/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210112.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, January 12, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 3
Headlines
121 INFLIGHT: Rosas Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
3M COMPANY: Garber Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
7-ELEVEN: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by August 13
ACE HOTEL: Del Toro Files Personal Injury Suit in Illinois
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Faces Wesley Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Hess Suit Over Share Price Decline
ALIBABA GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
ALPHABET INC: Sued by Media Companies Over Ad Space Monopoly
AMERICAN BANK SYSTEMS: McPherson Files Suit in Oklahoma
AMERICAN FUNDING: Faces Alves Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ANTIOCH, IL: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Non-Emergency Calls Recording
ASPEN AMERICAN: Insurance Suits' Plaintiffs to File Class Cert. Bid
ATASH LLC: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
BALTAIRE: Desalvo Files Suit in California Over ADA Violation
BARKMAN HONEY: Wingate's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
BATH & BODY: Faces Holman Suit Over Sales Staff's Unpaid Wages
BELLEMA CO: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLACKBAUD INC: Faszczewski Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
BLACKBAUD INC: Glasper Files Personal Injury Suit in D.S.C.
BLAIS MICROSCOPE: Companion Animal Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
BOSTON DUCK: Faces Latour Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Boat Drivers
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Sued Over Share Drop from Failed Heart Device
BUSINESS SOLUTIONS: Faces Smith Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
CANON USA: Fails to Properly Secure Employees' Data, Hamid Claims
CATALINA OFFSHORE: Jaquez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
CBE GROUP: Bradford Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
CHARTER TOWNSHIP: Barber Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 6th Cir.
CHOBANI LLC: Brietzke Sues Over Misleading Greek Yogurt Labels
CLASSICA CRUISE: Janicijevic Wins Class Settlement Initial Approval
CLOUD B INC: Quezada Alleges ADA Violation in New York
COINBASE INC: Sandoval Sues Over Sale of Unlicensed Securities
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: Blackwell Files Suit in California
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Brower Balks at Unfair Debt Collection Acts
CRACKER BARREL: Loftus Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Nyanhongo FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
DAVID SHINN: Must Respond to Satzman Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 25
DEL GATTO: Polk Sues Over Deceptive Jewelry Trade Practices
DOREL JUVENILE GROUP: Quezada Alleges Violation under ADA
DUKE & CO: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
ECCO USA: Brooks Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
EL PASO COUNTY, CO: Judge Orders Safety Measures After COVID Suit
F & R CYCLE: Faces Madera Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
FALCON NANO: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
FIRST FINANCIAL: Robison Files Suit in Texas District Court
FOGO DE CHAO: Court Nixed Balassiano's Bid to Certify Class
GLOBAL CREW: Faces Materov Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
GOLD STANDARD: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GOTHAM DRYWALL: Underpays Construction Workers, Calderon Claims
GRAB HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal E-Hailing Service
GUARDIAN GARAGE: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
HAYT HAYT & LANDAU: Wise Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA
HELIOS AND MATHESO: Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
HOPEBRIDGE LLC: Myres FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
ICHIBAN GROUP: Zhang Suit Seeks to Certify Restaurant Staff Class
IL BACCO RISTORANTE: Faces Iraheta Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Bid to Amend Class Action Complaint Denied
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. California
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Self-Insured Schools Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
K STONES: Joong Ko Sues Over Unpaid Wages for General Laborers
LAST RESORT GRILL: Servers Slam Termination Despite Taking Leaves
LEPRINO FOODS: Perez's Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
LEXMARK INT'L: Firefighters Win Final Approval of Settlement
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Farley Files Suit Over Insurance Coverage Dispute
LOCAL EATERIES: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MERUELO GROUP: Parada Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliatory Discharge
MODLIN SLINSKY: Baron Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MOLDEX-METRIC INC: Resendiz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Quezada Alleges Violation under ADA
MR. T'S INC: Rice FLSA Suit Asks Court to Send Notice to Dancers
NATIONAL INCOME: Turner Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Morandi, et al. Lose Class Certification Bid
NETFLIX INC: Gwinnett County Suit removed to N.D. Georgia
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: Lindner Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
OFR INC: Guevara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
OLUKAI LLC: Quezada Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
ORGAIN MANAGEMENT: Darnell Alleges Deceptive Almondmilk's Labels
P.C. RICHARD: N.J. Supreme Court Questions Class Claims Ruling
PARTNERS' TAP: Zawlocki Sues Over Failure to Pay All Tips Earned
PAUL DURAM: Faces Hammond Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
PINTEREST INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 22 Deadline
PROJECT O.H.R.: N.Y. Sup. Appeal Filed in Kurovskaya Suit
QIWI PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Feb. 9 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Gainey McKenna Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Scott+Scott Reminds of March 8 Deadline
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Moser Files FDCPA Suit in Indiana
REGIONS BANK: Faces Wunderlich Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Faces Piroozian Suit Over Share Price Drop
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Liddle & Dubin Reminds of March 8 Deadline
ROSSLYN RETIREMENT: Faces $30-Million COVID-19 Class-Action Suit
ROYAL HAWAIIAN: Quezada Alleges Violation under ADA
SAROOP & SONS: Faces Zapoteco Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
SEFCU: Story Suit Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
SIERRA PACIFIC: Donahoe Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
SIMON'S AGENCY: Faces Mancuso Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
SNACK IT FORWARD: Quezada Asserts Breach of ADA
SOLARWINDS CORP: Thornton Law Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Faces Harrington Suit Over Unpaid Wages
STATE OF IDAHO: Court Tosses Harmon's Class Certification Bid
STERLING CAVIAR: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STOKES HEALTHCARE: Companion Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimiles
STOP & SHOP: Mudry Employment Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
SUPERIOR ROOFING: Companion Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimiles
SUPRA SECURITY: Mendoza Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Overtime
SWEATCO LTD: Faces Rivera Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TEXAS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime to Nurses, Markray Suit Claims
TLW ENERGY: Faces Edge Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
TRICIDA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TRICIDA INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
TRICIDA INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
TSAR NICOULAI: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TWIN AMERICA: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
TYCO FIRE: Settles PFAS Class Action With Over 270 Households
UMW INC: Macedo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
UNITED STATES: Kusel Seeks to Certify Class of Afflicted People
UPS INC: Faces Proposed Class Action Over Alleged COVID Violations
V&O MONTALVAN: Faces Giron Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
VAIL CORPORATION: Court Junked Kurtz Class Suit with Prejudice
VOLVO GROUP: Cotton-Thomas Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
WALMART INC: Mays Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
WALMART INC: Settles Employees' Class Action for Up to $14 Million
WEST COAST SAFES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in New York
WEST ROAD: Calhoun Asks Court to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers
WESTERN DIGITAL: Settles Gender Bias Class Action for $7.75MM
WESTJET AIRLINES: B.C. Supreme Court Gives OK to Baggage Fee Suit
XILINX INC: Sandhu Challenges Proposed $35-Bil. Sale to AMD
YUMMY FOODS: Underpays Deli Employees, Galindo Suit Alleges
[*] 25 Major Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Filed in 2020
[*] Legislation Changes Led to Increase of Pension Fund Class Suits
*********
121 INFLIGHT: Rosas Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL ROSAS, as an individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. 121 INFLIGHT CATERING, LLC, DNATA US
INFLIGHT CATERING, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV33173, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on January 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00035 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide meal
breaks, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay wages upon
termination, failure to provide and maintain accurate itemized wage
statements and maintain records, and unlawful business practices.
121 Inflight Catering, LLC is an airline catering services provider
based in New York.
Dnata US Inflight Catering, LLC is an airline catering services
provider based in New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, Esq.
Mariko Mae Ashley, Esq.
Kayla M. Rathjen, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Shannon.Nakabayashi@jacksonlewis.com
Mariko.Ashley@jacksonlewis.com
Kayla.Rathjen@jacksonlewis.com
3M COMPANY: Garber Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROLLAND GARBER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:20-cv-04421-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 22,
2020) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated seeking damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed
to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time.
Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the
blood and body of exposed individuals.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop
the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Garber case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
7-ELEVEN: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by August 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARLA Y. SOUSA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. 7- ELEVEN, INC.,
Case No. 3:19-cv-02142-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara
L. Major entered an order:
1. directing the parties to file a joint motion for a
protective order, which includes the terms of their
agreement for handling confidential documents and
information, on or before January 28, 2021:
-- any motion to join other parties, to amend the
pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be
filed by March 5, 2021; and
-- any motion for class certification must be filed on or
before August 13, 2021;
2. directing the parties to review the chambers' rules for
the assigned magistrate judge; and
3. scheduling a post-trial settlement conference before a
magistrate judge within 30 days of verdict in the case.
On January 7, 2021, the Court held a videoconference Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference (ENE) in the action. Settlement of the case
could not be reached during the ENE and the Court, therefore,
conducted a Case Management Conference pursuant to Rule 16.1(d) of
the Local Rules.
7-Eleven is an international chain of convenience stores,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. The chain was founded in 1927 as an
ice house storefront in Dallas. It was named Tote'm Stores between
1928 and 1946.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XrXAOG at no extra charge.[CC]
ACE HOTEL: Del Toro Files Personal Injury Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ace Hotel Chicago,
LLC. The case is captioned as Noelle Del Toro, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ace Hotel Chicago, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07627 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 21, 2020).
The case arises from personal injury claims and is assigned to the
Honorable Martha M. Pacold.
Ace Hotel Chicago, LLC is a hotel company based in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Edward Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
Gary Michael Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 283-3814
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Faces Wesley Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WESLEY III, an individual, on behalf of himself, all
aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private
Attorneys General v. AIRTOUCH CELLULAR, INC., a California
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV48397 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 18, 2020) arises from the failure of
the Defendants to comply with the California Labor Code
requirements due to erroneous, willful and intentional employment
practices and policies.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants have had a consistent
policy and/or practice of failing to pay for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked, failing to reimburse for required
business expenses, failing to provide rest breaks, failing to
provide compliant off-duty meal breaks, failing to timely pay all
wages owed, and failing to provide accurate wage statements and
maintain accurate payroll records.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California and was
employed as an hourly, nonexempt employee of Defendants for
approximately 5 years until January 2020.
AirTouch Communications, Inc. is a wireless telecommunications
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
ALIBABA GROUP: Faces Hess Suit Over Share Price Decline
-------------------------------------------------------
ELISSA HESS, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE EH LIVING TRUST, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALIBABA GROUP HOLDING
LIMITED, DANIEL ZHANG and MAGGIE WU, Case No. 1:21-cv-00136
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021) is a securities fraud class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Alibaba American Depositary Shares
(ADSs) between July 9, 2020 and December 23, 2020, inclusive,
seeking damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising
from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements
resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities.
On July 20, 2020, Ant Group Co., the Chinese financial services
company co-founded by Jack Ma -- the billionaire entrepreneur
behind Alibaba -- announced it was preparing for its initial public
offering, which aimed to raise $34 billion. Alibaba represented
that the IPO would be a significant boon to the Company, as the
market was purportedly "assigning very little value to [its] stake
in Ant Group." Unbeknownst to investors, Alibaba and its founder
Jack Ma had allegedly structured Ant Group to evade critical
Chinese banking regulations, notes the complaint.
On December 23, 2020, Chinese authorities revealed an antitrust
investigation into Alibaba itself, acting on reports that Alibaba
had improperly pressured merchants to exclusively sell goods on
Tmall. Regulators stressed the need to "'guide Ant Group to
implement financial supervision, fair competition and protect the
legitimate rights and interests of consumers.'" On this news, the
price of Alibaba's ADSs fell 13% -- the biggest one-day decline
ever.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating
false and misleading statements to the investing public and/or
failing to disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants
knew, or recklessly disregarded, but failed to disclose the
following adverse facts: (a) That Alibaba had illicitly sought to
circumvent Chinese laws and regulations, including laws regulating
financial institutions and prohibiting anticompetitive behavior;
(b) That Ant Group was predominantly a financial company subject to
onerous Chinese banking regulations, including greater capital
requirements than were disclosed to investors, rather than
predominantly a technology company as represented; (c) That, as a
result of the foregoing, Ant Group's growth, prospects and the
value proposition of the Ant Group IPO were far smaller than
represented; (d) That Alibaba had forced merchants using its Tmall
platform to sign coercive exclusivity agreements and had engaged in
other anticompetitive behavior; and (e) As a result, Alibaba's
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and the Class purchased Alibaba ADSs at artificially
inflated prices and were damaged thereby, the suit says.
Plaintiff Elissa Hess, as trustee for The EH Living Trust,
purchased Alibaba ADSs during the Class period.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited, also known as Alibaba Group and as
Alibaba.com, is a Chinese multinational technology company
specializing in e-commerce, retail, Internet, and technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
ALIBABA GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-alibaba-group-holdings-limited-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it filed a class action seeking to represent
purchasers of Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between July 9, 2020 and December 23,
2020 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern
District of New York and is captioned Elissa Hess, as Trustee for
The EH Living Trust v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, No.
21-cv-00136.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Alibaba ADSs during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Alibaba class action lawsuit.
A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Alibaba class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Alibaba class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Alibaba class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
in the Alibaba class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 13, 2020. If you wish to discuss
the Alibaba class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a
copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-alibaba-group-holdings-limited-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Alibaba class action lawsuit charges Alibaba and certain of its
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Alibaba claims to be the largest e-retailer in the world and
operates, among other online marketplaces, Tmall, an online and
mobile commerce platform. Alibaba also owns a 33% equity interest
in Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant
Group"), a financial technology company best known for operating
Alipay, a mobile and online payment platform.
On July 20, 2020, Ant Group announced it was preparing for its
initial public offering ("IPO"), which aimed to raise $34 billion.
Alibaba represented that the IPO would be a significant boon to the
Company, as the market was purportedly "assigning very little value
to [its] stake in Ant Group." However, the complaint alleges that,
unbeknownst to investors, Alibaba and its founder Jack Ma had
structured Ant Group to evade critical Chinese banking regulations,
including the requirement that Ant Group fund at least 30% of loans
issued rather than the mere 2% it was currently funding. In
addition, as Alibaba built its e-commerce empire, it used its
dominant market position to coerce Tmall merchants into signing
exclusive cooperation pacts preventing them from offering products
on rival platforms in violation of Chinese antitrust laws.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public and/or failing to
disclose adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants knew, or
recklessly disregarded, but failed to disclose the following
adverse facts: (a) that Alibaba had illicitly sought to circumvent
Chinese laws and regulations, including laws regulating financial
institutions and prohibiting anticompetitive behavior; (b) that Ant
Group was predominantly a financial company subject to onerous
Chinese banking regulations, including greater capital requirements
than were disclosed to investors, rather than predominantly a
technology company as represented; (c) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Ant Group's growth, prospects and the value proposition
of the Ant Group IPO were far smaller than represented; (d) and
that Alibaba had forced merchants using its Tmall platform to sign
coercive exclusivity agreements and had engaged in other
anticompetitive behavior.
On November 2, 2020, the Financial Times reported that Chinese
regulators had met with Ant Group's controller, executive chairman,
and Chief Executive Officer. The article stated that, though
regulators did not provide details, "the Chinese word used to
describe the interview - yuetan - generally indicates a dressing
down by authorities." The article also included a statement from
Ant Group that it will "‘implement the meeting opinions in
depth.'" On November 3, 2020, Ant Group suspended its IPO because
it "may not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements
due to material matters." On this news, the price of Alibaba ADSs
fell more than 8%. And on November 10, 2020, China's anti-monopoly
regulator, the State Administration for Market Regulation,
published draft rules aimed at curtailing Alibaba's coercive
cooperation pacts, causing the price of Alibaba ADSs to suffer
another 8% decline.
Then, on December 23, 2020, Chinese authorities revealed an
antitrust investigation into Alibaba itself, acting on reports that
Alibaba had improperly pressured merchants to exclusively sell
goods on Tmall. Regulators stressed the need to "‘guide Ant Group
to implement financial supervision, fair competition and protect
the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.'" On this news,
the price of Alibaba ADSs fell 13% - the biggest one-day decline
ever.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Brian E. Cochran, 800-449-4900
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
ALPHABET INC: Sued by Media Companies Over Ad Space Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
Genius Media Group, Inc., The Nation Company, L.P., and The
Progressive, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alphabet Inc., Google LLC and YouTube, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-09092 (N.D. Cal., December 16, 2020),
seeks treble damages, punitive damages and/or restitution, an order
for the Defendants to fully divest their publisher Ad Server line
of business and refrain from operating within the market for
publisher Ad Server products, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses and such other relief in violation of the Sherman Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Defendants have allegedly achieved and maintained a monopoly or
near-monopoly in advertisement marketplace by erecting a toll
bridge between publishers and advertisers and charging an
unlawfully high price for passage. Plaintiffs claim that Google's
"Ad Server" imposes anticompetitive rules and conduct that
artificially warp the channels through which publishers sell their
ad placement inventory.
Genius is a digital media company offering services such as the
development and maintenance of a vast repository of annotated music
lyrics with approximately 25 million advertising impressions per
day. Genius Media has used Google's Ad Server and Ad Exchange
products to sell advertising space on its website.
The Nation Company and The Progressive, Inc. both used Google Ad
Server products and paid for and used a Google Ad Network product
to sell advertising space on its website.
Google LLC is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of XXVI
Holding Inc., which is a subsidiary of Alphabet. Google owns and
controls YouTube. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Robert E. Litan, Esq.
Randall P. Ewing, Esq.
Jonathon D. Byrer, Esq.
Ryan A. Cortazar, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 641-9750
Fax: (312) 641-9751
Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
rlitan@koreintillery.com
rewing@koreintillery.com
jbyrer@koreintillery.com
rcortazar@koreintillery.com
- and -
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
Carol L. O'Keefe, Esq.
Jamie Boyer, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Tel: (314) 241-4844
Fax: (314) 241-3525
Email: stillery@koreintillery.com
mklenov@koreintillery.com
cokeefe@koreintillery.com
jboyer@koreintillery.com
- and -
David Boies, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Tel: (914) 749-8200
Fax: (914) 749-8300
Email: dboies@bsfllp.com
- and -
Philip C. Korologos, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212) 446-2300
Fax: (212) 446-2350
Email: pkorologos@bsfllp.com
- and -
Abby L. Dennis, Esq.
Jesse Panuccio, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 895-7580
Fax: (202) 237-6131
Email: adennis@bsfllp.com
jpanuccio@bsfllp.com
- and -
Mark C. Mao, Esq.
Sean P. Rodriguez, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 293-6820
Email: mmao@bsfllp.com
srodriguez@bsfllp.com
- and -
Sabria A. McElroy, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 377 4216
Fax: (954) 356-0022
Email: smcelroy@bsfllp.com
AMERICAN BANK SYSTEMS: McPherson Files Suit in Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bank Systems
Inc. The case is styled as Tracy McPherson, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Bank
Systems Inc, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01307-G (W.D., Okla.,
Dec. 30, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Personal
Property: Other filed over Diversity-Property Damage.
American Bank Systems Inc. is an accounting software company in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B Federman, Esq.
Federman & Sherwood
10205 N Pennsylvania Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Tel: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
AMERICAN FUNDING: Faces Alves Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRI ALVES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FUNDING SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00005 (C.D.
Cal., January 4, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent her an unsolicited
text message on her cellular telephone number ending in -7441 on
February 21, 2020 via an "automatic telephone dialing system"
without obtaining her "prior express consent". The text messages
sent by the Defendant constitute messages that were not for
emergency purposes, but an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to
avail its services. The Plaintiff asserts that he was never a
customer of the Defendant's nor has he provided his cellular
telephone number to the Defendant.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals have suffered irreparable harm due to the
Defendant's unlawful and wrongful conduct by causing them to incur
certain cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone
time for which they have previously paid, and invading their
privacy.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of
economic and personal injury.
American Funding Services is a business financing 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
ANTIOCH, IL: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Non-Emergency Calls Recording
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mick Zawislak, writing for Daily Herald, reports that a federal
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed against Antioch
village and police officials, alleging incoming and outgoing calls
on nonemergency phone lines were unlawfully recorded to gather
evidence and other improper uses.
The suit filed on Jan. 4 claims police illegally recorded thousands
of calls in what was alleged to be a "prolific, widespread and
pervasive" invasion of privacy.
According to the suit, a surveillance and recording system
utilizing computer software formerly used by emergency dispatchers
begin operating in about 2012.
The suit says former Chief Steve Huffman, who was hired in 2015,
told Village Attorney Robert Long the system needed to be reported
to the Lake County state's attorney's office because it violated
callers' rights.
However, according to the suit, Long told Huffman it didn't need to
be reported and no action was taken. The recording system first was
disclosed publicly in connection with Huffman's departure from the
village last summer, according to the law firm that brought the
case.
Village officials "permitted, tolerated and condoned" the illegal
activity and kept the surveillance and recording system secret, the
suit alleges.
The plaintiff is Scott Babnik, a Wisconsin resident whose wife
worked at the police department.
According to the suit, Babnik regularly made and received personal
calls on the department's nonemergency phone lines but did not know
they were being recorded or consent to it.
Long, Mayor Larry Hanson, Village Administrator James Keim, Police
Chief Geoff Guttschow, Cmdr. Rick Moritz and Tom Nowotarski, head
of police investigations, are named as defendants.
Guttschow on Jan. 4 said village officials are aware of the filing
but are unable to comment on current or pending litigation.
According to the suit, Moritz and Nowotarski obtained the computer
system and used it to "gather evidence on certain people and their
conversations" which otherwise would have required a warrant. The
federal complaint does not cite specific instances.
The suit alleges the actions were intentional and caused Babnik
anguish, humiliation and other damages. It also claims violations
of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act and invasion of privacy.
