/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 13, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 4 Headlines ACCC GENERAL: Flores Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice ACTIVUS DIGITAL: Sends Unauthorized Telephone Calls, Landy Alleges ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Murray Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ALLSTATE CORP: Morgan Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA ALLSTATE CORP: Sanford Heisler Files $70-MM ERISA Class Action AMERICAN AIRLINES: Cleary Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina AMERICAN NATIONAL: Zuk Sues Over Wrongful Overdraft and NSF Fees ARX FIT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Scott Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages BERRY CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 21 Deadline BIOGEN INC: Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. Files Securities Class Action BLACKBAUD INC: Duranko Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina COLBURN ELECTRIC: Robertson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages COMPASS: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Business Practices CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Tartaglione Suit CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA: Lewis Suit Tossed; May Refile by Feb. 26 COPPOLA'S TUSCAN: Fusugio Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages COVIA HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of February 8 Deadline CPK MEDIA: Paguada Files Suit in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation DENTAL CARE: Paras Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info DETROIT CAREGIVERS: Wheeler Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan EAGLE BANCORP: Class Action Stayed Pending Outcome of Mediation ERIE INSURANCE: Sulimay's Hair Suit Transferred to W.D. Penn. FORSTER & GARBUS: Singer Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois GENFIT S.A.: Schwartz Slams Share Drop Over Failed Cholesterol Drug GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Joint Status Report in Angeles Class Suit Ordered GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, See Says HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE: Faces Moore Suit Over Unwanted Robocalls HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: Sahli Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois IRON MOUNTAIN: Settlement in Modica Labor Suit Wins Final Approval JANUS OF SANTA CRUZ: Brown Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Udani Class Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J. JOYY INC: Berger Montague Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline JOYY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 19 Deadline JOYY INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline KEURIG GREEN: Arent Fox Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling KEYME INC: Stanley Files ADA Suit in W.D. Tennessee KNOT STANDARD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York KROGER CO: Overcharges Insurance for Generic Drugs, Kirkbride Says LAGADA CORP: Nava Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages LAS VEGAS SANDS: Levi Named Lead Counsel in Daniels Securities Suit LAW OFFICES OF HAYT: Augustine Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Penn. LAW OFFICES OF HAYT: Hilliard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Penn. LLOYD'S LONDON: SA Palm Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir. MARCO DESTIN: Ramos Seeks Pay for Forced 2-Week Quarantine Period MASONITE CORP: Mendoza Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California MDL 2918: Filing of Second Amended Antitrust Suit Under Seal Denied MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Sanchez Allegs Unfair Debt Collection Acts MICROSOFT CORP: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration of Drifting Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on Sept. 23 MIDLAND CREDIT: Stoessel Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices MINIM PRODUCTIONS: Schwanke Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California MR. DAVID'S: Northbrook Slams Flooring Services Price Rigging NATIONAL EATING: Donors Sue Over Mismanaged Donations NAVY FEDERAL: Hart Files Personal Injury Suit in D. South Carolina NCAA: Fails to Protect Student-Athletes From Injuries, Meyer Says NEW HAMPSHIRE: Faces Class Action Over Failed Foster Care System NEW HOLLAND: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Tractors NORTHERN DYNASTY: Hymowitz Slams Share Drop Over Denied Permit OAKTREE SPECIALTY: Firefighters' Fund Seeks to Halt Merger Deal ONFIDO INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Sosa BIPA Suit, Court Says OREGON CARES: Faces Amended Race Discrimination Class Action Suit ORGAIN MANAGEMENT: Newton Sues Over Deceptive Protein Powder Labels PACIFIC PLUMBING: Alvarado Sues Over Failure to Pay Required Wages PARTS AUTHORITY: Jaime Suit Claims Underpayment of Delivery Drivers PEELED INC: Sanchez Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Green Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Colo. PNC BANK: Barli Ordered to Amend Complaint to Correct Deficiencies PROCTER & GAMBLE: Ogurkiewicz Sues Over Mislabeled Detergents PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Bid for Reply to Cowley Interrogatories Denied QIWI PLC: Faces Petruzzi Suit Over 20.6% Decline in Share Price QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action RATIO CLOTHING: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RAUSCH STURM: Schmitt Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nebraska RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein Sues Over FDCPA Breach RGS FINANCIAL: Judge Grants Class Cert. in Debt Notice Suit RIDDELL INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROYELLE LLC: Faces Heredia Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices SEACOAST CONSTRUCTION: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages SHAMROCK FOODS: Underpays Warehouse Staff, Fite Suit Alleges SHUTTERFLY INC: Blank Rome Attorneys Discuss BIPA Case Ruling SOLARWINDS CORP: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of March 5 Deadline SOLARWINDS CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 5 Deadline SOLARWINDS CORP: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 5 Deadline SOLARWINDS CORP: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of March 5 Deadline SOLARWINDS CORP: March 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set SOLARWINDS CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 5 Deadline STAFF MANAGEMENT: Silver Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois STATE AUTOMOBILE: Judge Tosses Covid-19 Coverage Class Action STATE AUTOMOBILE: West Virginia Court Tosses Amended Bluegrass Suit STATE OF NEW YORK: Shomo Files Prisoner Suit in S.D. New York SUNSWEET GROWERS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TRANSUNION LLC: Supreme Court to Hear Argument in FCRA Class Suit TRICIDA INC: Faces Pardi Suit Over 47.16% Drop in Stock Price TRITERRAS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline U.S. WINGS INC: Quezada Says Website Inaccessible to the Blind ULTA BEAUTY: Hansber Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California UNILEVER UNITED: Arroyo Files Fraud Suit in D. New Jersey UNITED PARCEL: Hess Employment Class Suit Goes to N.D. California UNITYPOINT HEALTH: March 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set USHEALTH ADVISORS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling VARIABLE ANNUITY: D.L. Markham Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties VITAL RECOVERY: Leibowitz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York WB STUDIO: Ettedgui Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. WELLS FARGO: Ibarra Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California WEST LIBERTY: Varnado Stayed Pending Illinois App. Ruling in Tims WESTERN REFINING: Caballero Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. WILLAMETTE VALLEY: Kelley Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime XENITH LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York [*] Generic Drug Manufacturers Face Price-Fixing Class Action [*] Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over COVID-19 Business Losses [*] Policy Reversals to Impact Private Class Action Litigation [*] Three Medical Device Manufacturers Face 15,000 Hernia Suits ********* ACCC GENERAL: Flores Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE FLORES, TODD SCHAFFER, CARLOS LEONARDO DELCID, LESLIE DIAZ, and MELANIE WHITCOMB, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ACCC GENERAL AGENCY, INC. D/B/A ACCC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00027 (S.D. Tex., January 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by failing to provide the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees a 60-day advance written notice about its closure or mass layoff. The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant until their termination, along with over 50 employees, on or about December 31, 2020. ACCC General Agency, Inc., conducts business as ACCC Insurance Company, is a provider of personal automobile insurance based in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq. KENNARD LAW P.C. 2603 Augusta Drive, 1450 Houston TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 742-0900 Facsimile: (713) 742-0951 E-mail: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com ACTIVUS DIGITAL: Sends Unauthorized Telephone Calls, Landy Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRENNAN LANDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACTIVUS DIGITAL, LLC d/b/a NATIONAL HOMEOWNER ADVOCATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00021-KLM (D. Colo., January 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed calls to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system without procuring prior express written consent. The Defendant caused the Plaintiff and the members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal injury including aggravation, nuisance and invasions of privacy, the suit says. Activus Digital, LLC, doing business as National Homeowner Advocates, is a telemarketing service provider in Windsor, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. Stephen A. Klein, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com sklein@woodrowpeluso.com ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Murray Files Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Miranda Murray, Rachel Soffin, Brandi Milford, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC, Groupe SEB USA, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00095-MHC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC -- https://www.all-clad.com/ -- is a U.S. manufacturer of cookware with headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Harper T. Segui, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP - NC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5003 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: dan@whitfieldbryson.com harper@wbmllp.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 222-2434 Email: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com ALLSTATE CORP: Morgan Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty Under ERISA ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY ELLEN MORGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, THE 401(K) COMMITTEE OF THE ALLSTATE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN; THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE ALLSTATE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ALLSTATE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN AND DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:21-cv-00044 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 4, 2021) seeks all damages from January 4, 2015 through the date of judgment resulting from Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions, as well as any and all other equitable or remedial relief for the Allstate 401(k) Savings Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the complaint, as fiduciaries, the Allstate Defendants must prudently curate the Plan's investment options. They must regularly monitor Plan investments and remove ones that become imprudent. Throughout the Class period, Allstate Defendants allegedly breached these fiduciary duties. In 2011, and again in 2017, they loaded the plan with a suite of poorly performing funds called the Northern Trust Focus Target Retirement Trusts. Allstate Defendants kept these funds throughout the Class period despite their continued under-performance. As a direct result of these breaches of the fiduciary duty to monitor, the Plan suffered substantial losses. Had Allstate and the other delegating fiduciaries prudently discharged their fiduciary monitoring duties, the Plan would not have suffered these losses, the suit says. The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook since 1967. Founded in 1931 as part of Sears, Roebuck and Co., it was spun off in 1993. The company also has personal lines insurance operations in Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barrow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com aparkhill@barnowlaw.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. Alexandra Harwin, Esq. David Tracey, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com aharwin@sanfordheisler.com dtracey@sanfordheisler.com - and - Kevin H. Sharp, Esq. Leigh Anne St. Charles, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7000 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com - and - Charles Field, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 577-4242 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 E-mail: cfield@sanfordheisler.com ALLSTATE CORP: Sanford Heisler Files $70-MM ERISA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP filed a class complaint on Jan. 5 in the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois alleging the ways in which the Allstate Corporation breaches basic fiduciary duties under ERISA and violates its employees' trust by mismanaging their retirement funds. Also named as defendants are the Plan committees and their members that provide investment advice and services to the Plan. The complaint alleges Allstate failed to remove from its employee retirement plan a suite of ten target retirement date funds that have underperformed their investment benchmarks and other similar collective investment funds significantly for a decade. The consequences to employees are substantial: the Allstate 401(k) Savings Plan has cost its employees millions of dollars in retirement savings. The complaint further alleges that Allstate arranged for two investment advisers, Financial Engines and Alight Financial Advisors, to sell investment advisory services to plan participants. Under those arrangements, Allstate allowed the two investment advisers to charge plan participants advisory fees that were much higher than the fees charged by competitors offering similar services. Additionally, Allstate condoned an arrangement in which Financial Engines shared its investment advisory fees with the Plan's recordkeeper. Although Allstate replaced Financial Engines with Alight Financial Advisors in 2017, Alight simply re-hired Financial Engines as a "sub adviser." Thus, says the complaint, the new arrangement added another layer of inefficiency that drove up the total fees. The Plan has approximately 44,000 participants and beneficiaries. David Sanford, chairman of Sanford Heisler Sharp and counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class, noted, "ERISA's fiduciary standards are strict and exacting. Since 2011, Allstate has offered its employees these poor-performing target retirement date options. Those options have been detrimental to the retirement savings of Plan participants. Allstate and the Plan committees should be held to the highest standard as fiduciaries." The complaint describes how Allstate employees invest billions of dollars in the company's Plan. Given the company's sophistication and extensive assets, employees trust Allstate to construct a stellar retirement plan. Yet, according to the complaint, Allstate failed to prudently monitor the investment performance of the Plan options as required by ERISA. As a result, Allstate kept funds despite chronic underperformance, causing the Plan, and hence participants, to suffer significant losses to their retirement savings. Charles Field, a partner at Sanford Heisler and counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class, added, "Plan participants have invested over $700 million in these ten target retirement date funds. As a fiduciary to the Plan, Allstate is obligated to monitor the Plan to ensure these investments are prudent. This obligation is especially critical where these ten funds make up almost a third of the Plan's assets. We allege that Allstate neglected their sacrosanct duties." As relief, Plaintiff and the class seek (1) approximately $70 million for financial losses to Plan participants and beneficiaries resulting from the Plan's underperforming investments and excessive fees; (2) reform to the Allstate Plan that would require divestiture of imprudent investments and ensure only reasonable investment advisory expenses; and (3) the removal of the fiduciaries who have violated their duties to the Plan's participants and beneficiaries under ERISA. About Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP is a national public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, San Diego, Nashville, and Baltimore. Sanford Heisler Sharp focuses on employment discrimination, wage and hour, whistleblower, criminal/sexual violence, and financial services matters. The firm has recovered over $1 billion for its clients through many verdicts and settlements. [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: Cleary Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Katherine M. Cleary, Eric Earll, William Cleary, Filippo Ferrigni, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Airlines, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-08139, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Jan. 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00019-P to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. American Airlines, Inc. -- https://www.aa.com/ -- is a major American airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick A DeBlase, Esq. Michael C Eyerly, Esq. DEBLASE BROWN EVERLY LLP 680 South Santa Fe Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90021 Phone: (310) 575-9955 Fax: (310) 575-9919 Email: deblase@dbelegal.com eyerly@dbelegal.com - and - Oren Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOAROFF AND ANDESRON LLP 90 Broad Street 10th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 200-6265 Email: ogiskan@gslawny.com The Defendant is represented by: Joshua G Hamilton, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 10250 Constellation Blvd, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 653-5509 Fax: (213) 891-8763 Email: Joshua.Hamilton@lw.com - and - David C Tolley, Esq. Gwyn Williams, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 948-6000 Fax: (617) 948-6001 Email: david.tolley@lw.com gwyn.williams@lw.com AMERICAN NATIONAL: Zuk Sues Over Wrongful Overdraft and NSF Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL ZUK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF MINNESOTA, Case No. 27-CV-21-34 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin Cty., Jan. 4, 2021) arises from the Defendant's routine practice of charging two or more fees, including overdraft fees and non-sufficient funds fees, on a single item. According to the complaint, the Defendant's practice breaches contractual promises, violates the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and/or violates Minnesota consumer protection laws. The Plaintiff does not dispute American National Bank's right to either: (a) reject a transaction and charge a single NSF Fee; or (b) pay a transaction and charge a single OD Fee on a transaction that actually overdraws the account. However, the Plaintiff does dispute American National Bank's ability to unlawfully maximize its already profitable account fees with deceptive practices that violate its contract. Specifically, American National Bank allegedly abuses its contractual discretion by: (a) processing transactions when it knows full well that a customer's account lacks sufficient funds; and (b) charging fees upon each reprocessing of the same item. American National Bank is a bank headquartered and with its charter and principal place of business in Baxter, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. Christopher P. Renz, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave. S., Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2138 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com jbores@chestnutcambronne.com crenz@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgpld@kalielpllc.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. Jeffrey Bils, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com Jeff@kicklawfirm.com ARX FIT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arx Fit, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Arx Fit, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00142 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ARX Fit -- https://arxfit.com/ -- is an Austin, Texas-based motorized resistance and computer software company which engages in solving problems in the health industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD: Scott Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Scott, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Baltimore County, Maryland, Case No. 1:21-cv-00034-SAG (D. Md., Jan. 5, 2021) is a collective action complaint arising from the Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation and all lawful wages due under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Mr. Scott was incarcerated in the Baltimore County Detention Center from on or about December 5, 2019 to March 12, 2020. The Department of Corrections, at all material times, has supplied work release labor to staff in part the recycling program operated by DPW at its Materials Recovery Facility in Cockeysville, Maryland. Mr. Scott was employed by the Defendant at the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Solid Waste recycling facility throughout the time he was incarcerated at the Detention Center. Baltimore County is the third-most populous county located in the U.S. state of Maryland and is part of the Baltimore metropolitan area and Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard B. Hoffman, Esq. Jordan S. Liew, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLC 600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone: (301) 251-3752 Facsimile: (301) 251-3753 - and - Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq. 401 Washington Avenue, Suite 400 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (443) 862-0062 BERRY CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 21 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Jan. 5 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. BABA Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11943&wire=1 BRY Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11943&wire=1 GDRX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11943&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA) BABA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 20, 2020 - November 3, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 12, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11943&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Alibaba Group Holding Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company in which Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest, did not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's initial public offering was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) 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. Berry Corporation (NASDAQ:BRY) Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased: (a) Berry common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018; or (b) Berry securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates inclusive Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11943&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (i) Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry's operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. GoodRx Holdings, Inc (NASDAQ:GDRX) GDRX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 23, 2020 - November 16, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 16, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11943&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, GoodRx Holdings, Inc made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants' knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical business, and their misleading statements about GoodRx's competitive position made contemporaneously with that knowledge, defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements alleged herein were made willfully and caused GoodRx common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] BIOGEN INC: Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lowey Dannenberg P.C., a preeminent law firm in obtaining redress for consumers and investors, has filed a federal securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of its client and all similarly situated investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Biogen, Inc. ("Biogen" or "Company") (NYSE: BIIB) from October 22, 2019 to November 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action alleges violations of the federal securities laws. Biogen is a Delaware Company headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Biogen develops, discovers, and manufactures therapies for the treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative diseases, as well as autoimmune and hematologic disorders. One of the Company's principal products in development is aducanumab, which is an investigational drug studied for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease -- an irreversible and progressive degenerative disorder and the leading cause of dementia. The Complaint alleges Biogen made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements concerning: (1) Study 302, viewed independently, did not provide strong evidence that supported the effectiveness of aducanumab; (2) Study 103 did not provide supportive evidence of the effectiveness of aducanumab; (3) Study 302 could not be considered as primary evidence of effectiveness of aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in light of the results of the exploratory analyses of Study 301 and 302 and the results of Study 103; (4) the totality of the data did not provide sufficient evidence to support efficacy of aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you have suffered a net loss from investment in Biogen's common stock from October 22, 2019 to November 6, 2020, you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a Lead Plaintiff, by contacting Christian Levis at clevis@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7220 or Andrea Farah at afarah@lowey.com or by calling 914-733-7256. The class action is titled Shapiro v. Biogen Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-10017 (D. Mass). [GN] BLACKBAUD INC: Duranko Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Christina Duranko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blackbaud, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-01966, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00054-JMC to the proceeding. The case alleges contract violations. 