/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 19, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 8 Headlines 2015 HALLADAY: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Lemus Suit Alleges 3D IDAPRO: February 4 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Eckman Claims 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Sakamoto Claims 3M COMPANY: Audritsh Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Due to Toxic Effects of AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Estabrook Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic AFFF, Talbott Alleges 3M COMPANY: Exposes AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, McMurray Alleges 3M COMPANY: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Products, Luedtke Says 3M COMPANY: Firefighting Foam Multidistrict Litigation Pending 3M COMPANY: Hines Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Salcetti Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Sharpe Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Zisa Alleges Complications From Exposure to Toxic AFFF A & S VEGETABLES: Aguirre Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages AA JEDSON: Romero Sues Over Denial of Overtime Payment AKHIL GARLAND: Former Walden Eco Village Tenants Await Ruling ALIBABA GROUP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline ALLSTATE LENDING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Criminal Background Check Class Action APPLE INC: Claims in Shay Suit Over Fraudulent Gift Cards Narrowed APPLE INC: Judge May Deny Sales Figure Request From Antitrust Suit ASIAN IMPORT: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Evan Claims BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Swanson Hits Overpriced Crop Inputs BERRY CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline BERRY CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline BLACKROCK INC: Must Face ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees BREEN BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Mechanics, Nestor Claims BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces 2018 Customer Data Breach Class Action C PEPPER: Court Grants Flinn Leave to Amend Count II of Wage Suit CANADA: Faces Inmates Suit Over Systemic Bias in Risk Assessments CANCUN AND CANCUN: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CD PROJEKT: RM Law Files Video Game Consoles Class Action CD PROJEKT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Davis Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Must Face Christchurch Quake Class Action CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Staples, Grant Fail to Avert Class Action CLEARVIEW AI: Burke CCPA and BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois CLEARVIEW AI: Calderon BIPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Ill. CLEARVIEW AI: John BIPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois CLEARVIEW AI: McPherson BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois CLEARVIEW AI: Roberson Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois COCKE COUNTY, TN: Sheriff, Jailers Face Civil Rights Class Action COLORADO WEST: Underpays Peer Specialists, Futch Suit Alleges CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Martinez-Sanchez Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois CONSTRUCTION & TURNAROUND: Sica Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California CONSUMER REPORTS: Koller Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Proceedings CORAL CAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Laborers, Duran Claims CORAL SPRINGS: Faces Snarski Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages D&S CLEANERS: Holgado FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT DARIOHEALTH CORP: Chavakula Sues Over Removal Provision in Bylaws DARKTRACE INC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Der-Hacopian Suit DIETZ & WATSON: Faces Smoke Flavoring Labeling Class Action EAST PALACE: Court Dismisses Dong's Claims From Cui FLSA Suit ELENI'S NYC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Bid to Strike Defenses in Fodera Suit Denied ERIE INSURANCE: Highland Park Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania EXODUS BUILDING: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Lok FCRA Class Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y. FACEBOOK INC: Rosenman Antitrust Class Suit Goes to N.D. California FASTRAK: Court Rules on Class Action Over Unfair Toll Penalties FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Dodge Demon Class Action FUNIMATION GLOBAL: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GIFT SERVICES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOEDECKER INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOODRX HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline GOOGLE LLC: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Cabrera Class Suit GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice GRETNA, LA: $106.5K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Nelson Suit GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Insulin Pens GT EXPRESS INC: Rogers Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Suit Transferred to N.D. California HIGGINS BENJAMIN: N.C. Court Refuses to Dismiss Golden FDCPA Suit HOWMET AEROSPACE: Navarro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California HP HOOD: Faces Binns Suit Over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream HSBC BANK: New York Eastern Dist. Tosses EFTA Claim in Cheng Suit HY-VEE INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois iANTHUS EMPIRE: Dorsey Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York IQVIA: Supreme Court Won't Overturn Junk Fax Case Ruling JATOLA HOMES: Kallai RESPA Class Suit Removed to D. Ohio JEANNIE'S DELI: Faces Arriaga Suit Over Cashiers' Unpaid Wages JOYY INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of January 21 Deadline KAEL FOODS: Salazar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline KEURIG GREEN: June 4 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set LANDRY'S INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ontiveros et al. Claim LAROSA'S PIZZERIA: Franchisees Settle Delivery Drivers' Class Suit MAJOR ENERGY: Customer Must Arbitrate Rate-Change Class Claims MAJOR ENERGY: Maryland District Court Dismisses Amended Brito Suit MASS PRECISION: Failed to Pay All Wages Owed, Zamora Says MEDNAX SERVICES: Data Breach Exposes Customers' Info, Davis Claims MIDLAND CREDIT: Gross Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California MIDLAND CREDIT: Stekel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California MIDLAND CREDIT: Ziegler Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter MOHAWK CAPITAL: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing NEVADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID Vaccine Distribution NEVADA: Gorsline Alleges Injuries Over Unsafe Prison Environment NEW HAMPSHIRE: Hospitals' Claims for Nominal Damages in Doe Tossed NEW YORK, NY: United Probation Alleges Job Discriminatory Practices OMNILIFE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Suit Alleges ON CAMPUS MARKETING: Richwine Suit Alleges Retaliatory Dismissal PAREA GROUP: Filing of Bid for Final Nod of Argudo Deal Due Jan. 21 PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: High Court Refuses to Hear Coverage Suit POINT 2 POINT: Cotzomi FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rottenberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection POSH TOT: Fuino Sues Over Member's Unauthorized Use of Firm's Money QIWI PLC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Remind of February 9 Deadline QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 8 Deadline RAPI INC: Resto Staff Sue to Recover Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips READING, PA: Declaratory Judgment in Ziegler Class Suit Affirmed REALPAGE INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Austin Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California SINAI I INC: Faces Jenkins Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Estrada Sues Over