The suit seeks the court to certify the case as a class action and
seeks and unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages,
as well as a court to order directing the village to show the
system is not operational and will not be made operational in the
future. [GN]
ASPEN AMERICAN: Insurance Suits' Plaintiffs to File Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington will, if necessary, issue a case
schedule setting deadlines for fact and expert discovery and for
the Plaintiffs (in the class action cases) to file their motions
for class certification in the referenced actions below after the
Court rules on the dispositive motions, which are scheduled to be
fully briefed and filed no later than March 5, 2021, pursuant to
the Court's November 24, 2020 Scheduling Order entered in the
actions.
From April through November of 2020, the plaintiffs in the class
action cases filed original complaints for business interruption
insurance coverage in this district. Certain of these actions were
stayed for periods of time pending review of the actions by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) for potential
consolidation and transfer.
After the JPML denied consolidation, the Court by order dated
November 10, 2020, consolidated cases in this district by insurer
family, and stayed discovery in each of the consolidated cases
until such time as the Court rules on dispositive motions.
On November 24, 2020, the Court granted the parties' Stipulated
Motions for Amended Complaints and Briefing of Dispositive Motions
and ordered amended complaints in the consolidated actions be filed
no later than November 25, and that the briefing of dispositive
motions in each of the consolidated cases be completed by March 5,
2021.
Under Local Rule 23(i)(3), there is a deadline to file a motion for
class certification within 180 days of filing a complaint.
In light of the Court's orders, including the current discovery
stay until the Court rules on dispositive motions, counsel for the
parties agree that good cause exists to continue the date upon
which the Plaintiffs shall file their motions for class
certification pursuant to Local Civil Rule 23(i)(3). The parties
stipulate and request that a comprehensive case schedule, including
deadlines for fact and expert discovery and (for class action
cases) the filing of a motion for class certification, be set by
the Court, if necessary, after the Court rules on the dispositive
motions.
The class action cases are:
"WADE K. MARLER, DDS, et al., v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00616-BJR (W.D. Wash.)";
"KARA MCCULLOCH DMD MSD PLLC, et al., v. VALLEY FORGE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00809-BJR (W.D.
Wash.)";
"CABALLERO v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2: 20-cv-05437-BJR (W.D. Wash.)";
"CHORAK, et al., v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et
al., Case No. 2:20-CV-00627-BJR (W.D. Wash.)";
"PACIFIC ENDODONTICS, P.C., et al, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-00620-BJR13 (W.D. Wash.)";
"NGUYEN, et al, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00597-BJR (W.D. Wash.)";
"LA COCINA DE OAXACA LLC, v. TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
MINNESOTA, Case No. 2:20-CV-01176-BJR (W.D. Wash.)"; and
"MARK GERMACK DDS, v. THE DENTISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 2:20-CV-0661-BJR (W.D. Wash.)."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nr5Xos at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Nguyen et al., Pacific Endodontics, et
al., Chorak et al., Marler et al., McCulloch, et al., Caballero,
Germack, La Cocina de Oaxaca LLC, Owens Davies, P.S., and The
Seattle Symphony Orchestra, are:
Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
kswope@kellerrohrback.com
mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison Chase, Esq.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Jennifer Strelow, DMD and Shokofeh
Tabaraie DDS PLLC, are:
William C. Smart, Esq.
Isaac Ruiz, Esq.
Kathryn M. Knudsen, Esq.
RUIZ & SMART
PLAINTIFF LITIGATION PLLC
E-mail: wsmart@plaintifflit.com
iruiz@plaintifflit.com
kknudsen@plaintifflit.com
Attorneys for Seattle Bakery, LLC, CSQBKR2018, LLC, Piroshky
Piroshky Baker, LLC, Piroshky Baking Company, LLC, SCRBKR2017, LLC
THE LOYD LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., are:
Brent W. Beecher, Esq.
HACKETT, BEECHER & HART
601 Union Street, Suite 2600
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 787-1830
E-mail: bbeecher@hackettbeecher.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiff J Bells LLC, are:
Shannon Loyd, Esq.
THE LOYD LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
12703 Spectrum Drive, Suite 201
San Antonio, TX 78249
Telephone:(210) 775-1424
Facsimile:(210) 775-1410
E-mail: shannon@theloydlawfirm.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Suneet Bath, amd Noskenda Inc., are:
Mark A. Wilner, Esq.
GORDON TILDEN TOMAS & CORDEL LLP
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 2915
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 467-6477
Facsimile: (206) 467-6292
E-mail: mailto:fcordell@gordontilden.
com mwilner@gordontilden.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiff The Seattle Symphony Orchestra, are:
Franklin D. Cordell, Esq.
Kasey D. Huebner, Esq.
GORDON TILDEN TOMAS & CORDEL LLP
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 2915
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 467-6477
Facsimile: (206) 467-6292
E-mail: fcordell@gordontilden.com
khuebner@gordontilden.com
Attorneys for the Defendant Aspen American Insurance Company, are:
Robin E. Wechkin, Esq.
Yvette Ostolaza, Esq.
Yolanda C. Garcia, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (415) 439-1799
E-mail: rwechkin@sidley.com
yvette.ostolaza@sidley.com
ygarcia@sidley.com
- and -
Anthony Todaro, Esq.
Lianna M. Bash, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900
Seattle, WA 98104-7029
Telephone: (206) 839-4800
Facsimile: (206) 839-4801
E-mail: anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com
lianna.bash@us.dlapiper.com
Attorneys for the Defendants Valley Forge Insurance Company and
Transportation Insurance Company, are:
H. Christopher Boehning, Esq.
Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Esq.
Daniel H. Levi, Esq.
Hallie S. Goldblatt, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
E-mail: cboehning@paulweiss.com
esacksteder@paulweiss.com
dlevi@paulweiss.com
hgoldblatt@paulweiss.com
Attorneys for the Defendants Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd. and
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, are:
Matthew S. Adams, Esq.
FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S.
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 689-8500
Facsimile: (206) 689-8501
E-mail: madams@foum.law
- and -
Sarah D. Gordon, Esq.
Anthony J. Anscombe, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Telephone: (202) 429-3000
Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
E-mail: sgordon@steptoe.com
aanscombe@steptoe.com
Attorneys for the Defendants American Fire and Casualty Company,
The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, and Ohio Security Insurance
Company, are:
James R. Morrison, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3900
Seattle, WA 98104-4040
Telephone: (206) 332-1380
E-mail: jmorrison@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
F. Kennedy, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 W. Peachtree St.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com
kara.kennedy@alston.com
Attorneys for the Defendant Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company,
are:
John D. Bennett, Esq.
Stuart D. Jones, Esq.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY, PC
925 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 3800
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 292-8930
E-mail: john.bennett@bullivant.com
stuart.jones@bullivant.com
- and -
Michael Menapace, Esq.
Robyn Gallagher, Esq.
WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
20 Church Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 297-3700
E-mail: mmenapace@wiggin.com
rgallgher@wiggin.com
Attorneys for the Defendants Travelers Casualty Insurance Company
of America, The Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, and The Charter
Oak Fire Insurance Company, are:
Daniel R. Bentson, Esq.
Owen R. Mooney, Esq.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
925 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 3800
Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone: (206) 292-8930
E-mail: dan.bentson@bullivant.com
owen.mooney@bullivant.com
- and -
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.
Stephen E. Goldman, Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 275-8388
E-mail: wackerman@rc.com
sgoldman@rc.com
Attorneys for the Defendant Tri-State Insurance Company of
Minnesota, are:
John A. Bennett, Esq.
Stuart D. Jones, Esq.
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY, PC
925 Fourth Avenue, Ste. 3800
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 292-8930
E-mail: john.bennett@bullivant.com
stuart.jones@bullivant.com
- and -
Antonia B. Ianniello, Esq.
Darlene K. Alt, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 429-8087
Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
E-mail: aianniello@steptoe.com
dalt@steptoe.com
ATASH LLC: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT and CEDRIC CARSTENS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATASH LLC d/b/a FUNDING
ZONE, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00052 (C.D. cal., January 5, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant contacted them on their
cellular telephone numbers in an attempt to promote its services
via an "automatic telephone dialing system." The Plaintiffs did not
provide their "prior express consent" to the Defendant to place a
call on their cellular telephone using an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice.
According to the complaint, the Defendant caused harm and damages
to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals due to
its unlawful conduct of placing illegal calls on their cellular
telephone, which caused them to incur certain charges or reduced
telephone time for which they had previously paid, and invaded
their privacy.
ATASH LLC is a lending company. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
BALTAIRE: Desalvo Files Suit in California Over ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baltaire, a
California company, et al. The case is captioned as Brett Desalvo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Baltaire, a California company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-11547-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2020).
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and is assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer.
Baltaire, a California company, is a restaurant located in Los
Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM PLC
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
BARKMAN HONEY: Wingate's Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVE WINGATE, v. BARKMAN
HONEY, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-04074-HLT-JPO (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;
2. favoring judgment for the Defendant; and
3. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class.
Because the Plaintiff has not created a genuine issue of material
fact regarding whether the Defendant made a false representation or
committed a deceptive act, both his fraudulent-misrepresentation
and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) claims fail and the
Defendant is entitled to summary judgment, says Judge Teeter.
The Plaintiff Dave Wingate has sued the Defendant Barkman Honey
alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and violation of the ICFA.
The claims arise out of the Plaintiff's purchase of a bottle of the
Defendant's "raw" honey, which the Plaintiff contends did not meet
that distinction. The Defendant moves for summary judgment on both
claims, arguing that the Plaintiff has no evidence of deception or
reliance.
The Plaintiff bought a bottle of Naked Wild Great Lakes Honey in
the fall of 2018 at a store near his home in Illinois. The
Plaintiff generally purchases raw honey because it typically hasn't
been modified by the manufacturer and is "more pure to nature." In
terms of the benefits of raw honey, the Plaintiff believes it can
be used for sore throats or coughs or as a substitute for processed
sugars.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38swTQt at no extra charge.[CC]
BATH & BODY: Faces Holman Suit Over Sales Staff's Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIANDRA HOLMAN, on behalf of the State of California and Aggrieved
Employees v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, BATH & BODY' WORKS DIRECT,
INC., and L BRANDS, INC., Case No. RG20083488 (Cal. Super., Alameda
Cty., Dec. 21, 2020) seeks penalties under the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 arising from the
Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices.
The Plaintiff and aggrieved employees bring this action to
challenge the Defendants' policies and practices of failing to pay
all minimum wages owed, failing to pay overtime wages, failing to
compensate for all hours worked, failing to provide accurate,
itemized wage statements, and failing to timely pay full wages upon
termination or resignation.
Ms. Holman was employed as a non-exempt "sales associate" employee
by Defendants at the Bath & Body Works store in Palmdale,
California from August 2019 to February 2020.
Bath & Body Works LLC retails personal care products. The Company
provides beauty products such as shampoos, shower gels, lotions,
candles, soaps, sanitizers, foot creams, fragrances, spa and skin
treatments. Bath & Body Works operates in the United States.
Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc. manufactures and supplies personal
care products. The Company offers body lotion, cream, foot care,
body wash, scrub, bar soap, perfume, and other related products.
Bath & Body Works Direct operates worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
Kristabel Sandoval, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Ryan Hecht, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 338-2560
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: rhecht@schneiderwallace.com
BELLEMA CO: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bellema Co. The case
is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Bellema Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-00042
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BelleMa Co. -- https://www.bellemausa.com/ -- is a US based
company, one of the pioneers in the research and development of
electric breast pumps in 2003.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Faszczewski Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Faszczewski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-04758, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on Jan. 4, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00012-JMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Blackbaud -- https://www.blackbaud.com/ -- is a cloud computing
provider that serves the social good community--nonprofits,
foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare
organizations, religious organizations, and individual change
agents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
BLAU LEONARD LAW LLC
23 Green Street, Suite 105
Huntington, NY 11743
Phone: (631) 458-1010
Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Angelo A. Stio, III, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
301 Carnegie Center Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08543
Phone: (609) 951-4125
Fax: (609) 452-1147
Email: angelo.stio@troutman.com
- and -
Robyn Rose English, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
301 Carnegie Center, Suite 400
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (609) 951-4193
Fax: (609) 452-1147
Email: Robyn.English-Mezzino@troutman.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Glasper Files Personal Injury Suit in D.S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackbaud Inc. The
case is captioned as William Glasper, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Blackbaud Inc., Lead Case No.
3:20-cv-04393-JMC (D.S.C., Dec. 18, 2020).
The case is brought over personal injury claims and is assigned to
the Honorable Judge Michelle Childs.
Blackbaud, Inc. provides software and related services designed
specifically for non-profit organizations. The Company's products
and services enable non-profit organizations to increase donations,
reduce fundraising costs, improve communication with constituents,
manage their finances, and optimize internal operations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theodore Augustus Consta Hargrove, II, Esq.
Thomas Christopher Tuck, Esq.
RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN LLC
PO Box 1007
1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard, Building A
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
Telephone: (843) 727-6500
Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
E-mail: thargrove@rpwb.com
ctuck@rpwb.com
BLAIS MICROSCOPE: Companion Animal Sues Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANION ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Plaintiff v. BLAIS MICROSCOPE COMPANY,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14:40-cv-21 942532 (Ohio Court of Common
Pleas, January 4, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action, on
behalf of itself and a Class of similarly situated individuals or
businesses, against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and
willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a single page
facsimile on its fax machine from the Defendant on or about June 9,
2020. Purportedly in an attempt to solicit its business, the
Defendant routinely sends its facsimiles to recipients where no
relationship exists and without obtaining their prior express
consent to receive facsimile.
The Plaintiff contends that he was damaged by the Defendant's
facsimile by suffering a monetary loss due to the facsimile,
incurring the costs of the use of facsimile paper, ink and toner,
loss of employee time to review the facsimile, invasion of privacy,
nuisance, interruption of work, trespass to its chattel by
interfering with its office facsimile used to aid patients, stress,
and aggravation.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, actual
and statutory damages, reasonable litigation expenses and
attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as equity and justice may require.
Blais Microscope Company, LLC provides microscope sales, service,
and repair to customers nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
Michael L. Berler, Esq.
Michael L. Fine, Esq.
FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
767 East 185th Street
Cleveland, OH 44119
Tel: (216) 502-1055
Fax: (216) 566-9400
E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
BOSTON DUCK: Faces Latour Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Boat Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACEY LATOUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON DUCK TOURS, LP, SEAWEED, INC.,
CYNTHIA L. BROWN, and ANTHONY J. CERULLE, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-10003-DPW (D. Mass., January 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Massachusetts Wage Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated duck boat drivers
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a duck boat driver
from approximately March 2017 to November 2019.
Boston Duck Tours, LP is a company that operates duck boats and
tours, with its principal place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts.
Seaweed, Inc. is an operator of duck boats and tours based in
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
Josh Gardner, Esq.
GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
One State Street, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 390-7570
E-mail: nick@gardnerrosenberg.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Sued Over Share Drop from Failed Heart Device
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mariano Errichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boston Scientific Corporation,
Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald and Daniel J. Brennan,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-12225 (D. Mass., December 16, 2020),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Boston Scientific manufactures medical devices used in
interventional medical specialties. It marketed its "LOTUS Edge," a
transcatheter aortic valve replacement device used to treat
patients with aortic valve stenosis, which occurs when the heart's
aortic valve thickens and calcifies, preventing the valve from
opening fully, which limits blood flow from the heart to the rest
of the body. The FDA approved the LOTUS Edge in April 2019 for
patients with severe aortic stenosis and the Boston Scientific
launched sales during the quarter ended June 30, 2019, making it a
source of revenue growth.
However, Boston Scientific failed to inform investors that the
LOTUS Edge required additional product development work, an
enhanced delivery system and reduced training and case support.
Boston Scientific was also facing increases in both manufacturing
complexity and the investment required for clinical scalability of
the LOTUS Edge.
On November 17, 2020, before the market opened, Boston Scientific
announced a global, voluntary recall of all unused inventory of the
LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System due to complexities associated with
the product delivery system and all related commercial, clinical,
research and development and manufacturing activities will also
cease and stated that its decision is expected to result in
estimated total pre-tax GAAP charges of approximately $225 million
to $300 million due to inventory, fixed asset, intangible asset and
certain other exit charges and approximately $100 million to $150
million of these charges will impact the company's adjusted
results. As a result, Boston Scientific shares declined from a
closing price on November 16, 2020 of $38.03 per share, to close at
$35.07 per share, a decline of $2.96 per share or approximately 8%,
on heavier than usual volume.
Errichiello purchased Boston Scientific securities and lost
substantially. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (617) 398-5600
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: jeff@blockleviton.com
- and -
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (212) 687-1980
Fax: (212) 687-7714
Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
BUSINESS SOLUTIONS: Faces Smith Suit Over Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a AD.IQ, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00015 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 7,
2021) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff, seeking
to secure redress for Defendant's violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Smith seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal
conduct of sending multiple telemarketing calls to promote its
digital advertising services without his consent and even after he
requested to be placed on the Defendant's Do Not Call list and to
cease any further communications. The said conduct has allegedly
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals.
Business Solutions, LLC d/b/a AD.IQ, is a brand management and
social media growth agency offering social media management, brand
management, Website development, talent management, business loans,
video marketing, social media widgets and voice search.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
CANON USA: Fails to Properly Secure Employees' Data, Hamid Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE SAMUEL HAMID and AMY LYNN HAMID, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. CANON, U.S.A., INC., a New York
corporation, CANON SOLUTIONS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation,
CANON SOFTWARE AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, CANON
INFORMATION AND IMAGING SOLUTIONS, INC., a New York corporation,
CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a New Jersey corporation, CANON
MEDICAL COMPONENTS U.S.A, INC., a California corporation, CANON
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC., a Virginia corporation, and
NT-WARE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-06380
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to
properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information
that Defendants required from their employees, including the
Plaintiffs, following data breach incident on August 4, 2020.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose
personal identifiable information (PII) was compromised as a result
of Defendants' failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of their
current and former employees and their beneficiaries and
dependents; (ii) warn their current and former employees and their
beneficiaries and dependents of their inadequate information
security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware
containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security
procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents.
As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury as a
result of the Defendants' conduct, the suit says.
The Defendants are leading providers of consumer,
business-to-business, and industrial digital imaging solutions to
the United States and to Latin America and the Caribbean markets
with multiple subsidiaries, predecessors, and affiliates and more
than 18,000 employees.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda Peterson, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
90 Broad Street, Suite 1011
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 564-4568
E-mail: apeterson@ForThePeople.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 777-7777
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
CATALINA OFFSHORE: Jaquez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Catalina Offshore Products, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Catalina Offshore Products, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-11057 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 30, 2020).
Catalina Offshore Products is one of Southern California's seafood
purveyors and San Diego's only exporter of sea urchins.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
Marcus & Zelman, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
CBE GROUP: Bradford Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is styled as Radley J. Bradford, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The CBE Group, Inc.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-04389 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The CBE Group, Inc. -- https://www.paycbe.com/ -- provides debt
recovery services. The Company offers payment monitoring, default
aversion, primary bad debt collection, and secondary bad debt
collection services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
CHARTER TOWNSHIP: Barber Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Blanche Barber filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled BLANCHE BARBER, individually, and a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER
TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-13519, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan at Detroit.
The case centers around the proposed removal of the Mill Pond and
Mill Pond Dam. Plaintiff lives next to the pond. She initiated this
action seeking to prevent the Defendant government entities from
removing the dam. She asserts claims for violations of the takings
clauses of the Fifth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution as
well as a claim for trespass under Michigan law.
Ms. Barber is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated
Dec. 3, 2020, granting Defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings and denying her motion for leave.
The appellate case is captioned as Blanche Barber v. Charter
Township of Springfield, et al., Case No. 20-2297, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Dec. 31, 2020.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appellant
brief is due on February 9, 2021 while appellee brief is due on
March 11, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BLANCHE BARBER, Individually, and a class of
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:
Ann Marie Pervan, Esq.
KELLER & AVADENKA
2242 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0000
Telephone: (248) 335-9266
E-mail: annmarie@kellerandavadenka.com
Defendants-Appellees CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD, CHARTER
TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD PARKS AND RECREATION, OAKLAND COUNTY, MI,
and OAKLAND COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION are represented
by:
Gregory Keith Need, Esq.
ADKISON, NEED & ALLE
40950 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5103
Telephone: (248) 540-7400
E-mail: gneed@adkisonneed.com
- and -
Daniel A. Klemptner, Esq.
OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
1200 N. Telegraph Road
Pontiac, MI 48341
Telephone: (248) 858-2007
CHOBANI LLC: Brietzke Sues Over Misleading Greek Yogurt Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Brietzke, Damara Alicea, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Chobani, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-11097
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2020) arises from the Defendant's misleading
labels of its Greek yogurts claiming to contain "45% Less Sugar
Than Other Yogurts."
The complaint contends that based on consumer substitution between
nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners, and acceptance of both, the
consumers, including the Plaintiffs, are misled by Defendant's "45%
Less Sugar" claim into purchasing the Chobani product, expecting a
greater sugar reduction than they receive. The value of the product
that Plaintiffs purchased was materially less than its value as
represented by the Defendant.
Chobani, LLC produces dairy products. The Company offers yogurt,
ice-creams, milk, milk powder, and other dairy products. Chobani
serves customers in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
CLASSICA CRUISE: Janicijevic Wins Class Settlement Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DRAGAN JANICIJEVIC, on his
own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated crew
members working aboard BAHAMAS PARADISE CRUISE LINE vessels, v.
CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR, LTD. and PARADISE CRUISE LINE OPERATOR
LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-23223-BB (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth
Bloom entered an order:
1. granting renewed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement:
-- The Settlement Agreement entered into by and among the
Settling Plaintiff and the Defendants was negotiated at
arm's length and is approved on a preliminary basis as
fair, reasonable, and adequate and within the range of
possible approval; and
-- The Court finds that providing notice to the Settlement
Class Members is justified by the showing that the
Court likely will be able to approve the proposed
Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2).
