granted the Plaintiffs' request for expedited
discovery on these and other disputed factual issues in advance of
an evidentiary hearing. The parties will discuss with Magistrate
Judge Freeman an appropriate schedule for expedited discovery and a
proposed week for the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The
schedule put in place by Judge Freeman will control. As soon as
the parties inform the Court of the proposed week to conduct the
evidentiary hearing, the Court will confirm the specific date and
time. The hearing will be conducted remotely using
videoconferencing technology.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2020 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2bn67g3 from Leagle.com.
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Dynasty")
(NYSE: NAK) between December 21, 2017 and November 25, 2020. You
are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=11959&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company's 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.
If you suffered a loss in Northern Dynasty you have until February
2, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Anfibio FDCPA Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSARIO ANFIBIO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-11146-CCC-ESK (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Edward S.
Kiel of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the Defendant's motion to stay discovery pending the
resolution of its Motion to Dismiss and to compel arbitration.
The complaint in the matter was filed on Aug. 23, 2020. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") because the Defendant's dunning
letter sent to the Plaintiff allegedly contained false and
misleading statements. The Plaintiff also brings a putative class
action on behalf of all other persons similarly situated.
The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss on Sept. 21, 2020,
arguing that the Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration
because the lease for a motor vehicle, from which the alleged debt
arose, contains an arbitration provision. It further argues that
the class allegations should be stricken because the applicable
arbitration provision mandates arbitration on an individual basis.
The Plaintiff opposed the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that it should
be denied because: (a) there is no evidence that the Defendant was
"assigned" the right to arbitrate under the Lease; (b) the FDCPA
claim is "independent" of the debt itself; and (c) the class action
waiver only applies in the arbitration context.
According to the Court's Opinion & Order, courts weigh a number of
factors in deciding whether to grant a stay of discovery,
including: (a) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a
clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (b) whether
denial of the stay would create a "clear case of hardship or
inequity"; (c) whether a stay would simplify the issues and the
trial of the case; and (d) whether discovery is complete and/or a
trial date has been set.
The Defendant claims that all of the Plaintiff's claims are subject
to an arbitration provision in the Lease. Applying the ruling in
Klepper v. SLI, Inc., 45 Fed. App'x. 136 (3d Cir. 2002) to the
matter, Magistrate Judge Kiel finds that the first and second
factors weigh in favor of staying discovery pending the resolution
of the Motion to Dismiss.
While he cannot predict the ultimate disposition of the Motion to
Dismiss, the Magistrate Judge can conclude that requiring the
Defendant at this juncture to engage in discovery in this forum,
without knowing whether it has the right to arbitrate the
Plaintiff's claims, would present a clear tactical advantage to
her. Proceeding with discovery before resolution of the Motion to
Dismiss would also create a clear case of hardship and inequity for
the Defendant, particularly in view of the additional complexities
that defending a putative class action can entail.
The third factor also weighs in favor of staying discovery. The
Magistrate Judge holds that if the Motion to Dismiss is granted,
the matter would no longer be before the Court and would be
resolved through arbitration. Conversely, denying a stay and
ordering discovery to proceed would be inefficient and unproductive
were the Court to determine, ultimately, that the matter is subject
to arbitration.
Finally, the fourth factor weighs in favor of staying discovery.
The fact discovery end date is July 30, 2021, the parties have not
engaged in any significant discovery, and a trial date has not been
scheduled. As such, the relative infancy of the matter, the lack
of discovery yet conducted, and the absence of a scheduled trial
support the entry of a stay of discovery.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Kiel granted the Motion to Stay. The
Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the Motion to Stay.
The parties are reminded of the telephone status conference
scheduled for Feb. 16, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. The dial in number is
1-888-684-8852 and access code is 310-0383#. The parties will file
a joint letter, at least three business days before the conference
advising of the status of discovery, any pending motions, and any
other issues to be addressed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2020 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5s3ym9w from Leagle.com.
PEACHTREE INVESTMENT: Peskin Suit Alleges Unlawful SCE Strategy
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM R. PESKIN and MARK PERKINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEACHTREE INVESTMENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC; DWAYNE PETERSON DAVIS; J. STEPHEN BUSH; OLD IVY
CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; DANIEL S. CARBONARA; BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON
PAISNER LLP; JOHN PAUL BARRIE; TENNILLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; JEAN H.
ROBERTS, IN HER CAPACITY AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE
OF DAVID R. ROBERTS; FOOTHILLS LAND CONSERVANCY, INC.; WILLIAM C.
CLABOUGH, SR.; and WARREN AVERETT, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00002-SCJ (N.D. Ga., January 2, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty and disgorgement, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty, professional malpractice, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy.
The case arises from the Defendants' implementation of the
Syndicated Conservation Easement (SCE) Strategy to effect numerous
conservation easement transactions that differed only in name, not
in substance. The SCE Strategy was not properly implemented and was
never intended to be as it was used by the Defendants to exploit
for their own gain the tax deductions that could be generated from
syndicated conservation easement transactions. The Defendants
represented themselves as independent professionals and advisers
who were helping to guide the Plaintiffs and the Class through very
technical conservation easement transactions that would generate
legal tax deductions for them. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs and
the Class, the Defendants had preplanned and predetermined each
step of the SCE Strategy to generate large but improper tax
deductions. This racketeering enterprise directly and proximately
injured the Plaintiffs and the Class by causing them to pay
substantial fees and transaction costs, be exposed to interest and
penalties from the Internal Revenue Service, and incur additional
accounting and legal fees and expenses to deal with the IRS
fallout.
Peachtree Investment Solutions, LLC is an investment management
company based in Atlanta, Georgia.
Old Ivy Capital Partners, LLC is an investment company based in
Atlanta, Georgia.
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP is an international law firm
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Tennille & Associates, Inc. is a real estate firm with its
principal place of business at 820 State Farm Road, Suite B, Boone,
North Carolina.
Foothills Land Conservancy, Inc. is a non-profit organization based
in Rockford, Tennessee.
Warren Averett, LLC is an accounting firm with its principal place
of business at 2500 Acton Road, Suite 200, Birmingham, Alabama.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David R. Deary, Esq.
W. Ralph Canada, Jr., Esq.
Jeven R. Sloan, Esq.
Donna Lee, Esq.
LOEWINSOHN FLEGLE DEARY SIMON LLP
12377 Merit Drive, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (214) 572-1700
Facsimile: (214) 572-1717
E-mail: davidd@lfdslaw.com
ralphc@lfdslaw.com
jevens@lfdslaw.com
- and –
Edward J. Rappaport, Esq.
THE SAYLOR LAW FIRM LLP
1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 3220
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 892-4400
E-mail: erappaport@saylorlaw.com
PLAINS MARKETING: Settlement Class Certified in Price Trust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henry Price Trust,
successor co-trustees Henry Price Bradley and Patricia Bradley
Scott, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
Plains Marketing, L.P., Case No. 6:19-cv-00390-KEW (E.D. Okla.),
the Hon. Judge Kimberly E. West entered an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of class action settlement;
2. certifying a Settlement Class defined as:
"all persons or entities, except as specifically excluded
below, who received proceeds payments from the Defendant
Plains Marketing, L.P., or its designee on Plains' behalf,
for oil and/or liquids proceeds from oil and/or gas wells
located in the State of Oklahoma, or whose oil and/or
liquids proceeds from oil and/or gas wells located in the
State of Oklahoma were remitted to unclaimed property
divisions by Plains, or its designee on Plains' behalf,
dated between October 1, 2014, and October 31, 2020;"
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) agencies,
departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of
America or the State of Oklahoma; (2) Plains, its
affiliates, affiliated predecessors, and their employees,
officers, and directors; (3) persons or entities that
Plaintiff's counsel are prohibited from representing under
Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct;
(4) the persons or entities identified on Exhibit 5 to the
Settlement Agreement; and (5) officers of the Court;
3. appointing the Plaintiff Henry Price Trust, successor co-
trustees Henry Price Bradley and Patricia Bradley Scott,
as Class Representative;
4. appointing the Plaintiff's Counsel Reagan E. Bradford and
Ryan K. Wilson as Co-Lead Class Counsel and James U.