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: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLP 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 877-5220 Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com COLBURN ELECTRIC: Robertson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- James Robertson, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Colburn Electric, LLC (a/k/a Colburn Air, Colburn Electric Company, and/or Colburn Aircom), Case No. 4:21-cv-00010-CVE-CDL (N.D. Okla., Jan. 8, 2021) is brought pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act, for the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek as an employee of Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per seven-day workweek but was not paid time and one-half his respective regular rate of pay for those overtime hours worked. Instead, the Plaintiff generally received his respective day rate pay only for work performed for Defendant without being paid any overtime premium pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a crew member performing work relative to 5G tower upgrades and related services. The Defendant provides residential and commercial electrical installation, service, and repair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone (214) 251-4157 Facsimile (214) 261-5159 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com COMPASS: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- TheRealDeal reports that a former Compass agent has accused the New York brokerage of using "bait-and-switch" tactics to lure him and other agents from competitors. In a lawsuit filed in California, J. Gregory Maffei alleged Compass utilizes "unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices" designed to gain market share by recruiting agents with an "empty promise." [GN] CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Tartaglione Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed the lawsuit styled RENEE TARTAGLIONE, Petitioner v. WARDEN EASTER, Respondent, Case No. 3:20-CV-1165 (CSH) (D. Conn.). At the commencement of the action, Petitioner Renee Tartaglione was an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut ("FCI Danbury), a low-security facility at which conditions were the subject of a class action lawsuit pending before Judge Michael P. Shea of the District (Whitted v. Easter, et al., No. 3:20-cv-569 (MPS)). In that class action, in which the Petitioner was a member, class member prisoners sought home release from FCI Danbury due to their medically vulnerable health conditions and resulting concerns regarding exposure in that facility to the COVID-19 pandemic. On Sept. 19, 2020, Judge Shea approved the settlement agreement in the class action litigation. Thereafter, the Petitioner's request for home confinement was set to be reviewed, consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. On Aug. 11, 2020, Tartaglione remained imprisoned, awaiting resolution of her request for home release. On that date, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241, she filed a habeas corpus petition with the Court, asserting that her constitutional rights were being violated in the execution of her 82-month sentence during the pandemic. Specifically, the Petitioner alleged that she was endangered by the possibility of contracting COVID-19 because she was a few months short of being 65 years old with severe thyroid issues since she was young. In response to the Petition, Respondent Diane Easter, Warden of FCI Danbury, moved to dismiss the present action on multiple grounds. With the Respondent's consent, the Plaintiff successfully moved three times for extensions to respond to the Respondent's motion to dismiss; and the final deadline Tartaglione sought and secured for her response was Dec. 30, 2020. On Dec. 16, 2020, Tartaglione, through counsel, sought withdrawal of her Petition in the present action, stating that she had been released by the Bureau of Prisons to home confinement. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, she filed a Notice to seek a dismissal without prejudice. Senior District Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr., notes that in the case at bar, other than an "Appearance" of the counsel for Warden Easter and a "Motion to Dismiss", the Respondent has filed no pleadings -- specifically, no answer or a motion for summary judgment under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). As the District has repeatedly held, it is clear that service of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not prevent a plaintiff from filing a 41(a)(1)[(A)](i) voluntary dismissal. Applying Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B) to the case at bar, the Plaintiff is entitled to voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Judge Haight also notes that the Respondent has filed no objection to the "Notice of Withdrawal of Petition" so there has been no showing of substantial prejudice to the Defendant. In addition, because the Petitioner has received her requested relief, there is no evidence that there will be a need for a second lawsuit, much less any other legal prejudice to the Respondent. Accordingly, under the factors of Zagano v. Fordham University, 900 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1990), and applicable Second Circuit precedent, the Court finds that dismissal of the instant action without prejudice is warranted. Alternatively applying Rule 41(a)(1) and/or 41(a)(2), the Court dismisses the action without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 5, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3643vrq from Leagle.com. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA: Lewis Suit Tossed; May Refile by Feb. 26 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order dismissing complaint with leave to amend in the lawsuit entitled DARONTA T. LEWIS v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Case No. 20-cv-06112-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Lewis raises a series of unrelated claims in his 54-page complaint against his former jailors at West County Detention Center in Richmond, California. The claims include (i) unclean and unsafe cells, claims he wishes to bring as a class action; (ii) excessive force; (iii) denial of court access; (iv) violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act; (v) due process and equal protection violations; and (v) medical care claims. District Judge William H. Orrick holds that it is improper, citing Rule 20(a)(2) Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint by Feb. 26, 2021. In the amended complaint, Lewis must decide which of his claims to pursue. The amended complaint should be no longer than 10 pages in total. Failure to file a proper amended complaint by Feb. 26, 2021, or failure to comply with all the instructions given in the Order, may result in the dismissal of this suit and the entry of judgment in favor of the Defendants, Judge Orrick rules. According to Judge Orrick, Lewis may not bring unrelated claims in one suit. Federal pleading rules require that claims be based on "the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and pose a "question of law or fact common to all defendants." In his amended complaint, he must decide which claim he wishes to pursue, such as excessive force or denial of court access or denial of appropriate housing, for example. He may then allege facts that give rise to that claim and any other claim that is closely related to the facts involved, as required by Rule 20(a)(2). Furthermore, the Plaintiff's claims cannot proceed as a class action because pro se prisoner-plaintiffs cannot bring such suits, Judge Orrick states. A layperson cannot adequately represent the interests of a class. The rule becomes almost absolute when, as in the case, the putative class representative is imprisoned and proceeding pro se. Accordingly, Lewis can proceed pro se here only on claims that his individual rights were violated. Permission to proceed as a class action is denied. Lewis has filed a motion asking the Court to prevent the West County Detention Facility ("WCDF") from tampering with his mail. The motion is denied as moot because he is no longer housed at WCDF. Therefore, the Court ruled that the complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint by Feb. 26, 2021. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (20-06112 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear on this Court's form. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, Lewis must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. He may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Furthermore, the amended complaint should be no longer than 10 pages in total. Lewis need not file any exhibits or declarations with the new complaint, having submitted many pages of exhibits and declarations with the prior complaint. If he states cognizable claims in the amended complaint, he will be allowed to file additional pages of material if necessary. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with all these instructions may result in dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 5, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4yoce67 from Leagle.com. COPPOLA'S TUSCAN: Fusugio Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- RASIEL FUSUGIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COPPOLA'S TUSCAN GRILL, LLC (d/b/a COPPOLA'S EAST), and SALVADOR COPPOLA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00068-JPC (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay at applicable minimum hourly rate, failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to pay spread-of-hours wages, failure to provide written notice of rate pay, failure to furnish wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Mr. Fusugio was employed as a dishwasher and delivery worker at Coppola's East, a restaurant located at 378 Third Avenue, New York, New York from approximately December 2018 until on or about September 12, 2020. Coppola's Tuscan Grill, LLC, doing business as Coppola's East, is an Italian Restaurant owned by Salvador Coppola located at 378 Third Avenue, 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 COVIA HOLDINGS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of February 8 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming February 8, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Covia Holdings Corporation ("Covia" or the "Company") f/k/a Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount Santrol") (OTC: CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA, FMSA) securities between March 15, 2016 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Covia investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. Covia provides minerals and materials solutions for the industrial and energy markets, including producing proprietary sand for use in fracking. On March 22, 2019, after the market closed, the Company disclosed that it had "received a subpoena from the SEC seeking information relating to certain value-added proppants marketed and sold by Fairmount Santrol or Covia within the Energy segment since January 1, 2014." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.45, or 7%, to close at $6.05 per share on March 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors. Then, on November 6, 2019, during market hours, Covia disclosed that "the SEC ha[d] requested additional information and subpoenaed certain current and former employees to testify." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.07, or 4.3%, to close at $1.56 per share on November 6, 2019, thereby injuring investors further. Then, on June 29, 2020, after the market closed, the Company announced that it had filed for petitions under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On June 30, 2020, the NYSE delisted the Company, stating in relevant part that "the Company is no longer suitable for listing . . . after the Company's June 29, 2020 disclosure that the Company filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.18, or more than 37%, between the closing price on NYSE and resuming trading OTC on July 1, 2020 at $0.30 per share. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Covia's proprietary "value-added" proppants were not necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; (2) Covia's revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary "value-added" proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3) when Covia insiders raised this issue, defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the issue; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Covia securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 8, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] CPK MEDIA: Paguada Files Suit in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CPK Media, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CPK Media, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00146 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CPK Media, LLC d/b/a Christopher Kimball's Milk Street -- https://www.177milkstreet.com/ -- is a U.S. based company that provides ideas and techniques through its cooking classes, public television and radio shows, cookbooks, magazines and other publications, subscription-based content and other related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com DENTAL CARE: Paras Sues Over Failure to Protect Patients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- NIKI PARAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENTAL CARE ALLIANCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00056-MLB (N.D. Ga., January 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect its consumers' private information. The highly sensitive information of the Plaintiff and other consumers such as protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) were compromised following a data breach involving the Defendant's servers between September 18, 2020 and October 13, 2020. The Defendant also failed to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff and Class members are now at an increased risk of identity theft as a result of the Defendant's negligent conduct, the suit says. Dental Care Alliance, LLC is a provider of practice support services to dental practices, with its principal place of business located in Sarasota, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Bosseler, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30343-1007 E-mail: gbosseler@forthepeople.com - and – John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-2434 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and – Gary E. Mason, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dlietz@masonllp.com - and – Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com DETROIT CAREGIVERS: Wheeler Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Detroit Caregivers Center Association, LLC. The case is styled as Khari Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Detroit Caregivers Center Association, LLC doing business as: Green Cross, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-10032-SFC-KGA (E.D. Mich., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Green Cross is a cannabis dispensary located in the Detroit, Michigan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com EAGLE BANCORP: Class Action Stayed Pending Outcome of Mediation --------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Medici, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports that a class-action lawsuit against Bethesda's Eagle Bancorp (EGBN: NASDAQ), as well as current and former executives, alleging false statements that inflated the bank's stock, has been stayed pending the outcome of a mediation. The mediation announcement, which came in the form of a court order filed Dec. 27, also comes with a Jan. 25 date by which the parties need to update the court on any process. The order states that both parties have agreed to schedule mediation with a neutral third party in the spring of 2021. The mediation and new court order come as the case has dragged on for months. A motion to dismiss by EagleBank has been pending since June 15. The lead plaintiff, Anthony Casinnelli, has since died, according to a November order, with Danilee Cassinelli assuming the role of the lead plaintiff. EagleBank declined to comment. The lawsuit had named current EagleBank CEO Susan Riel, current Chief Financial Officer Charles Levingston, former CFO James Langmead and former General Counsel Laurence E. Bensignor as defendants. The original claim was that EagleBank "made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operational and compliance policies" that had inflated its stock price. The lawsuit had originally been filed in the days after EagleBank first announced it was the subject of government investigations, which sent its stock plummeting. The lawsuit also pointed to the bank's upward revisions in its related-party transactions reported in its 2018 annual annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That lawsuit had widened earlier in 2020 to include founder and former CEO Ron Paul's personal business empire, including a protracted legal battle for control by Paul and EagleBank over coworking company MakeOffices. The amended suit also alleges EagleBank played a role in financing real estate projects that Paul personally backed through his own private firm, RDP Management, and his use of trusts and limited liability companies that the plaintiff claims helped avoid scrutiny from federal regulators. Paul resigned suddenly in March 2019, citing health issues. The bank filed a motion April 2 to dismiss the lawsuit, and both parties have been filing a series of motions and countermotions, but a judge had yet to rule on any of them. The lawsuit is separate from ongoing government investigations the bank had said in previous SEC filings were about "the company's identification, classification and disclosure of related party transactions; the retirement of certain former officers and directors; and the relationship of the company and certain of its former officers and directors with a local public official." Riel had previously said witness testimony had wrapped up in a second-quarter earnings call. [GN] ERIE INSURANCE: Sulimay's Hair Suit Transferred to W.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sulimay's Hair Design Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02731, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00015-MRH to the proceeding. The case arises from insurance-related issues. Erie Insurance -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- is a publicly held insurance company, offering auto, home, commercial and life insurance through a network of independent insurance agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Arnold Levin, Esq. Fred S. Longer, Esq. Laurence S. Berman, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Richard M. Golomb, Esq. 121 South Broad Street, Suite 910 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 985-9177 FORSTER & GARBUS: Singer Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus LLP, et al. The case is styled as Chava Singer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forster & Garbus LLP, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00087 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Forster & Garbus LLP -- https://payfgny.com/ -- provides legal services. The Company specializes in collecting debts.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GENFIT S.A.: Schwartz Slams Share Drop Over Failed Cholesterol Drug ------------------------------------------------------------------- Daryl Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Genfit S.A., Jean-Frangois Mouney, Nathalie Huitorel, Xavier Guille Des Buttes, Catherine Larue, Anne-Helene Monsellato, Frederic Desdouits, Florence Sejourne, Philippe Moons, SVB Leerink LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., H.C. Wainwright & Co., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Bryan, Garnier & Co Limited and Natixis, Defendants, Case No. 657123/2020, (N.Y. Sup., December 18, 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. Genfit is a French biopharmaceutical company that develops therapeutic and diagnostic solutions for metabolic, inflammatory, and autoimmune or fibrotic diseases affecting primarily the liver and gastro-enterology. Genfit's lead pipeline product candidate is "Elafibranor," for its effects against bad cholesterol. In March 2019, Genfit announced its intention to issue and sell, subject to market and other conditions, 5,000,000 of its ordinary shares in a global offering to specified categories of investors, comprised of an initial public offering of American Depositary Shares (ADSs), each representing one ordinary share, in the United States, and a concurrent private placement of ordinary shares in Europe (including France) and other countries outside of the United States. On May 11, 2020, during after-market hours, Genfit issued a press release announcing results from an interim analysis of the Phase 3 study of elafibranor that disclosed that it did not demonstrate a statistically significant effect on the primary endpoint of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis resolution without worsening of fibrosis. On this news, Genfit's ADS price fell $14.90 per share, or 67.73%, to close at $7.10 per share on May 12, 2020. As of the time this complaint was filed, the price of Genfit ADSs continues to trade below the IPO price of $20.32 per share, damaging investors, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff acquired Genfit ADSs during the IPO and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false or misleading statements or material omissions. SVB Leerink LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., H.C. Wainwright & Co., Roth Capital Partners, LLC; Bryan, Garnier & Co Limited and Natixis were underwriters of Genfit's IPO of its American Depository Shares. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Email: peretz@bgandg.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael J. Wernke, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mjwernke@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Joint Status Report in Angeles Class Suit Ordered ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANJELIKA ANGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTH L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 6883 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York directed the parties to submit a joint status report within 48 hours of final resolution in Swetz v. GSK Consumer Health, Inc., No. 7:20-cv-04731 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2020). On Aug. 25, 2020, Angeles brought the proposed class action against GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") for deceptive trade practices and related claims. On Dec. 11, 2020, GSK requested, inter alia, that the Court stays the case pending resolution of an earlier-filed proposed class action, Swetz. By letter dated Dec. 29, 2020, the Plaintiff consented to a stay pending resolution of Swetz or, in the alternative, requested that the case be marked as related to Swetz. Following hearing from both parties at the conference held on Jan. 5, 2021, and on consent of the parties, the case is stayed. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2dovn9u from Leagle.com. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Undervalues "Total Loss" Vehicles, See Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- EVERETT SEE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 600109/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., January 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and violations of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive representation of insureds' total loss vehicle, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was involved in a car wreck and sustained physical damage to his vehicle on September 18, 2020. He made a property-damage claim to the Defendant and his vehicle was declared to be a total loss and the Defendant purported to offer him the actual cash value of his loss vehicle. GEICO represented that the base value of the Plaintiff's totaled vehicle was increased by $216.00 based on the condition of his loss vehicle, but in reality, the value of his total loss vehicle was decreased based on its condition. The issue was the valuation report provided by CCC Information Services, Inc. to GEICO for the calculation of benefit payment under the insurance policy. CCC systemically applies negative condition adjustments, which GEICO uses to undervalue claimants' total loss claims. Government Employees Insurance Company, conducts business as GEICO, is an automobile insurance company, with its principal place of business located at 5260 Western Avenue, Chevy Chase, Maryland. GEICO General Insurance Company is a provider of automobile insurance, with its principal place of business located at 5260 Western Avenue, Chevy Chase, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY 530 Fifth Ave—23 Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 223-0800 Facsimile: (212) 661-9860 E-mail: tmm@mullaw.org - and – Hank Bates, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE: Faces Moore Suit Over Unwanted Robocalls ----------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE MOORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. HEALTHCOMPARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. and MICHAEL RUSS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00042 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 4, 2021) seeks redress for the Defendants' wide scale illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. According to the complaint, HealthCompare Insurance Services, Inc., through its licensed insurance agent Michael Russ, engaged in a cold-calling, telemarketing campaign to promote HealthCompare's insurance services to persons who had no prior relationship with them. The Defendants did not have proper policies and procedures in place to ensure that they engaged in telemarketing in a manner that complied with federal law. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants on behalf of proposed nationwide classes of other persons who received calls during the campaign. HealthCompare Insurance Services, Inc. is a health insurance agency with a principal place of business in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING: Sahli Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stephanie Sahli, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals v. HOSPITAL HOUSEKEEPING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 2020-L-161 was removed from the Circuit Court of Williamson County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Jan. 8, 2021, and assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00016. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges in two separate cause of action that HHS has violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by: (1) failing to institute, maintain and adhere to a publicly available retention schedule for biometric identifiers or biometric information in violation of the BIPA; and (2) failing to obtain informed consent before obtaining biometric identifiers or information in violation of the BIPA.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mary A. Smigielski, Esq. Jennifer B. Pigeon, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 550 W. Adams St., Ste. 500 Chicago, IL 60661 Phone: (312) 345-1718 Email: mary.smigielski@lewisbrisbois.com jennifer.pigeon@lewisbrisbois.com IRON MOUNTAIN: Settlement in Modica Labor Suit Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JENNIFER MODICA, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current and former employees and as proxy for the LWDA, Plaintiff v. IRON MOUNTAIN INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00370-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiff Modica's Motion for Final Approval of Class and Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Payment. On Aug. 19, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement. The Plaintiff's Fee Motion and Motion for Final Approval were timely filed and posted to both the Court's website and the Settlement Claims Administrator's website for interested Class Members to review. No objections to the Plaintiff's motions were filed. The motions came on for hearing on Dec. 17, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Having fully and carefully considered the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval and Fee Motion, the memoranda and declarations in support thereof, the Parties' Settlement Agreement, and the oral arguments made at the hearing, Judge Nunley finally approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable law, and in the best interests of the Class Members. The Judge confirmed (i) Plaintiff Modica as the Class Representative; (ii) Mayall Hurley P.C., by and through Lead Counsel Jenny D. Baysinger and Robert J. Wasserman as the Class Counse; and (iii) Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions as the Administrator of the Settlement. The Judge finds that final certification as to the following classes and subclasses, collectively referred to as the Class is appropriate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: a. Class: All current and former California non-exempt employees of Defendant who (i) worked double time or used paid sick leave during a workweek when he/she also earned shift differentials, non-discretionary bonuses, or other remuneration on at least one occasion between Oct. 1, 2017 and March 13, 2020; and/or (ii) received a wage statement during a pay period when he/she either (a) earned shift differentials and/or (b) worked overtime between Jan. 22, 2018 and March 13, 2020; b. DoubleTime Subclass: All current and former California non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked more than twelve (12) hours in a workday and/or more than eight hours on the 7th consecutive day worked in the workweek during a workweek when he/she also earned shift differentials, non-discretionary bonuses, or other remuneration on at least one occasion between Oct. 1, 2017 and March 13, 2020; c. Sick Pay Subclass: All current and former California non-exempt employees of Defendant who were eligible for and used paid sick leave during a workweek when he/she also earned shift differentials, non-discretionary bonuses, or other remuneration on at least one occasion between Oct. 1, 2017 and March 13, 2020; d. Former Employee Subclass: All individuals who are members of the DoubleTime Subclass or the Sick Pay Subclass and separated from employment at any time between Oct. 1, 2017 and March 13, 2020; and e. Wage Statement Subclass: All current and former California employees of Defendant who received a wage statement during a pay period when he/she either (i) earned shift differentials and/or (ii) worked overtime between Jan. 22, 2018 and March 13, 2020. The Judge has reviewed Class Notice. He accepts the Administrator Declaration and the Supplemental Administrator Declaration and finds sufficient notice has been provided so as to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1). Only one Class Member, Jason Weisensell, submitted a valid and timely opt-out. As such, Weisensell will not be bound the Settlement and has not waived any of the Released Claims by virtue of the Settlement. None of the Class Members have raised any objection to the Settlement. The Settlement contemplates a PAGA allocation $10,000, which will be distributed $7,500 to the LWDA, and $2,500 to the Class. The proposed allocation is fair and reasonable, serves the deterrent and punitive purposes of the PAGA, is within the range commonly approved by state and federal courts, and is confirmed. The Judge also approved the following payments: (i) payment to the Administrator in the total amount of $14,000, to be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount; (ii) Service Payment of $15,000 to the Plaintiff, 1% of the Maximum Settlement Amount, for her service as the Class Representative; and (iii) the Class Counsel's request of attorneys' fees in the amount of 1/3 of the Maximum Settlement Amount, or $500,000, and declared costs of $16,000.05. Final Judgment is entered based on the Parties' Settlement. The Court retains jurisdiction, however, to enforce the terms of the Settlement, and ensure that its terms and the Order are carried out. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y26spod2 from Leagle.com. JANUS OF SANTA CRUZ: Brown Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled NICK BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JANUS OF SANTA CRUZ and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV02522, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Cruz to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00094 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay the applicable minimum wage, failure to pay all wages due upon discharge, failure to provide with meal periods, failure to provide with rest periods, failure to maintain records as required, failure to furnish timely, accurate, and itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful business practices. Janus of Santa Cruz is an addiction treatment center based in Twin Lakes, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Patrick Stokes, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 333 West San Carlos St., Ste. 1625 San Jose, CA 95110 Telephone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 E-mail: Patrick.Stokes@jacksonlewis.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Udani Class Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled NIMESH UDANI, as surviving son and statutory beneficiary for the wrongful death of GEETA UDANI, deceased, individually and on behalf of all other heirs of decedent v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-02340, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00222 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, strict liability for failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud for intentional misrepresentation, fraud for concealment, negligent representation, loss of consortium, wrongful death, survival action, and punitive damages. Johnson & Johnson is a medical device company based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., is a company that engages in the research and development of consumer staple products, with its principal place of business located in New Jersey. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael F. Healy, Esq. Emily M. Weissenberger, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: mfhealy@shb.com eweissenberger@shb.com - and – Michael C. Zellers, Esq. Amanda Villalobos, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 South Flower Street, 42nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 E-mail: michael.zellers@tuckerellis.com amanda.villalobos@tuckerellis.com JOYY INC: Berger Montague Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Berger Montague is investigating potential securities fraud claims against JOYY, Inc. ("JOYY" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased JOYY securities (NASDAQ: YY) between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased JOYY securities during the Class Period, have questions concerning your rights or interests, or would like to discuss Berger Montague's investigation, please contact attorneys Andrew Abramowitz at aabramowitz@bm.net or (215) 875-3015, or Donnell Much at dmuch@bm.net or (215) 875-4667, or contact us at www.bergermontague.com/joyy. A recently filed lawsuit accuses JOYY and its senior management of failing to disclose to investors that the Company's revenues were vastly overstated, that it was artificially inflating the number of users on its platforms, and that the Company's recent acquisition of Bigo Technology was effected to benefit corporate insiders, including JOYY's co-founder and CEO. According to the complaint, a report published on November 18, 2020 by research firm Muddy Waters Capital alerted the market to the truth about JOYY. The report accused JOYY of being "a multibillion-dollar fraud" and claimed that approximately 84% of its consolidated revenue was fraudulent. The extensive and highly detailed report also asserted, among many other things, that the Company overstated its revenues by using bots to create the appearance of traffic on its platforms and to conduct improper round-tripping transactions. Upon publication of the Muddy Waters report, the price of JOYY's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell $26.53 - or 26% - in a single day, from a closing price of $100.19 on November 17, 2020 to a closing price of $73.66 on November 18, 2020. If you purchased JOYY securities, including ADRs, during the Class Period, you may seek Court appointment as lead plaintiff to represent other injured investors in a class action. The lead plaintiff appointment deadline is January 19, 2021. You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to share in any potential Class recovery. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding JOYY, Inc. are encouraged to confidentially assist Berger Montague's investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under this program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to thirty percent (30%) of recoveries obtained by the SEC. For more information, contact us. Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., and San Diego, has been a pioneer in securities class action litigation since its founding in 1970. Berger Montague has represented individual and institutional investors for five decades and serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United States. Contacts: Andrew Abramowitz, Senior Counsel Berger Montague (215) 875-3015 aabramowitz@bm.net Donnell Much, Associate Berger Montague (215) 875-4667 dmuch@bm.net https://bergermontague.com/ [GN] JOYY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 19 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 JOYY Inc. ("JOYY" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:YY) from April 28, 2016, through November 18, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased JOYY securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit JOYY 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: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters Research, an equity research firm, published a report about JOYY titled: "YY: You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Well . . . Actually You Can." The Muddy Waters Research Report detailed a series of problems with JOYY. Specifically, the report stated that the Company is a multibillion-dollar fraud" whose component business are a "fraction of the size it reports." The Muddy waters report also noted that JOYY's "reported user metrics, revenues and cash balances are predominantly fraudulent." On this news, JOYY American depositary shares ("ADSs") price fell $26.53 per ADS, or 26% to close at $73.66 per ADS on November 18, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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 JOYY securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/joyyinc-yy-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-334/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP http://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] JOYY INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 5 disclosed that purchasers of JOYY Inc. f/k/a YY, Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) securities between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until January 19, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the JOYY securities class action lawsuit, Hershewe v. JOYY Inc., No. 20-cv-10611 (C.D. Cal.), which is assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. The JOYY class action lawsuit charges JOYY and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased JOYY securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the JOYY 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 JOYY class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the JOYY class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the JOYY class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the JOYY class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the JOYY class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the JOYY class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than January 19, 2021. JOYY purports to operate a social media platform in the People's Republic of China and internationally. JOYY describes itself as operating live streaming platforms, including: (a) YY Live, an interactive and comprehensive live streaming social media platform offering music and dance shows, talk shows, outdoor activities, and sports and anime; (b) Bigo Live, which enables users to live stream their specific moments and talk live with each other; and (c) Huya, a game live streaming platform. JOYY also operates short-form video platform, such as Likee, a short-form video social platform that produces, uploads, views, shares, and comments on short-form videos on a daily basis. The JOYY class action lawsuit alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (ii) the majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) JOYY utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (iii) JOYY overstated its cash reserves; (iv) JOYY's acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and (v) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters Research published a report alleging that JOYY, among other things: (i) reported fraudulent revenue; (ii) had component businesses that were a fraction of the size that it reported; and (iii) had acquired Bigo as part of a scam that benefitted corporate insiders. Specifically, the Muddy Waters report alleged that up to 90% of JOYY's live revenue was fake and that the financial statements for the top five JOYY live channel owners showed an 85.9% revenue discrepancy when compared with JOYY. Moreover, according to the report, JOYY engaged in a roundtripping scheme where the majority of the live performers' gift revenue came from themselves and JOYY-controlled bots. In addition, Muddy Waters also examined JOYY's Chinese financial statements and allegedly discovered numerous cash discrepancies compared to those filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Finally, Muddy Waters examined JOYY's acquisition of Bigo and determined that the majority of Bigo's revenue was fraudulent and the acquisition was designed to enrich defendant David Xueling Li, JOYY's co-founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer. On this news, the price of JOYY's American Depositary Receipts fell more than 26%, damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action 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 Michael Albert, 800-449-4900 malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN] KEURIG GREEN: Arent Fox Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Jasnow, Esq., Anthony Lupo, Esq., and Matthew Mills, Esq., of Arent Fox, in an article for JDSupra, report that in September 2018, a consumer filed a putative class action in California against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. The consumer alleged that the company is participating in deceptive business practices by marketing, advertising, and selling single-serve coffee pods that are misleadingly labeled as "recyclable." After rejecting Keurig's motion to dismiss, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in September 2020. The Consumer's Allegations Some of Keurig's single-serve plastic coffee pods ("K-cups" or "Pods") are marketed, sold, and labeled as "recyclable." The consumer alleged that the Pods are, in fact, not recyclable because (i) less than 60% of municipal recycling facilities (MRF) will accept the Pods for recycling; (ii) the Pods' size prevents them from being properly sorted by recycling programs; and (iii) there is a lack of end markets to recycle the Pods. Based on the foregoing assertions, the consumer alleged seven causes of action in her complaint, including: "(i) breach of express warranty; (ii) violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (iii) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) based on fraudulent acts and practices; (iv) violation of UCL based on the commission of unlawful acts; (v) violation of the UCL based on unfair acts and practices; and (vi) unjust enrichment." Keurig's "Recyclable" Claims The US Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Green Guides establish standards for "recyclable" claims. Specifically, they "advise marketers to qualify recyclable claims when recycling facilities are not available to a 'substantial majority' of consumers or communities where a product is sold," and that 'substantial majority,' as used in this context, means at least 60 percent." The Guides further state that "if a product is rendered non-recyclable because of its size or components…then labeling the product as recyclable would constitute deceptive marketing." Keurig asserted that their Pods' labels are compliant with the Guides because they contain the proper qualifying statements. Specifically, along with the "recyclable" claims, Keurig's labels contained the statement "Check locally* to recycle empty cup," with the asterisk allegedly indicating to consumers that the Pods may not be "recycled in all communities." This argument failed, in part, because if, as the consumer alleges, the Pods' size and materials render them non-recyclable, then such a disclaimer could mislead a consumer into falsely believing that there is reason to check their local recycling facilities in the first place. As a result, the Court denied Keurig's motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint adequately alleged that the Pods' size and design render them non-recyclable; which, if true, would make their "recyclable" claims non-compliant with the Green Guides. Takeaway "Recyclable" claims and other "green" advertising claims are compelling to consumers, but they are also closely scrutinized by regulators and class action attorneys. In addition to "recyclable" claims, the FTC's Green Guides provide specific and detailed guidance on a large number of green claims including "compostable" and "degradable" claims, renewable energy claims, carbon offset claims, and the use of third-party certifications and seals of approval. Before disseminating any such claims, marketers should ensure that the claims are adequately substantiated and reflect FTC guidance. [GN] KEYME INC: Stanley Files ADA Suit in W.D. Tennessee --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KeyMe, Inc. The case is styled as Zachary Stanley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KeyMe, Inc., KeyMe LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02018 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. KeyMe Locksmiths -- https://key.me/ -- is a technology company that provides an app for copying keys and robotic kiosks for new key duplication.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lucas Sanderson, Esq. WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON & SANDERSON, P.C. 44 N. Second Street, Suite 502 Memphis, TN 38103 Phone: (901) 523-1844 Fax: (901) 523-1857 Email: luke@wcwslaw.com KNOT STANDARD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knot Standard, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Knot Standard, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00144 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Knot Standard -- https://www.knotstandard.com/ -- manufactures and sells apparels. The Company offers suits, shirts, blazers, trousers, ties, squares and scarves, gift packages, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com KROGER CO: Overcharges Insurance for Generic Drugs, Kirkbride Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDY KIRKBRIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, January 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant materially misrepresented and/or concealed the true usual and customary (U&C) prices of generic prescription drugs that are included in its Rx Savings Club (RxSC) program. The Defendant made such misrepresentations and/or omissions by reporting artificially inflated U&C prices for such drugs to third-party insurance providers (TPPs). As a result, the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers paid far more for generic drugs than they should have. The Kroger Co. is a company that owns and operates pharmacies at supermarkets, with its principal place of business located at 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Simpkins, Esq. CLIMACO WILCOX PECA & GAROFOLI CO., LPA 55 Public Square, Suite 1950 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 621-8484 Facsimile: (216) 771-1632 E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com - and – Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com - and – Joel D. Smith, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: jsmith@bursor.com LAGADA CORP: Nava Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- BERNADO NAVA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LAGADA CORP. (D/B/A RITZ DINER), DIMITRIOS SARAMPULOUS, and GEORGE KALOGERAKOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00016 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation, provide a written wage notice, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment to Plaintiff and others similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Mr. Nava was employed as a delivery worker, a cook, and a dishwasher at the Defendants' restaurant from approximately 2007 until on or about August 9, 2020. Lagada Corp., d/b/a Ritz Diner, owns, operates, or controls an American diner located in New York City.[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 LAS VEGAS SANDS: Levi Named Lead Counsel in Daniels Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE DANIELS FAMILY 2001 REVOCABLE TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., SHELDON G. ADELSON, and PATRICK DUMONT, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01958-GMN-EJY (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted Carl S. Ciaccio and Donald M. Desalvo's Motion for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Selection of Counsel. The matter concerns a federal securities class action by purchasers of Defendant Las Vegas Sands' securities between Feb. 27, 2016, and Sept. 15, 2020. The Plaintiffs claim the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Las Vegas Sands' business, operational, and compliance policies, which caused its share prices to decline and result in financial loss to the class members. Ciaccio and Desalvo move to be named as co-lead Plaintiffs in the securities class action. The Employees' Retirement System of the City of Providence also moved to be named lead plaintiff, but subsequently filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Ciaccio and Desalvo's Motion. In light of The Employees' Retirement System of the City of Providence's Non-Opposition, Magistrate Judge Youchah denied its Motion as moot. Ciaccio and Desalvo are presumed to be the most adequate Plaintiffs as they reviewed the complaint filed in the pending Action and have timely filed their motion pursuant to the Notice. Further, Ciaccio and Desalvo represent that there are no applicants who have sought, or are seeking, appointment as the Lead Plaintiff that have a larger financial interest and also satisfy Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate Judge Youchah now examines whether Ciaccio and Desalvo satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. She finds they make the preliminary showings necessary to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. First, Ciaccio and Desalvo's claims are typical of the class. That is, Ciaccio and Desalvo, like the other members of the Class, acquired Las Vegas Sands securities during the Class Period and were damaged thereby. Thus, their claims are typical, if not identical, to those of the other members of the Class because the losses they seek to recover are similar to those of other Class members and their losses result from the Defendants' common course of conduct. Second, Ciaccio and Desalvo's interests coincide with those of the other class members as these Movants seek to hold the Defendants liable for allege violations of federal securities laws. Further, they claim they will prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class. Considering the foregoing, and the fact no other class member has moved to rebut the presumption that Ciaccio and Desalvo are the most adequate members to represent the class, the Magistrate Judge granted Ciaccio and Desalvo's request to be appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of the class. At present, Ciaccio and Desalvo move to select Levi & Korinsky, LLP as the Lead Counsel, and the Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. as the Liaison Counsel. Having reviewed the Motion, the Magistrate finds that these firms appear capable of serving in their respective roles as they have extensive experience in complex securities class actions. She, therefore, granted Ciaccio and Desalvo's request for approval of the Lead Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxhj8j4y from Leagle.com. LAW OFFICES OF HAYT: Augustine Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE LAW OFFICES OF HAYT HAYT & LANDAU, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Augustine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE LAW OFFICES OF HAYT HAYT & LANDAU, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00024-CB (W.D. Pa., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hayt, Hayt & Landau -- https://www.haytlaw.com/ -- is a collection law firm with offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the central Jersey coastal town of Eatontown, north of Asbury Park.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Phone: (412) 545-3015 Email: jward@fentersward.com LAW OFFICES OF HAYT: Hilliard Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE LAW OFFICES OF HAYT HAYT & LANDAU, LLC. The case is styled as Jimmie Hilliard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE LAW OFFICES OF HAYT HAYT & LANDAU, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00081 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hayt, Hayt & Landau -- https://www.haytlaw.com/ -- is a collection law firm with offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the central Jersey coastal town of Eatontown, north of Asbury Park.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF FENTERS 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Phone: (412) 545-3015 Email: jward@fentersward.com LLOYD'S LONDON: SA Palm Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff SA Palm Beach, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SA PALM BEACH LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, and UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATES CNP 4444, AFB 2623, AFB 623, BRT 2987, BRT 2988, NEO 2468, SAM 727, AXS1686, XIS H4202, QBE 1886, DUW 1729, WBC 5886, CHN 2015, HDU 382, MSP 318, AGR 3268, APL 1969, ACS 1856, AMA 1200, TAL 1183 and PPP 9981, Case No. 9:20-cv-80677-UU, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 29, 2020, the lawsuit arises from the Defendants' refusal to provide coverage for business interruption related to COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated entities who have entered into standard all-risk commercial property insurance policies with Lloyd's with business interruption coverage, alleges that Lloyd's is obligated to pay the Plaintiff and other Class members for the full amount of the business income losses incurred and to be incurred in connection with the government's closure order during the period of restoration and the necessary interruption of their businesses stemming from executive orders intended to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic because these are insured losses under their policies. The Plaintiff claims that Lloyd's denial of coverage of the incurred business income losses breached its coverage obligations under the policies. The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2020, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and Final Judgment dated Dec. 21, 2020, declaring that the Plaintiff's losses incurred in connection with the closure order are not insured losses under the Defendants' policies and Defendants are not obligated to pay Plaintiff for any business income losses incurred in connection with the closure order with any of the allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint. The appellate case is captioned as SA Palm Beach, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd, et al., Case No. 20-14812, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Dec. 28, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before February 8, 2021; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on January 11, 2021, as to Appellant SA Palm Beach, LLC; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before January 25, 2021, as to Appellee Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SA PALM BEACH, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq. Paul J. Geller, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 120 E Palmetto Park Rd Ste 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com - and - James E. Ceechi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE BAIN GILFILLAN CECCHI STEWART & OLSTEIN 5 Becker Farm Rd Fl 2 Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP 58 S Service Rd Ste 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: srudman@csgrr.com - and - Michael Joseph Sacks, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL JOSEPH SACKS 7210 Wisteria Ave. Parkland, FL 33076 Telephone: (954) 575-8691 E-mail: msacks@bellsouth.net - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS, LLP 77 Water St Fl 8 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com Defendants-Appellees CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON and UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATES CNP 4444, AFB2623, AFB 623, BRT, 2987, BRT 2988, NEO 2468, SAM 727, AXS1686, XIS H4202, QBE 1886, DUW 1729, WBC 5886, CHN 2015, HDU 382, MSP 318, AGR, are represented by: Armando Pedro Rubio, Esq. FIELDS HOWELL, LLP 9155 S Dadeland Blvd Ste 1012 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (786) 870-5600 E-mail: arubio@fieldshowell.com MARCO DESTIN: Ramos Seeks Pay for Forced 2-Week Quarantine Period ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Ramos, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees v. MARCO DESTIN, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00064-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay Plaintiff her two weeks' pay while she was forced to quarantine due to a diagnosis or exposure to the Coronavirus or COVID-19, in violation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and specifically Division E of the FFRCA, "The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act." On September 20, 2020, the Plaintiff began experiencing the symptoms of COVID-19 and was tested for the same. On September 22, 2020, the Plaintiff's first COVID-19 test came back positive. The Plaintiff immediately informed her direct supervisor and was advised that she could not return to work until her test results came back negative. Accordingly, the Plaintiff took a second COVID-19 test, which returned a negative test result on October 10, 2020. The Plaintiff immediately advised her employer of her results. The FFCRA provides that employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of paid sick leave at the employee's regular rate of pay when the employee is unable to work because the employee is quarantined (pursuant to Federal, State, or local government order or advice of a health care provider), and/or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical diagnosis. However, despite testing positive for COVID-19 and being told to quarantine by a health care provider, the Plaintiff was not paid for her time away from work in violation of the FFCRA. The Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff in accordance with the FFCRA is not an isolated incident. The Defendant's policy is not to pay employees who must take time off due to a COVID-19 diagnosis, in violation of the FFCRA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly employee from 2018 to October 2020. The Defendant operates a network of beachwear and souvenir shops under the name "Alvin's Island".