2. certifying the settlement class for settlement purposes:
"all seafarer-employees who were physically present on the
Grand Celebration for at least one day anytime between
March 18, 2020 until August 20, 2020 and were (1)
terminated such that severance is due under their
employment contracts and/or (2) were employed and
performed a designated job at the Defendants' request;"
-- "Seafarer-employees" shall not include deck and engine
employees and independent contractors, Cruise
Defendants' corporate officers or corporate directors;
3. designating the Settling Plaintiff Dragan Janicijevic as
the representative of the Settlement Class for the sole
purpose of seeking a settlement of the claims against
Defendants in the Litigation;
4. designating the law firms of Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina &
Winkleman, P.A. and The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class for the sole purpose of
the Settlement;
5. scheduling a Final Approval Hearing on May 12, 2021, 9:00
a.m. via Zoom video Conference;
6. directing the issuance of class notice; and
7. approving the Defendants and Class Counsel to jointly
administer the settlement and implement the terms of the
Settlement Agreement:
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Case Contribution Award:
-- Settling Plaintiff and Class Counsel agree not to seek
an award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the
Litigation in a total amount that exceeds $262,500.00
(30% of the Gross Claim Fund).
-- Counsel and Settling Plaintiff agree not to seek a Case
Contribution Award that exceeds $5,000.00 for Settling
Plaintiff for his work and assistance in this
Litigation.
Preliminary Injunction:
-- In order to protect the continuing jurisdiction of the
Courtand to effectuate this Order, the Agreement and
the Settlement, all Noticed Class Members who do not
timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class,
and anyone acting or purporting to act on their behalf,
are hereby preliminarily enjoined from directly or
indirectly (a) filing, commencing, prosecuting,
intervening in, maintaining (including claims or
actions already filed), or participating in (as
parties, class members, or otherwise) any new or
existing action or proceeding before any court or
tribunal in any jurisdiction regarding any Released
Claims against any Released Parties; or (b) organizing
any Settlement Class Members into a separate class for
purposes of pursuing as a purported class action any
lawsuit (including by seeking to amend a pending
complaint to include class allegations, or seeking
class certification in a new or pending action) based
on or relating to the claims and causes of action, or
the facts and circumstances relating thereto, in this
Litigation and/or the Released Claims.
Termination of Settlement:
-- This Order shall become null and void, and shall be
without prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of
whom shall be restored to their respective positions
existing as of August 20, 2020, if: (a) the proposed
Settlement is not finally approved by the Court, or the
Judgment is not entered or does not become Final, or
the Effective Date does not occur; or (b) the
Settlement Agreement is terminated pursuant to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement for any reason.
Use of Order Following Termination of Settlement:
-- This Order shall be of no force and effect if the
Settlement does not become Final and shall not be
construed or used as an admission, concession, or
declaration by or against Defendants of, or as evidence
of, any fault, wrongdoing, breach, or liability, or by
or against Settling Plaintiff or Noticed Class Members
that their claims lack merit or that the relief
requested in this Litigation is inappropriate,
improper, or unavailable, or as a waiver by any party
of any defenses they may have.
Stay:
-- All proceedings in the Litigation as to the claims of
Settling Plaintiff against Defendants are stayed,
including Defendants' obligation to file an answer or
other response to the Second Amended Complaint, except
as necessary to effectuate the terms of the Settlement.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/39zw3knat no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Settling Plaintiff and Settlement Class, are:
Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
LIPCON, MARGULIES,
ALSINA & WINKLEMAN, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776
2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
The Defendants' Counsel are:
Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq.
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2300
2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
CLOUD B INC: Quezada Alleges ADA Violation in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Cloud B, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose
Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Cloud B, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-11085 (S.D.
N.Y., Dec. 30, 2020).
Cloud b, Inc. produces toys.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
COINBASE INC: Sandoval Sues Over Sale of Unlicensed Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS C. SANDOVAL, an individual v. COINBASE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-09420 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2020) is a
class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated seeks recovery for persons who paid commissions
for securities illegally sold to them by Coinbase in violation of
the California Business and Professions Code.
According to the complaint, Coinbase sold a "token" called Ripple
(XRP), the value of which was entirely linked to the success or
failure of Ripple Labs, Inc., the company that created the token,
and the managerial efforts of Ripple Co.'s executives. Investors in
XRP, such as Plaintiff, reposed an expectation of profit in such
managerial efforts by Ripple Co.'s executives and purchased the
token in order to make money on their investment.
Despite the Defendant's knowledge that XRP was a security, Coinbase
continued offering XRP to the public and charged commissions for
the sales, the suit says.
Coinbase, Inc. provides data and transaction processing services.
The Company offers digital currency wallet and platform for general
transactions. Coinbase serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Gubernick, Esq.
GUBERNICK LAW P.L.L.C.
10720 W. Indian School Rd., Suite 19, PMB 12
Phoenix, AZ 85037
Telephone: (734) 678-5169
E-mail: ben@gubernicklaw.com
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP: Blackwell Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community Action
Partnersip of Kern. The case is styled as Regina Renee Blackwell,
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Community
Action Partnership of Kern, Defendant, Case No. BCV-20-103035 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 30, 2020).
The case type is stated as CV Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.
Community Action Partnership of Kern (CAPK) operates as a
non-profit organization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew John Matern, Esq.
Matern Law Group, PC
1230 Rosecrans Ave, Ste 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Tel: (310) 531-1900
Fax: (310) 531-1901
Email: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Brower Balks at Unfair Debt Collection Acts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonia Brower, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05197-WMR-JCF (N.D. Ga., Dec. 22, 2020) is an action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of Georgia
consumers, seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief
under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Some time prior to August 12, 2020, an obligation was allegedly
incurred to T-Mobile, USA by the Plaintiff. The T-Mobile, USA
obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property,
insurance or services which are the subject of the transactions
were primarily for personal, family or household purposes,
specifically telecommunication services. Defendant Convergent, a
debt collector, was contracted by T-Mobile, USA to collect the
alleged debt which originated with T-Mobile.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a
deceptive collection letter because it implies that in exchange of
50% of the balance the consumer will achieve some form of
settlement, when in actuality it is unclear what form of settlement
the letter is offering. The letter deceives and misleads the
consumer by implying that paying 50% would achieve results akin to
a settlement offer, when in reality the Defendant's offer contains
no significant benefits and is unclear to what the benefits of the
settlement would actually be.
Defendant Convergent is a company that uses the mail, telephone,
and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal
purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due
another. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
3895 Brookgreen Point
Decatur, GA 30034
Telephone: (405) 529-6257
Facsimile: (775) 320-3698
E-mail: attyoaks@yahoo.com
CRACKER BARREL: Loftus Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated; ANA L. NELSON, individually and on behalf of a
class of persons similarly situated; BRENDA REGES, individually and
on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and, SARAH
WILDING, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated v. CRACKER BARREL OLD COUNTRY STORE, INC., and JOHN DOE
COMPANIES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00012 (D.R.I.,
Jan. 7, 2021) is a class and collective action brought against the
Defendants, seeking compensatory and liquidated damages, as well as
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and other equitable relief,
arising out of Defendants' unlawful failure to properly compensate
the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island
Minimum Wage Act.
The complaint alleges the failure of the Defendants to compensate
the Plaintiff and Class members at the minimum wage rate for all
non-tipped duties performed in various workweeks and pay regular
and overtime wages under the state and federal laws.
The Plaintiffs further assert individual claims against the
Defendants due to being subjected to workplace retaliation in
violation of the FLSA, the Rhode Island Wage Act, the Rhode Island
Whistleblowers' Protection Act, and the Rhode Island Civil Rights
Act of 1990.
Plaintiff Loftus was hired by Cracker Barrel as a fulltime server
at the Coventry location from March 2006 until on or about March
14, 2020, where he was furloughed from his position due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiff Nelson was hired by Cracker Barrel as a full-time server
at the Coventry location in 1996 until on or about March 14, 2020,
where she was furloughed from her position due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
Plaintiff Reges was employed at Cracker Barrel's Jackson, Michigan
location between March, 2006 and August 2009, and as a full-time
server at the Coventry location in August 2009. On or about March
1, 2020, Ms. Reges was furloughed from her position at Defendant
Cracker Barrel due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiff Wilding was hired as a server at the Coventry location on
May 16, 2013, until on or about March 16, 2020, where she was
furloughed from her position due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. owns, operates, controls
and/or maintains a restaurant located in New England, Coventry,
Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
V. Edward Formisano, Esq.
Michael D. Pushee, Esq.
FORMISANO & COMPANY, P.C.
100 Midway Place, Suite 1
Cranston, RI 02920-5707
Telephone: (401) 944-9691
Facsimile: (401) 944-9695
E-mail: edf@formisanoandcompany.com
mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com
CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Nyanhongo FDCPA Suit in Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Collection
Services. The case is captioned as TATENDA NYANHONGO, individually,
and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. CREDIT
COLLECTION SERVICES, Case No. 2:20-cv-06380-GJP (E.D. Pa., Dec. 21,
2020).
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and is assigned to Honorable Gerald J.
Pappert.
Credit Collection Services is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew M. Schwartz
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, Suite 610
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 717-4023
Facsimile: (215) 693-6650
E-mail: amschwartz@grsm.com
DAVID SHINN: Must Respond to Satzman Class Cert. Bid by Jan. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Satzsman, et al., v.
David Shinn, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge James F. Metcalf entered an order:
A. directing the Plaintiffs, on or before January 10, 2021,
to file either a motion seeking class certification or a
notice of abandonment of the request for class
certification;
B. allowing the Defendants through January 25, 2021 to
respond to any such motion seeking class certification;
and
C. giving the Plaintiffs seven days from service of such
response to reply thereto.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks class
certification. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1) directs
that a "[a]t an early practicable time after a person sues or is
sued as a class representative, the court must determine by order
whether to certify the action as a class action." However, no
procedure for such determination is set by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. In the
absence of any reason to believe delay in the determination is
appropriate, the Court will adopt a procedure to brief the issue
via a motion, response and reply."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2MNModmat no extra charge.[CC]
DEL GATTO: Polk Sues Over Deceptive Jewelry Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER POLK, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DEL GATTO INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00129
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021) alleges that the Defendant charges,
collects, and unlawfully retains monies owed to the Plaintiff and
Class members for the sale of their jewelry through a classic
bait-and-switch where the Defendant processes jewelry transactions
throughout a pandemic but fails to pay out the proceeds to the
rightful owners, in violation of the New York General Business
Law.
Del Gatto sought to capitalize on the niche market and launched a
business described as an online consumer-to-consumer jewelry
marketplace. On its marketplace, individuals can sell jewelry to
willing buyers only after Del Gatto has validated the authenticity
of the goods being sold. Buyers are therefore assured that the
products are authentic and worthy of the purchase price.
According to the complaint, to alleviate concerns about online
diamond and jewelry sales, Del Gatto expressly advertises and
promises in its contract that it will pay the seller on the 15th
day of every month for all items sold between the first and last
day of the previous month. The contract also specifies that all
payments will be sent by check via USPS. Despite this contractual
obligation, Del Gatto routinely fails to make timely payments to
sellers and unlawfully retains both the jewelry and the cash
payments from the Plaintiff and Class members. The complaint
further alleges that Del Gatto has only relied on COVID-19 as a
reason for months-long delays when it comes time to pay the sellers
like Plaintiff and the class. Considering the online nature of Del
Gatto's business and the ease of processing electronic payments,
there simply is no reason for such delays, asserts the complaint.
Del Gatto Inc. is a New York-headquartered company which provides a
comprehensive and an array of services for people looking to sell
their fine jewelry, diamonds and timepieces.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
TADLER LAW LLP
One Penn Plaza, 36th Floor
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 946-9300
Facsimile: (929) 207-3746
E-mail: bmorrison@tadlerlaw.com
atadler@tadlerlaw.com
- and -
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Mathew Peterson, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 E. Cumberland Ave, Suite 201H, #105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
mpeterson@varnellandwarwick.com
- and -
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. BROCHU, PLLC
One Call Tower, 841 Prudential Drive, Suite 1200
Jacksonville, FL 32207
Telephone: (904) 201-1771
Facsimile: (904) 429-4218
E-mail: c.brochu@brochulaw.com
DOREL JUVENILE GROUP: Quezada Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-11082 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 30, 2020).
Dorel Industries Inc. is a Canadian company, based in Montreal,
Quebec, which designs and manufactures for three areas: juvenile
products, bicycles and home furnishings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
DUKE & CO: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUKE & CO, LLC d/b/a DYNAMIC
CAPITAL, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00007 (C.D. Cal., January 4, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action asserting
that the Defendant contacted her on her cellular telephone number
ending in -1083 beginning in or around September 2018 in an attempt
to promote its services. Although it was not for emergency
purposes, the Defendant purportedly used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" in placing its calls, and did not even bother to
obtain the call receiver's "prior express consent" to receive such
calls using an ATDS.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff and
members of the Class were harmed by causing them to incur certain
cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone time for
which they have previously paid, and invading their privacy.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in
the future, statutory and treble damages, and other relief that the
Court deems just and proper.
Duke & Co, LLC is a business financing 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
ECCO USA: Brooks Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
-----------------------------------------------------
Valerie Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ECCO USA, Inc. and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive,, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02495 (E.D. Cal., December
16, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
ECCO USA, Inc. operates as ECCO Shoes. ECCO's website,
https://us.ecco.com/, provides consumers with access to new styles,
featured deals, men's shoes and accessories, women's shoes and
accessories, outdoor shoes, golf shoes, and sale items. Brooks is
legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by
the visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
EL PASO COUNTY, CO: Judge Orders Safety Measures After COVID Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elise Schmelzer, writing for The Denver Post, reports that a
federal judge on Jan. 4 ordered the El Paso County Sheriff's Office
to give masks to jail inmates as well as implement more than a
dozen other precautionary measures after a massive outbreak in the
jail prompted a class-action lawsuit.
The temporary order is the second time a federal judge has forced a
Colorado sheriff to enact COVID-19 protections in jail after
attorneys for inmates sued the law enforcement agencies. The order
on Jan. 4 stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed Dec. 14 by the
ACLU of Colorado and a coalition of private attorneys on behalf of
El Paso County inmates.
U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson ordered that each El
Paso County inmate be given two cloth masks. The sheriff's office
previously did not give masks to inmates until after an outbreak in
November began to spread. More than 900 inmates caught COVID-19
along with at least 73 jail employees.
Jackson wrote in the order that he found "good cause exists to
issue this preliminary injunction in light of the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic and the risk of imminent injury that the pandemic poses to
inmates at the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center."
Along with masks, the judge ordered that the El Paso County
Sheriff's Office complete 14 other requirements, including checking
inmates' temperatures twice a day, separating sick inmates from
those with negative tests and creating easy, free access to
over-the-counter medicines for sick inmates.
A spokeswoman for the El Paso County Sheriff's Office declined to
answer questions about the order and the jail's COVID-19 policies.
Coronavirus testing sparse at many of Colorado's large jails as
outbreaks continue to mount
Attorneys for the inmates hope to work with the sheriff's office to
create a permanent consent decree similar to the temporary order,
said Dan Williams, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys.
"We would like to see these remain in place for the remainder of
the pandemic," he said.
Williams hoped the required policies will help protect the inmates
and ensure they are properly cared for while incarcerated. The
temporary order, which attorneys for inmates and the county agreed
to, is effective for 90 days. [GN]
F & R CYCLE: Faces Madera Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS A. CARRILLO MADERA v. F & R CYCLE, INC. and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV48498 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Dec. 18, 2020) is brought by the Plaintiff and on behalf of all
others similarly situated arising from the Defendants' violations
of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the aggrieved
employees, seeks relief against the Defendants for their failure to
pay all wages due, including regular and overtime wages, failure to
provide meal breaks or premium compensation, failure to provide
rest breaks or premium compensation, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and failure to pay wages due upon
termination of employment.
The Plaintiff seeks penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 2608
et seq., the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 in connection
with Defendant's Labor Code violations.
Mr. Madera was employed by the Defendants in a non-exempt, hourly
position as a bicycle assembler from on/in around March 27, 2017
through on/in around October 14, 2019.
F & R Cycle, Inc. is a bicycle wholesaler in Paramount,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
FALCON NANO: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FALCON NANO, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00034 (C.D. Cal., January 4, 2021) challenges the
Defendant's alleged illegal actions of negligently and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In an attempt to promote its business, the Defendant contacted her
on her cellular telephone number ending in -8950 beginning in or
around March 2019 by using an "automatic telephone dialing system,"
the Plaintiff alleges. Because its calls were not for emergency
purposes, the Defendant purportedly used a spoofed number in
placing its calls, which indicated that the Defendant attempted to
mask its identity to avoid accountability from placing robocalls,
as well as for using an ATDS in placing calls.
The Plaintiff added that she never provided the Defendant her
"prior express consent" to be contacted using an ATDS or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. In
addition, her telephone number that was contacted by the Defendant
has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4,
2008.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff and
members of the Class were harmed by causing them to incur certain
cellular telephone charges or reduce cellular telephone time for
which they have previously paid, and invading their privacy.
Falcon Nano, Inc. provides wireless telecommunication services.
[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
FIRST FINANCIAL: Robison Files Suit in Texas District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Financial Bank.
The case is captioned as Pamela Brooke Robison, individually and on
Behalf of herself and all others similarly situated vs. First
Financial Bank, Case No. 50950-A (Tex. Dist., Taylor Cty., Dec. 18,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged contract violations.
First Financial Bank is a regional bank headquartered in
Cincinnati, Ohio, with its operations center in the northern
Cincinnati, Tri-County area and Greensburg, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jim M. Perdue, Jr.
PERDUE & KIDD
777 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 450
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 520-2500
Facsimile: (713) 520-2525
FOGO DE CHAO: Court Nixed Balassiano's Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUNO BALASSIANO v. FOGO
DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (ORLANDO) LLC, FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA
(JACKSONVILLE) LLC and FOGO DE CHAO CHURRASCARIA (MIAMI) LLC, Case
No. 6:19-cv-02140-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Wendy W.
Berger entered an order:
1. adopting and confirming and made a part of this Order
the Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd's Report and
Recommendation;
2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class; and
3. dismissing without prejudice the claims of the opt-in
Plaintiffs Lucas Ribeiro Bossa, Gustavo Oliveira,
Marcelino Medeiros, Fernando Costa, Paulo Rodriguez,
Alexandre Lala Santos, Pedro Afonso, and Axel Torres.
Fogo de Chao is a Brazilian steakhouse specializing in
fire-roasting high-quality meats since 1979.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bt4wDA at no extra charge.[CC]
GLOBAL CREW: Faces Materov Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MATEROV and JOSE L. DE LEON, individually and on behalf all
other aggrieved employees of DEFENDANTS in the State of California
v. GLOBAL CREW SERVICES, INC. a California Corporation; GURSEWAK
SINGH BRAR, an individual; KARANDEEP SINGH BRAR, an individual;
INJERJEET KAUR, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20LBCV00554 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 22, 2020) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business & Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' systematic pattern of
wage and hour violations toward the Plaintiffs and other aggrieved
employees include, inter alia, failure to provide compliant meal
and rest periods, failure to pay all minimum, regular, and overtime
wages, failure to pay vacation pay, failure to maintain true and
accurate records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failure to timely pay wages due during and upon
separation of employment.
The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as non-exempt hourly employees
while misclassifying them as exempt employees. They employed
Plaintiff MATEROV as an "operations manager," as a "driver," and as
a "security guard" from August 22, 2019 to August 9, 2020 while
Plaintiff DE LEON as a "driver" and as a "security guard" from
February 16, 2019 to February 2, 2020.
Global Crew Services, Inc. is a crew transportation and vessel
services company that services at Port of Long Beach, San Pedro,
Los Angles, San Diego and other neighboring ports.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arin Norijanian, Esq.
James H. Demerjian, Esq.
ARIN JAMES LLP
100 North Brand Blvd., Suite 620
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 476-0133
Facsimile: (818) 230-5243
E-mail: arin@arinjames.com
james@arinjames.com
GOLD STANDARD: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Standard
Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gold Standard
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00046 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gold Standard Enterprises, Inc., -- https://www.binnys.com/ --
doing business as Binny's Beverage Depot, provides beverages. The
Company offers wine, spirits, beer, and cigars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
GOTHAM DRYWALL: Underpays Construction Workers, Calderon Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIO CALDERON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. GOTHAM DRYWALL, INC., ATLANTIC CONTRACTING OF YONKERS,
INC., ATLANTIC DRYWALL CONTRACTING INC., JOEL ACEVEDO, and JOHN
FITZPATRICK, Case No. 1:20-cv-06384 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2020) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law arising from the Defendants' failure to pay wages and
overtime wages and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
Mr. Calderon was employed by the Defendants from in or about the
middle of 2016 until January 28, 2019 as non-exempt hourly
construction workers.
Gotham Drywall, Inc. specializes in drywall and framing, rough and
finish carpentry, acoustical ceilings, millwork and fabrication in
New York City and surrounding areas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
Julie Salwen, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
110 State Highway 35, Suite 10
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (718) 799-9111
Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
jsalwen@nynjemploymentlaw.com
GRAB HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal E-Hailing Service
----------------------------------------------------------------
YS Chan, writing for malaysiakini, reports that it has now surfaced
that the Malaysian Association of Taxi, Rental Car, Limousine and
Airport Taxi have mounted an RM100 million class-action lawsuit
against Grabcar for allegedly running an illegal e-hailing service
in the country from 2014 to 2017 that contravened the Transport Act
2012, the Competition Act 2010, and the Federal Constitution.