White, Jr. as Co-Lead Class Counsel;
5. preliminarily approving the form and content of the
proposed Notice;
6. appointing JND Class Action Administration to act as
Settlement Administrator and perform the associated
responsibilities set forth in the Settlement Agreement;
7. appointing MidFirst Bank as the Escrow Agent; and
8. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing on March 26, 2021;
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay statutory
interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the
Production Revenue Standards Act, 52 Okla. St. section 570.1 et
seq. (the PRSA) for oil and liquids production proceeds from oil
and gas wells in Oklahoma. On November 30, 2020, the Parties
executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement finalizing the
terms of the Settlement.
Plains Marketing operates as a midstream energy company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3omsQuv at no extra charge.[CC]
Class Counsel, are:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
James U. White, Jr., Esq.
WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C.
P.O. Box 54783
Oklahoma City, OK 73154
Telephone: (405) 842-7545
E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com
Counsel for the Defendant, are:
Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq.
Patrick L. Stein, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT
Tenth Floor, Two Leadership Square
211 N. Robinson Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103
Telephone: (405) 235-9621
Facsimile: (405) 235-0439
E-mail: tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com
patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
POSTMATES INC: Immediato Wage & Hour Suit Goes to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAMON IMMEDIATO, STEPHEN LEVINE, and ERIC WICKBERG,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
POSTMATES, INC., Case No. 2084-CV-02003H, was removed from the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on December 31, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:20-cv-12308 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Massachusetts General Laws including failure to reimburse the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated couriers for business
expenses, failure to pay minimum wage, and failure to pay earned
sick time.
Postmates, Inc. is an American company that offers local delivery
of restaurant-prepared meals and other goods, with its headquarters
in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue
N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
E-mail: JLipshutz@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Theane Evangelis, Esq.
Dhananjay S. Manthripragada, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
E-mail: TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com
DManthripragada@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: (949) 451-3800
E-mail: MMaryott@gibsondunn.com
QIWI PLC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of February 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Qiwi plc ("Qiwi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
QIWI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 21-cv-00021, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Qiwi securities between March 28, 2019 and
December 9, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Qiwi securities during the
Class Period, you have until February 9, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Qiwi, together with its subsidiaries, purports to operate
electronic online payment systems primarily in Russia, Kazakhstan,
Moldova, Belarus, Romania, the United Arab Emirates, and
internationally.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting
and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central
Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and
impose restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to
foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On December 9, 2020, after the market closed, Qiwi filed a Form 6-K
with the SEC, announcing that the Central Bank of Russia had
imposed a fine of approximately $150,000 for deficient
record-keeping and reporting, and suspended the Company's conduct
of most types of payments to foreign merchants and money transfers
to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts.
On this news, Qiwi's ADS price fell $2.80 per share, or 20.6%, to
close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020, damaging
investors.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Probes Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, is investigating potential securities fraud claims on behalf
of shareholders of QuantumScape Corporation. ("QuantumScape" or the
"Company") (NYSE: QS) resulting from allegations that QuantumScape
might have issued misleading information to the investing public.
If you purchased QuantumScape securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit QS Shareholder
Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha. That
article pointed to a number of risks associated with QuantumScape's
solid state batteries. These risk make QuantumScape's batteries
"completely unacceptable for real world field electric vehicles."
The article specifically stated that QuantumScape's battery's power
meant it would "only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving."
On this news, the price of QuantumScape's shares fell $34.49 or
approximately 40.84% to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021.
If you purchased QuantumScape securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/quantumscapecorporation-qs-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-352/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 4 disclosed that
is has commenced an investigation of QuantumScape Corporation
("QuantumScape" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QS) on behalf of
investors concerning the Company's possible violations of federal
securities laws.
All investors who purchased the shares of QuantumScape Corporation
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.
On January 4, 2021, Seeking Alpha published an article pointing to
several risks with QuantumScape's solid state batteries that make
it "completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicles." Specifically, it stated that the battery's power means
it "will only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving." As solid state batteries are temperature
sensitive, "the power and cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above
would have been significantly worse if run even a few degrees
lower."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell almost 40% during
intraday trading on January 4, 2021.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss or join this impending action, or have any
questions regarding your rights and interests in this ongoing
situation, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone
at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
QUDIAN INC: April 27 Proposed Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation
Master File No.: 1:17-cv-09741-JMF
Related cases:
1:17-cv-09796-JMF
1:17-cv-09903-JMF
1:17-cv-09875-JMF
1:17-cv-09894-JMF
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Qudian Inc. ("Qudian") American Depositary Shares ("ADS") in or
traceable to Qudian's initial public offering on or about October
18, 2017 (the "Class").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class as set forth in the full Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $8,500,000 (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing will be held on April 27, 2021, at 4:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Jesse M. Furman in Courtroom 1105, United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, to
determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement (the "Stipulation") dated November 13, 2020 (and in the
Notice), should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. In light of
the ongoing pandemic the Court may choose to hold the Settlement
Hearing telephonically or via videoconference, in which case,
notice will be provided to the Class on the Court's docket and on
the settlement website, www.QudianSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Settlement of the Action, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Qudian Securities
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173114, Milwaukee, WI
53217, (877) 884-2550. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also
be downloaded from the settlement website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.QudianSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than April 14, 2021. If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than April 6, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action, and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court such that
they are received no later than April 6, 2021, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.
The Action is separate from three other class action lawsuits that
were filed on behalf of Qudian ADS purchasers in (i) California
Superior Court, San Mateo County, and (ii) New York Supreme Court,
New York County, respectively (the "State Court Actions"). There
has not been, and may not be, a recovery in the State Court
Actions. Moreover, absent a valid exclusion request, approval of
the Settlement in this Action will eliminate the ability of any
member of the Class to assert Released Plaintiffs' Claims in the
State Court Actions or in any other court or forum. You may not
participate in both this Settlement and the State Court Actions.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Qudian, or
Qudian's counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or
Co-Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Qudian Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173114
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 884-2550
www.QudianSecuritiesSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Co-Lead Counsel:
Jack I. Zwick, Esq.
225 Broadway, Suite 1440
New York, NY 10007
(212) 385-1900
jack@zwickfirm.com
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
Attn: Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com
By Order of the Court [GN]
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Jan. 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands
International, Inc. ("Restaurant Brands" or the "Company") (NYSE:
QSR) common stock between April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Restaurant Brands investors have
until February 19, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation with over 27,000 Tim
Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes restaurants in more than 100
countries and U.S. territories.
On October 28, 2019, the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter ending September 30, 2019.
Specifically, Restaurant Brands and its executives acknowledged
that "results at Tim Hortons were not where we want them to be with
global comparable sales dipping into negative territory" and
admitted that "discounting [associated with Tims Rewards] is
slightly more than offsetting the traffic levels," leading to
"softness in sales."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.59, or 3.8%, to
close at $65.86 per share on October 28, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors 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,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Restaurant Brands common stock during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than February 19, 2021 to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of
the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you purchased Restaurant Brands common
stock, have information or would like to learn more about these
claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our
website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Restaurant Brands International, Inc. ("Restaurant Brands" or the
"Company") (NYSE: QSR) common stock between April 29, 2019 and
October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Restaurant Brands
investors have until February 19, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Restaurant Brands investments
are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or
by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation with over 27,000 Tim
Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes restaurants in more than 100
countries and U.S. territories.