Misleading SEC Statement SOBE USA: Penalba Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff SOLARWINDS CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 5 Deadline SOLARWINDS CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of March 12 Deadline SPLUNK INC: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Magistrate Recommends Mock Suit Dismissal STATE FARM: Vogt's Bid to Shift Notice & Distribution Costs Denied SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bare Consumers Suit Transferred to D.N.J. THAI UNION: Settles Canned Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action TORRI OHIO: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Quinlan Suit Claims TRANSUNION LLC: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling TRICEDA INC: Portnoy Law Firm Files Securities Class Action TRICIDA INC: Scott+Scott Attorney Reminds of March 8 Deadline TRITERRAS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline TRITERRAS INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline TSC DIGITAL: Blecha Suit Alleges Misclassification, Unpaid Wages TURQUOISE HILL: Faces Securities Class Action in Montreal Court TYSON FOODS: Settles Price Collusion Class Action Lawsuit UBER EATS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Exorbitant Commissions UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Sexual Abuse Class Settlement US FOODS: Osorio Employment Class Suit Goes to C.D. California UZZAL EXPRESS: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Required Wages WELLPET LLC: Bush Sues Over Mislabeled Grain-Free Pet Foods WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barron Suit Says YUM! BRANDS: Coons Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection ZILLOW INC: Nears $1.1-Mil. Labor Class Action Settlement [*] AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Covid-19 Restrictions [*] Brownstein Hyatt Discusses COBRA-Related Litigation Trend [*] Central District Court Dismisses Several ASL Class Actions [*] Krieg DeVault Discusses Class Action Waiver, Arbitration [*] New York State Legislature Introduces Standalone BIPA Bill [*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Workplace Class Action Trends ********* 2015 HALLADAY: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Lemus Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTIAN LEMUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 2015 HALLADAY WELLNESS, INC. d/b/a WEST CLINIK, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00044 (C.D. Cal., January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to promote its business without obtaining prior express written consent. The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused the Plaintiff and Class members actual harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. 2015 Halladay Wellness, Inc., doing business as West Clinik, is a cannabis dispensary located in the Santa Ana, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com 3D IDAPRO: February 4 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Jade McDowell, writing for East Oregonian, reports that settlement of a class action lawsuit on behalf of Stanfield residents against 3D Idapro Solutions is winding down. Those who qualify for payment under the settlement have until Feb. 4 to submit a claim, according to documentation on the website of Liddle & Dubin P.C., a Detroit-based law firm handling the lawsuit. 3D Idapro Solutions operated a dehydration plant in Stanfield for several years before closing the plant in 2019. In 2017, a fire burned equipment at the plant that helped reduce the odors coming from rotting potato scraps there. The company replaced the fire-damaged scrubber and made other changes designed to reduce odor, but area residents continued to complain in city council meetings and elsewhere that strong odors from the plant were reducing their quality of life. Some told the city council at the time that the odors had triggered physical responses, such as vomiting. Liddle & Dubin P.C. did not return a request for comment, but court documents show a lawsuit was filed against 3D Idapro Solutions in February 2019, alleging the company's actions had caused a decrease in the plaintiffs' property values due to the odor. According to the firm's website, the company has "vigorously denied and continues to deny all claims of wrongdoing and liability" but agreed to a settlement of $500,000 to avoid further legal expenses. According to Liddle & Dubin P.C., the $500,000 settlement will be split between parties to the lawsuit after legal fees and attorney expenses are deducted. The settlement class includes people who live or own residential property within a 4-mile radius of the plant at 405 Hoosier Road, Stanfield, any time after Feb. 26, 2013, and those who submitted a residential data sheet to the firm before April 15, 2020. The law firm's website states that qualifying individuals who wish to receive part of the settlement must submit a claim for compensation by Feb. 4. Those who wish to object to the terms of the settlement or exclude themselves from the settlement have until Jan. 20 to do so. Those who are part of the settlement class but do nothing before those deadlines will not receive part of the settlement, but will also release their claims on the defendant, meaning they could not file their own lawsuit for the same thing. The East Oregonian could not locate a website or contact information for 3D Idapro Solutions, but reached out to 3D Corporate Solutions, which lists the same address for its headquarters as previously listed by 3D Idapro Solutions, and did not receive a response. For more information, visit www.ldclassaction.com/class-action/3d-idapro-solutions-llc-settlement-2, email info@ldclassaction.com or call 1-800-536-0045. [GN] 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Eckman Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT EDWARD ECKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00127-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of serious medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Harmful to Human Health, Sakamoto Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERNEST KARL SAKAMOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00120-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) that contained highly toxic and bio persistent polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused him to develop serious medical conditions and complications. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Audritsh Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP MATTHEW AUDRITSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00125-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Brown Sues Due to Toxic Effects of AFFF Products ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN FREDERICK BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00121-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Estabrook Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- BROC EDWARD ESTABROOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00124-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are highly toxic and dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic AFFF, Talbott Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PERRY TALBOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00082-RMG (D.S.C., January 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Exposes AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, McMurray Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL RALPH MCMURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00129-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants knew that their AFFF products contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, but they failed to warn end users of the products about the health risks. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. As a direct result of the Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities, he developed serious medical conditions and complications. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Products, Luedtke Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD LEE LUEDTKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00126-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants due to their failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' failure to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, about the danger of the products to human health caused the Plaintiff to develop serious medical conditions and complications. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Firefighting Foam Multidistrict Litigation Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Roy D. Oppenheim, Esq., of Oppenheim Law, reports that need a firefighter foam lawsuit attorney? Contact Oppenheim Law at 954-384-6114 to discuss your firefighter foam cancer lawsuit. Have you used fire fighting foam (AFFF) and been diagnosed with cancer? About The Fire Fighting Foam Lawsuit 3M and DuPont, two of the world's largest chemical manufacturers, are now involved in multi-district litigation over lawsuits claiming that they exposed individuals to grave danger when they manufactured aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs), and both perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), two substances used to make AFFFs. PFOA and PFOS are part of a highly resistant group of substances, called the "forever chemicals", that are able to linger in the environment and in the human body for extremely long periods of time since they do not degrade by themselves. Both PFOA and PFOS are extremely toxic to humans and have been linked to various diseases and types of cancers. A Toxic History PFOA and PFOS were first manufactured in the 1940s to use in coating for various products, but it was not until 1960 when 3M created the infamous AFFFs. AFFFs were quickly adopted by the military, airports, refineries, and fire departments worldwide. Ten 10 years later, PFAS (the substance type that includes PFOA and PFOS) was found in blood samples of occupationally exposed workers, and not long after that, the US Air Force and Navy started to notice that AFFFs were toxic to the environment. Nevertheless, AFFFs were still used and praised for their effectives at putting out liquid-fueled fires. The problem with going decades without stopping the use of AFFFs containing PFAS is that these chemicals are extremely persistent in the environment, and when they come in contact with the human body, they will not leave any time soon. Multiple decades of exposure to a chemical that does not degrade catalyzed the widespread presence of PFAS in blood samples of the general population. Firefighters, however, are particularly at risk of being exposed, since they are using AFFFs when putting out fires and, as a result, come directly in contact with air containing PFOA/PFOS. Firefighters take in one of these substances through inhalation, contact with the skin, and/or pores. Individuals who are exposed to PFAS are likely to be compromised for years, as these substances are able to bind to blood proteins and remain in the human body for extended periods of time. The EPA's Verdict After the danger PFOA and PFOS posed was understood, various studies were conducted to understand the impact these substances had on both humans and animals. Occupational exposure studies that took place in 3M plants identified the likely effects of PFOA and PFOS, including, but not limited, to changes in cholesterol and triglycerides. Studies that examined contaminated communities and the general population also found a link between PFOS and PFOA with higher total cholesterol, as well as a wider array of effects such as, increased difficulty in having pregnancy, undesired effects during pregnancy, unnatural changes in thyroid hormones, increased liver enzymes, lower presence of some antibodies, increased asthma severity, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, cerebral palsy, and more. Moreover, PFOA or PFOS (in some cases both substances) were also linked to multiple types of cancer and tumors such as liver tumors, thyroid follicular cell tumors, Leydig cell tumors, ovarian tumors, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian tubular hyperplasia, and others. Other studies have been conducted in Nordic countries observing firefighters specifically, and those studies have found an even more unsettling pattern. One study conducted in Sweden found that firefighters suffered from non-melanoma skin cancer at a higher rate than the rest of the Swedish population. Another Nordic study found that firefighters suffered from all cancer types studied at higher rates than the rest of the population, particularly from prostate cancer and skin melanoma cancer. Looking Ahead Although the 500 lawsuits filed over AFFFs have just been recently consolidated under an MDL and no settlements have been reached, both 3M and DuPont have already settled on claims over PFAS contamination in the past. If both 3M's and DuPont's settlements, $850 million and $670 million respectively, are any indication of what may come in terms of financial compensation, firefighters remain optimistic as they are likely to get justly compensated for the wrongdoings they have experienced. Do You Have Any Of These Conditions? If you are (or know of a loved one who is) a firefighter who, served prior to 2003, was exposed to AFFFs, and suffers from any of the following conditions, you may be entitled to compensation: • High total cholesterol • Triglycerides • Increased time to pregnancy • Infertility • Reduced fecundity • Gestational diabetes • Pregnancy-induced hypertension • Changes in thyroid hormones • Elevated liver enzymes • Lower presence of antibodies • Increased asthma severity • Ulcerative colitis • Rheumatoid arthritis • Cerebral palsy Cancers And Tumors If you are (or know of a loved one who is) a firefighter who was exposed to AFFFs, and suffers from any of the following cancers or types of tumors, you may be entitled to compensation: • Kidney cancer • Liver cancer • Prostate cancer • Testicular cancer • Ovarian tubular hyperplasia • Leydig cell tumors • Thyroid follicular cell tumors AFFF Firefighter Foam Cancer Lawsuit Our team at Oppenheim Law recognizes the emotional burden these conditions and cancers can have on individuals and their lives. That is why our firm provides a team of professionals committed to zealously represent our clients. Please feel free to contact us 24/7 at (954) 384-6114 so we can inform you of your legal rights so you can obtain the compensation to which you are entitled. Oppenheim Law | Firefighting Foam Lawsuit Attorneys 2500 Weston Rd #209 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33331 954-384-6114 [GN] 3M COMPANY: Hines Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ----------------------------------------------------------------- TYRELLE BERNARD HINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00122-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff bring this case after sustaining personal injury as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and developed serious medical conditions and complications. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Salcetti Suit Claims PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT JOHN SALCETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00128-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and developed serious medical conditions and complications. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Sharpe Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN WILLIAM SHARPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00119-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The Plaintiff bring this case after sustaining personal injury as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and developed serious medical conditions and complications. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Zisa Alleges Complications From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY GEORGE ZISA JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00123-RMG (D.S.C., January 13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) that contained highly toxic and bio persistent polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants also failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and complications. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and – J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 A & S VEGETABLES: Aguirre Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Fernando Osorio Aguirre, Selan Villanueva, Salvador Montoya Ramirez, Neri Palacios, and Jose Odin Canales Dominguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A & S VEGETABLES INC., MAHARAJA ASIAN SUPERMARKET INC., JAR 259 FOOD CORP., KRISHNA HOLDING INC., AMANDEEP SINGH, NARINDER SINGH GAHRA, and KULJIT KAUR, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-00191 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime premiums owed to Plaintiffs pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. For their work at the Defendants' grocery stores, the Plaintiffs were paid a flat weekly rate that did not compensate them at the minimum wage for all hours worked, did not provide them with overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 each week, and did not provide them with spread-of-hours premiums for days when they worked in excess of ten 10 hours, asserts the complaint. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements and wage notices, the complaint adds. The Plaintiffs performed work for Defendants at their grocery stores. The Defendants have owned and operated multiple supermarkets in the New York City area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 385-9700 Web: www.peltongraham.com AA JEDSON: Romero Sues Over Denial of Overtime Payment ------------------------------------------------------ Ivan Romero, Jairo Ford, Rafael Amparo, and Marlon Reyes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AA JEDSON COMPANY LLC, JEDSON COMPANY LLC, and MICHAEL BORDES, Case No. 7:21-cv-00288 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought to remedy violations of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by Defendants that have deprived the Plaintiffs of their lawfully earned wages. The complaint says the Plaintiffs regularly worked over forty hours per workweek but were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked per week, including those over forty. In addition to denying the Plaintiffs overtime wages, the Defendants failed to furnish the Plaintiffs with wage notices and with compliant wage statements at the end of every pay period, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are former carpenters and general construction workers at Jedson. The Defendants are New York Corporations that own and operate Jedson, a "general development and design build firm with over 40 years experience in construction management".[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com AKHIL GARLAND: Former Walden Eco Village Tenants Await Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Abbe Hamilton, writing for Monadnock Ledger-Transcript, reports that the former tenants of the Walden Eco Village in Peterborough who joined a class action lawsuit against landlord Akhil Garland are awaiting a judge's order following a hearing on Jan. 7. The order could award immediate damages to tenants, which attorney Jason Bielagus argues are essential for their rehoming in the wake of the Dec. 16 eviction of the Eco Village's 25 tenants. "I was trying to express a sense of urgency," Bielagus said on Jan. 11, and that he hopes that reflects in the timing of the judge's upcoming decision. Many of the 13 former tenants who have joined the class action lawsuit were present for the Jan. 7 virtual hearing for a temporary order associated with the suit, during which Bielagus and Garland's attorney Steve Dutton argued their respective cases before Judge Diane Nicolisi. "Being homeless in New England, in the winter, during a once-in-100-years global pandemic is irreparable harm," Bielagus said, justifying his motion for a temporary order that could quickly grant tenants some funds. He argued that although Garland and his associated trust and company could not immediately return tenants to the Eco Village due to the site's multiple code and permit violations, Garland could begin to remedy the situation by immediately returning security deposits and December rent checks, and reimbursing tenants' out-of-pocket expenses associated with moving out and finding emergency housing, and paying for a real estate agent to help tenants find new places to stay. "When you go to a new place, it's not unusual to have to come up with three times the monthly rent in order to get in," Bielagus said, and that damages paid to tenants would directly facilitate them finding their next place to live. Represented tenants sought a total $17,845.86, plus court and attorney fees, in reimbursements of costs incurred in December. Listed costs include storage unit rentals, storage containers, mover's fees and trailer rentals, lost wages for days spent packing and moving, increased costs of living in emergency housing, kennel fees for pets, P.O. box rentals, security deposits, and gas and vehicle mileage associated with relocating. Former residents are currently living in hotels with no kitchen access, Bielagus said,with the inability to cook substantially increasing their food costs. One succeeded in finding a new place to live, but it costs $225 a month more than what he'd been paying at the Eco Village, Bielagus said. Another still hasn't received her security deposit, Bielagus said, and another couple didn't cash the security deposit check they received from Garland because there was language in the memo line that "could be construed as some sort of payoff of all claims," Bielagus said. Nicolisi could also opt to award additional damages, between $1,000 and $3,000 per day, per tenant, under the state's consumer protection statute, Bielagus said. Although some leases were renewed on a month-to-month basis, at least one plaintiff's lease was in effect through Sept. 2021, Bielagus said. On behalf of Garland, Dutton disagreed that the landlord was obligated to reimburse residents for anything other than their security deposits, all but one of which had already been returned, he said. Several tenants listed in the suit had accepted payments, some in excess of the security deposit owed, Dutton said, and that residents uncomfortable with "amounts that were negotiated as a way to resolve this" could return the checks in exchange for checks with just the security deposit amount. A number of tenants not included in the suit "accepted final payments and signed releases," separate from anything indicated on a check, Dutton said. He further argued that the lease agreements accurately described the nature of the cottages and casitas on site, and noted that residents were paying "below market rent." "[They] can't establish that the rent they paid was greater than the reasonable value of what they received," Dutton said, and that no tenants had ever made a complaint prior to the Dec. 16 eviction. Dutton also cited Garland's disagreement with the town of Peterborough's ruling that the dwellings were uninhabitable, as well as the town's stated timeline of events on the property. Also included in the complaint Bielagus filed on behalf of the tenants are longer-term damages, such as reimbursement of future rent if it's in excess of what a tenant would have been paying to live at the Eco Village. It also seeks past rent paid for housing that was represented to be residential dwellings "but lacked proper permitting, and had significant code violations that place the structures and their occupants at immediate risk," according to the complaint. "Twenty-five tenants paid rent for years, and they didn't get habitable residential dwelling. Especially not in the later half of December 2020," Bielagus said at Jan. 7 hearing. A motion for a pre-judgment attachment is also included in the documents Bielagus filed on behalf of tenants. The attachment is an attempt to afford plaintiffs security, he said, because even if they win the suit, a defendant could bar them from ever collecting if they succeeded in hiding money and assets. To this extent, Bielagus said he's investigating tenant claims that Garland owns a development project in Nicaragua, in addition to