The Kuala Lumpur High Court has directed Grabcar to file its
statement of defence by Jan 14 and cabbies to file any reply to the
statement of defence by Jan 28. The next case management is
scheduled for Feb 11.
The case is likely to be followed closely by the various hotel
associations, as they too have suffered from lower occupancy over
the past decade because the relevant authorities did not act
against unlicensed operators using private residences to rent out
rooms, apartments or bungalows for short term guests using online
platforms such as Airbnb.
Over the past decade, I have probably written more published
letters on local taxis and e-hailing services than others combined.
My interest stemmed from the fact that I had driven limousine,
premier and budget taxis, and had trained taxi divers under various
programmes such as Teksi Wanita for a taxi company, Teksi 1Malaysia
for Land Public Transport Commission (Spad), and Pangkor taxi
drivers under Northern Corridor Implementation Agency (NCIA).
Grabcar started operations as MyTeksi, a taxi app, which was
launched on June 5, 2012 and received 11,000 requests on that day.
For the next two years, taxi drivers using the app enjoyed more
trips and their passengers no longer have to wait indefinitely for
taxis, unlike radio cabs which are difficult to get during peak
hours on rainy days unless passengers offer a bribe.
But on Aug 7, 2014, UberX entered the Malaysian market with RM1.50
as starting fare, RM12 per hour and 55 sen per km, compared to RM3,
RM17.14 and 87 sen respectively for budget taxis.
Naturally, e-hailing passengers abandon MyTeksi and metered taxis
in droves and switched over to Uber using private cars. Globally,
Uber decimated the taxi market by charging ridiculously low rates
by subsidising fares heavily. On average globally, only 42 percent
of the fares were charged to passengers.
Locally, there was no way for MyTeksi using taxis to compete with
Uber. MyTeksi had no choice but to take the bull by the horns by
adding private cars to compete with Uber, and morphed into Grab.
It managed to compete successfully against Uber in seven Asean
countries, with Uber finally exiting Southeast Asia in March 2018
after being taken over by Grab.
On July 28, 2017, amendments to the Land Public Transport (LPT) Act
2010 and the Commercial Vehicles Licensing Board (CVLB) Act 1987
were passed in the Dewan Rakyat.
Hence, the cabbies are claiming that Grab was operating illegally
from May 16, 2014 to July 27, 2017, but the starting date cannot be
earlier than UberX entering the local market.
The aggrieved cabbies said Grabcar had breached provisions of the
Transport Act by presenting a misleading statement that it was
qualified to operate an online public transport service without
approval from the Road Transport Department. But this matter was
under the jurisdiction of Spad at that material time.
Interestingly, the cabbies have also claimed that Grabcar had
misused its position in the service industry under Section 10 of
the Competition Act 2010 that the defendant had carried out unfair
trade.
However, in the court of public opinion, passengers would think
that many metered taxi drivers were guilty of abusing their service
by fixing fares or choosing routes.
They also wanted every profit the e-hailing service received for
that period to be returned to the cabbies as "remedy of restitution
to the plaintiffs". But what if Grabcar had been making losses?
This is not surprising as Uber had been incurring huge losses in
recent years to the tune of US$2.2b in 2017, US$2.8b in 2018,
US$8.5b in 2019 and US$2.96b in the first quarter of 2020.
In any case, it is the most interesting lawsuits by cabbies. Should
they win, how will they be distributing the RM100 million to 10,000
taxi drivers?
Will each get RM10,000 equally? Or passengers who have been victims
of unscrupulous taxi drivers gang up and file a class-action
lawsuit against cabbies for RM100 million before the money is
spent?
The law allows anyone to sue but plaintiffs must be prepared to
bear all costs. All is fair in love and war. [GN]
GUARDIAN GARAGE: Garcia Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Laborers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENE GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUARDIAN GARAGE DAL, LLC d/b/a Guardian
Garage Floors, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00010-E (N.D. Tex.,
January 4, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer from
approximately October 26, 2020 to approximately December 15, 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that although he routinely worked in excess of
40 hours per seven-day workweek, the Defendant did not pay him
overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for each and every hour he worked over 40 in each such
workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid him only the percentage pay
basis remuneration.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to keep an accurate record of the
daily and weekly hours worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated laborers.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, legal fees and costs, post-judgment interest
and all other relief that the Court may deem just and right.
Guardian Garage Dal, LLC operates a business that provides floor
covers installation services for residential and commercial garages
and other spaces. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 251-4157
Fax: (214) 261-5159
E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
HAYT HAYT & LANDAU: Wise Files Suit for Breach of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hayt, Hayt & Landau,
LLC. The case is styled as Tunisha Wise, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hayt, Hayt & Landau,
LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-20618 (D.N.J.,
Dec. 30, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Hayt, Hayt & Landau is a collection law firm with offices in
Philadelphia, PA and the central Jersey coastal town of Eatontown,
north of Asbury Park.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
Stein Saks, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
HELIOS AND MATHESO: Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE HELIOS AND MATHESON
ANALYTICS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION
Case No. 1:18-cv-06965-JGK
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
This notice affects all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded common stock of Helios and
Matheson Analytics, Inc. during the period between August 15, 2017
and July 26, 2018, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the
"Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for
the District of Southern District of New York, that the
Court-appointed Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and
all members of the Class, and Theodore Farnsworth ("Farnsworth"),
Stuart Benson ("Benson"), and Mitch Lowe ("Lowe" and collectively
with Farnsworth, and Benson, the "Individual Defendants"), have
reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned
class action (the "Action") in the amount of $8,250,000 (the
"Settlement"). Plaintiffs estimate this represents an average
recovery of $4.08 per damaged share of Helios common stock, before
attorneys' fees and expenses, based on the estimated number of
allegedly damaged shares of Helios common stock held through an
alleged corrective disclosure that was statistically significant.
A hearing will be held before the Honorable John G. Koeltl, on May
6, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 14A of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York,
NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things,
determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed
Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the
Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement, dated December 11, 2020; (iii) approve the proposed
Plan of Allocation for distribution of the settlement funds
available for distribution to Class Members (the "Net Settlement
Fund"); (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application;
and (v) approve the Class Representatives' incentive awards. The
Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it
telephonically or via videoconference, without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive
a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. A full Notice and Claim Form can be obtained by visiting
the website of the Claims Administrator,
www.heliosandmathesonsecuritieslitigation.com, or by contacting the
Claims Administrator at:
Helios and Matheson Analytics Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91384
Seattle, WA 98111
info@heliosandmathesonsecuritieslitigation.com
833-707-1451
Settlement Website: www.heliosandmathesonsecuritieslitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
Shannon L. Hopkins
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
www.zlk.com
203-992-4523
If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than June 7, 2021. If
you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form,
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that
it is received no later than April 15, 2021. If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than April 15, 2021.
[GN]
HOPEBRIDGE LLC: Myres FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ryan Myres & Aaliyah
Thompson, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
Hopebridge, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-05390-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this case as an (FLSA) collective
action under Section 216(b) against Hopebridge on behalf
of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals;
2. implementing an Opt-In period of whereby Court-approved
Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent via U.S. Mail
and e-mail to:
"all current and former hourly employees of Hopebridge who
(a) worked as a Registered Behavior Technician; and (b)
whose payroll records reflect that they worked 40 or more
hours in any workweek beginning three years preceding the
instant Motion and continuing to the present (Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs)";
3. approving the content contained in the proposed Notice and
Consent to Join;
4. requiring the Defendant to, within fourteen days of this
Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
the names, dates of employment, location(s) worked, last-
known mailing addresses, and personal email addresses of
all Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs who worked for Defendant
at any time from three years preceding the filing of this
Motion through the present; and
5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the
Court, be sent to the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs within
14 days of receipt of the list using the home and email
addresses provided by the Defendant.
On December 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended
Collective and Class Action Complaint (FAC) against the Defendant
for its failure to pay hourly, non-exempt employees overtime wages
for all hours worked under the FLSA, as well as the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
To provide context, the Defendant Hopebridge provides healthcare
services, including personalized therapy for children and their
families affected by behavioral, physical, social, communication,
and sensory challenges, as well as outpatient services at its
autism therapy centers. The Defendant employs thousands of
employees at approximately 58 therapy centers located in Ohio,
Indiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Colorado, and Arizona.
However, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant strives to keep
its labor costs down (i.e., "labor utilization and billing") and
members of the Defendant's leadership team are believed to receive
one or more bonuses that are directly or indirectly tied to the
company’s labor utilization and services billed.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bsSjyW
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd. , Suite No. 126
Columbus, OJ 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
ICHIBAN GROUP: Zhang Suit Seeks to Certify Restaurant Staff Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XUE HUI ZHANG, YUE HUA
CHEN, and GUI YONG ZHANG, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC d/b/a Ichiban Japanese &
Chinese Restaurant d/b/a Takara, ICHIBAN FOOD SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant d/b/a Takara, CHEN & JU, INC.
d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant d/b/a Takara, DAVID
LIP, SHIOW FEI JU, SHIN SHII JU, CHWON TZU JU, LIPING JU, TYNG QUH
JU, and TOMMY JU, Case No. 1:17-cv-00148-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of:
"all individuals who were employed or are currently
employed by the Defendants in any tipped or non-tipped
positions that were not exempt from receiving overtime
during the six years immediately preceding the initiation
of his action up to the date of the decision on this
motion;"
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Xue Hui Zhang, Yue Hua Chen, and
Gui Yong Zhang class representatives;
3. appointing Troy Law, PLLC and its attorneys John Troy and
Aaron B. Schweitzer as class counsel;
4. permitting the Plaintiffs to circulate a notice of class
action by direct mail to class members and by publication;
and
5. granting such other and further relief as the Court shall
deem just and proper.
The Plaintiffs brought this action to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The named Plaintiffs are former cooks, and a waitress, at Ichiban,
which was located at 1652 Western Avenue, Albany, New York.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XsMN71
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
IL BACCO RISTORANTE: Faces Iraheta Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDY AREVALO IRAHETA and MARIANO GAITAN ZALAYA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IL BACCO RISTORANTE,
INC., and JOSEPH OPPEDISANO, as an individual, Case No.
1:20-cv-06377 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2020) is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from
the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure
to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to pay wages for all
hours worked, failure to provide written wage notice and failure to
provide accurate wage statements.
Mr. Iraheta was employed by Il Bacco from in or around July 2007
until in or around August 2020 whose primary duties were as a food
preparer, cook, waiter and performing other miscellaneous duties.
Mr. Zalaya was employed by Il Bacco from in or around July 2020
until in or around August 2020 whose primary duties were as a
cleaner, busboy, food server and performing other miscellaneous
duties.
Il Bacco Ristorante, Inc. is an Italian restaurant in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Rd., Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
INMATE SERVICES: Stearns Bid to Amend Class Action Complaint Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANZEL L. STEARNS v.
INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV
(E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Billy Roy Wilson entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant ISC's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings;
2. dismissing the Doe Defendants without prejudice in Case
No. 3:16-cv-339-BRW-JJV, remaining the Doe Defendants in
Case No. 3:19-cv-00100-KGB-JTR and 3:19-cv-00121-KGB-BD.
3. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint;
4. stricking the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action
Complaint from the record;
5. directing the Plaintiff, 14 days from the date of this
Order, to file a Second Amended Complaint that includes
only his remaining individual claims in Case No. 3:16-cv-
339-BRW-JJV; and
6. modifying the consolidation Order to clarify that motions
and pleadings bearing all three cases numbers may be filed
in this case as to discovery matters only;
-- all other motions and pleadings must be filed, and
labeled according, in either: (a) Case No. 3:16-cv-339-
BRW-JJV or (b) Case No. 3:19-cv-00100-KGB-JTR (lead)
and Case No. 3:19-cv-00121-KGB-BD.
Judge Wilson said, "The Plaintiff seeks permission to file a
Consolidated Third Amended Class Action Complaint that again
incorporates his constitutional and state law claims from all three
cases. However, the Plaintiff is also seeking certification of a
narrowed class that is defined as:
"all pretrial detainees who were restrained and required to
remain on the transport vehicles without any overnight stops
for more than 24 continuous hours, 48 continuous hours, etc."
In contrast, the class definition for the diversity state law
claims is all inmates, which I presume includes pretrial detainees
as well as convicted prisoners. The Motion to Amend is denied for
three reasons. First, as previously explained, these cases have
been consolidated for discovery purposes only. For that reason, I
am striking the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint
from the record as improperly including claims from another lawsuit
that do not belong in this case. To make the record clear, the
Plaintiff has fourteen days to file a Second Amended Complaint
containing only his remaining individual in Case No.
3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV. Second, the proposed amended complaint
continues to seek relief under the Eighth Amendment which
Plaintiff, as pretrial detainee, has no standing to seek. Third, in
my July 21, 2020 Order that was issued six months ago, I cautioned
the parties "continued amendments of the complaint are unlikely"
due to the age of the case."
The Plaintiff has sued the Defendant ISC and others about his
transportation from Colorado to Mississippi in two sets of cases
pending in this District. In Case No. 3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV, which
was filed in November 2016, the Plaintiff says the Defendants
violated his due process rights and subjected him to cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the
California Bane Act. In Case No. 3:19-cv-00100-KGB-JTR and Case No.
3:19-cv-00121-KGB-BD, which are diversity actions, the Plaintiff
claims the Defendants acted negligently, committed the tort of
outrage, and violated the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. These later
two cases, which were filed three years after Case No.
3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV, have been consolidated for a resolution on
the merits.
Additionally, two insurance companies have intervened in Case No.
3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV, seeking declaratory relief regarding their
duties to defend and indemnify, but they have not done so in the
other two cases filed it while he was in custody, but it does not
apply to the other two cases that the Plaintiff filed after he was
released. Respondeat superior liability applies to the state law
claims in Case No. 3:19-CV-00100-KGB-JTR and Case No.
3:19-CV-00121-KGB-BD, but not to the constitutional ones in Case
No. 3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV.
In July, 2020, the cases were consolidated "for discovery purposes"
only. On July 28, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaint bearing all three case numbers and
including all of his constitutional and diversity state law claims.
Then, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bsFBjm at no extra charge.[CC]
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled A.F. OF L. - A.G.C. BUILDING TRADES WELFARE PLAN,
individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.;
WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.; HIKMA LABS INC.; HIKMA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; AMNEAL
PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and LUPIN INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-06003, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on January 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00019-LHK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violations of federal
antitrust law and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws concerning the narcolepsy drug Xyrem. The
Defendants allegedly delayed, and restricted generic competition in
the market for Xyrem.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a biopharmaceutical company based in
Ireland.
Roxane Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceuticals company based in
Columbus, Ohio.
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. is a wholly owned, U.S. subsidiary
of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, based in Amman, Jordan.
Hikma Labs Inc.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a pharmaceuticals company based
in New Jersey.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc is a British multinational pharmaceutical
company with headquarters in London, England.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a manufacturer of generic
pharmaceuticals, headquartered in New York.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a generic pharmaceutical company based
in Chestnut Ridge, New York.
Lupin Ltd. is a multinational pharmaceutical company based in
Mumbai, India.
Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Baltimore, Maryland.
Lupin Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Baltimore,
Maryland-based pharmaceutical company Lupin Ltd. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0050
E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
mclerkin@motleyrice.com
- and –
Thomas M. Loper, Esq.
LOPER LAW LLC
452 Government Street, Suite E
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 288-8308
E-mail: tloper@loperlawllc.com
- and –
Kimberly Calametti Walker, Esq.
KIMBERLY C. WALKER, P.C.
14438 Scenic Highway 98
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (251) 928-8461
E-mail: kwalker@kcwlawfirm.com
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Self-Insured Schools Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS
PLC; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; JAZZ
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED; HIKMA
PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; EUROHEALTH (USA), INC; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC.; WESTWARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.; ROXANE LABORATORIES,
INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; ENDO INTERNATIONAL, PLC; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; LUPIN LTD.; LUPIN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC; LUPIN INC.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES
LTD.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS USA, INC; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, INC.; RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC; WOCKHARDT LTD.; MORTON
GROVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WOCKHARDT USA LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC;
MALLINCKRODT LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-06495, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
January 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00020-LHK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' conspiracy and combination in
restraint of trade under state law; unfair methods of competition,
and unfair and deceptive acts, in violation of state consumer
protection laws; monopolization and monopolistic scheme under state
law; unjust enrichment; and violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act and Section 16 of the Clayton Act.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC is an Ireland public limited
biopharmaceutical company organized and existing under the laws of
Ireland, with its principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange,
Waterloo Road, Dublin 4, Ireland. It is the parent company of Jazz
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road,
Dublin 4, Ireland. Its U.S. headquarters is located at 3170 Porter
Drive, Palo Alto, California.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited is a pharmaceutical company
organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its
principal place of business at Waterloo Exchange, Waterloo Road,
Dublin 4, Ireland.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC is a multinational pharmaceutical company
organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with
its principal place of business at 1 New Burlington Place, London,
W1S 2HR and its U.S. headquarters at 246 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey.
Eurohealth (USA), Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company
with its principal place of business at 401 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware,
with its principal place of business at 246 Industrial Way West,
Eatontown, New Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma
Pharmaceuticals PLC.
West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, with its principal place of business
located at 246 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey.
Roxane Laboratories, Inc. is a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer
with its principal place of business at 2001 Arlington Lane,
Columbus, Ohio.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a limited liability company that
manufactures and supplies generic pharmaceuticals organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Bridgewater,
New Jersey.
Endo International, PLC is a public limited biopharmaceutical
company, with its principal place of business at First Floor,
Minerva House, Simmonscourt Road Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Endo
International, PLC, with its principal place of business at 1400
Atwater Drive, Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its
principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Rd., Chestnut Ridge,
New York.
Lupin Ltd. is a public limited company organized and existing under
the laws of India, with its principal place of business at B/4
Laxmi Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051,
India.
Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin
Ltd., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111
South Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland.
Lupin Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lupin Ltd., is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business at 111 South Calvert
Street, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a public limited
pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in
Mumbai, India.
Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., with its principal place of
business at 2 Independence Way, Princeton, New Jersey.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., with its principal place of
business at 2 Independence Way, Princeton, New Jersey.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. is a public limited company, with its
principal place in Gurugram, India.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a publicly traded
pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business at 5
Basel Street, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Watson Laboratories, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceuticals Ltd., with its principal place of business at 1090
Horsham Road North Wales
Wockhardt Ltd. is a global pharmaceutical and biotechnology company
headquartered in Mumbai, India.
Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Wockhardt Ltd., with its principal place of business at 6451 W.
Main Street, Morton Grove, Illinois.
Wockhardt USA LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wockhardt Ltd.,
with its principal place of business at 20 Waterview Blvd. Ste.
315, Parsippany, New Jersey.
Mallinckrodt PLC is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal
place of business at 3 Lotus Park, The Causeway,
Staine-Upon-Thames, Surrey TW18 3AG, United Kingdom.
Mallinckrodt LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt PLC,
with its principal place of business at 675 McDonnell Blvd., Saint
Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
153 Ridge St., Suite 3A
New York, NY 10002
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com
K STONES: Joong Ko Sues Over Unpaid Wages for General Laborers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOONG KO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. K STONES, INC., KYUN S. SEOK, and ANN SEOK,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00011 (N.D. Ill.,
January 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal to Portal
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff's and Class
members' minimum wages for all time worked and overtime wages at a
rate of one and one half times their regular rate for all hours
over 40 in an individual workweek, and failing and refusing to pay
them of their earned wages for worked performed.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a general laborer
between March, 2012 to July, 2018.
K Stones, Inc. is a company that operates wholesale and retail
beauty supply business located at 20 West Madison Avenue, Oak Park,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel Shim, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL SHIM
5005 Newport Drive, Suite 404
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 427-0033
Facsimile: (847) 427-0044
E-mail: sshim.law@gmail.com
LAST RESORT GRILL: Servers Slam Termination Despite Taking Leaves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alma Kaempf, Rachel Mills and Allyssa Peace, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Last Resort
Grill, Inc., Melissa Clegg and Jamshad Zarnegar, Defendants, Case
No. 20-cv-00139 (M.D. Ga., December 16, 2020), seeks back wages,
actual monetary losses and lost benefits with interest, liquidated
damages, reinstatement for Plaintiffs Peace and Kaempf to their
last-held position (or equivalent) with the same salary and
benefits, attorneys' fees and costs of this action and such other
and further relief pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Last Resort Grill, Inc. operates a restaurant located Athens,
Georgia where Plaintiffs worked as servers. They all claim that
they were unjustly terminated for failing to report to work despite
filing for medical leaves. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter H. Steckel, Esq.
STECKEL LAW, LLC
54 South Main Street
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Tel: (404) 717-6220
Email: peter@SteckelWorkLaw.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Perez's Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PEREZ, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS
DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1–50,
inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-00686-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part Perez's motion for
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil 24
Procedure 23(b)(3):
a. Perez's off-the-clock, meal and rest period, and
derivative claims are CERTIFIED for class aggregation
under 12 Rule 23(b)(3);
b. consistent with the discussion above, Perez's claim for
meal and rest period violations is NOT CERTIFIED for
purposes of the theories of recovery for which he did
not carry his burden under Rule 23;
c. The class is defined as follows:
"all non-exempt hourly workers who are currently
employed, or formerly have been employed, as non-exempt
hourly employees at Leprino's Lemoore East facilities
in Lemoore, California, at any time within four years
prior to the filing of the original complaint until
January 6, 2021";
d. the on-duty meal period subclass is defined as follows:
"all non-exempt hourly workers who are currently
employed, or formerly have been employed, as non-exempt
hourly employees at Leprino's Lemoore East plant in
Lemoore, California, at any time within four years
prior to the filing of the original complaint until
January 6, 2021, and who worked at least one shift that
included an "on-duty meal period," otherwise described
as a shift of continuous work with a meal period taken
on the clock or a "straight 8" shift;
e. The separation wages subclass is defined as follows:
"all persons who have been discharged from or quit
their employment as non-exempt hourly employees at
Leprino's Lemoore East plant in Lemoore, California, at
any time within four years prior to the filing of the
original complaint until January 6, 2021;"
f. John Perez is appointed as the class representative.
g. Rex Parris and the Parris Law Firm are appointed as
class counsel.