On October 28, 2019, the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter ending September 30, 2019.
Specifically, Restaurant Brands and its executives acknowledged
that "results at Tim Hortons were not where we want them to be with
global comparable sales dipping into negative territory" and
admitted that "discounting [associated with Tims Rewards] is
slightly more than offsetting the traffic levels," leading to
"softness in sales."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.59, or 3.8%, to
close at $65.86 per share on October 28, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors 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,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Restaurant Brands common stock, have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Restaurant Brands, International, Inc.
("Restaurant Brands" or "the Company") (NYSE: QSR) investors that
acquired securities between April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here
https://portnoylaw.com/Restaurant-Brands/ to join the case.
On October 28, 2019, the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter ending September 30, 2019.
Specifically, Restaurant Brands and its executives acknowledged
that "results at Tim Hortons were not where we want them to be with
global comparable sales dipping into negative territory" and
admitted that "discounting [associated with Tims Rewards] is
slightly more than offsetting the traffic levels," leading to
"softness in sales."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.59, or 3.8%, to
close at $65.86 per share on October 28, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors 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,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 4
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE: SWI)
between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
SolarWinds investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the SolarWinds class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2012.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) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had
a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon
which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily
accessible password of ‘solarwinds123'; (3) consequently,
SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal
Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to
hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant
reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 5,
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-2012.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:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
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]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 4 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or "the Company") (NYSE: SWI)
for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 5, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here 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. SolarWinds' Orion monitoring product
suffered from a vulnerability since the middle of 2020 that allowed
hackers to force access to servers running the compromised
software. The Company's update server was not adequately secured,
for example, its password was "solarwinds123." The Company's
customers, including Microsoft, the Federal government, and others
were left vulnerable to hackers. This vulnerability and subsequent
hacks of these organizations led to severe reputational harm for
the Company. 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 SolarWinds, 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.
Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORPORATION: Bremer Sues Over 8% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BREMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOLARWINDS CORPORATION; KEVIN B. THOMPSON;
and J. BARTON KALSU, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00002 (W.D. Tex.,
Jan. 4, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded SolarWinds
securities from February 24, 2020 through December 15, 2020,
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020,
SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that
allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products
ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible
password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds'
customers, including, among others, the Federal Government,
Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as
a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm;
and (5) as a result, the Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On December 15, 2020, Reuters published an article stating that,
last year, security researcher Vinoth Kumar "alerted the company
that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using the
password 'solarwinds123.'" The article also disclosed that,
according to Kyle Hanslovan, the cofounder of Maryland-based
cybersecurity company Huntress, "days after SolarWinds realized
their software had been compromised, the malicious updates were
still available for download."
On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.56 per share or 8% to
close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 2020, damaging
investors.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
SolarWinds Corporation designs and develops information technology
management software. The Company offers solutions such as network
performance monitoring, configuration, virtualization, database
management, hosted logs, security, and configuration. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
Barden M. Wayne, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Rd, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
E-mail: krogers@swclaw.com
stuart@swclaw.com
braden@swclaw.com
-and-
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
SP0N INC: Faces Sedaghatfar Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ELIZA SEDAGHATFAR, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SP0N, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-11703 (C.D.
Cal., December 29, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged
negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that she received two unsolicited text
messages on her cellular telephone number ending in -6811 from the
Defendant on or about May 31, 2020. In an attempt to promote its
services, the Defendant allegedly transmitted unsolicited text
messages by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS)
without obtaining the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons' "prior express consent" to receive such telemarketing text
messages using ATDS.
Moreover, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6811
has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry well over 30 days
prior to the Defendant's initial call.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff was harmed and suffered damages for invading his privacy
and causing him to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time
for which he had previously paid.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting such unlawful
conduct of the Defendant in the future, statutory and treble
damages, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
SP0N, Inc. is a software development 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
SPLUNK INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK) between
October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important February 2, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline
in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Splunk investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Splunk class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2000.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) Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers
in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the
financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2000.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]
STARBUCKS CORP: Store Managers' Suit to Proceed in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a store
managers' proposed class action against Starbucks Corp. to
reimburse mobile phone costs belongs in federal court because the
amount in controversy plausibly exceeds $5 million, a federal court
in California ruled.
Starbucks' business records, two employees' testimony about their
cell phone bills, and an estimated 25% attorneys' fee combined to
make the company's estimates of the amount in controversy -- either
$7,381,375 or $5,058,394 -- reasonably possible, Judge James Donato
said Dec. 31 for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. [GN]
THEVEGASPACKAGE.COM: Fisher "TCPA" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICK FISHER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
THEVEGASPACKAGE.COM, INC., a Nevada corporation, and DOUGLAS
DOUGLAS, an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-01613-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying an Autodialed No Consent Class consisting of:
"all persons in the United States who from September 19,
2015 to the date notice is sent to the Class: (1) the
Defendants, or a third person acting on behalf of the
Defendants, called; (2) on the person's cellular
telephone; (3) for the purpose of selling Vegas Package's
products and services; (4) using an autodialer as defined
in the TCPA; and (4) for whom Defendants claim they
obtained prior express consent in the same manner as the
Defendants claims they supposedly obtained prior express
consent to call the Plaintiff;"
2. appointing Patrick H. Peluso and Stephen A. Klein of
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC as Class Counsel;
3. appointing himself as Class Representative, and granting
himself to leave to conduct limited class discovery; and
4. granting award such additional relief as it deems
necessary, reasonable, and just.
This case challenges the Defendants' serial violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") -- specifically, the
TCPA's bar against placing calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system to cellular telephones without first obtaining prior
express consent.
The Plaintiff filed his class action complaint on September 19,
2019.
The Defendant Vegas Package is a corporation incorporated and
existing under the laws of the State of Nevada. Defendant Douglas
is the president and registered agent of Vegas Package.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 5,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3rVpEs1at
no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff Nick Fisher and the Class, are:
Marc P. Cook, Esq.
COOK & KELESIS, LTD.
517 S. 9th St.
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 737-7702
Facsimile: (702) 737-7712
E-mail: law@bckltd.com
- and -
Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 907-4654
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: sklein@woodrowpeluso.com
TIVITY HEALTH: March 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE
DIVISION
ERIC WEINER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:17-cv-01469
Chief Judge Crenshaw
Magistrate Judge Newbern
ATTENTION PURCHASERS OF TIVITY COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 6, 2017
AND NOVEMBER 6, 2017
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF TIVITY HEALTH, INC. ("TIVITY") BETWEEN MARCH 6,
2017 AND NOVEMBER 6, 2017, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO HAVE BEEN DAMAGED
THEREBY (THE "CLASS" and "CLASS PERIOD").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A CLASS HAS BEEN CERTIFIED IN PENDING
LITIGATION THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.
If you are a member of the Class described above, your rights may
be affected by the lawsuit referred to as Weiner v. Tivity Health,
Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01469, which is now pending before the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division (the "Court") (the "Action"), brought by Lead
Plaintiff and Class Representative Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
and Retirement System on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated against Tivity and its current or former officers, Donato
Tramuto, Glenn Hargreaves, and Adam Holland (collectively,
"Defendants").
The Court determined that the Action may proceed as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. You
may be a member of the Class. Excluded from the Class are
Defendants Tivity, Donato Tramuto, Glenn Hargreaves, Adam Holland,
the officers and directors of Tivity during the relevant period, as
well as members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.
This Summary Notice is not an expression of any opinion by the
Court with respect to the merits of the claims or the defenses
asserted in the Action. This Summary Notice is to advise you of the
pendency of this Action and of your rights therein.