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 1992 Lewis Turner Blvd, Suite 1023 Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547 Phone: (850) 200-4594 Fax: (888) 988-6499 Email: mjackson@jackson-law.net MASONITE CORP: Mendoza Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JESUS MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MASONITE CORPORATION, Case No. CVR12000230, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00025 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 minimum and regular rate wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices. Masonite Corporation is a company that manufactures interior and exterior doors, door components, and door entry systems, headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Carlos Jimenez, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (213) 443-4299 E-mail: cjimenez@littler.com - and – Shiva Shirazi Davoudian, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: sdavoudian@littler.com MDL 2918: Filing of Second Amended Antitrust Suit Under Seal Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: HARD DISK DRIVE SUSPENSION ASSEMBLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All End-User Plaintiff Actions, Case No. 19-md-02918-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the End-User Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion Re Filing Document Under Seal, filed Dec. 3, 2020. In their Administrative Motion, the End-User Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal the unredacted version of the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("SACCAC"), on the ground that said pleading contains information designated as confidential by the Defendants. The Defendants have filed a response, to which the End-User Plaintiffs have replied. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, Judge Chesney finds that the only material in the SACCAC the Defendants assert should be filed under seal consists of the names of board members, officers, and employees of one or more defendants, which individuals are alleged to be participants in the antitrust conspiracy asserted in the SACCAC and who have not been indicted. As the End-User Plaintiffs point out, however, the names of the majority of such individuals, as well as an allegation that each such individual is a member of the asserted conspiracy, are already filed in the public record. Moreover, Judge Chesney finds, to the extent the names of any of the listed individuals are not already in the public record, the instant case is distinguishable from the cases on which the Defendants rely, and that they have every incentive to demonstrate the innocence of the subject board members, officers, and employees, as it is the conduct of such individuals on which their liability is based. Accordingly, the Judge denied the administrative motion. She directed the End-User Plaintiffs to file in the public record, no later than seven days from the date of the Order, the unredacted version of the SACCAC. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y27cvtc7 from Leagle.com. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Sanchez Allegs Unfair Debt Collection Acts ----------------------------------------------------------------- REGINA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00004 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2021) is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, arising from the Defendants' engagement in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. The Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in an effort to collect a debt alleged to be owed from Plaintiff. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC operates as an accounts receivable management firm. The Company focuses on pre legal, legal, and dismissed bankruptcy collection services. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau serves telecommunication, medical, and educational industries in the State of New York. [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 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: Files Motion to Compel Arbitration of Drifting Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Humphries, writing for PC, reports that in April last year, Microsoft was hit with a class-action lawsuit over so-called Xbox controller drifting. Now the company is attempting to get the lawsuit out of the courts and into arbitration. As VGC reports, Microsoft has filed a new motion in the case calling on the Washington Court to "compel arbitration." In other words, deny the plaintiffs a jury trial and force them to settle the dispute out of court using an impartial adjudicator. Microsoft believes it has a right to request this because each plaintiff agreed to the company's Services Agreement when choosing to purchase and use the controllers. "Plaintiffs repeatedly agreed not to bring a lawsuit like this in court," Microsoft explained in the motion. "Instead, they assented to the Microsoft Services Agreement ('MSA') and to warranty agreements in which they promised they would arbitrate disputes on an individual basis using a consumer-friendly process before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). The Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcing these agreements." The class-action lawsuit was originally filed by Donald McFadden in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington. McFadden owned two Xbox Elite controllers, both of which experienced analog stick drift within a few months of purchase. The lawsuit documents explain that within the stick, "the wiper component of the potentiometer scrapes resistive material off a curved track, resulting in unwanted electrical contact without input from the user," and that the fault has been present in controllers as far back as 2014. It isn't a problem you can fix with software or settings, a hardware repair is required. In October, McFadden's complaint was amended to add seven more plaintiffs and a jury trial was demanded. Microsoft is attempting to avoid such a trial which could prove very expensive if it lost. The decision is in the hands of the Washington Court now, and whether it accepts Microsoft's argument that the plaintiffs agreed not to sue the company. Meanwhile, Nintendo will be keeping a close eye on what happens with this dispute. [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set on Sept. 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CTV News reports that if you bought a PC between 1998 and 2010, chances are it came with Microsoft products already installed. And if it did, you could be eligible to get back hundreds of dollars without proof of purchase. A class-action lawsuit alleges that Microsoft and Microsoft Canada inflated prices and were engaged in anti-competitive behavior. As a result, Canadians are now eligible to get back up to $250, without a receipt, for PC versions of Microsoft software they purchased individually or that came pre-installed on computers. "It almost sounds too good to be true, but it is legit," said Carmi Levy, a tech expert and director with Info-Tech Research Group of London, Ont. The class-action that began in Canada 15 years ago has settled with Microsoft agreeing to pay an amount capped at $517 million with more than $400 million available for Canadians. Levy said "the allegation is that Microsoft drove prices up and reduced consumer choice." "The company admits no wrong doing here, but is paying the amount to avoid long-term litigation and just wants this chapter to be over with," said Levy. The eligible software includes Windows, Office, Word, Excel, Works Suite, Home Essentials and MS-DOS, among others. Naomi Kovak -- nkovak@cfmlawyers.ca -- a lawyer for Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP, one of the firms handling the settlement, said more than 150,000 Canadians have filed claims against Microsoft since the lawsuit's application period opened. "We know that most people don't have the proof of purchase for the products, so you can make a claim of up to $250 without receipts," Novak said. Companies that bought Microsoft software licences in bulk for multiple employees can file claims of up to $650 without receipts, but any claim above that number must include proof of purchase. To make a claim, go to the website www.thatsuitemoney.ca. After providing your contact information click on the products you purchased between December 23, 1998 and March 11, 2010. "I would just like to encourage people to go to the website and make their claims," said Novak. Claimants must swear the information is accurate. Levy says if you owned a computer at that time, it's worth checking. "If you bought a computer in that 12 year span you may as well take a look," said Levy. Canadians have until Sept. 23, 2021 to submit a claim, but the law firm say the claims process will not be completed until early 2022. After the end of the claims period, some K-12 schools and post-secondary institutions in Canada will be eligible to claim vouchers to purchase software if there are settlement funds remaining. With files from CTV's Brooklyn Neustaeter [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Stoessel Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chana Stoessel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:21-cv-00049 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021) arises from the Defendants' abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices that violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, on or about October 14, 2020, Defendant MCM sent the Plaintiff a collection letter on behalf of Defendant Midland regarding the alleged debt owed to Citibank, N.A. The Citibank, N.A. obligation arose out of transactions incurred primarily for personal, family or household purposes, specifically use of a Sears Mastercard. The letter provided an option that is not adequately explained and results in two different possible interpretations. By failing to explain whether the said option is a settlement option or a full pay option, the letter is false, deceptive and misleading, the suit says. Midland Credit Management, Inc. was founded in 1953. The company's line of business includes extending credit to business enterprises for relatively short periods. Midland Funding, LLC is one of the largest owners of unpaid debts in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MINIM PRODUCTIONS: Schwanke Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PAUL SCHWANKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MINIM PRODUCTIONS, INC., and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 20STCV40597, 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 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00111 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 provide compliant wage statements, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide pay proper overtime, failure to provide pay proper minimum wages, failure to provide timely wages, and failure to provide accurate payroll records. Minim Productions, Inc. is a production company based in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen L. Berry, Esq. Blake R. Bertagna, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 695 Town Center Drive Seventeenth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924 Telephone: (714) 668-6200 Facsimile: (714) 979-1921 E-mail: stephenberry@paulhastings.com blakebertagna@paulhastings.com MR. DAVID'S: Northbrook Slams Flooring Services Price Rigging ------------------------------------------------------------- Northbrook Park District, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mr. David's Flooring International, LLC, Diverzify+ LLC f/k/a Mr. David's Flooring International, LLC, PCI Flortech Inc., Vortex Commercial Flooring, Inc., Consolidated Carpet Associates, LLC, Michael P. Gannon, Delmar E. Church, Jr., Robert A. Patrey, Jr. and Kenneth R. Smith, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07538 (N.D. Ill., December 18, 2020), seeks damages resulting from violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as permitted in Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. Defendants are providers of commercial flooring services and products. Generally, commercial flooring providers remove any pre-existing flooring products at a job site, prepare a floor surface for installation and install new flooring products, including but not limited to carpet, wood, vinyl, tile and laminate flooring products. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully conspired and reached an agreement to rig bids and fix prices of commercial flooring services and products sold in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Northbrook Park District is a municipal corporation that is authorized by the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Silverman, Esq. Klint L. Bruno, Esq. THE BRUNO FIRM, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 321-6481 Email: msilverman@brunolawus.com kbruno@brunolawus.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. Michael J. Freed, Esq. Brian M. Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com mfreed@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com NATIONAL EATING: Donors Sue Over Mismanaged Donations ----------------------------------------------------- Sharon Hofstra Haugen and Debra Hope Armos, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA), Claire Mysko, Chevese Turner, and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-03667 (N.D. Tex., December 17, 2020), seeks a constructive trust on all assets of NEDA, return of all donations, and payment of attorney's fees, treble and exemplary damages and for whatever other relief for violation of the Charitable Trust Doctrine and the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act over fraudulent misrepresentations pertaining to donations on NEDA's website. Defendants allegedly engaged in fraud through non-disclosure, and misapplication of donations intended to be directed toward research and treatment of evidence-based medical and mental health treatment of eating disorders. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose all material information to its donors. NEDA is an organization advocacy for eating disorders prevention, supporting individuals and families affected by eating disorders, and serves as a catalyst for prevention, cures and access to quality care. Plaintiffs made financial donations to NEDA from September 1, 2018 to present and alleges that NEDA is soliciting donations that are being placed in its general operating account instead of the actual beneficiary. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin P. Nichols, Esq. THE NICHOLS LAW FIRM, PLLC 106 S. Saint Mary’s Street, Suite 255 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 354-2300 Email: justin@thenicholslawfirm.com - and - Steven R. Dunn, Esq. 5830 Preston Fairways Dallas, TX 75252 Telephone: (214) 769-7810 Email: steven@dunnlawfirm.net NAVY FEDERAL: Hart Files Personal Injury Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Navy Federal Credit Union. The case is styled as Maria Hart, Tracee Le Flore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:21-cv-00044-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Banks and Banking for Personal Injury. Navy Federal Credit Union -- https://www.navyfederal.org/ -- is a global credit union headquartered in Vienna, Virginia, chartered and regulated under the authority of the National Credit Union Administration.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Phone: (828) 258-2991 Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com NCAA: Fails to Protect Student-Athletes From Injuries, Meyer Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASON MEYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-00014-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Jan. 4, 2021) seeks to obtain redress for brain and other neurocognitive injuries sustained as a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Central Michigan University (CMU) student-athletes. According to the complaint, the repetitive and violent impacts to football players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms over time. Thus, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA allegedly knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries that resulted from playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries like those Plaintiff experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other CMU football players from the long-term dangers associated with them, the suit says. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana. The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who participate in intercollegiate athletics. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-9099 Facsimile: (713) 554-9098 E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com - and - Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Faces Class Action Over Failed Foster Care System ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ink Link reports that the state of New Hampshire routinely and unlawfully places abused and neglected older teens, many suffering from mental health issues, in institutions rather than with relatives who want them or with foster families, according to a class-action federal lawsuit. The class-action lawsuit was filed Jan. 4 in U.S. District Court by the ACLU of New Hampshire, the Disability Rights Center - NH, N.H. Legal Assistance, the national advocacy group Children's Rights, and the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP of New York, NY. It was filed on behalf of children ages 14 to 17 who are in the custody of New Hampshire's Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), have a mental health impairment, and are in, or are at risk of being placed in, an institutional or other group facility setting (also called "congregate care"). Gov. Chris Sununu was clearly angered by the lawsuit which he said was an attempt to grind to a halt reforms the state has made to a system addressing the needs of abused children. "You have an organization in New York that is known nationally for preying frankly on these types of systems - in our state NH Division of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) -- looking for settlements, looking for long-term pay-outs," he said when asked about it during a news conference on the status of COVID-19 in the state. "We have made more progressive reforms in our child welfare system in New Hampshire in the past couple of years than in the history of the state." He said when he became governor there was a real crisis in the foster care system. "We dealt with it and we jumped right on top of it," the governor said. Sununu was "greatly disappointed" at the New Hampshire partners that helped file the lawsuit because "they know the reforms we've brought here." He conceded, however, that the system is not perfect. Those imperfections are spelled out in the lawsuit in which the four plaintiffs -- identified only with initials and by age, two 14, two 16 -- give their experiences in the foster care system. "The teenage years are difficult for many children, but they are exponentially more challenging for children who have been removed from their parents due to allegations of abuse or neglect. These teens need to feel connected to their families, friends, schools, and communities to navigate the transition from childhood to adulthood. By unnecessarily institutionalizing older youth who could receive mental health treatment and supports in their communities and live successfully with family members or with foster families, New Hampshire unlawfully deprives children in its care of the community-based services and family placements they need to grow into successful adults." said Karen Rosenberg, Senior Staff Attorney at Disability Rights Center - NH. The four teens were placed in institutions after being removed from their families because of abuse and/or neglect. None of them was represented by an attorney before the state took that action. According to the lawsuit, in fiscal year 2019, there were about 545 children ages 14 through 17 in legal custody or protective supervision of the state Division of Children, Youth and Families. At least 70.3 percent of them were currently or most recently placed in congregate settings. All older foster youth in N.H. experienced the trauma of being separated from their families and removed from their homes. According to the lawsuit, due to systemic failure, as youth with mental health disabilities move through the state's foster care system, they suffer additional harms and risks of harm. They are unnecessarily warehoused in congregate care facilities and are frequently shuttled from one unstable placement to the next, the lawsuit alleges. The state routinely places them in congregate care facilities with more than half residential treatment facilities located out of state. Older youth may be placed in restrictive settings in neighboring states or as far away as Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma and Arizona. The rates are even higher for those with a mental health diagnoses. In Fiscal Year 2019, 90.5 percent had a current or most recent placement setting in a group home or institution, compared to the national average of 39.8 percent. During that same period, only 7.7 percent of NH's older youth with a DSM-V diagnosis were placed in a family foster home, compared to 47.2 percent nationally. One of the 16-year-old plaintiffs was removed from his family at the age of 4 because of abuse allegations. The child was briefly reunited with the family when about 6 years old but once again removed. DCYF has had legal custody of the child since. The teen was diagnosed with ADHD, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Between ages of 4 and 15, the child lived with eight foster families and in three congregate care facilities. At 12, DCYF placed the child and a sibling in an adoptive home out-of-state. That family agreed to adopt the pre-teen but not the sibling so DCYF, instead of approving the adoption, removed both children from the home and placed them at Nashua Children's Home. The teen stayed there for almost three years before being transferred to Chase Home, another congregate facility and apart from the sibling. Several months later, the teen was placed in a new foster home. When the teen experienced school difficulties, the teen was temporarily moved to another congregate care facility. That move triggered a mental health crisis resulting in the teen's hospitalization. Once stabilized, a DCYF caseworker said the teen was no longer eligible to return to the foster family. The child was then moved to Mount Prospect Academy's Enhanced Residential Treatment (ERT) program, the state's alternative to incarceration for juveniles. There, the teen was required to attend Mount Prospect Academy, a private special education school. The teen's coursework consisted mainly of worksheets that lacked the rigor of public school. Initially, the teen understood the ERT stay was for a weekend but that turned into summer and then into a year with no prospect of returning to a family. The teen's depression worsened and manifested itself in school refusal. As a result, ERT moved the teen to the most restrictive housing unit and required the teen to attend ERT's on-grounds school. The teen's time at ERT "was extremely unpleasant and depressing," according to the lawsuit. The teen found "staff uncaring and hostile, especially as staff regularly relied upon physical restraints to assert power and control." The teen's last day at ERT began with staff yelling at the teen for not attending school. Frustrated, the teen threw a water bottle resulting in the teen being restrained by staff. An altercation ensued with the teen, for the first time, charged with a delinquency offense – assault and criminal threatening. The teen was committed to the Sununu Youth Services Center (SYSC). After six months, the teen was sent to yet another congregate-care facility, this time out-of-state. In the 10 years the teen has been in foster care, the teen has never had legal representation despite being placed in restrictive congregate care environments. One 14-year-old plaintiff was removed from the family home two years earlier because of allegations of abuse and/or neglect. Police accompanied the DCYF staff in removing the teen, grabbing the child's arm and pulling the teen into the car. The teen was separated from mother, siblings and a service dog the teen had for years to help manage anxiety and panic attacks. The child had experienced a significant traumatic event at age 4 resulting in a diagnosis of anxiety, ADHD, Attention Deficit Disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, which makes it difficult to control behaviors and which affects sleep and ability to focus. The teen was prescribed medication. At the time of removal, the teen was attending Crotched Mountain School as a day student. Instead of placing the teen in a foster home or with relatives or other kinship caregivers, the teen was placed in the residential program at Crotched Mountain in Greenfield. In September 2019, DCYF moved the teen to an out-of-state congregate care facility. That facility, according to the lawsuit, is often punitive in nature. The teen perceives the staff as uncaring and inattentive. Food and clothing are regarded as privileges. Youth are not permitted to go into the refrigerator or have an evening snack. The teen does not have winter boots, snow pants or clothes that fit properly. The lawsuit alleges the teen also has been placed in painful restraints while at the facility and witnessed staff putting other youths in restraints as well, which is upsetting and anxiety-provoking. The teen has two younger siblings who were placed in a foster home. The teen asked to live with the siblings but DCYF denied the request. The other 14-year-old, removed from the family home at age 12 because of alleged neglect, is diagnosed with ADHD and experienced significant trauma following the incarceration of the father. When removed, the pre-teen was separated from siblings and placed at Webster House in Manchester where, because at a young age, the youth had the lowest level of privileges. The youth was not allowed to visit friends at their homes, talk to them on the phone and had an 8 p.m. bedtime. Another arbitrary rule was no singing in the residence; violation of that rule resulted in a 15-minute time-out. Throwing an item that damaged a phone and washing machine resulted in the youth's transfer to Mount Prospect Academy's Comprehensive Assessment and Short-term Treatment (CAST) program in Plymouth, an hour away from home. The youth was required to attend Mount Prospect Academy's on-grounds school for two months before being transferred into its ERT program even though the youth had no delinquency convictions and was legally ineligible for detention or commitment to Sununu Youth Services Center (SYSC). ERT was a punitive and menacing environment where the youth continuously experienced harsh treatment and ridicule by a particular staff member, according to the lawsuit. While there, staff threatened to strip the youth's room and remove clothing for refusing to take ADHD medication that interfered with the youth's ability to sleep. For refusing medication, the youth was denied privileges including playing video games. The youth was frequently physically restrained for minor verbal outbursts, including swearing, while attending the on-grounds school. Teaching staff frequently were not familiar with the subject matter, schooling consisted of worksheets, often significantly below the youth's academic level. One time, the youth was denied bathroom privileges for drawing on a table in class. The youth tried to force their way into the bathroom and sustained a "head injury that required stitches following physical restraint by two staff members," the lawsuit alleges. After 18 months at ERT, the teen was charged with first-time delinquency offenses, all alleging to have occurred on ERT grounds, and was committed to SYSC. Through it all, the youth wanted to live with a grandmother, a licensed foster parent in New York State. An aunt who lives in Manchester also expressed a willingness and desire to care for the youth. The teen does not understand why that opportunity was not available. In the two years since being removed from the home, the teen has had six separate social workers. The lawsuit alleges N.H. subjects older youth to unnecessary warehousing by prioritizing institutionalization over family and community. "The physical, emotional, and mental harms associated with placement in congregate settings are well known and lead to tragic outcomes including homelessness, unemployment, incarceration, and a lack of educational attainment," said Shereen White, Senior Staff Attorney at Children's Rights. "The 2 risks of serious harm to these youth are even more imminent during the COVID-19 public health emergency, because social distancing is virtually impossible in group care facilities." [GN] NEW HOLLAND: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Tractors --------------------------------------------------------------- WFXB Fox TV reports lawsuits concerning potentially defective New Holland tractors that may be negatively affecting South Carolinians and their businesses. For more information, you can reach Stephen at (843) 357-9301 or visit his website at www.GoldfinchWinslow.com. [GN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Hymowitz Slams Share Drop Over Denied Permit -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Hymowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., Ronald William Thiessen, Mark C. Peters, Marchand Snyman and Tom Collier, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06126, (E.D. N.Y., December 17, 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. Northern Dynasty engages in the exploration of mineral properties in the U.S. Its principal mineral property is the Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum project comprising 2,402 mineral claims that covers an area of approximately 417 square miles located in southwest Alaska. Defendants failed to disclose that its Pebble Project was violating Clean Water Act guidelines and that its permit applications for the Pebble Project was denied, notes the complaint. On this news, Northern Dynasty's common share price fell $0.40 per share, or 50%, to close at $0.40 per share on November 25, 2020, damaging investors. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Email: peretz@bgandg.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com OAKTREE SPECIALTY: Firefighters' Fund Seeks to Halt Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, directly on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation and derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation, Plaintiff, v. John Frank, Deborah Gero, Craig Jacobson, Richard Ruben and Bruce Zimmerman, Defendants, Case No. 2020-1075 (Del. Ch., December 18, 2020), seeks damages, costs, expenses and disbursements of this action, including all reasonable experts' fees and such other relief resulting from breaches of fiduciary duties. Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation (OCSL) and Oaktree Strategic Income Corporation (OCSI) are specialty finance companies that provide customized one-stop credit solutions to companies with limited access to public or syndicated capital markets. Both are externally managed by Oaktree Fund Advisors, LLC, an affiliate of the investment management firm Oaktree Capital Management, L.P. In late September 2020, Oaktree formally proposed a merger of the two companies. However, Oaktree's related-party merger proposal created obvious conflicts of interest and the OCSL Board's attempt to deal with those conflicts was woefully insufficient. The OCSL Board created a special committee of two directors who were also directors of OCSI. These dual fiduciaries were incapable of independently representing OCSL's interests in merger negotiations with OCSI, notes the complaint. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System is a stockholder of OCSL and has owned OCSL common stock at all material times alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the OCSL stockholder vote on the merger unless and until the company stockholders have been provided all material information necessary to cast an informed vote and recover money damages for the Director Defendants' substantive breaches of fiduciary duty. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Warden, Esq. Jonathan Lamet, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Tel: (561) 394-3399 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Tel: (888) 529-1108 - and - Thomas Curry, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200 Office 1265 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 485-0483 tcurry@saxenawhite.com ONFIDO INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Sosa BIPA Suit, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, FREDY SOSA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONFIDO, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20 CV 04247 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Marvine E. Aspen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay and Compel Individual Arbitration. Plaintiff Sosa filed a putative class action lawsuit against Onfido, alleging that the Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). The Plaintiff's theory is that the Defendant violated BIPA because it collected and stored biometric information pertaining to him and the others without obtaining written releases and providing certain information, as required by statute. The Plaintiff filed the action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on June 12, 2020. The Defendant then removed the action to federal court on July 18, 2020. The Plaintiff is a member of online marketplace Offerup, Inc., an online marketplace where people can buy and sell goods. According to the Defendant, when the Plaintiff signed up for OfferUp, and each time that he logged into his account thereafter, he agreed to Offer's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. The Terms of Service contain an arbitration provision in Section 20. According to the Plaintiff, OfferUp partnered with the Defendant to establish users' identities. In April 2020, the Plaintiff established his identity on OfferUp by uploading photographs of his driver's license and face. He claims that the Defendant subsequently used biometric identification technology to extract his biometric identifiers and compare the two photographs without advising him that it would collect, use, or store his biometric identifiers derived from his face. Likewise, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to provide him with a biometric data retention policy or to advise him of whether it will permanently delete the biometric identifiers that it derived from his face. Additionally, he claims that he never signed a written release allowing Defendant to collect, use, or store his biometric identifiers derived from his face. As a result, the Plaintiff was exposed to the risks and harmful conditions created by the Defendant's violations of the BIPA. The Plaintiff does not know how many individuals were similarly harmed, but he alleges that the Defendant has collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained biometric identifiers or biometric information from at least hundreds of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Stay and Compel Individual Arbitration. In its Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration, the Defendant asserts that the dispute should be arbitrated based on the arbitration provision contained in the Terms of Service agreed to by OfferUp. Specifically, it claims that it can enforce the arbitration provision under common law doctrines of: (1) third-party beneficiary; (2) equitable estoppel; and (3) agency. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant should not be able to enforce the arbitration provision within the Terms of Service because it was not a party to that agreement and cannot overcome that fact by invoking the common law doctrines of third-party beneficiary, equitable estoppel, and agency. First, Judge Espen opines that the Defendant is not a third-party benficiary of the arbitration provision and cannot force the matter be arbitrated on that basis. She finds no indication that OfferUp and Defendant have any such relationship in the case. The allegations do not demonstrate that OfferUp exercised "control" over the Defendant. The plain text of the document makes clear that the arbitration provision was not intended to extend to the Defendant, citing Brown v. Worldpac, Inc., No. 17 CV 6396 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2018). Second, the Judge holds that the arbitration provision cannot be enforced on the basis of equitable estoppel. All of the representations allegedly made by the Plaintiff that the Defendant detrimentally relied upon relate to the merits of the case, not the issue of whether the case should be arbitrated. There is no indication that Defendant detrimentally relied on any representations made by the Plaintiff concerning arbitration. Apart from that issue, it is not clear that the Plaintiff made representations in connection with the TruYou feature to which Defendant could have reasonably relied or that encompass the conduct at issue. As noted, all of the representations that the Plaintiff allegedly made in that provision were directed at OfferUp, not third parties. Finally, nothing in the record suggests that there was a formal principal-agent relationship between the Defendant and OfferUp, such that OfferUp could control the Defendant's activities, or the Defendant could conduct legal transactions in OfferUp's name. Companies routinely partner with one another to provide services to customers without acting as one another's agents. Absent further evidence to demonstrate a principal-agent relationship between OfferUp and the Defendant, the Judge cannot conclude that such a relationship exists, and the Defendant's motion fails on this basis as well. Since there is no agreement to arbitrate between the parties, the Judge finds no basis to stay the litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxtdsy7m from Leagle.com. OREGON CARES: Faces Amended Race Discrimination Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Mitchell, writing for Blue Mountain Eagle, reports that a John Day-based lawsuit has halted further distributions of COVID-19 funds earmarked by the governor for Black-owned businesses and families. The state's $62 million relief fund for Black Oregonians will no longer issue grants, as it deposited the remaining $8.8 million with a federal court Dec. 17 as legal challenges to its constitutionality continue. John Day logging company Great Northern Resources, which lists Tad Houpt and Grant County Commissioner Sam Palmer as agents, filed a lawsuit alleging race-based discrimination when its grant application was denied. The lawsuit is ongoing. Great Northern and a Portland-based, Latino-owned coffee company and restaurant had asked U.S. Judge Karin Immergut to issue a preliminary injunction or restraining order to stop the fund distributing money based on race, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court Dec. 11. Immergut denied those requests in November, according to an amended class-action lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court Dec. 6. In those instances, the Oregon Cares Fund set aside $200,000 for Great Northern if they prevailed in their legal challenges, according to a legal brief filed Nov. 10. This led Immergut to find that they couldn't show the irreparable harm needed to warrant an injunction in a Nov. 20 legal opinion. This time around, Great Northern Resources -- the original plaintiffs in the case -- joined with Salem electrical contractor Dynamic Service Fire and Security and sought class-action status for the suit, according to a complaint filed Dec. 6. According to the amended class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs applied for grants from other federal and state sources but were unsuccessful. Great Northern applied for a grant through two Oregon-based community organizations designated by the state to review and administer funds earmarked for Black-owned businesses and families, the Contingent and the Black United Fund of Oregon, in early October. According to the Dec. 6 complaint, the online application asked what percentage of owners of this business identify as Black? Great Northern answered zero. The complaint goes on to say that Great Northern sued the state on Oct. 29 to "stop them from enforcing their racial exclusionary policy." The complaint states the Contingent denied Great Northern's application on Nov. 9. The logging company intends to reapply for a relief grant when "the courts enjoin the enforcement of the racial exclusion that renders Great Northern ineligible for relief for the Fund." Salem-based Dynamic Service Fire and Security saw their business go from grossing roughly $40,000 a month to nearly $10,000 to $18,000, according to the Dec. 6 complaint. The business tried to apply for relief from the state's small business grant program in November, but by the time they logged on to the website they could not submit an application as the funds were exhausted, the Dec. 6 complaint stated. The complaint states: "Dynamic Service wishes apply for relief from the fund, but is disqualified from obtaining relief on account of its race." The complaint goes on to state that the owner Walter Leja is disqualified individually from applying for relief due to his race as well. According to court documents, the Oregon Cares Fund offered to deposit its remaining $8.8 million with the court, which, for the time being, has halted the program while the lawsuit continues. Palmer said in a phone callthat, while he owns equipment and property with Great Northern, he has not been involved in the lawsuit. Houpt declined the Eagle's request for comment. [GN] ORGAIN MANAGEMENT: Newton Sues Over Deceptive Protein Powder Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANA NEWTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORGAIN MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00062 (E.D.N.Y., January 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive and misleading advertising and labeling of its non-dairy protein powder purporting to be flavored by vanilla beans under the Orgain brand. The product's relevant front label representations include "Plant Based Protein Powder," "Vanilla Bean Flavor" and an image of a vanilla flower and vanilla beans. In contrast to the representation as "Vanilla Bean Flavor" and picture of vanilla beans and vanilla flower, the product does not contain any appreciable amount of flavoring from vanilla beans, such that the taste is dissimilar to what consumers expect from a product labeled as "vanilla bean flavor." Laboratory analysis reveals the product contains undisclosed artificial flavors, vanillin, maltol and piperonal. The presence of added vanillin, artificial maltol and artificial piperonal renders the front label representation of "vanilla" false, deceptive and misleading because it omits the required statement of "artificially flavored," the suit says. Orgain Management, Inc. is a company that manufactures organic products, with a principal place of business in Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com PACIFIC PLUMBING: Alvarado Sues Over Failure to Pay Required Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN OSWALDO PEREZ ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC PLUMBING & SEWER SERVICE INC., MARLEINE BECHWATI, JOSEPH GEORGE BECHWAIT, DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 21CV375155 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., January 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including unpaid minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay all wages due upon termination, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee who worked on public works projects for the Defendants. Pacific Plumbing & Sewer Service Inc. is a plumbing and sewer services provider based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tomas E. Margain, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP 1550 The Alameda, Suite 302 San Jose, CA 95 126 Telephone: (408) 317-1100 Facsimile: (408) 351-0105 PARTS AUTHORITY: Jaime Suit Claims Underpayment of Delivery Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------------- HUGO JAIME, RANDALL GOHN, and ROBERT DAVIS JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARTS AUTHORITY, LLC; PARTS AUTHORITY, INC.; YARON ROSENTHAL; NORTHEAST LOGISTICS, INC. D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS; ARIZONA LOGISTICS, INC. D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS; BBB LOGISTICS, INC. D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS; MICHIGAN LOGISTICS, INC. D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS; LARRY BROWNE; DOES 1-20 D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, and DOES 21-40, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00015-SPL (D. Ariz., January 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to pay the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated delivery drivers the required minimum and overtime wages in violations of applicable minimum wage laws including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, New Jersey Statute, the New York Labor Law, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standard Act, the Oregon's Minimum Wage Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the Florida Constitution, and the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Jaime has been employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver at Parts Authority's stores located in New York, New York from approximately 2012 through the present. Plaintiff Gohn was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver at Parts Authority's stores located in Phoenix, Arizona from 2014 to 2019. Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver at Parts Authority stores located in Bergenfield, New Jersey and Hackensack, New Jersey from July 2016 to November 2016. Parts Authority, LLC is a distributor of automotive parts, with its principal place of business located at 3 Dakota Drive, Suite 110, New Hyde Park, New York. Parts Authority, Inc. is a distributor of automotive parts, with its principal place of business in New York. Northeast Logistics, Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery Systems, is a nationwide transportation and logistics service provider, with a principal place of business located at 9200 Derrington Road, Suites #100 & #200, Houston, Texas. Arizona Logistics, Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery Systems, is a nationwide transportation and logistics service provider, with a principal place of business located at 9200 Derrington Road, Suites #100 & #200, Houston, Texas. BBB Logistics, Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery Systems, is a nationwide transportation and logistics service provider, with a principal place of business located at 9200 Derrington Road, Suites #100 & #200, Houston, Texas. Michigan Logistics, Inc., doing business as Diligent Delivery Systems, is a nationwide transportation and logistics service provider, with a principal place of business located at 9200 Derrington Road, Suites #100 & #200, Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean J. O'Hara, Esq. KERCSMAR & FELTUS PLLC 7150 East Camelback Road, Suite 285 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Telephone: (480) 421-1001 Facsimile: (480) 421-1002 E-mail: sjo@kflawaz.com - and – Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. Bradley Silverman, Esq. Andrew White, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP One North Broadway, Suite 900 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com bsilverman@fbfglaw.com awhite@fbfglaw.com - and – Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 984-810 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com PEELED INC: Sanchez Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website -------------------------------------------------------- Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Peeled Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-10675, (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 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, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a health food snack company, and owns and operates the website, www.peeledsnacks.com, that ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State. Sanchez is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: Joseph@cml.legal PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Green Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Colo. --------------------------------------------------------------- LANCE GREEN and ANDERSON KHALID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD; and PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE OF COLORADO, LLC, collectively d/b/a PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE AND GRILLE; and CHRISTOPHER V. PERRY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00023 (D. Colo., January 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order including failure to allow the Plaintiffs and Class members to retain all of their tips, failure to fully redistribute the Plaintiffs' and Class members' tips from the tip pool solely among other customarily and regularly tipped employees, and failure to pay them at applicable minimum rate. Perry's Restaurants LTD is a company that operates a chain of fine dining restaurants commonly known as Perry's Steakhouse and Grille with locations in Texas, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Perry's Steakhouse of Colorado, LLC is a company that operates the Perry's Steakhouse and Grille restaurant located in Lone Tree, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 887-1878 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com PNC BANK: Barli Ordered to Amend Complaint to Correct Deficiencies ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DANIEL BARLI, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, BARDAN ONE, LLC, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-11027 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint within 30 days to correct its deficiencies. The Complaint asserts that the Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). For purposes of determining the citizenship of a corporation named as a party, the complaint must allege the citizenship of every State and foreign state in which the corporation has been incorporated, as well as the State or foreign state where the corporation has its principal place of business. Under CAFA, an unincorporated association will be deemed to be a citizen of the State where it has its principal place of business and the State under whose laws it is organized. Although the Second Circuit has not yet given guidance as to a Limited Liability Company's citizenship for purposes of CAFA jurisdiction, two United States Courts of Appeals have held that an LLC's citizenship under CAFA is determined by state of organization and principal place of business under section 1332(d)(10). In the case, Judge Castel finds that the Plaintiffs have named multiple entities as Defendants and the allegations in the Complaint contain several deficiencies with respect to these Defendants. First, the Plaintiffs fail to allege the principal place of business for Defendants CoreVest Finance; CoreVest American Finance Lender LLC; and RWT Holdings, Inc. The Plaintiffs further fail to allege the place of incorporation for Defendants PNC Bank, National Association; Midland Loan Services; CoreVest Finance; CoreVest American Finance Lender LLC; RWT Holdings, Inc.; and AlterDormus. Lastly, the Plaintiff does not provide information regarding the organization (e.g., corporation, limited partnership, limited liability company, etc.) of Defendants Midland Loan Services, CoreVest Finance, and AlterDormus. Judge Castel directs the Plaintiff to amend the complaint and case caption to reflect the organizational status of these Defendants. In addition, the Judge finds that the Complaint fails to allege the principal place of business and place of incorporation for Plaintiff Bardan One, L.L.C. For the purpose of determining the citizenship of individuals, in order to be a citizen of a State, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and be domiciled within the State. An individual's domicile is the place where a person has his true fixed home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. The Complaint names two individual Defendants--John Prins and Matthew Vilimas. When a complaint names an individual as a party, it must allege the citizenship of such individuals, not their places of employment. Additionally, Plaintiff Barli is alleged to be a "resident" of New Jersey. Hence, the Complaint fails to allege whether Barli is a "citizen" of New Jersey. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ahdo9p from Leagle.com. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Ogurkiewicz Sues Over Mislabeled Detergents ------------------------------------------------------------- PAULA OGURKIEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00029 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 4, 2021) arises from the Defendant's unfair and/or deceptive business practices that violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant marketed, labeled and sold the laundry detergent Tide purclean product to consumers, including Plaintiff, with the representation that it was 100% plant-based or derived solely from plant-based ingredients. Unbeknown to Plaintiff and members of the Classes, and contrary to the representations prominently made on its label, the product is derived, in part, from petroleum. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have been and continue to be harmed, by purchasing a product under false pretenses and paying more for it than they otherwise would have, if at all, the suit says. The Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste. 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dlietz@masonllp.com PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Bid for Reply to Cowley Interrogatories Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA COWLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01472-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion to compel the Defendant to provide responses to his Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2. The Plaintiff brings the class and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violations of the FLSA and of California wage and hour laws. He alleges that the Defendant has failed to pay its employees for all hours worked under both federal and state law, including at minimum wage and overtime rates. On behalf of the nationwide putative collective, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant does not pay all required overtime or minimum wages. Under California law, he alleges that the Defendant has failed to provide bona fide meal and rest breaks, has failed to reimburse employees for business expenses, has failed to provide compliant wage statements, and has failed to pay final wages as required by law. The parties have propounded discovery in the case, but no documents have been exchanged in response to formal discovery. The Court has recommended that the motion to change venue to the Eastern District of Michigan be granted, and a decision on the motion for conditional certification in pending. The motion for class certification is due later in 2021. The subjects of the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel are the Defendant's responses to his Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2, related to information about the putative Class and Collective Members, respectively. On April 9, 2020, the Plaintiff served his Special Interrogatories, Set One: -- Interrogatory No. 1: Identify all Putative Class Members, stating each individual's (a) full name; (b) title and dates of employment with Defendant; (c) employment location(s) at which the individual worked for Defendant; (d) last known residence, telephone number, and cellular phone number; and (e) last known personal email address; and -- Interrogatory No. 2: Identify all Putative Collective Members, stating each individual's (a) full name; (b) title and dates of employment with Defendant; (c) employment location(s) at which the individual worked for Defendant; (d) last known residence, telephone number, and cellular phone number; and (e) last known personal email address. Despite their meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable to reach agreement as to the nature of the Defendant's obligations in responding to the Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2. On Sept. 17, 2020, the parties participated in an informal discovery conference with the Court. The conference did not yield a resolution of the dispute. The Court issued an order after informal telephonic conference regarding discovery dispute, providing that the Plaintiff may file a motion to compel the telephone numbers and/or the defense may file a motion for protective order. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2. At the hearing, however, the Plaintiff's counsel clarified that he was seeking only the last known telephone numbers--including both landline and cell numbers--for the employees. The defense has submitted evidence that there are only 36 putative class members. Of these, the defense reports that it has settled the case with 27 of the members. Though the Plaintiff asserts that these settlements may not be valid, even if they are not, in general, a putative class of 36 members will not meet the numerosity element to form a class, Judge Thurston opines, citing Carlino v. CHG Med. Staffing, Inc., 2019 WL 1005070, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2019). Judge Thurston notes that the Plaintiff does not address the evidence submitted by the defense and, instead, points to its complaint. On this topic, the complaint reads, "Defendant has employed potentially hundreds of non-exempt, hourly security guards during the applicable statutory period. The number of putative Class Members are therefore far too numerous to be individually joined in this lawsuit." The insertion of the word "potentially" makes the allegation as to numerosity, ambiguous, Judge Thurston finds. With this ambiguous allegation and the lack of anything further addressing the evidence submitted by the Defendant, it appears the prima facie case as to numerosity is not met. Thus, the Court denies the motion to compel the telephone numbers of the putative class members at this time. Judge Thurston also opines that though there is no blanket prohibition against permitting disclosure of contact information prior to certification in an opt-in collective action, the weight of authority in this Circuit and others, finds such discovery premature unless conditional certification has been granted. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, and notably, the Defendant previously provided the Plaintiff the names and mailing addresses of putative class and collective members, leaving only the issue of whether the Plaintiff is also entitled to employee phone numbers. Accordingly, the Court finds that discovery of employee phone numbers for the FLSA action is premature. Thus, the denial of the Plaintiff's motion to compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 2 is warranted. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5y4s8ca from Leagle.com. QIWI PLC: Faces Petruzzi Suit Over 20.6% Decline in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS PETRUZZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QIWI PLC, BORIS KIM, SERGEY SOLONIN, ALEXANDER KARAVAEV, and VARVARA KISELEVA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00021 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2021) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Qiwi securities between March 28, 2019 and December 9, 2020, both dates inclusive. According to the complaint, the financial statements disclosed by the Company within the Class period were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to reveal the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (ii) 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 (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On December 9, 2020, after the market closed, Qiwi filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, announcing that the Central Bank of Russia had imposed a fine of approximately $150,000 for deficient record-keeping and reporting, and suspended the Company's conduct of most types of payments to foreign merchants and money transfers to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts. On this news, Qiwi's ADS price fell $2.80 per share, or 20.6%, to close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020, damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit says. QIWI PLC is an instant payment operator for consumers. The Company enables merchants to accept cash and electronic payments from virtual wallets, and operates cash-collecting terminals and kiosks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - 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 QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Jan. 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Malriat v. QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-00058) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired QuantumScape Corporation ("QuantumScape" or the "Company") f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: QS) securities between December 8, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your QuantumScape investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/quantumscape-corporation/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. 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, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (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 or otherwise acquired the QuantumScape securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.   This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] RATIO CLOTHING: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ratio Clothing, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ratio Clothing, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00145 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ratio Clothing -- https://www.ratioclothing.com/ -- is a custom clothing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com RAUSCH STURM: Schmitt Files FDCPA Suit in D. Nebraska ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLP. The case is styled as Victor E. Schmitt, Cheryl K. Schmitt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLP, Case No. 8:21-cv-00011 (D. Neb., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLC -- https://www.rauschsturm.com/ -- operates as a law firm. The Company offers debt collection, legal advice, risk management, and security control services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM - CHICAGO 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 372-8822 Fax: (312) 372-1673 Email: rand@horwitzlaw.com - and - Pamela A. Car, Esq. William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM 2120 South 72nd Street, Suite 1125, The Omaha Tower Omaha, NE 68124 Phone: (402) 391-8484 Fax: (402) 391-1103 Email: pacar@cox.net billr205@gmail.com RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein Sues Over FDCPA Breach --------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Klein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Case No. 21-000122-CI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Jan. 8, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for its routine and systematic violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Specifically, the Defendant routinely and systematically engages in the practice of overshadowing consumer's right to dispute and request a verification of alleged debt within the 30-day time period, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff requests that the practices of the Defendants be declared in violation of the FDCPA and that she and the class members be awarded statutory damaged payable by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Pinellas County, Florida. The Defendant was and is a "Debt Collector".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaelyn Diamond, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICAHEL A. ZIEGLER, P.L. Debt Fighters 2561 Nursery Road, Suite A Clearwater FL 33764 Phone: (727) 538-4188 Fax: (727) 362-4778 Email: kaelyn@attorneydebtfighters.com service@attorneydebtfighters.com RGS FINANCIAL: Judge Grants Class Cert. in Debt Notice Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that an Illinois federal judge has granted class certification and a partial early win to dozens of consumers accusing a Texas debt collector of illegaly misleading them in confusing collection notices. Lead plaintiff Gabriel Tataru suffered real harm when RGS Financial Inc. sent him a debt collection notice in 2018 that listed his creditor using an unfamiliar abbreviation that struck him as a possible scam, according to U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr.'s Jan. 4 opinion. [GN] RIDDELL INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riddell, Inc. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Riddell, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00147-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Riddell, Inc. -- https://www.riddell.com/ -- designs, develops, and manufactures protective sports equipment. The Company offers helmets, shoulder pads, custom uniforms, and footballs, as well as engages in leaning, repairing, repainting, and recertifying services for existing equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com ROYELLE LLC: Faces Heredia Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Heredia, individually v. Royelle, LLC dba Visiting Angels, a California limited liability company; Alethea Black, an individual; Miriam Black, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV49486 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 28, 2020) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other employees similarly situated arising out of the Defendants' unlawful labor policies and practices that violated the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in retaliation over reported legal violation and wrongful termination. Violations include failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide adequate pay stubs, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to reimburse for business expenses as. The Plaintiffs also retaliated over Plaintiff's working conditions complaint for battery, assault and false imprisonment. Ms. Heredia commenced her employment with Defendant Visiting Angels as a caregiver from November 21, 2019 until on or around April 14, 2020, when she was wrongfully terminated for purportedly violating policies related to asking a certain Black family to employ her privately. Royelle, LLC, dba Visiting Angels, is a California-based senior home care provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq. S. Sean Shahabi, Esq. Ryan A. Stubbe, Esq. Stephen C. Young, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (818) 630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com sean@jlglawyers.com ryan@jlglawyers.com steve@jlglawyers.com SEACOAST CONSTRUCTION: Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Izaguirre and Juan Morales, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Seacoast Construction, Inc., Shoreline Contractors, Inc., Licinio Pedreiro, Brian Pedreiro and Isabel Pedreiro (a/k/a Maria Pedreiro) individually, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-19653 (D. N.J., December 17, 2020), seeks to recover to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Shoreline and Seacoast maintain a construction business in New Jersey where Plaintiffs worked as masons/laborers. They claim to have routinely worked well in excess of forty hours in a workweek but were not paid overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com SHAMROCK FOODS: Underpays Warehouse Staff, Fite Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ GLENN FITE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, JOHN FERNANDES, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-at-00009 (E.D. Cal., January 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum and contractual wages, failure to provide rest breaks or pay additional wages in lieu thereof, failure to provide meal periods or pay additional wages in lieu thereof, failure to pay all wages owed upon termination or resignation, and knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt warehouse order selector at the Defendants' facilities in Sacramento, California. Shamrock Foods Company is a manufacturer of food products based in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Liliana Garcia, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com LGarcia@TheMMLawFirm.com SHUTTERFLY INC: Blank Rome Attorneys Discuss BIPA Case Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- David Oberly, Esq., and Jeffrey Rosenthal, Esq. of Blank Rome LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that over the last 18 months or so, companies that utilize fingerprint scanners and other biometric technologies have faced a relentless wave of class action litigation filed in connection with purported violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). 2019 was a rough year for BIPA defendants, as courts issued a string of plaintiff favorable decisions that greatly expanded the scope of potential BIPA liability, while limiting many of the major defenses. As just one example, after several significant setbacks, Facebook agreed to pay $550 million to settle a longstanding BIPA dispute over allegations the social media giant improperly used facial recognition technology to support its photo "tagging" feature. Originally published in the January 2021 edition of Pratt's Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report (Vol. 7, No. 1). Designing a BIPA Defense: Using Arbitration Agreements and Class Action Waivers to Limit BIPA Liability Over the last 18 months or so, companies that utilize fingerprint scanners and other biometric technologies have faced a relentless wave of class action litigation filed in connection with purported violations of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). 2019 was a rough year for BIPA defendants, as courts issued a string of plaintiff favorable decisions that greatly expanded the scope of potential BIPA liability, while limiting many of the major defenses. As just one example, after several significant setbacks, Facebook agreed to pay $550 million to settle a longstanding BIPA dispute over allegations the social media giant improperly used facial recognition technology to support its photo "tagging" feature. In 2020, however, the tide may have started to turn -- at least for now -- in favor of BIPA defendants. One of the more significant decisions is Miracle-Pond v. Shutterfly, Inc., in which a federal court held a plaintiff was required to pursue her BIPA claims in individual arbitration, despite the fact the arbitration provision was not added to the company's Terms of Use until a year after the plaintiff originally agreed to them. The Shutterfly decision is a significant win for BIPA defendants and demonstrates how arbitration agreements and class action waivers can be utilized as a key strategy for mitigating BIPA liability. OVERVIEW OF THE ILLINOIS BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT BIPA is generally considered the most stringent of all biometric privacy laws currently in effect. BIPA is also the only biometrics law to offer a private right of action, which permits the recovery of statutory damages of $1,000 for negligent violations and $5,000 for intentional/reckless violations. These statutory damages -- which the Illinois Supreme Court has made clear can be recovered even where no actual harm or damage is sustained -- combined with the ability to recover attorney's fees, provide noteworthy incentives for plaintiffs' attorneys to pursue class actions. This mix of uncapped statutory damages and a low bar for establishing harm led to an explosion of bet-the-company BIPA class litigation in 2019, which continued apace into 2020 -- until very recently. DISTRICT COURT SENDS FEDERAL BIPA SUIT TO BINDING ARBITRATION In Miracle-Pond v. Shutterfly, Inc., two individuals sued Shutterfly claiming the company's use of its facial recognition technology violated BIPA. Of the two plaintiffs, only Vernita Miracle-Pond maintained an account with Shutterfly, which was created in 2014. To complete the registration process, Miracle-Pond had to agree to Shutterfly's Terms of Use, which included both a revision clause and a class action waiver. Significantly, the revision clause stated Shutterfly "may revise these Terms from time to time by posting a revised version" and explained a user's continued use of the app subsequent to any such revisions constituted the user's acceptance of the changes. The revision clause did not require notice of revisions to Shutterfly users beyond posting the new terms. The 2014 Terms did not, however, include an arbitration provision; this provision was added to Shutterfly's Terms of Use in 2015 and was thereafter included in every later version of the Terms. After the filing, Shutterfly moved to compel arbitration and stay the federal litigation pending the outcome. In so doing, Shutterfly argued that, as a user of the app, MiraclePond had agreed to Shutterfly's Terms of Use -- including the provision mandating individual arbitration. The District Court agreed with Shutterfly, granting its motion to compel arbitration for Miracle-Pond and staying the federal court proceedings. In its opinion, the court first addressed the parties' dispute over whether the alleged agreement between Miracle-Pond and Shutterfly was a "clickwrap" or "browsewrap" agreement. A clickwrap agreement is formed when a website user clicks a button or checks a box that explicitly affirms their acceptance of the terms after having the opportunity to scroll through the terms posed on the website. A browsewrap agreement does not require such affirmative acceptance. The court rejected Miracle-Pond's argument that the Terms of Use were merely a browsewrap agreement, finding instead that it was a valid and enforceable clickwrap agreement. The court highlighted that Shutterfly's page presented the Terms of Use for viewing, stated that clicking "Accept" would be considered acceptance of the Terms of Use, and offered both "Accept" and "Decline" buttons. Thus, Miracle-Pond agreed to be bound by Shutterfly's Terms of Use when she created her account. The court also rejected Miracle-Pond's argument that even if a contract was formed between her and Shutterfly, she could not be forced to arbitrate her claim because the 2014 Terms of Use did not include an explicit arbitration provision and arbitration clauses subject to unilateral modification are illusory. In particular, the court found this contention lacked merit due to the inclusion of a valid change-in-terms provision in the 2014 Terms of Use. Pursuant to this change-in-terms provision, Miracle-Pond agreed her continued use of Shutterfly's services would communicate her assent to the most recent version of the Terms posed online at the time of her use. Because Miracle-Pond continued to use her account after Shutterfly posted its amended Terms in 2015, she accepted those modifications, including the inclusion of the 2015 arbitration clause. Lastly, the court rejected Miracle-Pond's argument she could not be forced to arbitrate her claim because Shutterfly failed to provide notice of the 2015 modification and she was never informed of the change. Here, the court highlighted the fact that under Illinois law, when an agreement expressly reserves the right of the drafter to unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of the agreement, at any time, and without notice -- and the customer accepts this condition by signing the agreement -- the drafter's right to subsequently modify the arbitration provision in that agreement ends only with its termination. Further, when parties agree in advance to allow unilateral modifications to contractual terms, subsequent modifications are binding regardless of whether the other party later "accepts" the change. Here, Miracle-Pond was thus bound to the 2015 modifications, as Shutterfly had posted the modified terms on its website in 2015 and Miracle-Pond indicated her acceptance thereof by continuing to use Shutterfly's services. As such, the court held Miracle-Pond had entered into a valid arbitration agreement, thus compelling the court to grant Shutterfly's motion to compel arbitration. TIPS AND BEST PRACTICES The expansive risk posed stemming from the alleged improper collection, use, storage, and dissemination of biometric data has given all businesses utilizing such technologies cause for concern. Fortunately -- as the Shutterfly decision demonstrates -- one key strategy to minimize the risk of becoming embroiled in high-stakes class litigation is through mandatory arbitration provisions and class action waivers (including in employment and Terms of Use agreements). To maximize the ability to compel arbitration of BIPA lawsuits, companies should consider the following tips: * Avoid trying to "hide the ball" when including arbitration provisions in larger agreements; rather, provide notice at the beginning of the agreement that highlights the inclusion of an arbitration provision, direct the reader to where he/she locate the provision, and place the arbitration provision itself clearly and conspicuously at the beginning of the agreement; * Incorporate the use of broad language in the arbitration provision to cast a wide net in terms of the scope of claims subject to arbitration and ensure the provision encompasses any potential claims or disputes that may arise under Illinois's biometric privacy statute; * Where applicable, specify that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") and federal arbitration law applies to the issue of arbitration, and provide an easy-to-read description of what arbitration entails and the rights the individual is relinquishing by agreeing to arbitration; * Specify that "gateway" issues, such as disputes about arbitrability -- or, in other words, whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute -- will also be decided by an arbitrator, and not a court; and * Ensure all class action waivers include explicit language that makes clear that -- in addition to precluding class action litigation -- class arbitration is also barred under the agreement as well -- to remove any doubt that arbitrations must be conducted on an individual basis. Ultimately, the use of arbitration agreements and class action waivers is a vital risk mitigation strategy that should be incorporated whenever appropriate to limit BIPA risk. Companies that do not currently have arbitration provisions/class action waivers in their agreements should work closely with experienced counsel to revise their agreements to include this key tool. At the same time, those companies whose agreements currently contain arbitration provisions and class action waivers are also well advised to consult with counsel to evaluate the efficacy of their existing agreements under the shifting body of case law surrounding arbitration agreements. This includes ensuing companies are compliant with the current state of the law to avoid any unexpected pitfalls resulting from improper or outdated language that could lead a court to invalidate the provision. [GN] SOLARWINDS CORP: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of March 5 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Jan. 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") (NYSE: SWI) securities between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). SolarWinds investors have until March 5, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported hackers have been monitoring email traffic at the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments. The hackers are believed to have breached the emails by deceptively interfering with updates released by SolarWinds, which services various government vendors in the executive branch, the military, and the intelligence services. On December 14, 2020, the Company disclosed that "a vulnerability [was inserted] within its Orion monitoring products which, if present and activated, could potentially allow an attacker to compromise the server on which the Orion products run." The vulnerability was inserted in Orion products downloaded, as well as updates released, between March and June 2020. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.93, or 17%, to close at $19.62 per share on December 14, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Then, on December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that Vinoth Kumar, a security researcher, alerted the Company last year that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using the password "solarwinds123." The article also reported that co-founder of cybersecurity company Huntress, Kyle Hanslovan, noticed the malicious updates were still available for download even days after SolarWinds was aware their software was compromised. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.56, or 8%, to close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased SolarWinds securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 5, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased SolarWinds securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] SOLARWINDS CORP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 5 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, on Jan. 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") (NYSE: SWI) securities between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). SolarWinds investors have until March 5, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your SolarWinds investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/solarwinds-corporation/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported hackers have been monitoring email traffic at the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments. The hackers are believed to have breached the emails by deceptively interfering with updates released by SolarWinds, which services various government vendors in the executive branch, the military, and the intelligence services. On December 14, 2020, the Company disclosed that "a vulnerability [was inserted] within its Orion monitoring products which, if present and activated, could potentially allow an attacker to compromise the server on which the Orion products run." The vulnerability was inserted in Orion products downloaded, as well as updates released, between March and June 2020. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.93, or 17%, to close at $19.62 per share on December 14, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Then, on December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that Vinoth Kumar, a security researcher, alerted the Company last year that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using the password "solarwinds123." The article also reported that co-founder of cybersecurity company Huntress, Kyle Hanslovan, noticed the malicious updates were still available for download even days after SolarWinds was aware their software was compromised. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.56, or 8%, to close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 5, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] SOLARWINDS CORP: Hagens Berman Reminds of March 5 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE: SWI) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Feb. 24, 2020 – Dec. 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 5, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SWI Contact An Attorney Now: SWI@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 SolarWinds Corporation (SWI) Securities Fraud Class Action: The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and concealed 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; and (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, were vulnerable to hacks. Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Dec. 13, 2020 when Reuters reported Russian hackers had infiltrated the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments' systems by tampering with SolarWinds updates. Then, on Dec. 14, 2020 SolarWinds confirmed the vulnerability was inserted in its Orion monitoring products and existed in updates released between March and June 2020. On Dec. 15, 2020, Reuters reported that (1) a security researcher alerted SolarWinds last year that anyone could access the company's update server by using the password "solarwinds123," and (2) a cyber security expert noticed that even days after SolarWinds knew their software was compromised the malicious updates were still available for download. Significantly, shortly before these events unfolded and caused SolarWinds shares to crater, two investors controlling a majority of SolarWinds' board of directors sold $285 million of SolarWinds shares. "We're focused on proving that SolarWinds knew about the security vulnerabilities before disclosing them," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are a SolarWinds investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding SolarWinds Corporation should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email SWI@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] SOLARWINDS CORP: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of March 5 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until March 5, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE: SWI), if they purchased the Company's securities between February 24, 2020 through December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. What You May Do If you purchased securities of SolarWinds and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-swi/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by March 5, 2021. About the Lawsuit SolarWinds and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported that hackers purportedly working for the Russian government had exploited the Company's monitoring software to access email traffic at the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments. On December 14, 2020, the Company disclosed that it had "been made aware of a cyberattack that inserted a vulnerability within its Orion monitoring products" and that "the vulnerability was inserted within the Orion products and existed in updates released between March and June 2020" and that it was cooperating with federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies. On this news, the Company's shares fell $3.93 per share, or 17%, to close at $19.62 per share on December 14, 2020 On December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that security research sources revealed that the Company had been made aware of the vulnerabilities the prior year and that even after being aware that their software had been compromised, the malicious updates were still available for download. On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.56 per share or 8% to close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 2020. The case is Bremer v. SolarWinds Corporation, et al., 21-cv-2. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contacts: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 [GN] SOLARWINDS CORP: March 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 5 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") (NYSE: SWI) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of SolarWinds between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for SolarWinds investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of SolarWinds during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the March 5, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] SOLARWINDS CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 5 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Jan. 5 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or "the Company") (NYSE: SWI) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 5, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. SolarWinds' Orion monitoring product suffered from a vulnerability since the middle of 2020 that allowed hackers to force access to servers running the compromised software. The Company's update server was not adequately secured, for example, its password was "solarwinds123." The Company's customers, including Microsoft, the Federal government, and others were left vulnerable to hackers. This vulnerability and subsequent hacks of these organizations led to severe reputational harm for the Company. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about SolarWinds, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] STAFF MANAGEMENT: Silver Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Means, et al. The case is styled as Frederick O. Silver, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Jonathan Means, Rich Christensen, Todd Gilman, Staff Management Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00127 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Staff Management Solutions, LLC -- https://www.staffmanagement.com/ -- offers staffing solutions for manufacturing or distribution operations.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Frederick O Silver 7737 Skolout St., Apt. 126 San Antonio, TX 78227 Phone: (210) 803-2299 Email: ASCLV1@gmail.com STATE AUTOMOBILE: Judge Tosses Covid-19 Coverage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Daphne Zhang, writing for Law360, reports that a West Virginia federal judge on Jan. 5 tossed a restaurant group's proposed class action seeking to force State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. to cover its COVID-19 related losses, holding that the eateries failed to show physical damage required for coverage. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin said that Bluegrass LLC, which owns three restaurants in Charleston, West Virginia, was not able to allege that the restaurants experienced tangible physical alterations to trigger coverage, or that civil authority closure orders barred access to its properties. "While I am sympathetic to the plight of small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, I am unable to find that a regulatory shutdown order is a 'physical loss or damage' as contemplated by the plain language of the parties' contract," the judge said. Bluegrass failed to demonstrate "a nexus between physical property damage and the state's actions," as the eateries operated on a limited or takeout-only basis after state-mandated closures in March, Judge Goodwin said. According to the suit, Bluegrass owns the Tricky Fish, Starlings and the Bluegrass Kitchen in Charleston. Tricky Fish shut down in mid-March and reopened in late May, Starlings offered takeout after March and resumed normal operations in May, while Bluegrass offered takeout initially and suspended business in May. After Bluegrass filed its claim for revenue loss, State Auto denied coverage, asserting that the restaurants did not experience direct physical loss or damage required for coverage. "To find that a physical loss or damage has taken place at the covered Bluegrass properties under these conditions would be to ignore the reality that many restaurants and cafes have continued to operate during the pandemic," Judge Goodwin said in the order. Bluegrass has argued that the presence of COVID-19 in the restaurants created a physical loss by making its covered properties unusable and that a direct physical loss does not require any physical alteration. Judge Goodwin disagreed on Jan. 5, citing case law that says "even actual presence of the virus would not be sufficient to trigger coverage for physical damage," since COVID-19 can be cleaned from a property surface with disinfectant. Additionally, the judge referenced Elegant Massage LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., saying that although a Virginia federal court recently held that "direct physical loss" should be interpreted in favor of the insured to grant coverage because Virginia case law created ambiguity in the term, he finds "no such spectrum of interpretation in West Virginia law." "There is no such ambiguity in this case. West Virginia law requires me to give the language in an insurance contract its plain and ordinary meaning," Judge Goodwin added. Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment. Bluegrass is represented by David R. Barney Jr. and Kevin W. Thompson of Thompson Barney, and Gary F. Lynch and Kelly K. Iverson of Carlson Lynch. State Auto is represented by Adam Fleischer, David Buishas and Elise D. Allen of BatesCarey; and Lee Murray Hall and Sarah A. Walling of Jenkins Fenstermaker PLLC. The case is Bluegrass LLC v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, case number 2:20-cv-00414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. [GN] STATE AUTOMOBILE: West Virginia Court Tosses Amended Bluegrass Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BLUEGRASS, LLC, Plaintiff v. STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00414 (S.D.W. Va.), Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiff Bluegrass operates the Tricky Fish restaurant, Starlings restaurant, and the Bluegrass Kitchen in Charleston, West Virginia. It purchased a commercial property insurance policy from Defendant State Auto. The Policy, attached to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A, was in effect at all relevant times and covered the three Bluegrass properties. Generally, the Policy insured the Plaintiff in the event of a "direct physical loss of or damage" to a covered property, unless limited by an enumerated exclusion. It also provides that it will cover lost business income sustained by the insured when a civil authority prohibits access to the property following a covered loss. On March 16, 2020, the Governor of West Virginia declared a state of emergency related to the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, pandemic. On March 23, 2020, the Governor issued an Executive Order requiring all non-essential businesses to cease all activities beyond minimum basic operations to maintain inventory, process payroll, etc. effective at 8:00 p.m. on March 24, 2020. As a result of the orders governing Bluegrass, the covered property of Tricky Fish closed to the public on March 16, 2020, and reopened on May 28, 2020. The covered property of Bluegrass Kitchen went on a modified schedule ("take out only") on March 16, 2020, and then ceased all operations on May 16, 2020. The covered property of Starlings went on a modified schedule ("take out only") to the public on March 16, 2020, and then resumed normal operations on May 28, 2020. Bluegrass timely submitted a claim for the loss of business income during the period of modified operations at each covered property. State Auto denied the claim. State Auto's position in its denial letter is that the health and safety restrictions that closed non-essential businesses do not constitute a direct physical loss or damage and that certain exclusions for governmental ordered loss of use and viral outbreaks bar coverage. Bluegrass filed an Amended Complaint on its own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated business owners. It seeks a declaration that the policy covers the business losses sustained and damages for breach of contract. State Auto moves to dismiss. In addition to its argument that the sustained losses are not "direct physical loss or damage," State Auto maintains that business income coverage under Policy section 5.f does not apply when suspended operations "precede the claimed property loss and when no direct physical loss at the described premises is alleged;" and that the civil authority provisions do not work to provide coverage in the absence of a "prohibition of access" or direct physical loss or damage to the property. Bluegrass responds that a direct physical loss does not require any physical alteration, destruction, or damage to the covered property and that the deprivation of use can constitute a physical loss. It also argues that State Auto has not met its burden of demonstrating that the policy exclusions apply in these circumstances. In the alternative, Bluegrass argues that the pervasive and dangerous presence of COVID-19 at its business properties caused a dangerous condition that created a physical loss by rendering the covered properties unusable. Judge Goodwin opines that there is little doubt that the construction of the plain language of the policy is at the heart of the coverage dispute. The Judge finds that there has not been a direct loss to the property. The pleadings are devoid of any allegation that there has been a damage or alteration to the covered properties or even a threat of damage or alteration. While he is sympathetic to the plight of small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Judge is unable to find that a regulatory shutdown order is a "physical loss or damage" as contemplated by the plain language of the parties' contract. Furthermore, coverage for Bluegrass is not triggered by the policy's Civil Authority provision, Judge Goodwin opines. Under the plain language of this provision, physical damage to the property and action by the state to restrict access are clearly necessary conditions precedent to coverage. In order to be covered by this provision, Bluegrass would need to show a nexus between physical property damage and the state's actions. The required nexus does not exist. Bluegrass' properties were able to operate on a modified, take out only basis and the executive orders contemplated access to the property for administerial functions in the early days of the pandemic. Finally, having found that coverage has not been triggered by a direct physical loss or damage, the Judge need not analyze whether State Auto properly invoked coverage exclusions for damage caused by viral infections or government ordered loss of use when denying coverage to Bluegrass. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Goodwin granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the matter. Any pending motions are terminated as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y35gpsk3 from Leagle.com. STATE OF NEW YORK: Shomo Files Prisoner Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and its Executives. The case is styled as Jose J. Shomo, and all those like and similarly situated v. State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and its Executives, Case No. 1:21-cv-00128-UA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prison Condition for Prisoner Civil Rights. The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision -- https://doccs.ny.gov/ -- is the department of the New York State government responsible for the care, confinement, and rehabilitation of inmates.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. SUNSWEET GROWERS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunsweet Growers Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sunsweet Growers Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00140 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sunsweet Growers Inc. -- https://www.sunsweet.com/ -- is a handler of dried tree fruits including cranberries, apricots and prunes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com TRANSUNION LLC: Supreme Court to Hear Argument in FCRA Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brett M. Waldron, Esq., of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear argument in a Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") class-action case out of the Ninth Circuit, Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, 951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. granted in part sub nom. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, Sergio L., No. 20-297, 2020 WL 7366280 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020), that raises the question of whether all class members, and not just the class representative, must establish Article III standing to receive individual money damages at the final-judgment phase. Assuming, as the Ninth Circuit held, that all class members must show standing in these circumstances, the Supreme Court will likely revisit the specifics of Article III standing under the FCRA. On December 16, 2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the following question: "Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered." Cert. Pet., at i; see also TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, Sergio L., No. 20-297, 2020 WL 7366280 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2020). The question comes to the Court after a jury awarded each of the 8,185 class members $984.22 in statutory damages and $6,353.08 in punitive damages under the FCRA, for a classwide verdict of about $60 million. Before trial, the district court certified a class consisting of individuals who had requested a copy of their credit report from TransUnion and received (during a six-month period) a letter incorrectly indicating that their name was a potential match to individuals who had been flagged for national security reasons. But unlike Mr. Ramirez, whose incorrect credit report had been accessed by a Nissan dealership, most of the class members did not have their reports disclosed to third parties. After trial, TransUnion argued that the verdict should be set aside because only Mr. Ramirez, as the class representative, "suffered a concrete and particularized injury as a result of TransUnion's unlawful practice." Ramirez, 951 F.3d at 1017. Mr. Ramirez responded that no member of the class other than the representative need show Article III standing. In a case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the appeals court first ruled that "every member of a class certified under Rule 23 must satisfy the basic requirements of Article III standing at the final stage of a money damages suit when class members are to be awarded individual monetary damages." Id. The court viewed its ruling as following from Supreme Court precedent, which the Ninth Circuit described as requiring that "all parties seeking to recover a monetary award in their own name . . . show Article III standing." Id. at 1023. Next, the court held that each class member suffered an Article III injury. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), the court concluded that the class had shown standing on its reasonable-procedures (to ensure informational accuracy) claim because "the nature of the inaccuracy is severe," Ramirez, 951 F.3d at 1026, and TransUnion practices "ran a real risk of causing the uncertainty and stress that Congress aimed to prevent in enacting the FCRA," id. Responding to TransUnion's argument that a majority of the class members could not establish standing because their credit reports were never disseminated, the court noted that the fact that the reports were readily available for dissemination was sufficient -- in other words, a risk of dissemination because the defendant made the incorrect reports readily available to third parties could support Article III standing. See id. at 1027. On the class's other claims, the court ruled that standing had been shown based on a risk-of-harm theory. See id. at 1029–30. Judge McKeown dissented on the standing issue, and would have held that, despite her agreement with the majority that all class members must show standing to obtain damages after trial, "no one but Ramirez and the class members whose information was disclosed to a third party had standing to assert a reasonable procedures claim, and only Ramirez had standing to bring the [other] claims." Id. at 1038 (McKeown, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). She observed that, under the FCRA, "[a]ny ‘concrete interest in accurate credit reporting' is implicated only upon disclosure to a third party." Id. at 1040. And in her view, there was no evidence at trial that showed "a serious likelihood of disclosure" for a majority of the class members. Id. As Judge McKeown observed, "[a] class action jury trial is a high-stakes affair more common in cinema than an actual courtroom." Id. at 1038. But when class action jury trials are resolved in the courtroom, this case illustrates, from the perspective of defense counsel, the danger of a court allowing a sympathetic, yet atypical, class representative to serve as the highlight of the trial when the majority of class members may have presented different stories. Time will tell how the Supreme Court chooses to deal with this danger, if it views it as a danger at all. [GN] TRICIDA INC: Faces Pardi Suit Over 47.16% Drop in Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PARDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRICIDA, INC., GERRIT KLAERNER, and GEOFFREY M. PARKER, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00076 (N.D. Cal., January 6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Tricida's business, operational, and compliance policies in order to artificially inflate the prices of Tricida securities between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tricida's new drug application (NDA) for veverimer was materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (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. When the truth emerged that the FDA has identified deficiencies in the company's NDA and the company has decided to reduce headcount, Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or 47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020. Tricida, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in South San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com TRITERRAS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Jan. 5 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Triterras, Inc. f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. from August 20, 2020 through December 16, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Triterras securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Triterras Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the extent to which the Company's revenue growth was dependent on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Triterras' business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On December 17, 2020, Triterras announced that "a statutory demand for payment from [. . .] Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") was filed by a creditor of Rhodium on December 1, 2020 pursuant to the Singapore Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act." Triterras described Rhodium in its announcement as "instrumental to the initial launch of the Company's Kratos platform and the platform's attractiveness to the commodities trading and trade financing communities[.]" On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.11, or approximately 31%, to close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Triterras securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/triterrasinc-trit-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-346/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com URL: https://www.bernlieb.com Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] U.S. WINGS INC: Quezada Says Website Inaccessible to the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Quezada, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Wings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-10707 (S.D. N.Y., December 18, 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, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. U.S. Wings is a military apparel company that owns and operates the website, www.uswings.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which U.S. Wings ensures the delivery of throughout the United States, including New York State. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com ULTA BEAUTY: Hansber Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHAHARA HANSBER, NANG CHAN, and JESUS MORENO, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC; SPHERION STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Case No. BCV-20-101598, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on January 5, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00022-AWI-JLT to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay all straight time wages, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions, failure to pay all wages due at time of termination of employment, and irregular pay periods. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC is a cosmetics company based in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Spherion Staffing, LLC is a recruiting and staffing provider based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: J. Scott Carr, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 493-3980 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com UNILEVER UNITED: Arroyo Files Fraud Suit in D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., et al. The case is styled as Iris Arroyo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a/ UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Case No. 2:21-cv-00302-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., Jan. 7, 2021). The case alleges fraud-related claims. Unilever United States, Inc. -- https://www.unileverusa.com/ -- manufactures personal care products. The Company offers , laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Hwy. E., Second Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 772-7200 Email: ecf@shublawyers.com UNITED PARCEL: Hess Employment Class Suit Goes to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DESDNIE HESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. RG20078425, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00093 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Civil Code, the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including public nuisance, unfair business practices, and failure to reimburse business expenses. United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational package delivery and supply chain management company based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rachel S. Brass, Esq. Joseph R. Rose, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 393-8306 E-mail: rbrass@gibsondunn.com jrose@gibsondunn.com UNITYPOINT HEALTH: March 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Penny Hoarder reports that the New Year brings new opportunities to seek restitution for wrongs committed in previous months and even years. Take a look at this month's list of class-action settlements to see if any of these offers will let you add some cha-ching to your pocket as you ring in 2021. UnityPoint Health: Data Breach Anyone who was affected by UnityPoint Health data breaches in 2017 and 2018 may be eligible for up to $7,000 plus a year of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection. Also known as Iowa Health System, the lawsuit claims UnityPoint was hit by a data breach that began in November 2017. The multi-hospital delivery and health care system purportedly found the ongoing breach in February 2018, but failed to notify affected persons until April or even July of 2018. The lawsuit alleges that more than 1 million names, addresses, phone numbers, billing information and health information were exposed, costing patients and consumers time and money to cancel credit cards and fight identity theft and fraud. UnityPoint denied wrongdoing, but agreed to a $2.8 million settlement. UnityPoint Health said it contacted all affected consumers whose personal information was exposed during the 2017 and 2018 data breaches. File your valid claim by March 2, 2021 to receive a year of free credit monitoring and up to $1,000 in "ordinary" expenses, including a maximum of three hours of time valued at $15 per hour and documented out-of-pocket expenses you incurred due to the data breaches, such as postage fees and internet charges. You also may claim up to $6,000 in "extraordinary" expenses related to identity theft or fraud caused by the data breaches, including false tax returns and interest on loans you had to take out because of canceling your credit card accounts. Kalispell Regional Healthcare: Data Breach You could be eligible for expense reimbursement, cash payments and free credit monitoring services as the result of a $4.2 million class-action settlement. In October 2019, Kalispell Regional Healthcare notified patients that hackers were able to access employee email accounts and used those accounts to access the personal data of patients. In response, a lawsuit alleged Kalispell didn't do enough to protect against hackers. The company did not admit to any wrongdoing, but agreed to settle for $4.2 million. Cyber thieves reportedly gained access to the following patient data: Names and addresses Medical record numbers Dates of birth Telephone numbers Email addresses Medical history and treatment information Dates of service Treating physicians Medical bill account numbers Health insurance information Social Security numbers If you were notified by Kalispell Regional Healthcare that your personal information might have been compromised, you could be eligible for reimbursement of up to $15,000 in expenses related to the breach. You also may be eligible for up to five hours of time at the rate of $15 per hour. In addition to reimbursement, you can choose between five years of Experian credit monitoring services valued at nearly $720 and an alternative cash payment of up to $100. Exact cash payment amounts will vary but will not exceed $100. Claim forms are due by Feb. 25, 2021. BMW: Failing Coolant Pump If you owned or leased specific 2007 through 2019 models of BMW vehicles, you could claim up to $1,000 in reimbursements. A class-action suit alleged the affected vehicles were equipped with electric coolant pumps that once they failed, caused engines to overheat, resulting in the need for expensive repairs. The lawsuit further alleged BMW knew of the problem but did not fix it or reimburse owners and lessees for resulting repairs. Car owners and lessees may receive a maximum of $1,000 in out-of-pocket repair costs for parts and labor required to replace one failed electric engine coolant pump and a thermostat, if such replacement was needed within the first seven years or first 84,000 miles the vehicle was in service. In addition, BMW's New Passenger Vehicle Limited Warranty may be extended to seven years or 84,000 miles. BMW also will replace an electric coolant pump that fails for one year after the settlement becomes effective, no matter how old the vehicle is or how many miles it has on it. We have the complete list of models covered and all the details you need to make a claim by the Feb. 18, 2021 deadline. Sports Research: Deceptive Supplement Labeling If you bought Sports Research Corporation's Premium MCT Oil products or Turmeric Curcumin C3 Complex products, you could be eligible for a portion of a settlement over allegations of deceptive labeling practices. The premium-priced products that were labeled "packed with beneficial fats" and capable of fostering "natural" energy purportedly were falsely advertised. The MCT Oil merchandise contained 14 grams of saturated fat that did not allow it to be considered "healthy" as part of a diet. In addition, the "natural" energy supposedly induced by the use of raw coconut materials allegedly underwent processing. The MCT Oil products were also promoted as containing antibacterial, anti-microbial and anti-viral properties, while the Turmeric Curcumin C3 products were marketed as anti-inflammatory products that provided antioxidant benefits. If you bought Sports Research's MCT Oil products or Turmeric Curcumin C3 products between Jan. 9, 2016 and Jan. 9, 2020, you could be eligible for either a $7 voucher to be used toward the purchase of any Sports Research product or $3 cash. File your valid claim by Feb. 23, 2021 to receive your healthy dose of restitution. Chime Digital Bank Service Disruption Were you unable to access your Chime deposit account between Oct. 16-19, 2019 because of a service disruption? If so, you could be eligible for a portion of a $1.5 million class-action settlement. The intermittent outage lasted for several days, according to the lawsuit, which resulted in late bill payments and disrupted purchases. The suit also says Chime failed to warn users of the outage and only communicated via Twitter. Chime did not admit to any wrongdoing, but agreed to the class action settlement. Compensation is divided into two tiers. Tier one allows