2. denying Leprino's request for leave to file a sur-reply in
opposition to Perez's motion; and
3. directing the parties to promptly MEET AND CONFER about
the submission of a joint stipulated class notice and
distribution plan;
-- within twenty-one days of this order, the parties must
FILE either a stipulated class notice and distribution
plan or a notice that no stipulation can be agreed to;
and
-- if the parties cannot agree to a class notice or
distribution plan, then Perez must FILE a proposed
class notice and distribution plan within 35 days of
this order, and Leprino shall have fourteen days
following Perez's filing to FILE any objections, and
Perez shall have seven days following Leprino's filing
to FILE a reply; and
4. referring back the case to the assigned magistrate judge
for further scheduling and other proceedings consistent
with this order.
In this class action lawsuit, John Perez is suing two cheese
manufacturing companies, Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods
Dairy Products Company. Perez is a former Leprino employee.
Broadly, Perez alleges that Leprino violated California
wage-and-hour laws by (1) not paying employees minimum wages for
all hours worked; (2) not providing employees with legally
compliant meal and rest periods; and (3) based on these violations,
not paying employees separation wages or providing them with
accurate wage statements, and engaging in unfair competition
practices.
Leprino manufactures and processes cheese and dairy ingredients at
its Lemoore East facility in Lemoore, California. Lemoore East,
which is one of several Leprino facilities in the State of
California, generally operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days
a week, and has approximately 140 nonexempt, hourly employee
positions, for which Leprino employs about 263 individuals to
fill.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oskLEI at no extra charge.[CC]
LEXMARK INT'L: Firefighters Win Final Approval of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS
PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., PAUL A.
ROOKE, DAVID REEDER, and GARY STROMQUIST, Case No.
1:17-cv-05543-WHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge William H. Pauley III
entered an order:
1. granting the motion for final approval of the settlement:
-- the Proposed Settlement resolves the entire litigation
for a cash payment of $12 million. No objections have
been lodged;
2. granting in part and denying in part the motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses;
3. approving the Proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and the Settlement Notice;
4. awarding Lead Counsel an attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2.88 million:
-- representing 24% of the Settlement Fund; and
-- these attorneys' fees may be disbursed from the Court
Registry Investment System (CRIS) account once 75% of
the net settlement fund has been distributed.
-- Lead Counsel may be reimbursed $201,357.78 in
litigation expenses forthwith.
5. reimbursing the Lead Plaintiff an amount of $2,500
forthwith; and
6. directing the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending
motions and to mark this case closed.
This putative class action was filed on July 20, 2017. Thereafter,
the parties briefed -- and this Court resolved -- a motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The parties conducted
extensive document discovery, and in August 2019, the Lead
Plaintiff moved for class certification. After engaging in
mediation, the parties reached an agreement to resolve this
litigation. On June 17, 2020, this Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and permitted notice to the class. The settlement funds
were deposited into a CRIS account.
Lexmark is a privately held American company that manufactures
laser printers and imaging products. The company is headquartered
in Lexington, Kentucky.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 7, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LbpPip at no
extra charge.[CC]
LINCOLN BENEFIT: Farley Files Suit Over Insurance Coverage Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deana Farley, individually and on behalf of the class, Plaintiff,
v. Lincoln Benefit Life Company, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02485
(E.D. Cal., December 16, 2020), seeks to recover damages and
injunctive relief resulting from breach of contract and unfair
competition under California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200.
Deana Farley is the policy owner that insured the life of her son,
Ellis Red-Bates. Lincoln Benefit Life was responsible for
administering and honoring said policy.
Lincoln allegedly failed to provide policy owners, insureds,
assignees and others, proper notices of pending lapse or
termination of their policies in accordance with California
Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72.1.
Ellis Redd-Bates' policy is a flexible premium adjustable life
policy with a benefit amount of $125,000. At the time of lapse,
premium payments were due at quarterly intervals in the amount of
$122.43 made by automatic withdrawal. Said policy contains a
contractual 61-day grace period.
Despite this, Lincoln neither provided a proper 30-day notice, nor
the right to designate a third party to receive such notice to
Farley prior to termination of said policy, notes the complaint. In
2016, when a premium payment was inadvertently missed, the policy
lapsed. While contending Lincoln's failure to provide a notice of
right to designate, Farley and her insured son sought and were
granted reinstatement effective November 4, 2016. Despite the
reinstatement, Lincoln refused to provide the protections
guaranteed by the policy, the complaint relates.
Farley again inadvertently missed a payment in October of 2018 and
Lincoln lapsed the policy. She claims that Lincoln violated the
California Insurance Code by failing to provide her notice of a
right to designate an alternative notice recipient and as such,
termination of the policy was ineffective and the policy remains in
force. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 325-0492
Fax: (619) 325-0496
Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
Georg M. Capielo, Esq.
Sarah Ball, Esq.
WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
8489 La Mesa Boulevard
La Mesa, CA 91942
Tel: (619) 234-9000
Fax: (619) 750-0413
Email: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
gcapielo@einsurelaw.com
sball@einsurelaw.com
LOCAL EATERIES: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Local Eateries, LLC.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Local Eateries, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00021 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Local Eateries, LLC is in the restaurant and services
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MERUELO GROUP: Parada Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliatory Discharge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL PARADA, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. MERUELO GROUP, LLC; HERMAN WEISSKER, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV00060
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
including failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees with all required overtime pay, failure to timely pay all
wages owed upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, failure to authorize and permit all meal and rest
periods, and for retaliatory discharge after the Plaintiff reported
and protested against the Defendants' fraudulent billing of
employee time to their clients.
The Plaintiff worked as a human resources business partner for the
Defendants in California from August 2019 until he was terminated
on July 16, 2020.
Meruelo Group, LLC is a construction engineering company based in
Downey, California.
Herman Weissker, Inc. is an electric utility manufacturer in Jurupa
Valley, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 733-2498
Facsimile: (562) 733-2498
E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com
MODLIN SLINSKY: Baron Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Modlin Slinsky, P.A.,
et al. The case is styled as Adrienne Baron, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Modlin Slinsky, P.A.,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 0:21-cv-60007-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 4,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Modlin Slinsky, P.A. is a law firm located in Sunrise,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
MOLDEX-METRIC INC: Resendiz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE RESENDIZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. MOLDEX-METRIC, INC., a California corporation, and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV48477 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Dec. 18, 2020) arises from the Defendants' failure to comply
with the California Labor Code requirements due to erroneous,
willful and intentional employment practices and policies.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy and/or practice of failing to pay for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked, failing to provide timely,
uninterrupted meal breaks, failing to provide safe working
conditions, failing to provide compliant rest breaks and cool-down
rest periods, failing to timely pay all wages owed, failing to pay
accrued vacation upon separation, and failing to provide accurate
wage statements and maintain accurate payroll records.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California and was
employed as an hourly, nonexempt employee of Defendants until
February 2020.
Moldex-Metric, Inc. provides protection products. The Company
offers foam earplugs, earmuffs, bands, and other related products.
Moldex-Metric serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Quezada Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Mobility LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-11078 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 30, 2020).
Motorola Mobility LLC manufactures telecommunication products. The
Company offers mobile phones, head sets, chargers, monitors, and
web cams.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MR. T'S INC: Rice FLSA Suit Asks Court to Send Notice to Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAKEENA RICE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
TENETIA TURNER, an individual; ASHLEY JORDAN, an individual, v. MR.
T'S, INC., formerly dba LOOKERS LOUNGE, aka CHEETAH, a Florida
Corporation; TERRY L. THOMAS, an individual; CLIFFORD G. MCGEHEE,
an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-05695-TKW-EMT (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order allowing notice of this action to be sent to:
"dancers who have performed at the Defendants' clubs Lookers
Lounge in the past three years."
The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at Lookers Lounge. The
singular establishment is an exotic dance club which goes by two
names, "Lookers Lounge" and "Cheetah", and is owned and operated by
Mr. T's, Inc.
On July 29, 2020, Ms. Rice brought this action seeking to recover
wages owed to her and other dancers who have been classified as
independent contractors at Lookers Lounge under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). On August 31, 2020, Ms. Jordan and Ms.
Turner filed their notices of consent to join as opt-in
Plaintiffs.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q560Iq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq.
FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC
12550 Bicayne Blvd.
North Miami, FL 33181-2536
Telephone: (305) 901-2209
Facsimile: (786) 870-4030
E-mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law
NATIONAL INCOME: Turner Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Turner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. NATIONAL INCOME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and Does 1-20, Case No.
5:21-cv-00003-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021), is brought against
the Defendants to challenge systemic illegal employment practices
resulting in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Laws.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified insurance
and annuities salespeople as "independent contractors" when the
true classification should have been that of "employee." The
Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant required its agents to
engage in a prolonged training period as "Trainees" during which
Trainees were not paid even though they were performing work for
the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that he was not paid for
overtime on a routine basis.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff as an independent contractor and therefore does not
receive overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week. As a matter of policy and/or practice, the
Defendant routinely suffered or permitted the Plaintiff to work
portions of the day during which they were subject to Defendant's
control and failed to compensate them, including by failing pay all
commissions owed.
The Defendant failed to properly record the actual hours worked by
the Plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class, and thus failed
to pay overtime wages for the actual amount of overtime hours
worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Trainee in 2014, and
after training, worked for the Defendant as an Agent and then as a
Supervising Agent until 2017.
National Income Life Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary
of American Income Life Insurance Company and was engaged in, inter
alia, the sales of life insurance and annuities within New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert N. Fisher
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
- and -
Robert N. Fisher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
477 Madison Avenue, Suite 6000
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (805) 270-7100
Email: rfisher@bradleygrombacher.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Morandi, et al. Lose Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ken Morandi, et al. v.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-06334-MCS-MAA (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class
The Court deems the matters appropriate for decision without oral
argument and vacates the hearing. The Motion 1s denied without
prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3.
The Plaintiffs fail to provide a statement of compliance with the
prefiling conference requirement. Reviewing the Motion papers, it
appears no prefiling conference took place and the Plaintiffs did
not comply with the spirit or letter of Local Rule 7-3 before
filing their Motion. The Plaintiffs' disregard of this Court's
rules is further evidenced by, for example, their reply brief far
exceeding the standing order's ten-page limit.
The Motion is denied without prejudice to renewal after an adequate
prefiling conference of counsel. On its own motion, the Court
extends the deadline to file a motion for class certification to
January 18, 2021. The parties shall comply with this new deadline,
as well as this Court's and Local Rules, says the Court.
Nationstar, doing business as Mr. Cooper, offers mortgage
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bzAf6j at no extra charge.[CC]
NETFLIX INC: Gwinnett County Suit removed to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gwinnett County, Georgia; City of Brookhaven,
Georgia; Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia; on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Netflix,
Inc., Hulu, LLC, Disney DTC LLC, DIRECTV, LLC, DISH Network Corp.,
Case No. 20A07909-10, was removed from the Superior Court of
Gwinnett County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on Jan. 4, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00021-MLB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Cable/Satellite TV.
Defendants are media companies, both satellite and streaming. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 241-4844
Email: gbroshuis@koreintillery.com
- and -
Jennifer Peterson, Esq.
Robert Lawrence Ashe, III, Esq.
Timothy S. Rigsbee, Esq.
BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 881-4168
Email: peterson@bmelaw.com
ashe@bmelaw.com
rigsbee@bmelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Scott French, Esq.
Tiffany Nicole Watkins, Esq.
WARGO & FRENCH LLP
999 Peachtree Street, NE
26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 853-1500
Fax: (404) 853-1501
Email: mfrench@wargofrench.com
twatkins@wargofrench.com
- and -
Ava Conger, Esq.
James Henry Walker, IV, Esq.
John P. Jett, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STORCTON, LLP - ATL
1100 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
Phone: (404) 815-6500
Email: aconger@kilpatricktownsend.com
hwalker@kilpatricktownsend.com
jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com
- and -
John Hartshorn Elliott, Esq.
Scott Eric Zweigel, Esq.
William J. Holley, II, Esq.
PARKER, HUDSON, RAINER & DOBBS, LLP
303 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3600
Atlanta, GA 30308
Phone: (404) 523-5300
Email: jell@phrd.com
szweigel@phrd.com
wholley@phrd.com
OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE: Lindner Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Steven J. Lindner, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled STEVEN J. LINDNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-08481-JFW-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of all "people who paid tuition and fees
for the Spring 2020 Semester at Occidental," alleges that they are
entitled to a tuition fee refund because Occidental obeyed health
directives from state and local authorities and transitioned to
remote instruction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr. Lindner is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Judgment
dated Dec. 18, 2020 entered in favor of Defendant Occidental
College, as his first amended complaint is dismissed without leave
to amend and is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.
The appellate case is captioned as Steven Lindner, et al. v.
Occidental College, Case No. 20-56424, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 31, 2020.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Chloe A. Lindner and Steven J. Lindner Mediation
Questionnaire is due on January 7, 2021;
-- Appellants Chloe A. Lindner and Steven J. Lindner opening
brief due is due on March 2, 2021;
-- Appellee Occidental College answering brief is due on April
2, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN J. LINDNER and CHLOE A. LINDNER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
swestcot@bursor.com
Defendant-Appellee OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE is represented by:
Apalla Chopra, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
E-mail: achopra@omm.com
- and -
Matthew David Powers, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8898
E-mail: mpowers@omm.com
OFR INC: Guevara Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OFR, INC. The case is
styled as Jose Guevara, on behalf of all others similarly situated
and aggrieved v. OFR, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
BCV-21-100011 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 4, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited".
OFR Inc. -- https://www.ofrcorp.com/ -- is an agri-based field
recruitment company that provides an array of services and
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
MOSS BOLLINGER LLP
15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5824
Phone: (310) 982-2984
OLUKAI LLC: Quezada Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
OluKai, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jose
Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OluKai, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-11073 (S.D.
N.Y., Dec. 30, 2020).
Olukai, LLC is located in Irvine, CA, United States and is part of
the Wholesale Sector Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ORGAIN MANAGEMENT: Darnell Alleges Deceptive Almondmilk's Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
ETHEL DARNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORGAIN MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00015-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of express warranties, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and
misleading labeling and advertising of Unsweetened Vanilla
Almondmilk under the Orgain brand. The Defendant markets the
product to consumers as having its characterizing, or main flavor,
from vanilla beans. Unfortunately for consumers, the product's
taste comes from artificial flavors instead of vanilla beans, such
that the taste is dissimilar to what consumers expect from products
labeled as "vanilla." Had the Plaintiff and class members known the
truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid
less for them.
Orgain Management, Inc. is a company that offers organic
nutritional products, with a principal place of business in Irvine,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E. Fl. 2
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and –
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and –
Alex Straus, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (310) 450-9689
Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com
P.C. RICHARD: N.J. Supreme Court Questions Class Claims Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the New Jersey Supreme Court on Jan. 4
questioned the state appeals court's determination that class
claims over P.C. Richard & Son LLC receipts that exposed too much
customer information should be litigated individually in small
claims court, noting that unrepresented consumers with no legal
training would have to prove the retailer's conduct was willful.
[GN]
PARTNERS' TAP: Zawlocki Sues Over Failure to Pay All Tips Earned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Zawlocki, Brittany Stanton, Jacqueline Gavin and Kelly
Stanton, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. PARTNERS' TAP, INC. D/B/A
MORRISON ROADHOUSE AND ROBERT CASTLE, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No.
1:21-cv-00034 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 4, 2021), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for the Defendants failure
to pay the Plaintiffs all tips earned through the Defendants'
tip-credit compensation plan.
According to the complaint, the Defendants elected to take a
"tip-credit" and pay to their employees a direct wage lower than
the minimum wages required by law and use customer tips to make up
the difference. However, as alleged herein, the Defendants violated
the tip credit provisions of the FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA in several
ways--namely by imposing unlawful deductions that required direct
payback of earned tips to the employer-defendants by the employees,
which resulted in payment of insufficient wages to employees.
The Defendants compensated the Plaintiffs on an hourly basis. The
Defendants availed themselves to the tip-credit provisions of the
FLSA and IMWL and paid to the Plaintiffs a lower hourly minimum
wage which was supplemented by customer tips to cover the
difference between the tipped and non-tipped minimum wage.
However, the Defendants, on a regular basis, required the
Plaintiffs to pay back their earned tips to MRH to cover its own
business expenses and costs, including its policy to offer free
drinks to certain customers (referred to herein as MRH's "Comp
Program"), primarily MRH's "regulars". However, the tips taken by
MRH to reimburse itself for free drinks tendered under its Comp
Program and otherwise cover business expenses were in fact earned
by and property of the Plaintiffs such that MRH's practice of
taking and retaining employee tips violated the tip-credit
provisions of the state and federal laws, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants who worked
for the Defendants as bartenders and servers.
PARTNERS' TAP, INC. D/B/A MORRISON ROADHOUSE is a restaurant and
bar engaged in selling and serving prepared food and beverages,
including alcoholic beverages, to customers for consumption on and
off its premises.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 853-1450
- and -
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312)-322-1100
PAUL DURAM: Faces Hammond Employment Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Duram Electric,
Inc., a California corporation. The case is captioned as Sean
Hammond and Jesus Valdovinos, on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Paul Duram Electric, Inc., a
California corporation, and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
34-2020-00291142-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Dec. 22,
2020).
The case arises from alleged employment-related violations.
Paul Duram Electric Inc. is an electrical installation service
provider in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
PINTEREST INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Pinterest Inc. ("Pinterest" or the "Company") (NYSE:PINS) from May
16, 2019 through November 1, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
If you purchased Pinterest securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Pinterest Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll-free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Pinterest's addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its
maximum capacity; (2) which significantly decelerated Pinterest's
future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; (3)
Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing advertising revenue;
and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable
basis and omitted material facts.
On October 31, 2019, post-market, Pinterest reported its financial
results for the third quarter of 2019. The Company reported
disappointing financial results, including 8% growth in U.S. MAUs
year-over-year, which reached 87 million, only 8 million more than
the same period of the previous year. Pinterest also missed
expected US advertising revenue targets. Pinterest only marginally
increased its guidance, implying further deceleration in future
quarters.
On this news, Pinterest's stock price fell approximately 17% to
close at $20.86 per share on November 1, 2019, on unusually high
trading value.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Pinterest securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/pinterestinc-pins-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-335/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. [GN]
PROJECT O.H.R.: N.Y. Sup. Appeal Filed in Kurovskaya Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Project O.H.R. (Office for Homecare Referral), Inc. filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
NATALYSA KUROVSKAYA and RUSLAN DOMNICH, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. PROJECT O.H.R. (OFFICE
FOR HOMECARE REFERRAL), INC., Case No. 150480/2016, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
The Plaintiffs commenced this action on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of home health aides and/or personal care assistants
in the State of New York employed by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs
allege that they were uniformly deprived of minimum wages, overtime
compensation, spread of hours compensation, and prevailing wages
and benefits while performing similar work for which they should
have been compensated. They further contend that Defendant failed
to maintain adequate records of the hours they actually worked, the
breaks they were entitled to receive, and the sleeping facilities
provided to them.
The Defendant appeals the Court's Decision and Order dated December
1, 2020, which granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and permitted a late amendment to the complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as NATALYSA KUROVSKAYA and RUSLAN
DOMNICH, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. PROJECT O.H.R. (OFFICE FOR HOMECARE REFERRAL), INC.,
Case No. 2020-04902, in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, First Judicial Department, Dec. 18,
2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees NATALYSA KUROVSKAYA and RUSLAN DOMNICH,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
are represented by:
LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
VIRGINIA AND AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
Defendant-Appellant PROJECT O.H.R. (OFFICE FOR HOMECARE REFERRAL),
INC. is represented by:
Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq.
PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.
1325 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 382-0909
Facsimile: (212) 382-3456
E-mail: koconnor@pecklaw.com
QIWI PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Feb. 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Qiwi PLC. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
QIWI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-information-request-form?prid=12001&wire=1
Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI)
QIWI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 28, 2019 -
December 9, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 9, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-information-request-form?prid=12001&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Qiwi plc
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting
and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central
Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and
impose restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to
foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
SOURCE: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased QuantumScape
Corporation (NYSE: QS) securities between November 27, 2020 to
December 31, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until March
8, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha
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 $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021.
The complaint, filed on January 5, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery
power, battery life, and energy density were significantly
overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be able to scale
its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric
vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased QuantumScape securities during the Class Period
and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Gainey McKenna Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against QuantumScape Corporation ("QuantumScape" or the
"Company") (NYSE: QS) in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of QuantumScape between November 27, 2020
and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for QuantumScape investors under the
federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's purported
success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and
energy density was significantly overstated and the Company is
unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell
necessary to power electric vehicles.
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha
arguing that QuantumScape's solid-state batteries are "completely
unacceptable for real world field electric vehicles." Specifically,
the article said that the battery's power "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 $34.49, or approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share
on January 4, 2021.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
QuantumScape during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior
to the March 8, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey
McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of QuantumScape Corporation (NYSE: QS) between November
27, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for QuantumScape investors under
the federal securities laws.