If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice by mail, please
contact us in writing:
Tivity Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
PO Box 3679
Portland, OR 97208-3679
www.TivitySecuritiesLitigation.com
1 (877) 202-7202
If you fall within the definition of the Class set forth above, you
are a member of the Class. IF YOU WISH TO REMAIN A MEMBER OF THE
CLASS, YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME.
If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must send a request
for exclusion to Tivity Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Class
Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., PO Box 3679, Portland, OR
97208-3679 postmarked no later than March 1, 2021. There are
specific requirements for requesting exclusion that are set forth
in the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, which is
available at www.TivitySecuritiesLitigation.com.
In addition, inquiries regarding this litigation may be addressed
to counsel for the Class:
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Daniel S. Sommers
Christina D. Saler
Josh Handelsman
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Fax: (202) 408-4699
TivityClassCounsel@cohenmilstein.com
PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.
Dated: January 4, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
http://www.TivitySecuritiesLitigation.com[GN]
TUMINO'S TOWING: Kiley Suit Remanded to New Jersey Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand
to the lawsuit captioned as SEAN KILEY, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated persons v. TUMINO'S TOWING, INC., et
al., Case No. 18-3165 (D. N.J.).
The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in New Jersey state
court to recover damages and injunctive relief for the Defendants'
allegedly unlawful and predatory towing practices. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants towed his car at the request of
Ridgefield Park law enforcement due to a parking violation, without
his consent. The Defendants took the Plaintiff's car to a Tumino's
Towing storage facility. When the Plaintiff went to retrieve his
car, Tumino's Towing provided him with an invoice for charges
related to the towing. The Plaintiff paid the full amount on the
invoice. He alleges that certain of the fees and charges he paid
violate multiple New Jersey consumer protection laws and
regulations.
The Plaintiff initially filed suit in New Jersey state court
individually and on behalf of a putative class of individuals whose
motor vehicles were non-consensually towed by Defendants from a
location in New Jersey, not as a result of an accident, and who
were provided a written towing invoice the same or similar to that
used in the transaction with Plaintiff. The Defendants removed the
matter to the Court.
On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on the
basis of Class Action Fairness Act's jurisdictional exceptions, or
in the alternative, for the Court to permit jurisdictional
discovery. Judge Steven C. Mannion, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the
District of New Jersey, denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand on
June 26, 2018, but granted his request for limited discovery. At
the outset, Judge Mannion determined that the case qualifies for
federal subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA's jurisdictional
prerequisites. Judge Mannion further stated that the Plaintiff
failed to show that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies.
Judge Mannion, however, concluded that more information regarding
the class members' citizenship will assist the Court in determining
whether remand is proper. Consequently, he ordered limited
jurisdictional discovery to allow Mr. Kiley to determine what
percentage of the putative class members are domiciled in New
Jersey. After the parties engaged in this limited discovery, the
Plaintiff filed a renewed motion to remand.
The Plaintiff maintains that the case must be remanded because of
the mandatory home state exception. He contends that because
approximately 11,000 class members are New Jersey citizens, based
on their license plates, he easily satisfies the mandatory home
state exception.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff establishes, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that two-thirds of the putative
class are citizens of New Jersey such that the mandatory home state
exception applies. Even if the Plaintiff failed to establish that
two-thirds of the proposed class members were not New Jersey
citizens, remand would still be appropriate based on the
discretionary home state exception, according to the Court's
Opinion & Order. Judge Vazquez opines that even if the mandatory
home state exception did not apply, the Court would still exercise
its discretion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(3)) and remand the
matter.
The Plaintiff also argues that he is entitled to an award of
attorney's fees and costs in connection with the motion for remand.
Given the fact that Judge Mannion initially determined that the
Defendants demonstrated that the Court had jurisdiction under CAFA
and jurisdictional discovery was necessary, the Court cannot
conclude that the Defendants' lacked an objectively reasonable
basis for seeking removal. Accordingly, it will not award the
Plaintiff attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).
Therefore, for the stated reasons, and for good cause shown, the
Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted and the matter is remanded
to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County.
The Plaintiff's motion for fees is denied. The Clerk of the Court
is directed to close the matter.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 28,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7mbhlsq from
Leagle.com.
TWITTER INC: Faces Securities Class Action From Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy, writing for Reuters, reports that this year will see
the U.S. Supreme Court consider an important issue regarding
shareholder plaintiffs, while lower courts will consider challenges
to both new and longstanding Securities and Exchange Commission
rules and Twitter is set to battle with shareholders in a rare
securities class action trial. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Deaton Sues Over Misclassification of XRP Currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DEATON, JORDAN DEATON, JAMES LAMONTE, TYLER LAMONTE, MYA
LAMONTE, MITCHELL MCKENNA, KRISTIANA WARNER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELAD
ROISMAN AS ACTING SEC CHAIRMAIN and U.S. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00001 (D.R.I., January 1,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
comply with its mandate to protect innocent third-party investors.
According to the complaint, the U.S. Securities & Exchange
Commission (SEC), headed by Jay Clayton, filed an enforcement
action against Ripple Labs, its chief executive officer (CEO) Brad
Garlinghouse, and co-founder Chris Larsen, alleging that from 2013
to the present, Ripple has and continues to sell unregistered
securities with the Digital Asset XRP virtual currency. The SEC's
action declares the Digital Asset XRP as an unregistered security
which caused several investors, including the Plaintiffs, to lose
multi-million investments.
The Plaintiffs seek to amend the Defendant's complaint against
Ripple to exclude present day XRP, purchased by investors with no
connection to Ripple or its executives.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is an agency of the United
States Government, headquartered in Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Deaton, Esq.
DEATON LAW FIRM
450 North Broadway
East Providence, RI 02914
Telephone: (401) 351-6400
Facsimile: (401) 351-6401
E-mail: All-Deaton@deatonlawfirm.com
VIVINT SOLAR: Securities Suit Transferred From New York to Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York transferred the case, In re Vivint Solar, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:19-cv-05777 (FB) (CLP) (E.D.
N.Y.), to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
Vivint and certain of its officers and directors, violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. All the Defendants
move, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), to transfer the action
to the District of Utah.
Vivint is a residential solar energy provider that designs,
installs, and maintains solar energy systems. The Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint alleges that Vivint Solar engaged in widespread
deceptive, fraudulent, and unethical sales practices. These
practices allegedly produced numerous lawsuits by aggrieved
customers and investigations by state attorneys general that were
not disclosed to investors.
The Plaintiffs allege that based on that and other undisclosed
negative information, Vivint's share price dropped 4.6 % during a
two-day trading period in 2019. Broadly, they claim that the
Defendants' knowledge or reckless disregard of the deceptive sales
practices and resulting litigation rendered certain statements in
Vivint's financial statements false or misleading.
Vivint commenced operations in 2011. The Company currently
occupies approximately 150,000 square feet of office space in Lehi,
Utah, under a lease that expires in 2031. Both Individual
Defendants, David Bywater and Dana Russell, reside in Utah and work
out of the Company's Lehi, Utah office. Five employees named in
the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint--Chance Allred, Paul Dickson,
Jeremy Sabin, Nicholas Hansen, and Tyler Anderson--work or reside
in Utah. The Company prepared the reports and public filings
discussed in the Amended Complaint in Utah.
Moreover, none of the Vivint personnel responsible for preparing
and drafting its financial disclosures or other investor
communications are located in New York. The records and documents
relating to Vivint's internal business procedures, financial
reports, and other investor communications are located at the
Company's offices in Utah.
Judge Block notes that the case involves non-New York Plaintiffs
and Utah-based Defendants. The case is focused on conduct that
occurred in Utah. Most of the witnesses and documents are in the
District of Utah. Having considered the underlying facts and the
relevant factors, the Judge is persuaded the Defendants have made
the required "clear-cut showing" such that transfer to the District
of Utah is warranted.