consumers who suffered a loss due to the service disruption to receive a cash payment up to $25 with no proof of such loss. Tier two provides payments up to $750 for those who can provide documentation. We have all the details and how to file your claim by the Feb. 15, 2021 deadline. BMW: Defective Timing Chain Former owners and lessees of certain 2012 to 2015 models of BMW vehicles could be eligible for reimbursement for allegedly defective timing chain components. A lawsuit that alleged certain BMWs equipped with N20 and N26 engines were prone to experiencing damage and needing costly repairs because of defective timing chains. BMW owners and lessees may qualify for either a reimbursement program or a prospective repair program. The reimbursement program provides between 40% and 100% reimbursement for vehicle repairs depending on the mileage at the time of service. No cap exists for repair reimbursement if the repairs were completed at a BMW center. However, repairs done at an independent service center are capped at $3,000 for timing chain modules and oil pump drive chain modules and at $7,500 for engines. A separate program provides reimbursement for future repairs. Some of these claims will be covered under vehicles' existing warranties while others will be reimbursed for between 40% and 75% of the total repair costs. Vehicles must be taken to a BMW center. Expenses are only eligible for reimbursement if the damage was caused by failure of the timing chain or oil pump drive chain modules. Vehicles that have over 100,000 miles or have been in service for over eight years are not eligible. Check out the details, the list of covered vehicles, and the claim form that must be submitted by the estimated deadline of March 18, 2021. Navy Federal Credit Union: Unfair NSF Fees Navy Federal Credit Union has agreed to a $16 million settlement over allegations it charged unfair non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees to its customers. Navy Federal customers who were charged two or three NSF fees on one transaction between Jan. 28, 2014 and Oct. 27, 2020 may be eligible for cash payments or account credits. Multiple fees purportedly were incurred when a merchant presented a transaction for payment several times after an initial rejection. With each attempt, Navy Federal allegedly tried to process the payments again, which resulted in an additional NSF fee. This practice of charging the additional NSF fees violated Navy Federal's own terms of its agreements, according to the suit. Exact awards will depend upon the number of NSF fees charged and the number of customers who agree to participate in the settlement. No claim form is required because cash payments or account credits automatically will be distributed, but you have until Feb. 24, 2021 to object to the settlement or to ask to be excluded from it. [GN] USHEALTH ADVISORS: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs' TCPAWorld, reports that so I'm fresh off my Soltice break and have tons to do. But I wanted to start the year off with a blog about why TCPA class actions -- particularly DNC cases which are so important with the shadow of Facebook hanging over us—are never properly certified. Interesting, there is nothing new in the analysis of Hirsch v. Ushealth Advisors, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00245-P, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228936 (N,D. Tx. December 7, 2020) -- indeed its primary analysis comes straight from Gene & Gene –a case from 2008! Back then TCPA certification was pretty simple to analyze -- if the numbers came from multiple sources then certification was not possible because consent would need to be evaluated for each source separately. And where calls stemmed from individual interactions between agents and consumers -- like where consumers filled out online forms or provided information to an agent over the phone -- then each and every individual interaction would need to be reviewed for consent, making certification quite impossible. On the other hand when numbers came from a single source—like a lead list—it would be possible to certify TCPA cases, at least as long as consent could be monolithically established for the list (one way or the other.) Pretty simple stuff. But as time has worn on here in TCPAWorld many courts have lost their way and began certifying multi-source cases in special settings (i.e. skip trace classes or wrong number classes) and some even went so far as to certify multi-source cases outright, reasoning that the Defendant has some special burden to affirmatively prove consent by class members at the certification stage. Ridiculous. In Hirsch the court reached back to the Gene & Gene era and simplified matters for TCPAWorld, once again. In a TCPA DNC case -- the Court reasoned -- there are three principle issues that will drive the outcome of the litigation: i) whether calls were made without consent; ii) whether the calls are made to residential numbers; and iii) whether Defendant is liable for the calls on vicarious liability theory. Either Plaintiff has common evidence on all three of those issues—in which case the case might be certified—or he/she does not—in which the case the case may not be certified. Elegant. Straightforward. Correct. In Hirsch the Plaintiff failed to make the required showing. As to consent, the phone calls at issue arose from various and different interactions between consumers and third-parties. In short, the phone numbers originated from multiple sources and, as a result "consent could not be proven by general evidence -- each number had its own story." The Hirsch court found that Defendants and Defendants' Agents used various methods to obtain consent, "including personal relationships, existing business relationships, explicit requests, and multiple lead-generation vendors." These multiple sources meant many customers afforded consent and—even if some did not—determining who did, and who did not, was a case by case review. This is true even though some of the numbers were obtained via lead generation: from leads Defendants bought from lead-generation vendors, there is evidence that at least some of those were screened or verified for TCPA. As to identifying residential numbers—remember only calls to residential cell phone numbers are actionable in TCPA DNC class actions—plaintiff's plan to review potential class members against a database of business numbers was "unreliable." No single source of information definitively answers this question for each phone number. Even if a database suggests that a number is (or is not) a business number, the Defendant is entitled to offer proof to the contrary and the Court need not merely accept any database's determination. Instead, "[e]ach must be tested individually." The Court finds the needed number by number review to be a "Herculean task at best." As to vicarious liability, the mere fact that Defendant's agents signed common agreements was not dispositive. The evidence showed that each Agent engages with the Defendant to different degrees, suggesting different levels of "control" from an agency perspective. The Court found the following facts useful to the analysis: "Some Agents work from an office with many Agents, and other Agents work from their homes. Each Regional Manager may take different levels of oversight and control. And then there are the lead-generation vendors. They may work directly with Defendants, but also with Regional Managers and individual Agents. Each relationship, and Defendants' control over each relationship, could be different." Finally -- and importantly -- the Hirsch court comes very close to holding that repeat-players cannot serve as TCPA class action representatives. This is especially true where the plaintiff invites return phone calls. Backing up, it has become common practice for repeat or serial TCPA to invite calls from marketers to pierce through the first layer of marketing call to determine who the call was made "on behalf of." That is to say, Plaintiffs feign interest in a product during a call from a marketer in order to get connected with the ultimate seller. The seller then makes an outbound call -- seemingly with consent to an interested purchaser -- only to get sued for making the original call without consent. Here the Hirsch analysis is a bit less elegant. The proper analysis in this situation is: i) whether the third-party making the initial call was an "agent" of the Defendant (almost never the case); and ii) whether the seller had an inquiry EBR for its own subsequent call (almost always the case). In Hirsch, however, the Court determined there would not have been a lawsuit but for Plaintiff's feigned interest in the product -- so he was atypical of the class. The Court noted the Defendant's counterclaim against Plaintiff for fraud (critical and good move by Defendant) as highlighting individualized and atypical issues. " In this case's trial, Hirsch will play as much defense as offense. "This involves more than just defending the counterclaims -- although that is a consideration. Hirsch created the case's factual foundation by scheduling the calls. But for his actions, there would not be a case." The court also affords this gem that comes very close to barring repeat plaintiff's from representing classes: his records and behavior make his status as a professional plaintiff unavoidable. For some potential jurors, this may be decisive. How sweet is that? Hirsch is a great little decision and every TCPA class action defense lawyer ought to have this one handy. Note in particular the huge hurdle that identifying residential numbers pose in DNC class actions. That issue alone really should be decisive -- commonality can never be achieved in these cases, outside of very narrow circumstances where all numbers dialed are presumptively residential in nature. For callers and sellers, notice how critical it was that vendors were vetted at the onboarding for TCPA compliance. Because the vendors were representing and proving consent at the front end, the Court credited that the seller was not just making illegal calls to sell its product. Moreover, even if a few bad eggs slipped in there would have to be a file by file review to determine who they were. One note of caution, however, the Plaintiff's lawyers appeared to have pigged out a bit in this case. They swung for the fences and wanted a class of every call made by every "agent" regardless of source. If they had dialed back their class and focused n particular sources—i.e. specific lead sources -- things might have been different. For callers and sellers that means that you need to carefully vet your lead sources and shut them off if you suspect fraud at any point. That's enough from the Czar on this. Thanks for being with us in the New Year. Already HUGE traffic this year. Just remarkable. Wonderful to see TCPAWorld eagerly returning to the comfort and joy of its favorite blog. Also, be sure to check out our huge [VIDEO] podcast with the CEOs of Jornaya and Active Prospect if you haven't already. Happy New Year all! [GN] VARIABLE ANNUITY: D.L. Markham Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------- D.L. MARKHAM, DDS, MSD, INC. 401(K) PLAN and D.L. MARKHAM, DDS, MSD, INC., as plan administrator, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. THE VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (VALIC), VALIC FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC., VALIC RETIREMENT SERVICES COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-at-00004 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2021) arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against fiduciaries of and service providers to the retirement plans. The lawsuit is brought by the plan and plan administrator of the D.L. Markham, DDS, MSD, INC. 401(k) Plan to recover and otherwise seek redress, on a class-wide basis, for fees improperly withheld from plan assets by the Defendants that had been retained to administer and manage those assets. Fundamentally, the class action seeks to right Defendants' wrongs of targeting and exploiting small employers seeking to provide benefits to their employees. D.L. Markham, DDS, MSD, Inc. 401(k) Plan is an employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of Section 2(A) of ERISA. D.L. Markham, DDS, MSD, Inc. is a dental practice in the form of a California corporation located in Auburn, California, owned by David Markham, D.D.S. and Luminita Markham D.D.S. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company (VALIC) is an insurance company and a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. headquartered in Houston, Texas. Subsidiaries of VALIC include VALIC Financial Advisors, Inc. and VALIC Retirement Services Company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris Baker, Esq. Mike Curtis, Esq. BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1 California Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-1064 Facsimile: (415) 366-2525 E-mail: cbaker@bakerlp.com mcurtis@bakerlp.com - and - David Crutcher, Esq. 790 Mission Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 E-mail: david@crutcherlaw.com VITAL RECOVERY: Leibowitz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery Services, LLC. The case is styled as Sabina Leibowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00098 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Vital Recovery Services, LLC ("VRS") -- https://pay.vitalrecovery.com/ -- is a fully licensed, national, third-party collection agency performing bad debt recovery and skip tracing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com WB STUDIO: Ettedgui Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Ettedgui, individually, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WB Studio Enterprises Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20BBCV00719 (Cal. Super., September 2, 2020), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 17, 2020, under Case No. 20-cv-11410. Ettedgui seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay and redress for failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemized wage statements, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated employees, reimbursement of business expenses, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. WB Studio operates as an entertainment company, engaging in the creation, production, distribution, licensing and marketing of all forms of entertainment and their related businesses. Ettedgui was employed by WB from December 4, 2019 to January 4, 2020 as a Tour Guide/Floater. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com WB Studio Enterprises Inc. is represented by: Seth E. Pierce, Esq. Carly B. Epstein, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG AND KNUPP LLP 2049 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 312-2000 Email: sep@msk.com cbe@msk.com WELLS FARGO: Ibarra Labor Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JACQUELINE F. IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-04344, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00071-JCS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, failure to pay all wages owed upon the termination of employment, failure to pay all wages owed every pay period, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq. Paul Bmkowitz, Esq. Jason P. Brown, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com jpbrown@sheppardmullin.com WEST LIBERTY: Varnado Stayed Pending Illinois App. Ruling in Tims ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LAMARCUS VARNADO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEST LIBERTY FOODS, Defendant, Case No. 20 C 2035 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, grants the Defendant's motion to stay the present proceedings pending the Illinois Appellate Court's decision in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, No. 1-20-0563. Plaintiff Varnado brings the putative class action under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). Varnado alleges that his former employer, the Defendant, violated BIPA by implementing a biometric fingerprint timekeeping system without its employees' prior written consent. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Varnado's claims as untimely and also argued that the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act ("IWCA") preempts Varnado's BIPA claims. In the alternative, it asks the Court to stay the matter until the Illinois courts resolve the statute of limitations and preemption issues. Specifically, the Defendant asserts that in Tims, the Illinois Appellate Court will address whether a one- or five-year limitations period applies to BIPA claims. Further, it submits that McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville, LLC, No. 1-19-2398, will address the preemption issue. Since the Defendant filed the present motion, the Illinois Appellate Court has concluded that BIPA injuries are simply not compensable under the IWCA. Therefore, the issue in the motion is whether the Court should stay the present proceedings pending the Tims decision on the statute of limitations issue. Judge Coleman holds that central to the lawsuit is whether Varnado's BIPA claims are untimely under the one-year limitations period set forth in 735 ILCS 5/13-201 for violations of privacy claims or whether the catch-all five-year limitations period under 735 ILCS 5/13-205 applies. She finds that staying the present proceedings until the limitations issue is resolved by the Illinois Appellate Court would significantly advance judicial economy because Varnado failed to file his BIPA claims within the one-year limitations period. And, in the diversity jurisdiction lawsuit, the Tims decision will control the statute of limitations issue. Varnado's arguments of prejudice and delay are belied by the fact that the Tims appeal is fully briefed, Judge Coleman finds. Further, that courts other than the Illinois Appellate Court have concluded the one-year limitations period under 5/13-201 does not apply is not dispositive because the Illinois Appellate Court's decision will control. In short, the Judge concludes that Varnado's concerns do not outweigh the judicial economy of staying these proceedings under the circumstances. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 5, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6aqlcdc from Leagle.com. WESTERN REFINING: Caballero Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ALEJANDRO CABALLERO, ALEX CABALLERO, and NOURA MAJOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01166659-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 6, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00018 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 provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal periods, failure to pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, failure to indemnify, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition. Western Refining Retail, LLC is a petroleum refining company based in Ohio. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matt Light, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 E-mail: mlight@shb.com WILLAMETTE VALLEY: Kelley Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charlene Kelley, individually and on behalf of the class members, Plaintiff, v. Willamette Valley Medical Center, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-02196 (D. Or., December 18, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and unpaid wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated and statutory damages, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kelley was employed as a certified nurse assistant by Willamette Valley Medical Center in McMinnville, Oregon. She claims to have performed work and/or remained on duty during her unpaid meal breaks and worked in excess of forty hours per week without being paid one-half times the hourly rate for the number of hours worked in excess of forty. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Tel: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com - and - Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com XENITH LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xenith, LLC. The case is styled as Josue Paguada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Xenith, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00141 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 7, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Xenith, LLC -- https://www.xenith.com/ -- was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of sporting and athletic goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com [*] Generic Drug Manufacturers Face Price-Fixing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Pei, Esq., of Smart & Biggar, in an article for JDSupra, disclosed that in 2020, Rx IP Update reported on a number of developments in Canadian life sciences IP and regulatory law. On June 3, a proposed class action was commenced against over 50 generic drug manufacturers, alleging they violated the Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices and maintain the supply of generic drugs from 2012 to present, and claiming $2.75 billion in compensation. [GN] [*] Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over COVID-19 Business Losses ------------------------------------------------------------- Roxanne Libatique, writing for Insurance Business Australia, reports that Maurice Blackburn might file a class action following an advertising campaign for a case against business interruption (BI) insurance providers, a move that could force insurers to settle more claims despite already losing in the BI test case in the New South Wales (NSW) Court of Appeal in November. Last year, insurers argued that business losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic were not covered by BI policies. However, the NSW Court of Appeal decided that exclusions referring to the defunct Quarantine Act were void and could not be used to refuse claims. Now, the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) is trying to appeal the decision in the High Court. Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Josh Mennen said the potential for a class action depends on the case's outcome and finding enough common threads in the different policies. "I think the chances [of a class action] are quite good, but it is too early to tell. The challenge is finding the common issues across the insurance policies. Each policy differs," Mennen said, as reported by the Australian Financial Review. Mennen added that he expects insurers to continue fighting against paying BI claims as liabilities could reach millions. The liabilities for IAG, for example, could be as much as $865 million. "[Insurers are] taking a comprehensive approach to this issue because they feel very strongly they should not be held liable for their drafting blunder, whereby they failed en masse to update their policies to reflect the change in legislation from the Quarantine Act to the Biosecurity Act," he said. [GN] [*] Policy Reversals to Impact Private Class Action Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that employers can expect stark reversals in policy with the administration change in Washington, which will have a "cascading impact" on private class action litigation, a report says. The shift in administration "is likely to bring increased regulation of businesses, renewed enforcement efforts, and policy changes at the agency level that will result in efforts to abandon or overturn pro-business rules of the Trump Administration," according to the 17th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report issued by Chicago-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Jan. 5. Other key trends in workplace class action litigation developments, according to the report, include: -Employers' rush to adopt safety requirements in response to COVID-19 has led to claims that they failed to pay minimum wage or overtime for compensable work hours, to properly reimburse employee expenses and provide required leave, or to go far enough in protecting workers from the virus. "Employers are apt to see the workplace class action expand and morph as they restart operations in the wake of COVID-19," the report says. - The aggregate monetary value of workplace class action settlements increased in 2020, despite many observers' expectation the pandemic would depress the size and pace of settlements. - Government enforcement litigation slowed considerably, and because the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a majority of Trump-appointed commissioners in place at least through mid-2022, "it is likely that the EEOC will remain on its current trajectory into the start of a Biden Presidency." - In 2020, the plaintiffs bar successfully secured class certification at an increasing rate. "This state of affairs is expected to explode in 2021 with a more worker-friendly U.S. Department of Labor apt to make supposed wage theft its enforcement priority and to shift its regulatory focus toward a plaintiff-friendly agenda," the report said. [GN] [*] Three Medical Device Manufacturers Face 15,000 Hernia Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard P. Console, Jr., Esq., of Console and Associates, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that thanks to defective hernia mesh implants, not all hernia repair surgeries go as planned. The patients who received defective mesh often end up in worse shape than they were before surgery and, sometimes, have to undergo an entire second surgery and recovery. Patients across the United States are moving forward with claims for compensation against the manufacturers of defective mesh -- and you can, too. The Basics of Hernia Mesh Hernia mesh is a medical device used in hernia repair surgeries. Doctors place the hernia mesh along the abdominal wall, at the spot of the hernia, to strengthen it. However, several brands of hernia mesh have been recalled after patients began experiencing severe complications. The manufacturers of medical devices make billions upon billions of dollars in marketing and selling devices that are supposed to improve patients' lives. Too often, as we've seen time and time again, manufacturers release defective products, potentially causing severe, life-altering injuries to unsuspecting patients. Hernia mesh is one of the latest in a long line of defective medical products. Your doctor suggested that hernia mesh surgery would help to reduce your daily pain. You and your doctor relied on the safety and efficacy of hernia mesh when planning your surgery. But, at the end of the day, you're left in a worse condition than before your surgery. You still experience excruciating pain and may have developed even more serious medical conditions, such as bowel obstruction or infection. Why Does Hernia Mesh Fail? Hernia mesh is a small, flexible screen made of synthetic material that doctors use to help strengthen the abdominal wall during a hernia repair surgery. In theory, the mesh will support the weakened abdominal muscles as they heal from the hernia repair surgery. Some hernia mesh works perfectly fine. However, certain brands of hernia mesh have high failure rates. Typically, hernia mesh failure is the result of one of the following: -- Hernia mesh breakage -- Hernia mesh shrinkage -- Hernia mesh migration -- The body's rejection of hernia mesh -- Surgical site infection Of course, patients rely on a manufacturer's claim that a medical device is safe and effective. In the case of many types of hernia mesh, that simply is not the case. Symptoms of Hernia Mesh Failure If you recently underwent hernia repair surgery, and you are having any of the following symptoms, reach out to a doctor right away for help determining if hernia mesh failure could be to blame. Bowel obstruction, which can cause vomiting, nausea, and the inability to pass stools or gas Hernia recurrence, in which the hernia that was supposed to be repaired comes back Infection, typically characterized by fever and flu-like symptoms Mesh migration or shrinkage, which can lead to bowel obstructions, adhesions, or abscesses Mesh rejection, which often presents with pain, tenderness, and swelling at the surgical site The formation of painful scar-like tissue near the surgical area Open Hernia Mesh Lawsuits Medical device claims are commonly filed as class-action lawsuits because they affect so many people. Often, once a certain number of patients experience device failure, a defective medical device will be recalled. That is exactly what happened with hernia mesh devices. In fact, manufacturers have recalled hundreds of thousands of hernia mesh devices since the early 2000s. Currently, three medical device manufacturers face almost 15,000 hernia lawsuits in three different class-action lawsuits across the country. Manufacturer Products: Cases Pending: C.R. Bard 3DMax Composix E/X Kugel PerFix Sepramesh IP Composite Ventralex Patch Ventralex ST 9,394 Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Proceed Surgical Prolene 3,128 Atrium C-QUR, including meshes and v-patches 2,378 In addition to the above class-action lawsuits, there are many pending cases against other manufacturers, including: Covidien/Medtronic, for the company's Parietex surgical, Composite, or ProGrip products, and W.L. Gore & Associates, for the company's Gore-Tex DualMesh [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 ***