To join the QuantumScape class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2017.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's purported success related to its
solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were
significantly overstated; (2) the Company's battery technology was
not sufficient for electric vehicle performance as it would not be
able to withstand the aggressive automotive environment; (3) the
Company's battery technology likely provided no meaningful
improvement over existing battery technology; (4) the Company is
unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell
necessary to power electric vehicles (5) the successful
commercialization of the Company's battery technology was subject
to much more significant risks and uncertainties than defendants
had disclosed; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants
materially overstated the value and prospects of the Company's
battery technology. 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 8,
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-2017.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.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210107005659/en/
CONTACT: 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
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against QuantumScape
Corporation ("QuantumScape" or "the Company") (NYSE:QS) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
8, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 8, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2LM59gU 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. QuantumScape dramatically overstated the
purported success of its solid-state batteries, including their
battery power, life, and energy density. The Company was unlikely
to scale its battery technology to the multi-layer cells necessary
to run electric vehicles. 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
QuantumScape, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Scott+Scott Reminds of March 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the
filing of class action lawsuits against QuantumScape Corporation,
formerly known as Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
("QuantumScape" or the "Company") (NYSE: QS) and other related
defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you
purchased QuantumScape stock or other securities between November
27, 2020 and December 31, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and have
suffered losses, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for
additional information at (844) 818-6982 or
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
QuantumScape develops battery technology for electric vehicles and
other applications.
The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
the Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery
power, battery life, and energy density was significantly
overstated and the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its
technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric
vehicles.
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha
arguing that QuantumScape's solid-state batteries are "completely
unacceptable for real world field electric vehicles." Specifically,
the article said that the battery's power "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 $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021.
What You Can Do
If you purchased QuantumScape securities between November 27, 2020
and December 31, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice
or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead
plaintiff deadline is March 8, 2021.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN]
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Moser Files FDCPA Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivables
Management Partners, LLC. The case is styled as Amanda D. Moser,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Receivables Management Partners, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03304-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 30, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Receivables Management Partners, LLC provides accounts receivable
collection services. The Company offers bad debt recovery, payment
monitoring, third party collections, employee overpayments, and
other related services. Receivables Management Partners serves
customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181
Email: vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
- and -
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181 ext114
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
REGIONS BANK: Faces Wunderlich Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WUNDERLICH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGIONS BANK, INC. f/k/a REGIONS
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00053 (N.D.
Ill., January 5, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant
seeking redress for its alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has obtained a loan from
the Defendant, but unfortunately fell behind on his obligation due
to unforeseen financial difficulty. Subsequently, the Plaintiff
started receiving phone calls from the Defendant in or around
September 2020 in an attempt to collect the alleged loan. The
Plaintiff was greeted with a prerecorded message upon answering the
Defendant's calls. The Plaintiff spoke to a live representative of
the Defendant eventually on or around December 4, 2020 and
requested that the phone calls cease. However, the Defendant
continued placing unwanted and unconsented phone calls on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone via an "automatic telephone dialing
system" or an artificial voice.
As a result of the Defendant's phone harassment campaign and
illegal collection activities, the Plaintiff suffered an actual
harm and damages, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant
from placing further violating calls to consumers, statutory and
treble damages, and other relief that the Court deems just and
proper.
Regions Bank, Inc. is a prominent banking holding company that
provides retail banking, commercia banking, trust, stock brokerage,
and mortgage services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Ave., Ste. 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8180
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Faces Piroozian Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PIROOZIAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL INC., JOSE E.
CIL, MATTHEW DUNNIGAN, JOSHUA KOBZA, and ALEXANDRE MACEDO, Case No.
2:21-cv-00148 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 7, 2021) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of
all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Restaurant Brands securities between April 29, 2019 and October 28,
2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
On April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced a new strategy
designed to improve performance within the Company's Tim Hortons
brand. Specifically, the "Winning Together Plan" would focus on
three key pillars: restaurant experience; product excellence; and
brand communications. On March 20, 2019, Restaurant Brands
announced "Tims Rewards" -- a new loyalty program for Tim Hortons
customers in Canada. Under the Tims Rewards program, customers
would be eligible for a free hot brewed coffee, hot tea, or baked
good after every seventh paid visit to a participating Tim Hortons
restaurant. On April 10, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced that it
was expanding the Tims Rewards program to include customers in the
U.S.
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants repeatedly touted the implementation and execution of
the Company's Winning Together Plan and Tims Rewards loyalty
program. On the heels of the Company touting the benefits of these
initiatives, the Company completed two stock offerings on or about
August 12, 2019, and September 5, 2019, collectively resulting in
proceeds of approximately $3 billion to insiders.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts, about the Company's business and
operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's Winning Together Plan was
failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the
Tim Hortons brand; (ii) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not
generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic
was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (iii) as a result,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have
suffered significant damages, the suit says.
Restaurant Brands International Inc. is a Canadian-American
multinational fast food holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Restaurant Brands
International Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead
plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court.
Further details about the case can be found at the link provided.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
QSR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12001&wire=1
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR)
QSR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 29, 2019 -
October 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12001&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Restaurant Brands International Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate
substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand;
(2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable
revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting
promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
SOURCE: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP [GN]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Liddle & Dubin Reminds of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liddle & Dubin, P.C. and Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC. have filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Robinhood
Financial LLC and Robinhood Securities, LLC (collectively,
"Robinhood" or "Defendants") on behalf of all persons in the United
States or its Territories who were users of Robinhood between
September 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019 (the "Class Period") and who
placed orders in connection with which Defendants received payment
for order flow. This group as known as the "Class".
If you placed orders using the Robinhood platform during the Class
Period and wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court by no later than March 8, 2021.
You may contact Nicholas Coulson (ncoulson@ldclassaction.com), an
attorney and Partner at Liddle & Dubin, P.C. to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the
class action. You may also retain counsel of your choice and need
not take any action at this time to be a class member.
As alleged in the lawsuit, Robinhood, a multi-billion dollar mobile
application and website investment service, has capitalized on a
surge of first-time market investors by misleading and luring
unsuspecting consumers to execute inferior market trades on the
platform under the guise of "commission free" trading. Through a
process of deceit and omission, Defendants misled consumers and
failed to disclose that Robinhood's business operations relied
extensively upon "payment for order flow," in which Defendants
received payment from market makers in exchange for executing the
service's trades. These payments often came at the expense of the
consumer. While Defendants promoted and advertised an easy-to-use
"commission free" trading platform, Defendants profited extensively
from unsuspecting consumers who executed trades on Defendants'
platform at inferior execution prices compared to what consumers
would have received from Robinhood's competitors. These inferior
prices were caused in large part by the unusually high charges
Robinhood required from principal trading firms for the opportunity
to obtain Robinhood's customer order flow. The principal trading
firms/electronic market makers in turn passed these costs along to
Robinhood's clients on each trade through inferior execution
quality—the price at which the requested market orders were
executed. Effectively, Robinhood charged backdoor commission fees
to each of its clients' orders, while concealing and denying the
payment for order flow scheme.
The Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as other state law
claims under California law against Defendants. The action alleges
that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of false
and/or misleading statements and deliberately failed to disclose
material facts. Specifically, Defendants' representations to its
users withheld the fact that in lieu of "commission fees" users
were receiving inferior prices on their trades, which in many
instances cost them even more than commission fees would have.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at
www.LDClassAction.com.
Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC is a nationally recognized law firm founded in
1998 that specializes in complex and class action litigation, with
a focus on securities, privacy rights, consumer fraud,
anti-competitive business practices, employee rights, defective
products, civil rights, and taxpayer rights and unfair practices by
municipalities. The attorneys at Ahdoot & Wolfson are experienced
litigators who have often been appointed by state and federal
courts as lead class counsel, including in multidistrict
litigation. In over two decades of its successful existence, Ahdoot
& Wolfson has successfully vindicated the rights of millions of
class members in protracted, complex litigation, conferring
hundreds of millions of dollars to the victims, and affecting real
change in corporate behavior.
Liddle & Dubin, P.C., concentrates its practice on prosecuting
complex class actions against corporations and governments on
behalf of aggrieved individuals. Over its decades of experience,
the firm has recovered many millions of dollars on behalf of its
clients in class actions. The firm's attorneys are presently
leading major class action litigation pending in federal and state
courts throughout the United States. [GN]
ROSSLYN RETIREMENT: Faces $30-Million COVID-19 Class-Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Polewski at globalnews.ca reports that families who lost loved
ones and residents who were infected amid a devastating COVID-19
outbreak at the Rosslyn Retirement Residence are taking legal
action against the east Hamilton facility.
They have launched a $30-million class-action lawsuit alleging that
management of the Rosslyn failed to adequately protect residents
from COVID-19.
The statement of claim was filed by Gary Will of Will Davidson LLP
on behalf of residents who were infected during the deadly outbreak
in May 2020.
Will said the facility was well-known to the Retirement Homes
Regulatory Authority (RHRA) before the pandemic, with several
complaints, inspections and compliance orders dating back to 2016
when the current owners took over the home.
"There were complaints, there were investigations, there were
warnings given to the owners to straighten up," said Will.
"This place was totally unprepared. And when COVID hit, the
residents of Rosslyn, unfortunately, bore the brunt of that
noncompliance and the lack of preparation for this pandemic."
Allegations in the statement of claim include a failure on the
Rosslyn's part to implement mandatory infection prevention and
control measures like COVID-19 screening and physical distancing.
The home also allegedly let potentially COVID-19-positive residents
continue to eat meals in the dining room with other residents up
until the home was evacuated on May 15, 2020.
Sixty-four out of 66 residents ended up contracting the virus, as
well as 22 staff members, and 16 residents lost their lives.
The RHRA revoked the home's operating licence a month later after a
final inspection report found multiple issues had gone unaddressed
by management, including inadequate personal protective equipment
(PPE) supply and training for staff, a failure to control pest
infestations and a manager on-site attempting to obstruct an
inspection.
The home's owners appealed the revocation, with a hearing scheduled
for an unspecified date in 2021.
The statement of claim has not yet been certified but Will said
they've already met with a judge in Toronto, who has expressed to
the parties involved that he wants it to proceed "as quickly as
possible."
A lawyer who has previously represented the Martino family, which
owns the home, has not responded to Global News' request for
comment.
The lawsuit's claim of $30 million includes $20 million in
compensatory damages for "negligence, breach of contract and
wrongful death," plus $10 million for "punitive and exemplary or
aggravated damages."
Will said residents and relatives want compensation for the pain
caused by the Rosslyn management's actions, but they also want
answers.
"They need to know what occurred and why did it occur," said Will.
"It's shocking that the family members are totally kept in the dark
and do not know what's happening at these nursing homes. They're
relying on the owners of the nursing homes and the retirement homes
to give them complete and accurate information, and that is just
not happening." [GN]
ROYAL HAWAIIAN: Quezada Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------
Royal Hawaiian Macadamia Nut, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Royal Hawaiian Macadamia Nut,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-11077 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 30,
2020).
Royal Hawaiian Macadamia Nut Inc. is the company behind the
macadamia nut brand, Royal Hawaiian Orchards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SAROOP & SONS: Faces Zapoteco Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO ZAPOTECO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SAROOP & SONS INC. (D/B/A SAROOP & SONS), NOOR LIVE
POULTRY CORP. (D/B/A NOOR LIVE POULTRY MARKET), PRANDIT SAROOP, and
SALAM DOE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00123 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and Class members
minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours compensation; failure to
provide written notice and accurate wage statements; and failure to
reimburse the costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining
equipment required to perform the job, all in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Zapoteco was employed as a chicken cutter and deboner at the
Defendants' Noor Live Poultry Market in Bronx, New York, from
approximately March 1, 2018, until on or about December 6, 2020.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a poultry market, located
at 2164 Webster Ave. Bronx, New York, under the name "Noor Live
Poultry Market."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
SEFCU: Story Suit Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY STORY, CHRISTOPHER M.
SOTIR, and JENNY LEA RANDALL, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SEFCU, and DOES 1 through 100, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00764-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting:
1. the final approval of the class action settlement;
2. the final certification of the Settlement Class;
3. their request for attorney's fees and costs;
4. their request for approval of class administrator
expenses; and
5. their request for a service award to the class
representative, together with such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Terms of the Settlement:
A. The Settlement Class includes:
i. The "Sufficient Funds Class," which is defined as:
"those members of the Defendant who paid a
"Sufficient Funds Overdraft Charge that was not
refunded." "Sufficient Funds Overdraft Charge" is
defined as an overdraft fee which was "paid by a
member of Defendant from June 28, 2012 to April 19,
2019 when there was enough money in the member's
current balance to cover the transaction that
resulted in the fee, and such fees were not refunded
by Defendant;"
ii. The "No Benefit Opt-In Class," which is defined as:
"those members of Defendant who from February 5,
2016, through December 28, 2018, paid an overdraft
fee on a non-recurring debit card transaction that
was not refunded;"
iii. The "Multiple NSF Fees on a Single Item Class,"
which is defined as:
"those members of Defendant who from July 23, 2016
through March 31, 2020 were assessed more than one
NSF fee on a single payment transaction." "Multiple
NSF Fee" is defined as "a non-sufficient funds or
returned item fee that was assessed and paid between
July 23, 2016 through March 31, 2020 for an ACH or
check transaction that was re-submitted after being
declined and was not refunded by Defendant;" and
iv. The "Sweep From Savings to Checking Account Class,"
defined as:
"any member of the Defendant charged a Sweep From
Savings to Checking Account Overdraft Fee." "Sweep
From Savings to Checking Account Overdraft Fee" is
defined as "overdraft fees assessed from July 23,
2016 through March 31, 2020 and not refunded for
transactions where sufficient funds were transferred
the day after the fee was assessed from a member's
savings account into the checking account in an
amount that would have been sufficient to avoid the
overdraft had the transfer been made the prior day;"
B. The value of the proposed settlement is at least
$11,867,500, arrived at as follows.
-- First, SEFCU will pay $5,850,000 of cash.
-- Second, as a part of this settlement, SEFCU has
changed the way that it assesses overdraft fees so
that overdraft fees are assessed only when the
actual balance is deficient in comparison to a
requested transaction, the way that the Plaintiffs
argued in this case it ought to be done, and SEFCU
has agreed to keep this change in place for a
minimum of three years. This will result in
approximately $893,350 in reduced overdraft fees for
the credit union's members per year, or a minimum
total of $2,680,050.
-- Third, as a result of this lawsuit, SEFCU stopped
charging all Regulation E overdraft fees from
December 28, 2018, through December 5, 2019,
resulting in reduced overdraft fee charges of
approximately $846,059 to credit union members.
-- Fourth, SEFCU also has agreed to forgive and release
any claims it may have to collect any at-issue fees
which were assessed by SEFCU but not collected and
subsequently charged-off, totaling $358,748.
-- Fifth, SEFCU agreed to send legally compliant
disclosures for the Regulation E program and not
charge any member a Regulation E overdraft unless
that member opted back n after receiving the legally
compliant notice.
C. Payments to Class Members.
-- Of the $5,850,000 "new money" portion of the
proposed settlement,
- $3,065,000 is allocated to the "Sufficient Funds
Class;"
- $1,615,000 is allocated to the "No Benefit Opt-In
Class;"
- $1,000,000 is allocated to the "Multiple NSF Fees
on a Single Item Class;" and
- $170,000 is allocated to the "Sweep From Savings
to Checking Account Class.
Each class member will receive a pro rata share of
the settlement proportionate to the eligible fees
assessed against the class member.
D. Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Costs, Service Awards, and
Administrator Costs:
-- Class Counsel applies for a fee award pursuant to a
percentage-of-fund method. Under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, Class Counsel may apply for
attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the "Value of
the Settlement." The "Value of the Settlement" as
defined in the Settlement Agreement equals
$11,867,500. If one were to remove from the "Value
of the Settlement" the savings from reduced
overdraft fees requiring the re-opt in to a legally
compliant Regulation E contract, this still means a
"Value of the Settlement" of $9,734,857. Class
Counsel will use this more conservative number for
this analysis.
-- Plaintiffs are also moving for the Court to approve
a service award to each of the three proposed class
representatives, Ms. Amy Story, Mr. Christopher
Sotir, and Ms. Jenny Randall, of $15,000 each.
-- the court appointed claims administrator, KCC, is
also to be paid from the settlement, and has
contracted to cap its billing at $80,000.
This is a class action in which Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendant SEFCU charged overdraft fees and Non-Sufficient Funds
("NSF") fees which its contracts with its members did not allow it
to charge.
After three separate mediations before a JAMS mediator, as well as
after substantial law and motion practice and significant formal
discovery, the parties reached a proposed settlement by accepting a
mediator's proposal after the third mediation.
A copy of the Plaintiff's notice motion for final approval of class
action settlement dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XlgaZ0 at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Amy Story, Christopher M. Sotir, Jenny
Lea Randall and the Putative Class, are:
Taras Kick, Esq.
taras@kicklawfirm.com
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
- and -
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
ejk@mccunewright.com
- and -
J. Patrick Lannon, Esq.
CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
AXA Tower I, 17th Floor
100 Madison Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Telephone: (315) 449-9500
Facsimile: (315) 449-9804
E-mail: plannon@cherundololawfirm.com
SIERRA PACIFIC: Donahoe Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sierra Pacific
Mortgage, Inc. The case is captioned as Taunya Donahoe and Curtis
Donahoe, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01827-NONE-JLT
(E.D. Cal., Dec. 28, 2020).
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc. provides mortgage lending
services. The Company offers loans to permanent investors,
individuals, and businesses. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company serves
customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan George, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (866) 598-5042
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
SIMON'S AGENCY: Faces Mancuso Suit in D.N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simon's Agency, Inc.
et al. The case is styled as MONICA MANCUSO, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. SIMON'S AGENCY, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-19890-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., Dec. 18, 2020).
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and is assigned to Judge Michael A.
Shipp.
Simon's Agency, Inc. is a debt collection agency in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
280 Prospect Ave. 6G
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 803-6611
Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com
SNACK IT FORWARD: Quezada Asserts Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Snack It Forward, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Snack It Forward, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-11076 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 30, 2020).
Snack It Forward, LLC is located in Los Angeles, CA, United States
and is part of the Snack Foods Manufacturing Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SOLARWINDS CORP: Thornton Law Reminds of March 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts SolarWinds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
SolarWinds stock or other securities (NYSE:SWI) between February
24, 2020 and December 15, 2020. Such investors may visit
www.tenlaw.com/cases/SolarWinds to learn about the case and the
lead plaintiff process. Investors may also email
investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/SolarWinds
SolarWinds investors have until March 5, 2021 to apply to be a lead
plaintiff. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to
be eligible to recover as class members.
The case alleges that SolarWinds and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors 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; and (4) as a result, SolarWinds would suffer significant
reputational harm.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any
investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during
the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor
class members in managing the class action and can select a law
firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead
plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential
recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a
member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. Interested SolarWinds investors
have until March 5, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class
has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors
are not represented by an attorney.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys represent individual and
institutional investors in lawsuits to recover damages caused by
violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established
track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/SolarWinds
SOURCE: Thornton Law Firm LLP [GN]
SOUTHWESTERN BELL: Faces Harrington Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC HARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE L.P., a/k/a AT&T
COMMUNICATIONS OF TEXAS, LLC, a/k/a AT&T SOUTHWEST; and AT&T
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00012 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 7, 2021) is
a collective action brought under the Labor Management Relations
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act against the Defendants who
knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out their
illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay lawful overtime
compensation and all earned wages to the Plaintiffs and the class
members.
Mr. Harrington has worked for the Defendants as a hourly-paid,
non-exempt call center employee, pursuant to the terms of a
collective bargaining agreement. He seeks to bring an action under
the FLSA for all overtime minutes worked, but not paid, in
workweeks where he and the class members were paid for at least 40
hours of work time. Mr. Harrington also sought to grieve the claim
under Article IV, Section 4 of his collective bargaining agreement
for all minutes worked in excess of eight hours on any days within
workweeks.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of
AT&T. It does business as other d/b/a names in its operating
region, which includes Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas,
and portions of Illinois. The company is currently headquartered in
Dallas, Texas at One AT&T Plaza.
AT&T Services, Inc. provides transaction processing services,
billing, payroll, accounts payable, customer remittance, fixed
assets record keeping, GL processing, personnel management and
specialized services to the parent companies and to related
affiliates, including Defendant Southwestern Bell Telephone,
L.P.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 880-1010
Facsimile: (312) 546-5056
E-mail: GDunn@GJDlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey G. Brown, Esq.
JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
65 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 107
Chicago, IL 60604
Facsimile: (312) 789-9702
E-mail: jeff@JGBrownlaw.com
- and -
J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
BRAZIEL DIXON, LLP
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 12000
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 749-1400
Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
STATE OF IDAHO: Court Tosses Harmon's Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON HARMON, v. CITY OF
TWIN FALLS; TWIN FALLS COUNTY; IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; and
STATE OF IDAHO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00525-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order:
1. that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted:
-- the Plaintiff has 60 days within which to file an
amended complaint;
-- if the Plaintiff does so, Plaintiff must file (along
with the amended complaint) a Motion to Review the
Amended Complaint;
-- if the Plaintiff does not amend within 60 days, this
case may be dismissed without further notice; and
-- alternatively, the Plaintiff may file a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal if Plaintiff no longer intends to
pursue this case; and
2. denying the Plaintiff's request for class certification.
The Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to proceed with the
Complaint. The Court will, however, grant the Plaintiff 60 days to
amend the Complaint, says Judge Winmill.