Therefore, Judge Block granted the Defendants' motion. The Clerk
is directed to transfer the case, including all actions
consolidated thereunder, to the District of Utah.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyxnxnun from Leagle.com.
W. Scott Holleman -- holleman@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel & Squire,
P.C., in New York City, for the Plaintiff.
Kevin M. McDonough -- kevin.mcdonough@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP, New York City, for the Defendant.
VSL PHARMACEUTICALS: Maryland Court Narrows Claims in Starr Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit entitled DAVID STARR, SANDI COOK, BERNADETTE MAVRIKOS,
EDWARD QUIAMBAO, JAMES TETTENHORST, JEREMY HANSEN, KRISTA KARO,
ARLENE REED-COSSAIRT, PETER STAVROS, SCOTT OFFUTT, HEATHER FARKAS
and STACEY HOLZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. VSL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEADIANT BIOSCIENCES, INC.,
f/k/a Sigma-Tau Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and ALFASIGMA USA, INC.,
Case No. TDC-19-2173 (D. Md.).
The Motion is granted as to the claims in Count 2 (breach of
express warranty) asserted under Tennessee and Michigan law. The
Motion is granted as to Counts 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 16, consisting
of the California, New Jersey, Michigan, and Idaho statutory
consumer protection claims. It is also granted as to the Florida
and Kentucky statutory consumer protection claims in Counts 14, 15,
and 17 against Leadiant only. The Motion will be otherwise denied.
The case is the latest in a long-running intellectual property
dispute between former business partners Claudio De Simone and VSL
as to who has rightful ownership of a proprietary probiotic
formulation ("De Simone Formulation") used in a product sold for
many years under the name "VSL#3," a trademark owned by VSL. In
prior litigation, that issue was put to a jury which, in November
2018, returned a verdict in favor of De Simone and his new business
venture, ExeGi Pharma, LLC.
On June 20, 2019, the Court issued a Permanent Injunction against
Leadiant and Alfasigma, the companies that have marketed and
distributed VSL#3 on behalf of VSL, enjoining them from (1) stating
or suggesting in VSL#3 promotional materials directed at United
States consumers that the present version of VSL#3 produced in
Italy ("Italian VSL#3" or "the new VSL#3") continues to contain the
De Simone Formulation, including by stating that VSL#3 contains the
"original proprietary blend" or the "same mix in the same
proportions" as the earlier version of VSL#3; and (2) "citing to or
referring to any clinical studies performed on the De Simone
Formulation or earlier versions of VSL#3 as relevant or applicable
to Italian VSL#3."
Between June 2016 and the present, each of the named Plaintiffs
routinely purchased the new VSL#3 and assert that, in doing so,
they relied on the packaging and marketing materials, which convey
the message that the new version of VSL#3 is the same as the
version produced with the De Simone Formulation. Many also relied
on the recommendation of their doctors. Each Plaintiff, thus,
believed that the new VSL#3 continued to contain the De Simone
Formulation.
On July 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit.
They have filed the class action lawsuit against Defendants VSL
Leadiant, and Alfasigma alleging violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"); breach of
express warranty, in violation of the Uniform Commercial Code
("UCC"); unjust enrichment; and violations of various state
consumer protection statutes. The Defendants have filed a
consolidated Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal of the entirety
of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs oppose the
Motion.
In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert 19 causes of
action, numbered as follows: (1) violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1962(c)-(d); (2) breach of express warranty, in violation
of the UCC; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) a violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act; (5) a violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (6) a violation of the
California False Advertising Law; (7) a violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law; (8) a violation of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act; (9) a violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act; (10) a violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act; (11) a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act; (12) a violation of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (13) a violation of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act; (14) a violation of the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act; (15) violations of Florida false
advertising laws; (16) a violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection
Act; (17) a violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act; (18)
a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; and (19) a
violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
In Count 1, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants engaged in a
civil violation of RICO and a RICO conspiracy, in violation of 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and (d). The Defendants assert that the
allegations are insufficient to support a plausible RICO claim on
several grounds, including that the Amended Complaint does not
plausibly allege (1) acts of racketeering activity, specifically,
either acts of mail fraud or wire fraud, or (2) that the Defendants
acted with fraudulent intent.
District Judge Theodore D. Chuang opines that the Plaintiffs have
adequately and specifically alleged that the Defendants engaged in
a scheme to deceive consumers by selling the new VSL#3 through the
use false representations that it was the same as the prior version
that used the De Simone Formulation, and they sought to obtain
money in the form of increased profits from sales. These
allegations are sufficient on the element of a scheme to defraud,
Judge Chuang states. Hence, the Defendants' Motion will be denied
as to the substantive RICO claim.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the breach of express warranty
claim on the grounds that the Plaintiffs have failed adequately to
allege that (1) there was an express "affirmation of fact" or
"promise"; (2) there was privity between Plaintiffs and Defendants;
and (3) there was reliance upon the promise. In Count 2, the
Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for breach of express warranty
in violation of the UCC. The Defendants also contend that the
warranty claim failed adequately to plead an affirmation of fact or
promise because the UCC "requires that a consumer have, at the
least, pre-sale knowledge of or exposure to a specific
advertisement or promotional representation that he or she alleges
became part of the contract."
Regardless of the existence and contours of any such requirement in
certain states, where the Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim is
based in part on the continued use of the VSL#3 brand name, and the
Plaintiffs have alleged that they were aware of its continued use
on the packaging, such a requirement does not provide a basis for
dismissal at the pleading stage, Judge Chuang opines.
The Defendants further assert that in order to succeed on an
express warranty claim under the respective laws of Washington,
Texas, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Florida,
Tennessee, and Michigan, a plaintiff must be in privity with the
defendant, and no such privity is pleaded or provable here.
The Court concludes that Tennessee and Michigan law each require a
plaintiff to plead privity in order to sustain an express warranty
claim. Judge Chuang notes that the Plaintiffs have identified no
such factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, nor has the
Court found any. The Court will, therefore, grant the Motion as to
the Plaintiffs' UCC claims under Tennessee and Michigan law.
Judge Chuang also opines that a failure to plead reliance is not a
basis for dismissal as to the breach of express warranty claims
under California, Florida, and Wisconsin law, nor is it under the
laws of the states for which the Defendants have not asserted this
issue. As for the remaining states -- Massachusetts, Texas, and
Kentucky -- because those states require some degree of pleading on
the issue of reliance, the Court turns to whether Plaintiffs have
met the requisite standards.
Where the Plaintiffs' pleading of reliance is arguably sufficient
under the UCC, and where the Defendants have pointed the Court to
no contrary state law, the Court finds that that the Plaintiffs
have adequately pleaded reliance under the relevant state
statutes.
The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs' breach of express
warranty claims must be dismissed because the UCC requires a
plaintiff to provide pre-suit notice, but they have failed to do
so.
The Court finds that the Defendants' pre-suit notice argument
unpersuasive. It grants the Motion as to the breach of warranty
claims under the laws of Tennessee and Michigan based on the
Plaintiffs' failure adequately to plead privity of contract. The
Motion is otherwise denied as to the breach of express warranty
claim.
The Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs' various claims
under state consumer protection statutes fail for a variety of
reasons, including that the Amended Complaint does not adequately
allege reliance, causation, intentional deception, and
ascertainable loss. While the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants
sent multiple marketing materials, their allegations fall short of
describing extensive and long-term campaign that, because of its
breadth, would have certainly found its way to the eyes and ears of
the average citizen, Judge Chuang says.
While the Plaintiffs have asserted that the new VSL#3 is not the
same and not as clinically effective as the De Simone Formulation,
they have not alleged that it poses a safety risk. The Court will,
therefore, grant the Motion as to the California statutory consumer
protection claims based on the failure to properly allege reliance.