The Plaintiff asserts that he is at an increased risk from COVID-19
and that, therefore, the conditions of his detention create a
substantial risk of serious harm. Because the Plaintiff is a
convicted inmate, his claims of unconstitutional conditions of
confinement are analyzed under the Eighth Amendment, which protects
prisoners against cruel and unusual punishment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3bj0Hklat no extra charge.[CC]
STERLING CAVIAR: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Caviar LLC.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sterling Caviar LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00023 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sterling Caviar -- https://www.sterlingcaviar.com/ -- is one of the
most advanced high-tech aquaculture companies in the world but uses
only artisanal traditional methods of handcrafting caviar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
STOKES HEALTHCARE: Companion Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimiles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Companion Animal Hospital, on behalf of itself and a Class of
similarly situated individuals or businesses v. Stokes Healthcare,
Inc. dba Epicur Pharma, Case No. CV 21 942533 (Ohio Ct. of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., Jan. 4, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
in sending unsolicited facsimiles to people and businesses who have
not given their consent.
On April 15, 2020, the Plaintiff received a single page facsimile
from the Defendant on its fax machine. The Plaintiff has no
business relationship with the Defendant, did not give the
Defendant its fax number, and has not consented to be sent a
facsimile.
According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely sends its
facsimiles to recipients where no relationship exists and sends
these facsimiles without prior consent to do so. The Defendant
continues to solicit businesses by sending these facsimiles
nationwide.
The Plaintiff was damaged by this facsimile by suffering a monetary
loss due to the facsimile, incurring the costs of the use of
facsimile paper, ink and toner, loss of employee time to review the
facsimile, invasion of privacy, nuisance, interruption of work,
trespass to its chattel by interfering with its office facsimile
used to aid patients, stress, aggravation, and because a violation
of the TCPA itself is a concrete injury, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a veterinary clinic in Solon, Ohio.
The Defendant manufactures and distributes pharmaceuticals to
customers nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
Michael L. Berler, Esq.
Michael L. Fine, Esq.
FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
767 East 185th Street
Cleveland, OH 44119
Phone: (216) 502-1055
Fax: (216) 566-9400
Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
STOP & SHOP: Mudry Employment Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ASHLEY MUDRY, on behalf of herself and all other
others similarly situated v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY
LLC, Case No. 159625/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York for the County of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 4,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00029 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
York Labor Law and its supporting regulations by failing to
reimburse the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
supermarket employees uniform maintenance expenses.
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC is a chain of supermarkets
located in the northeastern United States, headquartered in Quincy,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan T. Killeen, Esq.
Jason D. Burns, Esq.
Jonathan M. Weinberg, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309-6000
E-mail: brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com
jason.burns@morganlewis.com
jonathan.weinberg@morganlewis.com
SUPERIOR ROOFING: Companion Sues Over Unsolicited Facsimiles
------------------------------------------------------------
Companion Animal Hospital and Dr. Jeffrey D. Lubell, on behalf of
themselves and a Class of similarly situated individuals or
businesses v. Superior Roofing & Paving, LLC, Case No. CV 21 942533
(Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., Jan. 4, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act in sending unsolicited facsimiles to people and
businesses who have not given their consent.
On May 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs received a single page facsimile on
its fax machine, which is a physical machine and not a fax server.
The facsimiles received by Plaintiffs are identical, touting
Defendant as "Flat Roof Specialists" providing "commercial &
residential roofing solutions" and listing the various types and
benefits of services offered by Defendant. The Plaintiffs have no
business relationship with Defendant, did not give the Defendant
their number, and have not consented to be sent a facsimile.
According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely sends its
facsimiles to recipients where no relationship exists and sends
these facsimiles without prior consent to do so. The Defendant
continues to solicit businesses by sending these facsimiles
nationwide.
The Plaintiffs were damaged by this facsimile by suffering a
monetary loss due to the facsimile, incurring the costs of the use
of facsimile paper, ink and toner, loss of employee time to review
the facsimile, invasion of privacy, nuisance, interruption of work,
trespass to their chattel by interfering with their office
facsimile used to aid patients, stress, aggravation, and because a
violation of the TCPA itself is a concrete injury, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff Companion is a veterinary clinic in Solon, Ohio. The
Plaintiff Dr. Jeffrey D. Lubell is a podiatrist, with his office in
Euclid, Ohio.
The Defendant provides roofing and asphalt paving services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
Michael L. Berler, Esq.
Michael L. Fine, Esq.
FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
767 East 185th Street
Cleveland, OH 44119
Phone: (216) 502-1055
Fax: (216) 566-9400
Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
SUPRA SECURITY: Mendoza Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE ARAUZ MENDOZA, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. SUPRA SECURITY, INC., and ASDEL VAZQUEZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-20038-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 5, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant to recover monetary damages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for its
alleged willful violations of overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about July
2019 through the present and ongoing time as a non-exempt employee
who performed her duties as a security guard for the Defendants
within South Florida. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant did
not pay her lawfully earned overtime wages at one and one-half
times her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked over 40 in a
workweek.
Supra Security, Inc. provides premier security services. Asdel
Vazquez has operational control over the company and is directly
involved in decisions affecting employee compensation and hours
worked by employees.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
2847 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, FL 33020
Tel: (954) 361-8383
E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com
- and –
Isaac Mamane, Esq.
MAMANE LAW LLC
10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650
Miami, FL 33161
Tel: (305) 773-6661
E-mail: mamane@gmail.com
SWEATCO LTD: Faces Rivera Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MISMA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWEATCO LTD., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-000137 (Fla. Cir., January 5, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant illegally transmitted
automated text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 6059 in an attempt to promote its services.
Purportedly, the Defendant used a "long code" or a 10-digit phone
number, which is a platform that can transmit automated SMS text
messages en masse without any human involvement. Also, the text
messages appeared to be generically formatted and scripted which is
another indication that the Defendant used an "automatic telephone
dialing system."
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not obtain her express
written consent to transmit text messages on her cellular telephone
using an ATDS, thereby causing harm to the Plaintiff, including
invasion of her privacy and annoyance, and caused disruption to her
daily life.
On behalf of all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff
brings this complaint as a class action to seek for statutory
damages and other legal and equitable remedies from the Defendant
for their alleged illegal practices of transmitting advertising and
telemarketing text messages on their cellular telephone.
SWEATCO Ltd. offers consumers a means of obtaining good, services
and experiences ranging from high-tech shoes to iPhones, from
anti-gravity yoga classes to Apple Watches. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
TEXAS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Overtime to Nurses, Markray Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCIA MARKRAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEXAS HEALTH RESOURCES, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00012-L (N.D. Tex., January 5, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who worked with the Defendant as a Registered Nurse
from approximately November 2018 to November 2020, asserts that
although she consistently worked more than 40 hours in week, he was
not compensated by the Defendant for her overtime hours at one and
one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked
over 40 in a workweek.
Texas Health Resources provides a variety of medical services to
its patients in and around the Dallas area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, PC
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberly, TX 78676
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
TLW ENERGY: Faces Edge Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHARLES EDGE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TLW ENERGY SERVICES, LLC and TROY
WATKINS, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00003 (W.D. Tex., January 5,
2021) is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for their
alleged unlawful practices and policies in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from March 2019 through
the present as a flowback helper for three months then as a
flowback operator.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without being compensated by the
Defendant at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to maintain accurate time and pay
records and failed to post any notice.
TLW Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company. Troy
Watkins had the authority to hire and fire employees, supervised or
controlled their schedules or conditions of employment, determined
their rate or method of payment, and maintained their records.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana St., Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Tel: (713) 222-6775
Fax: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
TRICIDA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Tricida Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
TCDA) from September 4, 2019 through October 28, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Tricida securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Tricida Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient;
(ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not
accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release announcing that,
on July 14, 2020, the Company received a notification from the FDA,
stating that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the Company's
NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies that
preclude discussion of labeling and postmarketing
requirements/commitments at this time." Tricida stated that "[t]he
notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the
FDA." On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $10.56 per share, or
40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020.
Then, on October 29, 2020, Tricida announced an update on its
End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA regarding the veverimer
NDA, advising investors that the Company "now believes the FDA will
also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from
a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval
under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely
to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of
efficacy." Concurrently, Tricida disclosed that it "is
significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will
discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers
to potentially provide additional financial flexibility." On this
news, Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or 47.16%, to
close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member..
If you purchased Tricida securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/tricidainc-tcda-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-353/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) 2020 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. [GN]
TRICIDA INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Tricida, Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: TCDA) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Tricida between September 4, 2019 and October 28,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Tricida investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the
Company's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (ii)
accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not
accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On July 15, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing
that, on July 14, 2020, the Company received a notification from
the FDA, stating that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the
Company's NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies
that preclude discussion of labeling and post marketing
requirements/commitments at this time." The Company stated that
"[t]he notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by
the FDA." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.56 per
share, or 40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020.
Then, on October 29, 2020, the Company announced an update on its
End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA regarding the veverimer
NDA, advising investors that the Company "now believes the FDA will
also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from
a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval
under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely
to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of
efficacy." Concurrently, the Company disclosed that it "is
significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will
discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers
to potentially provide additional financial flexibility." On this
news, the Company's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or 47.16%, to
close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Tricida
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the March
8, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN]
TRICIDA INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Tricida,
Inc. ("Tricida" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: TCDA) for violations of
Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
4, 2019 and October 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 8, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3i4D405 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. Tricida's NDA submission for veverimer
was materially deficient as submitted to the FDA. The Company's
failure to produce a sufficient NDA for veverimer was likely to
result in the FDA not accepting the application. 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 Tricida, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
TSAR NICOULAI: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tsar Nicoulai Caviar,
LLC. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Tsar Nicoulai Caviar, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00030 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tsar Nicoulai Caviar -- https://www.tsarnicoulai.com/ -- provide a
quality caviar that rivals the traditional imported varieties and
offers an alternative to the caviar harvested from wild
sturgeon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
TWIN AMERICA: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIANO MIRABEL, WILLIAM
A. HYLTON, On behalf of themselves and all present and former
Dispatchers who worked for the Defendants from January 1, 2009 to
December 31, 20013, v. TWIN AMERICA LLC., TWIN AMERICA LLC., d/b/a
CITY SIGHTS, JAD TRANSPORTATION INC, JANET WEST and MARK
MARMURSTEIN, Case No. 1:15-cv-05086-ALC-KNF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting:
1. final approval of the Class under New York Labor Law
(NYLL) and of a certification of a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
2. final approval of the Class and Collective Action
Settlement and of the proposed Class Members to the
Settlement Agreement;
3. final Approval of Attorneys fees for Class Counsel;
4. approval of the Settlement Administrator's administration
fees;
5. final Approval of Service Awards; and
6. for whatever other remedies the Plaintiffs may be entitled
to.
The Settlement Agreement:
-- The gross settlement agreed to by the parties is
$499,000.00. This gross sum covers and encompasses
compensation for the named plaintiffs, all preliminary
class members, Attorneys' fees and costs as well as the
cost of administering the claim, to be paid to the
Claims Administrator.
-- The Settlement also provides for statutory penalties
for failure of the paychecks of the daily employees to
provide all the information required by NYSLL for the
22 daily workers. Because the Plaintiffs and the
preliminary class claimed that they were not paid 15
minutes for early arrival, the settlement also provides
for such. The $316,961.00 net distribution to the Class
covers all the damages each member of the preliminary
Class suffered, plus liquidated damages and statutory
penalties.
-- The two named Plaintiffs are allocated $10,000.00 extra
each as incentives for Class Representatives for the
time and efforts they put in the case during the
discovery phase. The total distribution to the
preliminary class with incentives to the two lead
plaintiffs equals a total of $336,961.00.
-- Attorneys' fees and expenses have been allocated
$148,573.00 and the balance of $13,466.00 will be used
towards Class Administration.
The Named Plaintiffs Mariano Mirabel and William Hylton brought
this action in 2015 seeking to represent themselves and similarly
situated dispatchers who worked for Twin America and/or JAD
Transportation, from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2013.
Including named Plaintiffs, there are a total of 45 Dispatchers who
are affected by the claimed violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. The
Plaintiffs who were non-exempt employees claimed that THE
defendants failed to pay them and other similarly situated
dispatchers who were paid on a daily basis overtime for hours
worked above 40 each week while scheduling them to work 10 hour
days.
The Defendants contend that during the relevant period, the
dispatchers were exempt employees and, therefore, paid properly
pursuant to both federal and state law.
By its Order dated September 18, 2020, the Court (i) granted
preliminary approval of the Class, (ii) Preliminarily concluded
that the Settlement Agreement is "fair, adequate and reasonable"
and granted preliminary approval of it, (iii) approved the Notice
of Settlement and the Final Approval Hearing to be disseminated to
Class members, (iv) appointed The Law Offices of Anthony Ofodile as
Class Counsel, and set the date of the final fairness hearing as
January 21, 2021, among others.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion dated Jan. 7, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2K0siLM at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony C. Ofodile Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY OFODILE
498 Atlantic Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Telephone: (718) 852-8300
TYCO FIRE: Settles PFAS Class Action With Over 270 Households
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Schulte at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that a company
known for mixing and testing firefighting foam containing "forever
chemicals" in northeastern Wisconsin settled with hundreds of
homeowners over contamination found in private drinking wells.
Tyco Fire Products, a subsidiary of Johnson Controls, is settling a
class-action lawsuit with 271 households for $17.5 million,
according to attorney Paul Napoli, of Napoli Shkolnik Law Firm.
Also named in the lawsuit are Chemguard Inc. and ChemDesign Inc.,
according to court documents.
Of the settlement, $15 million will be allocated for class-wide
claims, such as property damage, and $2.5 will be allocated for
individuals who have been diagnosed with testicular cancer, kidney
cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease and preeclampsia, the
release said.
Napoli said that residents could receive anywhere from $60,000 to
$70,000 per property, depending on the level of contamination, but
those determinations will be made by a special appointee of the
judge.
The settlement includes people who lived in Peshtigo between Jan.
1, 1965, and Dec. 31, 2020, and had a private well on their
property within the area bounded to the north by University Drive,
to the south by Heath Lane, to the west by Roosevelt Road and to
the east by the bay of Green Bay, according to court documents.
"This settlement marks a significant step in victims' efforts to
secure just compensation for those impacted by PFAS contamination
caused by (aqueous film-forming foam)," Napoli said in the release.
"But there is still more work to do as we continue to seek to hold
the manufacturers of these chemicals accountable for the harm
they've inflicted on individuals and the environment."
The settlement was submitted to Judge Richard B. Gergel of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, who is presiding
over cases nationwide involving PFAS contamination from
firefighting foam.
The class action was originally filed in December 2018 by Joan and
Richard Campbell of Peshtigo, whose private well was found to be
contaminated by PFAS.
Napoli is representing communities nationwide fighting against
pollution from firefighting foam, along with Rob Bilott of Taft
Stettinius & Hollister, who was prominently featured in the 2019
film "Dark Waters" about the discovery of PFAS contamination
sickening a community in West Virginia, according to a Time report.
Napoli said this settlement, which is the first involving aqueous
film-forming foam, is significant because it sets the stage for
future cases.
"If we extrapolate the numbers of what people will be getting to
the larger United States and other communities affected, these
manufacturers have a $300 billion problem," he said.
Napoli said that future cases involving foam will likely have to
follow suit with the settlement, because it's unlikely that a jury
would decide in favor of a company, based on the information he's
seen in cases like Peshtigo's.
"The facts of these cases and what these manufacturers knew and
failed to tell communities are bad facts for these defendants," he
said.
Tyco denied any wrongdoing in the case in a release, but
spokesperson Katie McGinty said during a news conference that the
company recognizes the burden that dealing with PFAS has put on the
community.
"This is an important part of our efforts to make this situation
right," McGinty said. "And we look forward to continuing to work
with our neighbors now to actually clean up and remediate PFAS and
restore clean and healthy water and soil."
The efforts to clean up the chemicals will in part consist of a new
water line to permanently provide clean drinking water to impacted
residents in Peshtigo, McGinty said, as well as soil remediation
and water filtration to remove PFAS.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of
man-made chemicals used for their water-and stain-resistant
qualities in products including clothing and carpet, nonstick
cookware, packaging and firefighting foam.
The chemicals are persistent, remaining both in the environment and
human body over time. Accumulation of the chemicals in the body has
been linked to cancer, studies have shown, or other adverse health
effects. The chemicals have also shown up in fish and deer, for
which the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has issued
advisories.
PFAS have been found in water across the state, including 52 sites
of fires where PFAS-containing foam was used to put out the flames,
landfills and spill sites.
The state's worst contamination is in Marinette and Peshtigo,
originating in the area around the Tyco Fire Products testing
facility, which was used to test firefighting foam for years before
the practice was ended in 2017.
The contamination in Marinette and Peshtigo requires remediation
and that drinking water be delivered to several homeowners who can
no longer safely consume water from their wells. In 2019, Johnson
Controls, Tyco's parent company, said it was setting aside $140
million for cleanup. Part of that money is what will be used to
help remediate water and soil in Peshtigo, McGinty said.
Tyco/Johnson Controls has also been referred by the DNR to the
state Department of Justice, alleging the company waited four years
to report the release of hazardous chemicals at its plant in
Marinette. That release resulted in some residents unknowingly
drinking water that was contaminated.
More recently, the company has pushed back against the DNR after
the agency called for testing more private wells in the Peshtigo
area. The company said the DNR had not worked to identify other
parties that could be responsible for the contamination. The DNR
ended up paying for the testing late last year, and PFAS were found
in wells, some at elevated levels.
McGinty said the company is not responsible for the PFAS in those
wells, saying that their makeup is more like the chemicals used in
consumer products like Scotchgard or Teflon.
Tyco not first company to settle
Tyco's settlement with residents in northeast Wisconsin is not the
first PFAS-related settlement. In 2017, DuPont and Chemours settled
3,550 lawsuits for $670.7 million related to contamination from a
plant in West Virginia, first run by DuPont and later Chemours,
according to a report from Delaware Online.
The contamination there stemmed from PFOA, one of the most
well-researched PFAS compounds. The compound was used to make
Teflon -- a nonstick coating used on products including cooking
pans -- which was released into water and air surrounding the
plant.
DuPont has also settled other cases, according to Delaware Online,
including another 2017 settlement with Kenneth Vigneron, who
alleged PFOA exposure caused his kidney cancer. Vigneron lived
miles from the West Virginia plant and was awarded $10.5 million in
punitive damages, as well as $2 million in compensatory
damages.[GN]
UMW INC: Macedo Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UMW, INC. The case is
styled as Israel Macedo, and all others similarly situated v. UMW,
INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00040 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 4, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Umw, Inc. -- https://umw-inc.com/ -- was founded in 2005. The
company's line of business includes manufacturing industrial
machinery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Syed Haseeb Hussain, Esq.
440 N. McClurg Ct. #803
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (818) 600-5535
Email: syed@pricelawgroup.com
UNITED STATES: Kusel Seeks to Certify Class of Afflicted People
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Kusel v. United
States of America, Case No. 5:21-cv-03007-SAC (D. Kan.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of
afflicted people.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nApqmy
at no extra charge.[CC]
UPS INC: Faces Proposed Class Action Over Alleged COVID Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinekwu Osakwe at Reuters reports that a former UPS employee
claims in a proposed class action lawsuit that the company created
a public nuisance by failing to protect workers in California
against the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lawsuit was originally filed in California state court on Oct.
30 but was removed to federal court in San Francisco at the request
of UPS, which is represented by Rachel Brass of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher. [GN]
V&O MONTALVAN: Faces Giron Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
TRANSITO GIRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. V & O MONTALVAN FENCE CORP., and OSCAR MONTALVAN, as an
individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-06379 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 2020) seeks
to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay
overtime wages and failing to provide written notice and accurate
wage statements.
Mr. Giron was employed by the Defendants from in or around December
2014 until in or around July 2020 whose primary duties were fencing
and cementing services, cleaning and performing other miscellaneous
duties.
V & O Montalvan Fence Corp. is a fence contractor in Uniondale, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Rd., Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
VAIL CORPORATION: Court Junked Kurtz Class Suit with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA KURTZ, individually,
and as a representative of a Class of Participants and
Beneficiaries, on Behalf of the Vail Resorts 401(k) Retirement
Plan, v. THE VAIL CORPORATION, Case No. e 1:20-cv-00500-RBJ (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order:
1. granting the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint, and dismissing case with prejudice;
2. that judgment is in favor of the defendant and against the
plaintiff;
3. that the defendant is awarded its reasonable costs to be
taxed by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
The Defendant Vail moved, pursuant to Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6), to dismiss the Amended Complaint. In support of this
motion, Vail submits the following points and authorities and
respectfully requests the opportunity to discuss these points and
authorities at oral argument.
This action arises from the 401(k) plan that Vail offers to its
employees, known as the Vail Resorts 401(k) Retirement Plan (the
Plan). One of Vail's responsibilities under Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is to select and monitor the
Plan's menu of investment options to enable participants to choose
the ones that suit their retirement needs and objectives. The menu
offered 27 mutual funds with different strategies. Some of the
funds tried to match the return of a specific index (a passively
managed fund) and others tried to outperform an index (an actively
managed fund). Vail let all participants choose the options that
best suited their investment style and objectives.
This lawsuit seeks to deprive participants of choice by having the
Court require that the Plan offers only passively managed funds
with the lowest possible cost. The Amended Complaint alleges that
Vail breached its fiduciary duties.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 6, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nth1BB at no extra charge.[CC]
VOLVO GROUP: Cotton-Thomas Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORETHA COTTON-THOMAS,
Individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees, v. VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00113-GHD-RP (N.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
issue an order:
1. authorizing this case to proceed as a collective action
for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of:
"all individuals Volvo employed on an "hourly-paid" basis
employed at its parts distribution center in Byhalia,
Mississippi and who utilized the Defendant's SAP (TM)
timekeeping system within the three years preceding the
filing of this action";
2. directing the Defendant to immediately provide a list of
names and last known addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses, dates of employment, and social security
numbers for all putative class members;
3. requiring notice be prominently posted at the Byhalia
facility, attached to each currently employed putative
class member's next scheduled paycheck, and mailed to
putative class members so they can timely assert their
claims as part of this litigation; and
4. deeming Opt-in Plaintiffs' consent forms be deemed "filed"
on the date they are postmarked.