The Plaintiffs' claims under the Michigan and California consumer
protection statutes, Counts 5, 6, 7, and 10, will be dismissed.
The Defendants further contend that the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claims fail under the laws of various states because the
Plaintiffs have not alleged that they conferred a direct benefit on
the Defendants. However, the Plaintiffs allege that they paid the
Defendants for VSL#3, and the Court discerns no reason, nor do the
Defendants explain, why the benefit of the Plaintiffs' payment for
an allegedly inferior product is insufficient to satisfy this
requirement. The Motion will be denied as to the unjust enrichment
claim in Count 3.
Leadiant asserts additional bases for dismissal of the claims
against it, particularly arguments based on the statute of
limitations. According to Leadiant, because the Plaintiffs have
alleged in the Amended Complaint that Leadiant sold the rights to
market and sell VSL#3 to Alfasigma in June 2016, a date more than
three years before this lawsuit was filed, the Plaintiffs' claims
under the state consumer protection statutes of Florida, Idaho,
Kentucky, and Wisconsin, as well as the unjust enrichment claims
relating to California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas,
and Washington, are time-barred.
The Plaintiffs concede that the state law claims against Leadiant
in Florida and Kentucky are time-barred, so those claims will be
dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Dec. 28,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7a2t2vj from
Leagle.com.
WALMART INC: Tsui Sues Over Associates' Unpaid Military Leave
-------------------------------------------------------------
NICKOLAS TSUI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-12309 (D. Mass., December 31, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act by failing to provide fully
paid leave to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
associates during periods of short-term military leave.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Walmart at its Sam's Club store
in Hudson, New Hampshire since May 2009. He has not received any
paid leave when he took short-term military leave from Walmart
since 2014.
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathaniel Sliver, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-0620
E-mail: nsliver@blockleviton.com
- and –
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
1735 20th Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jbarton@blockleviton.com
- and –
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2055
E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
- and –
Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
1900 L Street, NW, Suite 312
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 888-1741
E-mail: peter@guptawessler.com
- and –
Thomas G. Jarrard, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS JARRARD PLLC
1020 N. Washington St.
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (425) 239-7290
E-mail: Tjarrard@att.net
- and –
Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
905 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 409
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 850-7011
E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com
WORCESTER, MA: Faces Disability Discrimination Suit During Pandemic
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hanson, writing for MassLive, reports that Dennis Staples,
who teaches automotive technology at Worcester Technical High
School, has been watching coronavirus case counts remain high in
Massachusetts this winter.
Staples is among educators in Worcester who are looking for
accommodations as the start date for hybrid learning approaches
this month. Because of a breathing disorder, Staples said he's
worried about contracting the virus in the classroom, where
students and teachers historically work closely together.
"It is physically impossible to social distance in a shop setting
because of the tools, the equipment," Staples said. "We work
basically hand-to-hand with the students, so the 6-feet thing is
not going to work."
Students with the highest level of needs and Chapter 74 students
are slated to start hybrid education and return to classrooms on
Jan 25. Other students are not expected to start hybrid learning
until March. Meanwhile, a complaint has been filed with the
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination questioning if the
district discriminated against employees with disabilities by not
engaging in an "authentic interactive process" regarding requests
for accommodation.
Staples said his doctor has told him that if he were to get the
coronavirus, he'd likely have to be hospitalized. Cases of the
common cold have landed Staples in the emergency room before, he
said.
"Most anybody who's applied for any type of accommodation is not
doing it because we don't want to work," Staples said. "Believe me,
it's easier for me to go in and do my job than it is to do it
online. It's just not safe at this point. That's the whole problem
here."
About 200 teachers have asked for accommodations, according to
Roger Nugent, the president of the Educational Association of
Worcester, the local teachers' union. Conferences have happened to
discuss accommodation requests, but as of Jan. 2, Nugent said he is
not aware of any decisions. There was a goal to have decisions out
by Jan. 1, and Nugent said he believes employees may be notified of
decisions starting Jan. 4.
Superintendent Maureen Binienda said because expanded family and
medical leave requirements expired Dec. 31, the only way someone
can take leave now is under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"People applying for leave, they're only going to get a leave if it
fits the Americans with Disabilities Act," Binienda said. "It's
very different. There's not as many reasons that you can be granted
a paid leave."
Nugent said the union will advocate for a broadening of who is
approved and who is not approved.
"We're encouraging the district to look at this situation with an
open mind because the educators have more than come to the table
and done the work that's been asked of them," Nugent said. "And now
it's at a point where their personal safety could be compromised.
That's not an unreasonable ask that people not be asked to go into
the buildings until the buildings are 100% safe and that peoples'
health not be compromised because of the work being asked of them
to do."
"We're not going to ask our people to put themselves in harm's
way," Nugent added.
Meanwhile, an email from the EAW indicates that the Massachusetts
Teachers Association was filing an Unfair Labor Practice at the
Department of Labor Relations and a complaint with the
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.
The MCAD complaint, dated Dec. 28, is filed on behalf of all WPS
employees that have requested an accommodation for a disability
during the pandemic. It alleges that the district has "needlessly
expedited" its process for evaluating accommodation requests by
imposing short deadlines.
Employees returning for the start of hybrid learning were expected
to submit a written request for accommodation by
Dec. 11. Those employees were instructed to attach a form filled
out by their treating physician. Meetings about potential
accommodations started around Dec. 16, according to the complaint.
Jennifer Boulais, the district's chief human resources officer,
told employees that decisions regarding accommodations were
expected to be made by Jan. 1, whether or not the employee was able
to obtain medical documentation from their physician, the complaint
reads.
Employees who requested an accommodation have experienced increased
anxiety and stress because of the expedited process by the
district, according to the complaint. The class action allegation
questions whether the district discriminated against employees with
disabilities by not engaging in an "authentic interactive process"
regarding the requests for accommodation.
"At a time when COVID-19 rates are surging and everyone has an
interest in slowing the spread of the virus, [Worcester Public
Schools'] systemic failures to engage in an authentic interactive
process with disabled employees puts not only the employees' own
health and safety at risk by potentially subjecting them to
unnecessary exposure to the virus, but that of their families and
members of the public," the complaint reads.
The complaint seeks damages in the form of a cease and desist of
deadlines for eligibility for an accommodation and compensation for
"severe emotional distress" caused.
Those filings follow a December cease and desist letter, which
union representatives allege has been ignored by the district.
The letter demands that the district cease and desist from "acting
in bad faith when engaging in the interactive process with our
nearly 200 affected members who each made a lawful request for a
reasonable accommodation." The letter, signed by Rebecca Yee, the
general counsel for the MTA, says the district essentially rejected
a request for accommodations from an employee who is 15-weeks into
a high-risk pregnancy.
"In fact, when asked what would happen if the District cannot
accommodate her request for remote teaching, you indifferently
brought up termination before any other reasonable or viable
option. Not only was your response harsh and insensitive, but it
also seems very discriminatory and retaliatory," the letter reads.
The state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has told
districts to prioritize in-person learning even if a community is
considered high risk for spreading the coronavirus.
The EAW represents about 3,200 employees of the Worcester Public
Schools. The union and district are currently in mediation. They've
been in negotiations since July and currently do not have a
memorandum of understanding. [GN]
YLLI CORP: Gonzales Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL GONZALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YLLI CORP. d/b/a FLACO'S PIZZA, and VESELJ
HASANKJEKAJ, and DRITON IMERAJ, as individuals, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-10966 (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2020) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to perform work for the
Defendants as a cook, waiter and delivery driver from in or around
July 2000 until the Defendants wrongfully terminated her in or
around January 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her the
legally prescribed minimum wage for her hours worked as well as the
spread-of-hours for each day she worked over 10 hours. In addition,
although he worked more than 40 hours from in or around November
2014 until in or around November 2018, the Defendants did not pay
her lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times
her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked over 40 in a
workweek.
Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the
minimum and overtime wages requirements, to provide the Plaintiff
with a written notice, and to keep payroll records.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages and an equal amount in
the form of liquidated damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs, and interest.
Ylli Corp. d/b/a Flaco's Pizza operates a pizza restaurant, owned
and managed by the Individual Defendants. [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
Tel: (718) 263-9591
[*] Bitcoin Industry Regulations Will Remain Amid Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Southurst, writing for CoinGeek, reports that regulation: it
was always going to come to Bitcoin and the digital asset industry,
and we've known it for a long time. While some still cling to myths
of a financial free-for-all, those in the Bitcoin (BSV) ecosystem
are realists -- Bitcoin must work within regulations to exist. 2020
saw new rules for KYC/AML continue to emerge, "privacy coins"
gradually becoming more taboo, and enforcement actions that
eventually reached XRP, one of the world's most traded assets.
Almost every week in 2020 brought news of new or intended
regulations concerning the digital asset industry in some part of
the world, from Argentina to Kyrgyzstan. Most concerned issues
surrounding identity and investments. There are too many of them to
mention in one article, so here are some of the highlights.
But first, a reminder of why regulation exists
When Bitcoin first appeared, many were enticed by the "freedom" it
purportedly offered. Near-anonymous payments to anywhere in the
world! Censorship resistance! No taxes! Route around laws you don't
like! Sell shares in anything you want, to anyone who'll buy them!
The end of banks and fiat currencies!
Hmmm . . .
If you were among those who thought those promises were true, or
could last, you may have been naive, or simply inexperienced in the
realities of finance and politics, or fooled by charming characters
with sinister motives.
Most who experienced the blockchain industry first-hand for a year
saw quickly that the above scenarios were unrealistic, or at best
unlikely to last. Scams, hacks and thefts began even before Bitcoin
reached mainstream ears, and it only got worse after that. The
wiser and more experienced could see what was coming, and warned
the still starry-eyed (with varying degrees of success). Even the
formerly-naive soon realized that a financial wild-west for
everyday individuals offered the same "freedoms" to international
crime rings, hackers, terrorists, shady investment schemes, and
even corrupt government officials.
Few these days can seriously claim government regulation of digital
finance can -- or should -- be avoided. Governments won't tolerate
such a loss of policy control, or an inability to investigate
crimes. Whatever your personal ideology or view of how people might
act in a perfect world, this is the ultimate reality. People like
Dr. Craig S. Wright have been telling us of this need to coexist
for several years now, and those who refused to listen are
beginning to find themselves in a precarious position.
KYC
KYC stands for "Know Your Customer," and refers to the process of
verifying the identities of those a financial service is
transacting with. It doesn't take deep thought to understand why
this is important, even if the requirements are burdensome. 2020
saw an acceleration in the level of identity verification
requirements for digital asset service providers -- these mostly
impacted exchanges, given they're the main off-and-on-ramps between
the fiat currency and digital asset worlds.
Both the U.S. and E.U. members began to implement or propose new
KYC rules that impose identity verification not only on exchange
wallets, but also external wallets their customers might withdraw
to. In the U.S., FinCEN proposed KYC requirements for transactions
above US$3,000, while France has floated the idea of digital
currency transactions between anyone, of any size, needing proof of
identity.
The EU's fifth anti-money-laundering directive (or "AMLD5")
continued to become actual law in 2020. AMLD5 (and another update,
AMLD6) were first published in June 2018, based on guidelines set
by the international Financial Action Task Force (FATF). EU member
states were given deadlines in January and December 2020 to prepare
domestic laws that match the directives. Though not specifically
aimed at digital asset exchanges, the directives do impose strict
new obligations on them to identify customers with balances of more
than EUR150, and report any suspicious activity.
'Privacy coins' feel the heat
For all the reasons given above, it's hard to see how a digital
currency specifically designed to mask the identity of its users or
the sizes of their transactions could survive in the mainstream.
Those who have at some stage or another claimed to offer such
'privacy coin' features include Zcash, Monero and DASH -- and in
2020, more exchanges began to delist these assets citing regulatory
pressure as the reason. Some jurisdictions have suggested they
should be banned altogether.
Even ShapeShift, founded in 2015 by prominent Bitcoin libertarian
Erik Voorhees on the promise of wallet-to-wallet asset swaps,
announced in November it would delist the three. Meanwhile,
government agencies such as the IRS ramped up programs to develop
new forensic methods to trace Monero and even "Layer Two" payment
networks, like BTC's Lightning Network. Blockchain forensics firms
like Chainalysis have seen a boom in revenues thanks to these
efforts.
Investments and securities laws: none too large to target
A November report revealed that, since 2017, the SEC has brought
cases against 56 companies and participated in 2,750 enforcement
actions in the blockchain/digital asset industry. The actions come
mainly from the "ICO craze" of around that time, which saw a
proliferation in the number of digital assets being traded thanks
to easy creation via the ERC-20 token protocol. Apparently the idea
of pumping and dumping new tokens, loosely attaching them to
business ideas that rarely made it past the drawing board, and
cashing out with millions wasn't so awesome after all -- failed ICO
projects paid a quarter of all SEC fines in 2020.
Again, the biggest news of 2020 came right at the end of the year:
Ripple, the company that created top-five market cap digital asset
XRP, announced it was in the SEC's sights with a new suit targeting
the company and two of its most senior executives. XRP is an
"unregistered security," alleged the SEC and Ripple (the company)
had violated investor protection laws by issuing it . . . in 2013.
The SEC's action has ramifications not only for Ripple and current
XRP holders, but also exchanges that listed the asset. Coinbase was
among those who announced it would delist XRP while the SEC's
action continued, but it hasn't stopped disgruntled customers from
targeting the exchange itself—Coinbase has been served with a
class action suit by traders claiming it sold unregistered
securities with full knowledge of what they were doing.
This is the world Bitcoin and the wider digital asset industry now
finds itself in, and regulation is unlikely to get lighter in 2021
. . . or ever. The kicker is, anyone should have been able to
predict this, and act responsibly -- but so many chose not to. It's
important to remember that blockchain records are public and
permanent. Investigative and enforcement agencies may take years to
catch up with the technology and methods, but eventually they will.
In the meantime, governments will do whatever they can to bring
order to the wild west. Bitcoin BSV thought leaders are foremost in
stressing this to participants in their ecosystem, and it's advice
everyone should heed. [GN]
[*] Lawyers Fail to Get COVID Insurance Cases Coordinated Into MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for NJ Property Casualty 360, reports that
pandemic insurance coverage and risk mitigation are just one area
of many business practices that may be illegibly changed by the
outcome of current and future COVID-19 lawsuits.
However, the amount of litigation alleging that COVID-19 caused
harm, both economically and physically, did not reach the
stratospheric proportions once predicted at the start of the
pandemic.
But there were plenty of lawsuits related to the virus outbreak in
2020. Most of them targeted specific industries such as nursing
homes, cruise ships, universities and insurance carriers.
Additionally, cases against employers in 2020 had less to do with
anticipated claims of COVID-19 exposure or unpaid wages, and more
to do with wrongful termination.
Lawmakers keep a watchful eye
The debate over pandemic lawsuits reached Washington, D.C., where
President Donald Trump recently signed a $900 million COVID-19
relief bill. The legislation excluded any liability protections.
But for months, business groups and Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, pushed for them. At the same
time, the American Association for Justice, the nation's largest
plaintiffs bar organization, has insisted that data show a limited
number of pandemic cases in the courts.
"McConnell's proposal is so outrageous because there are so few
cases," said Julia Duncan, senior director of government affairs at
the AAJ. "However, those that have been filed raise critical issues
of worker protection and nursing home safety that, but for these
lawsuits, we wouldn't be talking about at all."