Volvo Group manufactures automobiles. The Company offers heavy
trucks, engines, and auto parts and accessories. Volvo Group North
America serves clients worldwide.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 7,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2XsAnfr
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, are:
George B. Ready, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
175 East Commerce St.
P.O. Box 127
Hernando, MS 38632
Telephone: (662) 429-7088
E-mail: gbready@georgebreadyattorneys.com
- and -
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER,
HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: rmorelli@jsyc.com
WALMART INC: Mays Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LERNA MAYS and LARRY ROACH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., formerly
known as WAL-MART STORES, INC. and DOE ONE through and including
DOE ONE-HUNDRED, Case No. 20STCV37527, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00015 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code by failing to furnish itemized, accurate wage
statements to its employees, including the Plaintiffs.
Walmart, Inc., formerly known as Wal-Mart Stores, 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 Defendant is represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
- and –
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-7900
Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
WALMART INC: Settles Employees' Class Action for Up to $14 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Walmart has agreed to shell out between $10
million and $14 million to settle a class action claiming it
stiffed employees in the armed services on pay when they took
short-term military leave. [GN]
WEST COAST SAFES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
West Coast Safes, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. West Coast Safes, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-11080 (S.D. N.Y., Dec. 30, 2020).
West Coast Safes, Inc. is a safe & vault shop in Ontario,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue
Ste 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
WEST ROAD: Calhoun Asks Court to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samantha Calhoun, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. West Road Pizza
Stop, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-12661-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order notifying the
following employees:
"all current and former delivery drivers employed at the
Defendants' Sammy's Pizza stores between the date three years
prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of the
Court's Order approving notice."
This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at Defendants' Sammy's Pizza franchise stores. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery drivers are
all employed according to the same terms: they receive minimum wage
minus a tip credit for all hours worked while completing
deliveries, they drive their own cars to deliver the Defendants'
pizzas, and they are not properly reimbursed for their delivery
related expenses. The Plaintiff claims that these employment terms
result in a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to Send Notice to Similarly
Situated Employees dated Jan. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nxdYrY at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
990 Monroe Ave., N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 458-6814
E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com
- and -
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
WESTERN DIGITAL: Settles Gender Bias Class Action for $7.75MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mellor at blocksandfiles.com reports that final approval has
been granted to a Western Digital settlement of a class action
lawsuit, which accused the company of underpaying female staff and
discriminating against them in pay, promotions, and placement.
Western Digital will pay $7.75m - $5m to 1863 female employees, and
most of the rest to their law firm. In addition, the company will
undertake "sweeping programmatic measures to help eliminate gender
disparities and foster equal employment opportunity going
forward".
The lawsuit was bought by Yunghui Chen, who joined WD's Audit
Department in 2005 and resigned in September 2016, having been
promoted to Internal Audit Manager in 2008.
She alleged that Western Digital "paid her $30,000 less than her
male counterparts performing equal and substantially similar work
and refused to promote her to Senior Manager, despite promoting
similarly situated, less-qualified men."
Her class action lawsuit, filed in May 2019, stated: "Men dominate
Defendants' leadership and management. Upon information and belief,
the overrepresentation of men in Defendants' leadership is both the
source and product of continuing systemic discrimination against
female employees."
Also, Western Digital's "compensation, promotions, and placement
policies and practices have resulted in and perpetuated
longstanding, company-wide gender discrimination and sex-based
disparities with respect to pay, promotions, and job placement."
The company relies "on a tap-on-the shoulder promotion process that
disparately impacts women and encourages the predominantly male
management to engage in a pattern of disparate treatment. Rather
than posting open positions, managers evaluate which, if any, of
their reporting employees should be placed into them."
Where the money goes
The $7.75m settlement will be disbursed to several groups of
people;
$4,811,667 goes to California-based female employees of WD and
related companies at or below the senior management level after
November 1, 2012, and also to female employees of WD elsewhere in
the USA with similar posts since November 1, 2013,
$2,583,333 at a maximum goes to class counsel in attorneys fees,
$97,324 goes to them for for litigation costs,
$180,000 at maximum to Chen for her litigation costs,
$18,000 service award to Chen,
$50,000 for Class Administrator's fees and costs,
$75,000 for PAGA costs.
Any remaining money goes to a couple of legal aid charities.
The 1,863 individual class action members (plaintiffs) and they
will get $3,615 each on average. The precise amount will depend
upon their employment duration and pay rate.
Interested parties with Pacer access can read the final settlement
document or by looking up Chen v. Western Digital Corp., C.D. Cal.,
No. 8:19-cv-00909, final approval of class settlement 1/5/21. [GN]
WESTJET AIRLINES: B.C. Supreme Court Gives OK to Baggage Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doyle Potenteau at globalnews.ca reports that a class-action
lawsuit against WestJet Airlines has been given the green light by
B.C.'s Supreme Court.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice J. Francis ruled in favour of plaintiff
Phebe-Joy Trotman, who was seeking a class proceeding against
WestJet regarding its baggage-fee charges from 2014 to 2019.
In the lengthy court ruling, which can be viewed here, the
plaintiff claimed that WestJet charged a baggage fee during a time
period when customers would not have to pay a fee for their first
checked bag.
"The plaintiff claims that, by charging fees for baggage carriage
in a manner contrary to WestJet's own tariffs, WestJet violated the
Competition Act, breached its contract with its customers, and was
unjustly enriched," the court ruling explained.
The decision also noted that "by law, every commercial airline in
Canada must publish tariffs, which form part of the airline's
contract with each of its customers."
It said for domestic flights, the requirement to publish and
display tariffs is set out in the Canada Transportation Act. For
international flights, the requirement is set out under Air
Transportation Regulations.
The court decision went into detail about WestJet's baggage fees,
noting that "from October 2014 to March 2016, WestJet's domestic
tariff contained conflicting provisions with respect to the price
of the first checked bag on a domestic WestJet flight."
For example, it said, "the carrier will accept one piece of checked
baggage without charge for a passenger only for the flight on which
the passenger is travelling."
The court decision also said WestJet's international tariff
contained a similar inconsistency from January 17, 2016, until
March 2019.
The court noted that Section 54 of the Competition Act "makes it an
offence for a merchant to express two or more prices to a customer
at the time of purchase and to charge the higher price."
The decision also described WestJet's arguments, but the court
ultimately sided with Trotman, stating "I find that the plaintiff
has met the requirements for certification set out in s. 4 of the
(Class Proceedings Act). Accordingly, I certify this matter as a
class proceeding."
The court then said the parties shall set a case management
conference to take place within 90 days.
Global News reached out to WetJet regarding the court decision, but
the company declined comment, stating the matter is still before
the courts. [GN]
XILINX INC: Sandhu Challenges Proposed $35-Bil. Sale to AMD
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gurinder Sandhu v. Xilinx, Inc., Dennis Segers, Victor Peng, Raman
Chitkara, Saar Gillai, Ronald S. Jankov, Mary Louise Krakauer,
Thomas H. Lee, Jon A. Olson and Elizabeth Vanderslice, Case No.
5:20-cv-09440 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2020) is an action brought by
the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, against Xilinx, Inc. and the members of Xilinx's Board of
Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Xilinx will be acquired by Advanced
Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) through AMD's wholly owned subsidiary
Thrones Merger Sub, Inc.
On October 27, 2020, Xilinx and AMD issued a joint press release
announcing that they had entered into an agreement and plan of
merger dated October 26, 2020 to sell Xilinx to AMD. Under the
terms of the merger agreement, each holder of Xilinx common stock
will receive 1.7234 shares of AMD common stock for each share of
Xilinx common stock they own. Upon closing of the merger, Xilinx
stockholders are expected to own approximately 26% of the
outstanding shares of AMD common stock and AMD stockholders
immediately prior to the merger are expected to own approximately
74% of the outstanding shares of AMD common stock. The proposed
transaction is valued at approximately $35 billion.
According to the complaint, on December 4, 2020, AMD filed a Form
S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC. The S-4, which recommends
that Xilinx stockholders vote in favor of the proposed transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the Company's and AMD's financial projections; (ii) the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinions provided by the Company's financial
advisors, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and BofA Securities Inc.; and
(iii) Morgan Stanley's potential conflicts of interest. The
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading S-4
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
In short, unless remedied, Xilinx's public stockholders, including
the Plaintiff, will be irreparably harmed because the S-4's
material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making
a sufficiently informed voting decision on the proposed
transaction, the suit says.
Xilinx, Inc. is an American technology company that is primarily a
supplier of programmable logic devices. The company invented the
field-programmable gate array. It is the semiconductor company that
created the first fabless manufacturing model.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
- and -
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-1869
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: raymond@bespc.com
YUMMY FOODS: Underpays Deli Employees, Galindo Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE GALINDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YUMMY FOODS DELI CORP. (D/B/A YUMMY FOOD
DELI), FOUAD HAMOUD HADWAN, TAWFIQ HADWAN, and MOE M. CASH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00045 (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers appropriate
minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that they worked.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a grill man at
Yummy Food Deli in New York from approximately February 15, 2020
until on or about October 12, 2020.
Yummy Foods Deli Corp. is a company that owns, operates, or
controls the Yummy Food Deli located at 2445 Frederick Douglass
Blvd., New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
[*] 25 Major Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits Filed in 2020
------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy R. Thomas, Esq. -- nthomas@mofo.com -- Ani Oganesian, Esq. --
aoganesian@mofo.com -- and Zachary Maldonado, Esq. -
zmaldonado@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article
for Lexology, report that add a 270% increase in data breaches to
the long list of unprecedented challenges in 2020. Cybersecurity is
on the short list of major risks facing companies. And when a
security incident happens, class actions often follow. Although
data breach class actions are not new, we continue to see increases
in the number of cases filed, evolving theories from plaintiffs'
counsel, and the development of settlement templates in these
cases.
Class Action Filing Trends
We count 25 major data breach class actions filed this past year,
treating multiple cases filed against a single defendant as one
major class action. Here's what we are seeing in these cases:
Plaintiffs' counsel jockey for position. More than one case was
filed in response to over half of the data breaches that led to
class actions in 2020. Three of these sets of cases were the
subject of MDL proceedings; ten of them were consolidated. The
remaining two cases are in the very early stages, so we expect
consolidation in 2021.
There continues to be a race to the courthouse in these cases. One
of the cases was filed the day after the defendant announced the
breach. Many were filed within two to three weeks of disclosure.
Jockeying takes time. Defendants have either responded or filed an
initial motion in only a third of the data breach cases filed this
year. The rest are still in the very early stages. On average, it
was about five months between case filing and the filing of
defendant's response to the complaint.
What was stolen. In a majority of the class actions, the allegedly
compromised data was limited to payment card information. Courts
have recognized that payment card information is less sensitive
than other types of personal data, given that consumers are not
liable for fraudulent use of the cards and that consumers can
replace their credit cards. About a third of the cases involved
alleged exfiltration of social security numbers. Sensitive medical
information allegedly was at issue in only two of the major breach
cases filed this year.
Who was impacted. Plaintiffs in about 15% of the major data breach
cases were employees. In the rest of the cases, plaintiffs were
customers, patients, users, account-holders, or individuals who
accessed defendants' payment platforms.
Possible arbitration defense. Defendants in several of the major
data breach class actions filed this year have moved to compel
arbitration. These motions have yet to be fully briefed or decided,
but we can see that defendants are turning to alternative dispute
resolution in response to these lawsuits.
The Privilege Wars Continue
We continue to see fierce litigation over whether companies can
protect reports prepared by incident response consultants hired by
counsel. The decisions in In re: Capital One Customer Data Security
Breach Litig., E.D. Va., No. 1:19-md-02915, are illustrative.
The Capital One court issued different rulings with respect to two
different reports. First, the district court required Capital One
to disclose an incident report prepared by its cybersecurity firm
in the wake of a 2019 data breach, finding the report was not
protected by the work product doctrine. A few months later, the
court ruled that Capital One did not have to disclose a root cause
analysis of the same breach incident prepared by its consulting
firm, finding the report was protected as attorney work product.
A few high-level takeaways from these rulings:
Pre-existing relationships with forensic firms require additional
focus. In denying work product protection for the cybersecurity
firm's report, the court pointed to Capital One's pre-existing
relationship with the firm. Although Capital One entered into a new
letter agreement among itself, counsel, and the cybersecurity firm
for the incident-response work, the fact that Capital One engaged
the firm to perform what Capital One saw as the same essential work
before the incident convinced the court that Capital One failed to
satisfy its burden of proving that the cybersecurity firm's work
was commissioned for the litigation. In contrast, Capital One hired
the consulting firm several weeks after the incident was disclosed
and after dozens of lawsuits had been filed. The court agreed that
the "driving force" of the consulting firm's report, which outlined
the root causes of the security incident, was to inform the Board
and executives about the incident so they could manage the
litigation.
Companies should be prepared to prove purpose. The court put the
burden on Capital One to prove the relationship between the report
and the anticipated litigation. The court found the consulting
firm's report was protected based on declarations from those
involved in the hiring of the consulting firm, establishing that
the hiring decision was directly tied to the ongoing litigation.
Companies should limit dissemination. In evaluating each report's
purpose and whether any privilege had been waived, the court looked
to how widely the report had been disseminated. Providing the data
security firm's report to third parties precluded Capital One from
arguing the report was privileged and led the court to find it was
not work product. In contrast, Capital One's strong evidence
proving the purpose behind the consulting firm's report shifted the
analysis to whether Capital One waived privilege by disseminating
the report. The court found that privilege had not been waived
because Capital One limited dissemination of the consulting firm's
report to the Board, which had fiduciary obligations to provide the
report to select employees and third parties.
Settlement Trends
A few takeaways from the 13 settlements in data breach class
actions in federal court this year:
Settlement structure is fairly well settled. We continue to see
data breach settlements follow one of two well-developed templates:
injunctive relief and offer of credit monitoring services combined
with either a claims made settlement with a cap (four settlements)
or a settlement fund (nine settlements).
Time spent litigating doesn't seem to impact settlement value.
Conventional wisdom says aggressive litigation leads to more
favorable settlements. Not so much in the data breach space. The
average per-person all-in settlement amount was fairly constant
across major breaches regardless of time spent litigating. So cases
that resolved before briefing any major motions or engaging in
discovery settled for about the same per-settlement class member
cost as settlements reached after two or three years of battle (and
related litigation costs).
Nature of exfiltrated data doesn't seem to impact settlement value
either. Sensitivity of exfiltrated data doesn't seem to impact
settlement value. Whether the data was credit card data, social
security numbers, health data, or some combination of those types
of data, the per-person settlement cost was about the same.
Few objectors or appeals. In most of the cases, no class members
filed objections. In the few cases in which objections were filed,
the number of objectors was very small, less than 0.05% of all
class members, on average. Objectors filed appeals in two of the 13
settled cases.
What to Watch for in 2021
We'd expect the enormous increase in security incidents this year
to lead to even more data breach litigation in 2021. Watch for
plaintiffs' counsel to continue to try to get around the challenges
in bringing these cases and certifying a class, including by
continuing to attempt to prove intrinsic value of personal
information. We also will be watching the Supreme Court's ruling in
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, in which the justices will again
consider whether plaintiffs may pursue a damages class action where
the vast majority of the class did not suffer any injury or did not
suffer an injury like that suffered by the class representative.
We've been down this path before with Spokeo, so we'll see if we
get any more clarity from the Supreme Court that shapes the data
breach class action landscape. No matter how the ruling comes out,
though, we can look forward to another busy year for data breach
class actions in 2021. [GN]
[*] Legislation Changes Led to Increase of Pension Fund Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Moss, writing for IPE, reports that changes in legislation
like the UK's Consumer Rights Act 2015 have led to an increase of
class actions led by pension funds as they seek to recover
investment losses.
As the roll call of household names which have been hit by class
action claims -- Volkswagen, Facebook, and Tesco, to name a few --
gets longer by the day, pension funds seem to be more comfortable
about their involvement in this form of litigation.
Most of these claims are still being filed in US courts because of
the legal framework helps facilitate them and because many of the
companies are American.
Even so, European pension funds are seeing more of the action.
"Over the past five years, institutional investors in Europe have
been increasingly willing to become active," says Jeroen van
Kwawegen, partner in the New York office of law firm Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann (BLBG). "European investors are in some
ways in the driving seat behind the litigation because they are
seeing such big losses."
He points out that some European pension funds have much greater
net assets than their US counterparts, partly because of mandatory
contributions and their defined benefit status.
Furthermore, retirement systems in the US are run on a company or
state, rather than federal, basis. That means they have fewer
participants than their European counterparts. The latter are often
industry-wide schemes or cover public sector employees across an
entire country.
And, says van Kwawegen, European pension funds have a more holistic
approach: themes such as sustainability and environmental, social
and governance investing are near the top of their agenda.
Increasingly, therefore, investors are starting to use class
actions as a corporate governance tool as well as a means to
recover monetary losses.
"We see litigation as a way to engage with a company," says Hans
Ek, BLBG's senior adviser for European investor relations.
"So-called 'punishment litigation' is a way to recover losses, but
our clients might want to stay invested. Negotiating a settlement
means they can demand improvements in governance which help reduce
risk."
He suggests that using litigation this way can help level up
cultural differences between European countries in terms of a
pension fund's influence over company governance.
Ek -- formerly deputy CEO and head of corporate governance, legal,
sustainability and staff at SEB Investment Management -- says: "If
you are a Scandinavian pension fund and have a question about risk
in a local investment, you ring the company chairman and get a
meeting. So litigation is not necessarily needed in that case. But,
in other countries, it can be of use because you do not have the
same informal contact."
One reason that UK -- and other European -- pension funds might
have been reluctant to take companies to court is that it may
reflect badly on them, says David Scott, partner with law firm
Scott+Scott.
KEY POINTS
Class actions can lead to compensation for losses caused by fraud
or misconduct
European institutions are increasingly driving US lawsuits
Litigation is being used as a governance tool
"There has long been a fear in the pension fund industry that
trustees who are trying to get money back from a company are
anti-company, passing judgement on wrongdoers," he says. "But this
is an opportunity to collect money."
In any case, for some claims, judgement may already have been
passed by authorities other than the courts.
Five banks - Barclays, Citibank, Royal Bank of Scotland (now
NatWest), JPMorgan and UBS - are being sued in the UK for the
unlawful rigging of foreign exchange markets by some of their
employees between 2007 and 2013, which damaged a large number of
financial institutions.
But before the action had first been filed, the banks had been
fined both by the UK Financial Conduct Authority, the European
Commission and the US Department of Justice.
Jeroen van Kwawegen
The claim is being brought through the UK's Competition Appeal
Tribunal (CAT) under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which made
it possible to initiate 'opt-out' class actions for breaches of
competition law.
In this fraud, pension fund clients using the banks' exchange rate
services had been uniquely targeted. "The predictability of the
funds' cash flow, with the same amounts of money coming out at the
same time each month, would have made pension fund transactions an
easy target for the conspirators, who were colluding with each
other to the detriment of the pension schemes," says Scott, who is
leading the claim, having successfully led a similar claim in the
US.
Michael O'Higgins, former chair of the UK's Pensions Regulator
(TPR) and current chair of the Local Pensions Partnership (LPP),
has filed the claim. "The question is not, why would you bring a
claim in the courts, but, why wouldn't you?" he says.
An important aspect of the CRA is that it requires third-party
funders to support claimants. These entities take a percentage of
any payout, but shoulder the legal fees, regardless of the case's
success.
The advent of third-party funding from investment firms such as
Therium -- which is supporting the claimants in O'Higgins' foreign
exchange fraud lawsuit -- has made legal action more realistic for
investors.
It is being increasingly used across Europe, with funders
especially active in the Netherlands, Germany, the Nordic region
and Spain.
David Scott
As with US class actions, any institution which has allegedly been
damaged by a defendant can sign up after the court has issued its
final ruling.
Again as in the US, classes in the UK are formed on an opt-out
basis, but only for UK institutions. Non-UK entities must opt in --
for example, in the case of the foreign exchange fraud, they must
opt in and register on the claim website www.ukfxcartelclaim.com to
participate.
"The act changed the balance of risk and for a pension fund, the
process is risk-free," says O'Higgins. "It also allows a case to go
ahead without all potential claimants being identified before the
judgement, so there is no need to sign up in advance, unless you
are non-UK domiciled."
Not only is it a case of having nothing to lose, O'Higgins suggests
that pension fund trustees might be failing their fiduciary
obligations - or just common sense obligations - to beneficiaries
if they do not participate, whether as a plaintiff or a passive
class member.
In spite of a legal framework that has not historically been
particularly investor-friendly, European jurisdictions have notched
up notable successes in recent years.
Royal Bank of Scotland agreed a £800m (EUR870m) settlement in the
UK high court in 2016, to compensate investors who had subscribed
to a rights issue just before the bank was bailed out, while in
2018 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal approved a EUR1.3bn settlement
between the successor to the Fortis financial services group and
investors who had suffered losses from the group's collapse.
In Germany, interest in group lawsuits has increased over the past
decade, as investor losses caused by company misconduct have
mounted up.
The first large institutional investor claim exceeding EUR1bn was
filed in 2009, against Hypo Real Estate.
"With the VW Dieselgate case and Wirecard case, the losses and
destroyed market capitalisation have been rising exponentially,"
says Marc Schiefer, a lawyer at TILP Litigation, which is about to
initiate German proceedings against Ernst & Young, Wirecard's
auditors. "Claims against large institutions in Germany for
potential wrongdoing in securities have not been just a flash in
the pan. The awareness of investment funds regarding their duty to
act for their investors and take an informed decision has
increased." [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***