In fact, new filings of cases related to COVID-19 dipped in August
and fell even further in November, to 588, one of the lowest levels
since the start of the pandemic, according to the COVID-19 Impact
Analyzer from Lex Machina, part of Lexis Nexis.
Heading into 2021, however, lawyers expect to see a continuation of
the largest group of pandemic lawsuits: those brought against
insurance carriers over business interruption claims. There also
could be new employment lawsuits focused on the COVID-19 vaccine.
Here is a review of the 2020 lawsuits caused by COVID-19…
Business interruption claims
The largest category of lawsuits related to COVID-19 are those
brought by restaurants, bars and other businesses against their
insurance carriers after state and local governments forced them to
shut down. According to Hunton Andrews Kurth's COVID-19 Complaint
Tracker, there were nearly 6,900 lawsuits in 2020 relating to the
pandemic, and insurance disputes made up the largest group, with
nearly 1,400 lawsuits.
Some of the cases are class actions, but most are not. Plaintiffs
lawyers failed to get the insurance cases coordinated into
multidistrict litigation, with some exceptions involving a few
regional carriers.
So far, judges have ruled for both plaintiffs and defendants.
According to the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School's
COVID Coverage Litigation Tracker, judges in federal and state
courts have dismissed 63 cases for good. They have dismissed 17
others, giving plaintiffs the chance to amend their complaints, but
declined to dismiss 22 others.
"I don't think we can draw any real patterns," said Mark Chalos, a
partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in Nashville,
Tennessee. "They've gone in all directions at this point. It
depends, in part, on the policy language and state law."
Chalos, who represents businesses suing insurers, expected more
cases in 2021.
Employment lawsuits
At the start of the pandemic, lawyers anticipated a "huge
explosion" of employment class actions focused on layoffs and
unpaid wages. Yet, according to the COVID-19 Employment LitWatch,
compiled by Jackson Lewis, wage-and-hour cases accounted for only
78 of the 1,245 employment matters involving COVID-19, and only 6%
of all employment cases overall were class actions. Data compiled
by Fisher Phillips and Littler Mendelson had similar findings.
"Class actions, in general, have not come to fruition as
predicted," said Stephanie Adler-Paindiris, a principal at Jackson
Lewis in Orlando, Florida.
She said many of the claims that lend themselves to class actions
are not ripe yet, and employees are isolated from coworkers while
working from home.
The largest group of employment disputes -- 472 lawsuits, according
to Jackson Lewis' data—dealt with disability, leave and
accommodation claims by employees who were unable to come back to
work because they were sick or had to care for someone with
COVID-19. Many address the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act,
which Congress passed to provide paid sick leave and extended
family leave relating to COVID-19. Interpreting the act is a "hot,
hot topic" with "not a lot of precedent," Adler-Paindiris said.
"It was such a comprehensive and complicated statute that it
created a number of claims saying, ‘wait a minute, why am I not
getting this additional leave, or this additional pay?'" she said.
"There is a lot of litigation as to when people are entitled to
additional pay or unpaid leave."
Many cases allege wrongful termination, too. Adler-Paindiris said
some employers are using COVID-19 to "clean house," particularly if
employees were not strong performers in the first place.
"This is a good opportunity to look at your organization as a whole
and what you want your organization to look like in the next six
months," she said. "It creates litigation around the individual
selection criteria."
Going into the first six months of 2021, she predicted a "huge
boost of class actions" dealing with systemic discrimination, as
employers ask their workers to return to the office and potentially
require them to take the COVID-19 vaccine, over which there could
be "enormous litigation."
"There will be class actions about religious accommodations, ADA
accommodations, people who say because of the unique situations I
have, I should get an accommodation and not have to get the
vaccine," she said. "There definitely could be class actions if an
employer mandates it."
COVID-19 exposure
Despite the focus on Capitol Hill on lawsuits alleging someone got
COVID-19 due to exposure at work or at a place of business, those
cases were limited in 2020.
"The proposal that McConnell was insisting on having as COVID
immunity targeted lawsuits brought by individuals — consumers and
patients — for COVID exposure, injury or death," Duncan said.
"And when you look at the database, out of 19 million infections in
this country, hundreds of thousands of deaths, there are still,
since the beginning of the pandemic, less than 400 cases filed
relating to COVID injury or death."
In its first Torts Litigation Report, released last month, Lex
Machina tracked 173 tort lawsuits relating to COVID-19, most
against cruise lines and nursing homes.
"Those cases just haven't materialized by and large," Chalos said.
Lawyers filed them in limited circumstances, "where you have a
corporation or big company controlling the entire environment where
people are," such as prisons, nursing homes, meatpacking plants or
cruise ships, he said.
"But we're not seeing really any cases of any significance in more
transient environments, like stores or restaurants or bars or other
local businesses," he said.
Judges have dismissed many of those cases, such as those against
Princess Cruise Lines, after concluding it was difficult to prove
the plaintiff got COVID-19 because of the company's negligence.
Chalos' firm has filed lawsuits against Carnival Corp., owner of
Princess Cruise Lines and Holland America, including a class action
that a federal judge refused to certify but also did not dismiss.
Chalos attributed the various rulings in the cruise ship cases on
the "evolving understanding of how this virus works."
"For passengers who have alleged, for lack of a better word,
contemporaneous symptoms, or developed them during or shortly after
the time they were on Carnival cruise ship, the judges have denied
the motions to dismiss in our cases," he said.
The numbers aren't much different in the employment context.
Although some have sued their employers, such as Tyson Foods,
McDonald's and Amazon, most have not. Jackson Lewis' data found
only 118 lawsuits relating to workplace safety and COVID-19.
Adler-Paindiris attributed her firm's data to "a strong workers'
comp bar in most states" and the fact that nearly 90% of employees
now work from home.
"You're really talking about health care, manufacturing, retail,
where people did come back to work," she said. "So I don't see that
being a huge boon."
Consumer refunds
Many of the consumer refund cases brought due to COVID-19
cancellations targeted universities, which abruptly went online in
spring 2020. Judges have allowed most of the cases, which often
focus on contract language, to go forward.
"What I've seen in the decisions is that courts are closely
evaluating whether you have alleged, from all the different
documents and public information from the university, that you had
a reasonable expectation you'd have in-person learning," said Sarah
Hartley, a partner in the Boulder, Colorado, office of Bryan Cave
Leighton Paisner. "It sounds straightforward, and in the end,
whether that will constitute a promise to provide in-person
learning is something way down the road, but courts are finding
that's enough to defeat a motion to dismiss."
Her firm has tracked 255 cases against higher education over unpaid
refunds.
Another group of consumer cases focused on the travel industry,
particularly airlines and event booking sites like StubHub.
Lawyers do not expect refund class actions to remerge in 2021,
given that consumers are now aware of the risks of paying tuition
for college that might end up virtual or purchasing plane tickets
for potentially canceled trips.
"The universities, from my experience with them, are doing their
best to continue to provide high-quality education to their
students, and these are really, really challenging circumstances,"
Hartley said. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln City Sued Over Mesothelioma Death
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a woman is suing the City of
Lincoln in Nebraska alleging that her sister died from mesothelioma
after she was exposed to asbestos while working at the now
shuttered Pershing Center arena.
Reports show that Dixie Johnson filed the lawsuit in December on
behalf of the estate of her sister, Donna Grant, who died in
February at the age of 60.
The estate is seeking payment of Grant's hospital and medical bills
and burial and funeral costs, as well as for her pain and anguish
before she died and her family's suffering.
According to the Associated Press, the city hasn't yet filed a
response to the lawsuit and City Attorney Yohance Christie declined
to comment.
*********
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 ***