the ten properties he owns between Peterborough and Harrisville, which include three homes in Harrisville as well as undeveloped land, Bielagus said. "My concern here is that he could move assets offshore and it would make it very difficult for plaintiffs to collect," he said, even if they did win. Garland's representatives have 30 days to respond to the attachment, which will be handled separately to the Jan. 7 motion for a temporary order, Bielagus said. "I do not own a development in Nicaragua and that claim is a typical scattershot, over-reaching, non-factual statement by Mr. Bielagus," Garland said when asked for comment. [GN] ALIBABA GROUP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Jan. 12 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba" or "the Company") (NYSE: BABA) 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 July 9, 2020 and December 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before January 12, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Alibaba held a 33% ownership stake in Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), which planned an initial public offering ("IPO") for October 2020. Alibaba failed to disclose that Ant Group did not meeting the qualifications for listing. Upcoming changes to Fintech regulations would seriously impact Ant Group. Ant Group's IPO was likely to be suspended. 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 Alibaba, 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] ALLSTATE LENDING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE LENDING GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00228 (C.D. Cal., January 11, 2021) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In an attempt to promote its services, the Defendant placed multiple calls on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 within a 12-month period beginning in or around July 2019 via an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). The Plaintiff asserts that she did not provide her "prior express consent" to the Defendant to contact her using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. In addition, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -1083 has been registered to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about June 4, 2008. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were harmed and have suffered damages as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, which caused them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they have previously paid, and invaded their privacy. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future, statutory and treble damages, and any other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Allstate Funding Group, Inc. is a mortgage lending company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Criminal Background Check Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that a woman denied work as an Amazon delivery driver has filed a proposed class action in Pennsylvania state court, claiming the online retailer's alleged policy of rejecting applicants with arrests -- but no convictions -- on their record violated state law. [GN] APPLE INC: Claims in Shay Suit Over Fraudulent Gift Cards Narrowed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RACHAEL SHAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC. and APPLE VALUE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20cv1629-GPC (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The case was removed from state court on Aug. 21, 2020. Plaintiff Shay filed a putative first amended class action complaint ("FAC") against Defendants Apple and Apple Value for claims under California consumer protection laws and related claims for marketing, selling and/or distributing defective, unsecure and valueless Apple gift cards that Defendants knew or should have known was subject to an ongoing scam where the funds on the gift cards are fraudulently redeemed by third parties accessing the Personal Identification Number ("PIN") prior to use by the consumer. According to the FAC, on April 3, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a $50 Apple gift card from Walmart in Encinitas, California, as a gift for her son. When her son attempted to load the gift card, he received a message that the gift card had already been redeemed. The Plaintiff contacted the Defendants and was informed that the gift card was redeemed by another account on April 3, 2020, the same day she bought the card, and the card no longer had any value. The Defendants would not provide any additional information about the owner account that redeemed the code, other than it was not related to the Plaintiff or her son. They informed her that there was nothing they could do for her, that her case was closed, and any further contact would go unanswered. If the Plaintiff had known about the truth about the defect of the Defendants' gift card, she would not have purchased it. The Plaintiff seeks to bring the class action on behalf of the following: a. Nationwide Class: All consumers in the United States who purchased an Apple gift card wherein the funds on the Apple gift card was redeemed prior to use by the consumer; and b. California Subclass: All consumers in the State of California who purchased an Apple gift card wherein the funds on the Apple gift card was redeemed prior to use by the consumer. The Plaintiff alleges causes of action for 1) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); 2) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); 3) violations of California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"); 4) negligence; 5) negligent misrepresentation; and 6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The gist of the Plaintiff's claims is that Apple knows or should know that its gift cards are vulnerable to thieves electronically accessing Apple gift cards at the point of sale and redeeming the funds prior to the consumer taking possession of the gift card, and has failed to take reasonable steps to secure the cards and has concealed material facts from customers regarding the vulnerabilities of its cards. The Defendants move to dismiss all causes of action in the FAC. In response, the Plaintiff agrees to dismiss the CCPA and negligence claims without prejudice. Accordingly, Judge Curiel granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the CCPA and negligence claims as unopposed. Apple argues globally that Plaintiff cannot state a plausible claim against them on any of the causes of action because they are not liable for the misconduct of third parties. As a threshold issue, the Plaintiff points out that the Defendants have failed to reference the specific causes of action associated with their third-party liability argument. The Judge agrees that the Defendants have failed to address the allegations and theories of liability relied upon by the Plaintiff. He finds that the Defendants focus on the third-party conduct's responsibility in the theft while the Plaintiff's allegations center on Apple's affirmative acts and concealment involving its sale of gift cards. Taking the allegations in the FAC as true, he holds that the Plaintiff has alleged direct conduct and alleged participation in the alleged unfair business practices by Apple in violation of the CLRA and UCL. Thus, he denied the motion to dismiss on this basis. Apple next argues that the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that it failed to implement reasonable security measures concerning its gift cards. The Plaintiff replies that the cases Apple relies on concern the California Consumer Records Act, a claim not alleged in the FAC and are inapplicable. In the instant case, the Plaintiff does not allege a violation of the California Consumer Records Act ("CCRA") on its own or as the basis for a UCL claim. Neither the UCL or CLRA claims are premised upon a failure to implement reasonable security measures. As such, the Section 1798.81.5(b) cases relied upon by Apple have no application to these claims. Apple has not shown that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the CLRA and UCL, and thus, the Judge denied the motion to dismiss. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's allegation that Apple failed to disclose the possibility that her Apple gift card would be compromised by third-party thieves and that Apple would not refund the money she allegedly spent on the card because a manufacturer's duty to disclose is limited to its warranty obligations unless there is an affirmative misrepresentation or a safety issue. In response, the Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' cited cases in support are distinguishable because they involve product defect cases where the claims of failing to inform the consumers were for a product falling outside the warranty period As he discussed, the Judge holds that Apple has failed to meet its burden on a motion to dismiss by failing to explain how the Plaintiff's allegation concerning failure to disclose renders the CLRA, UCL, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and negligent misrepresentation claims without merit under Rule 12(b)(6). Next, the cases Apple cites in support are distinguishable as they involve product liability cases concerning notebook computers and automobile defects and warranty periods. Given the shortcomings and deficiencies identified, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion on this argument. Apple next claims that the disclaimer on the gift card packaging for any liability for third-party theft of its gift cards bars the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff responds that the disclaimer language is up for interpretation because no reasonable person would understand the disclaimer to apply to her situation where the theft occurs at the point of sale and prior to the consumer's use. In reply, the Defendants disagree that the disclaimer is subject to different interpretations yet argue in support of their interpretation on how the disclaimer bars the Plaintiff's claims. Based on the parties' argument, because the Defendants seek judicial notice of the existence of the documents and not to the truth of the matters asserts, the Judge granted the Defendants' request for judicial notice as unopposed. Further, a court may grant judicial notice of documents not incorporated by reference in the complaint; therefore, Plaintiff's second argument is without merit. Accordingly, he denied dismissal of any of the Plaintiff's causes of action based on the disclaimer. The Defendants argue that because the Plaintiff has failed to allege that their security protocols are inadequate or that it was legally obligated to disclose any of the information it allegedly concealed from consumers, the negligent misrepresentation claim also fails. The Plaintiff responds that because her claims allege misrepresentations regarding the gift cards, the economic loss rule does not apply. In reply, Apple does not dispute the Plaintiff's response but argues that she has not identified a single affirmative misrepresentation about Apple's gift cards. Contrary to Apple's reply arguing that there is not a single affirmative misrepresentation alleged, the Judge holds that the FAC alleges that the Defendants misrepresented to the Plaintiff that they were selling Apple gift cards that were original, usable, secure, valuable, and free from fraud, tampering or compromise. Because the FAC alleges an affirmative misrepresentation, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim based on the economic loss rule. The FAC alleges that Apple breached the implied warrant of merchantability that the Apple gift cards were in merchantable quality and condition under California Commercial Code section 2314. The Defendants move to dismiss the breach of implied warranty claim because Plaintiff has not alleged she was in privity with Apple and she has not alleged that the product was unmerchantable or unfit for its ordinary use at the time the product left the Defendant's possession. The Plaintiff responds that vertical privity is not required because she is a third-party beneficiary who purchased the gift card from a third party acting as an agent for the Defendants. While the Plaintiff argues that she was an intended third-party beneficiary because she purchased the gift card from a third party acting as an agent of the Defendants, these allegations are not alleged in the FAC, the Judge finds. Moreover, the FAC fails to allege a contract between Apple and Walmart where Plaintiff is the intended beneficiary to the contract. Accordingly, he granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of implied warranty of merchantability. Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss the restitution claim under the UCL and CLRA because she has not alleged that she lacks an adequate remedy at law citing to Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). The Plaintiff argues that Sonner is distinguishable because the CLRA damages were voluntarily dismissed on the eve of trial and under Rule 8, she may plead in the alternative even though her theories are inconsistent. The Judge finds that ven though the complaint was dismissed at the eve of trial, Sonner holds that a complaint must allege that she lacks an adequate legal remedy. In the case, the FAC fails to allege that she "lacks an adequate legal remedy." The Plaintiff may plead in the alternative but she must also allege she lacks an adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the restitution claim. The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend on any claims that the Court dismisses. Because she can cure the deficiencies in the FAC, the Judge granted the Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. Accordingly, Judge Curiel granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, he denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the CLRA, UCL and negligent misrepresentation causes of action; and granted the motion to dismiss the breach of implied warranty of merchantability and restitution claims with leave to amend. The Judge further granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the CCPA and negligence claims as unopposed. The Plaintiff will file a second amended complaint within 20 days of the filed date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2tu5qfp from Leagle.com. APPLE INC: Judge May Deny Sales Figure Request From Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ William Gallagher, writing for Apple Insider, reports that the US Magistrate Judge considering a proposed class action lawsuit surrounding the Apple App Store has told lawyers their request for international sales data does not appear relevant. As Apple faces mounting litigation over the App Store, include its dispute with Epic Games, a further proposed class action suit is being considered. US Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixon has heard arguments by lawyers that Apple should be required to provide global revenues and sales data in support of the filers' claims. However, according to Law360, the judge appeared skeptical during the Zoom meeting held on January 8. "I don't know if that has anything to do with the antitrust issues pleaded," he said. The brief hearing was to do with a proposed class of customers in a case that would accuse Apple of monopolizing app distribution. Representing the customers, Rachele R. Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, said that Apple should be required to provide total global revenues and sales data by month for each app or in-app purchase option. Reportedly, Judge Hixon noted that the accusation of antitrust is concerned with an alleged lack of competitive alternatives. He said that global sales data therefore does not appear to be relevant. Byrd's argument is that customers need the data to get a "complete picture" of what Apple charges. She maintains that this information is needed despite a separate developers' case not requesting it, because the customer case has different experts and is concerned with different markets. Representing Apple, Jay Srinivasan of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, said in the hearing that the sales data represents only a "small sliver of information." He argued that it would not be useful for these customers, and also that compiling it would take weeks. Srinivasan says that the time it would take for Apple to produce the requested data would take until well after a forthcoming deadline for the class action suit. Judge Hixon is currently considering the arguments. Separately, the "Fortnite" App Store dispute is heading for trial start in May 2021. Apple and Epic Games have been in hearings concerning information requests, document custodians, and who will testify in the case. [GN] ASIAN IMPORT: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asian Import Store, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Asian Import Store, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00317 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Asian Imports -- https://www.asianimportstore.com/ -- offers a wholesale selection of paper lanterns and lights for weddings, parties, special events and home decor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Mismanages Retirement Plans, Evan Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA EVANS; and CAROL NOWAK-GALKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Associated Banc-Corp 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiffs v. ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP; THE ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00060-WCG (E.D. Wis., Jan. 13, 2021) is an action on behalf of the Associated Banc-Corp 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan") and the Class, alleging the Defendants' violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' process for selecting and monitoring the Plan's investment options was disloyal and imprudent. The Defendants included in the Plan proprietary investments overwhelmingly rejected by fiduciaries of similarly sized plans, when a nonconflicted fiduciary would have selected among the more popular and better performing nonproprietary alternatives available. Although using proprietary options is not a breach of the duty of prudence or loyalty in and of itself, a plan fiduciary's process for selecting and monitoring proprietary investments is subject to the same duties of loyalty and prudence that apply to the selection and monitoring of other investments, the suit says. Based on the Defendants' retention of unpopular and poorly performing proprietary funds in asset classes for which superior nonproprietary alternatives were available and far more widely utilized by non-conflicted fiduciaries, it is reasonable to infer that the Defendants' process for selecting and monitoring investments for the Plan was allegedly tainted by self-interest. Associated Banc-Corp is a Midwest banking franchise headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The Bank offers a full range of financial products and services through banking locations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Lukas, Esq. Kai H. Richter, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Jacob T. Schutz, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: lukas@nka.com krichter@nka.com bpsecht@nka.com jschutz@nka.com BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Swanson Hits Overpriced Crop Inputs ------------------------------------------------------ John C. Swanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00046 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought to redress the Defendants' coordinated unlawful actions that forced American farmers to pay artificially high prices for "Crop Inputs" which are seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides manufactured by the Defendant, and purchased from either the Defendant or another retailer. According to the complaint, the Defendants established an opaque distribution process that prevented farmers from effectively comparison shopping, by withholding and deliberately obfuscating product information, and maintaining strict secrecy with respect to wholesale prices. Around 2016, several electronic platforms launched with the goal of offering relatively cheap and transparent means for farmers to purchase Crop Inputs. The Defendants conspired to boycott them and ultimately forced them to change their business models. In so doing, the Defendants deprived farmers of the opportunity to purchase Crop Inputs at transparent, competitive prices. The Defendants' conduct is currently the subject of an investigation by Canada's Commissioner of Competition, which the United States Justice Department is monitoring to determine whether to launch its own investigation. To ensure their boycott was successful, Defendants enforced strict discipline on retailers who failed to comply. For example, in 2018, after learning that some retailers had sold product to Farmers Business Network ("FBN") despite the boycott, the Defendant Syngenta initiated an audit of its authorized retailers to identify and punish the retailers who had made those sales. In furtherance of the boycott, however, the Manufacturer and Wholesaler Defendants repeatedly blocked FBN's access to Crop Inputs by agreeing among themselves not to sell products to FBN, even though doing so would have created a lucrative stream of new sales for any individual wholesaler or manufacturer acting independently and in their economic self-interest. The Defendants' boycott has resulted in the maintenance of supracompetitive Crop Input prices by denying farmers accurate product information, including pricing information, that would enable them to make well-informed purchasing decisions. As a direct proximate result of the Defendants' ongoing unlawful conduct, farmers in the United States continue to be locked into accepting supracompetitive price increases for Crop Inputs that outpace any increases in their yield, and otherwise inure to their detriment and injury, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Mr. Swanson purchased sorghum sudangrass seed at supracompetitive prices from Defendant. Bayer AG is a multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, and agriculture company. Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C. 120 North LaSalle, #3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-899-9090 Email: rac@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq. Louis Kessler, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (917) 438-9102 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com csanchez@nussbaumpc.com lkessler@nussbaumpc.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Phone: (716) 854-3400 Email: bailey@ruppbaase.com cercone@ruppbaase.com BERRY CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Berry Corp. (NASDAQ: BRY) investors that acquired shares between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020. Investors have until January 19, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently prepared, and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Berry made materially misleading and false statements regarding the Berry's compliance, operational, and business policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Berry made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Berry had materially overstated its operational stability and efficiency; (2) Berry's operational instability and inefficiency would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would increase Berry's costs and disrupt Berry's productivity; (3) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact Berry's revenues; and (4) the Offering Documents and the Berry's public statements were materially misleading and/or false and failed to state information required to be stated therein, as a result. On November 3, 2020, post-market, Berry reported its operating and financial results for 2020's third quarter. Berry reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell short of estimates, among other results. In addition, Berry reported that during this quarter, "the Company undertook certain operational improvements that caused temporary reductions in our production. Notably, we performed some plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in the temporary shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam management reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water disposal and well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight decrease in production." Berry's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 5.28%, on this news, to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020, which represented an 80.78% decline from the IPO price. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 19, 2020. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] BERRY CORP: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Jan. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for lead plaintiff in a securities class action against Berry Corp. ("Berry" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BRY) and certain of its officers and directors pending in the Northern District of Texas. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Berry securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), including in the Company's July 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), and have suffered losses, you are encouraged to contact Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, in violation of federal securities laws, that: (1) Berry had materially overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (2) Berry's operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs; (3) the foregoing would foreseeably, negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (4) 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. Berry held its IPO on July 25, 2018 at a price of $14 per share. The IPO offering documents stated, in relevant part, that the Company's "predictable" and "low-declining production base," its "predictable development and production cost structures," and its "low-cost," "low-risk" reservoirs uniquely positioned the Company for high corporate-level returns and free cash flow. Berry made other similar statements throughout the Class Period. The lawsuit alleges that these statements were materially misleading. On November 3, 2020, post-market, Berry reported its financial and operating results for the third quarter of 2020. Among other results, Berry reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell short of estimates. In addition, Berry reported that, during the quarter, "the Company undertook certain operational improvements that caused temporary reductions in our production. Notably, we performed some plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in temporary shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam management reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water disposal and well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight decrease in production." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 5.28%, to close at $2.69 on November 4, 2020 – a decline of over 80% from the IPO price. What You Can Do If you purchased Berry securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, including pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's July 2018 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is January 19, 2020. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. Contacts: Jonathan Zimmerman Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (888) 398-9312 jzimmerman@scott-scott.com [GN] BLACKROCK INC: Must Face ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that BlackRock must face an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action accusing it of costing workers and retirees millions in unreasonable 401(k) plan fees and bad investment decisions, after a California federal judge on Jan. 12 shot down the company's bid to win the suit ahead of a scheduled March 1 trial. [GN] BREEN BROS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Mechanics, Nestor Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALEJANDRO CRUZ NESTOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BREEN BROS. TOWING, INC.; PATRICIA BREEN; JOSEPH BREEN; MICHAEL BREEN; and PATRICK BREEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00196 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Nestor was employed by the Defendant as mechanic. BREEN BROS. TOWING, INC. provides towing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan S. Goddard Esq. Saranicole A. Duaban, Esq. GODDARD LAW PLLC 39 Broadway, Suite 1540 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 504-8363 E-mail: megan@goddardlawnyc.com saranicole@goddardlawnyc.com BRITISH AIRWAYS: Faces 2018 Customer Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Milligan, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that British Airways Plc faces the largest privacy class-action lawsuit in U.K. history over its 2018 customer data breach. More than 16,000 victims have now joined a case seeking compensation from the airline. They could claim 2,000 pounds ($2,724) each, according to PGMBM, the law firm representing the claimants. "We trust companies like British Airways with our personal information and they have a duty to all of their customers and the public at large to take every possible step to keep it safe," Tom Goodhead, a partner at PGMBM, said in an email. "In this instance, they presided over a monumental failure." IAG SA-owned BA revealed in September 2018 that a violation of its security systems compromised the personal and financial details of more than 400,000 customers. The carrier was fined 20 million pounds by the U.K. data protection watchdog last year, a fraction of a much heftier fine initially planned by the regulator. The suit was filed in 2018, with a March 2021 deadline for more victims to join. The claimants' lawyers say that if every victim of the cyberattack joined the claim, BA's overall potential liability would be around 800 million pounds. The U.K. Information Commissioners' Office said its investigation into the cyberattack found that "the airline was processing a significant amount of personal data without adequate security measures in place," exposing people's data unnecessarily. The fine is the ICO's biggest to date. BA said in an emailed statement that it continues "to vigorously defend the litigation in respect of the claims brought arising out of the 2018 cyberattack." It said it doesn't "recognize the damages figures put forward, and they have not appeared in the claims." At a case management hearing in November, BA told the court it was open to the possibility of entering into settlement discussions with the claimants, according to Goodhead. However, they haven't yet received any proposals, he said. The next hearing is in February. With assistance by Siddharth Vikram Philip [GN] C PEPPER: Court Grants Flinn Leave to Amend Count II of Wage Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID FLINN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC and LANTER DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-CV-02215-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.), Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and denied as moot Defendant Lanter's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Judge Robinson granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend as to Count II, which asserts a claim that the Defendants made improper and unlawful deductions. Plaintiff Flinn brings the putative class action against the Defendants as joint employers, alleging they misclassified their truck driver employees as independent contractors. Lanter provides overnight unattended delivery service of time-sensitive parts for major auto, agriculture, and heavy-duty truck original equipment manufacturers and industrial supply and equipment distributors. C Pepper is a U.S. Department of Transportation-registered motor carrier that provides trucking and transfer services. Lanter created a business model in which it props up and controls what it calls "dedicated carrier partners," including C Pepper. It exercised direction and control over almost every aspect of C Pepper's business operations, including but not limited to, the structure of its business model, its accounting and payroll functions, and arranging and guaranteeing its truck leases. As a part of its direction and control over C Pepper, Lanter assigned a financial analyst to direct and oversee C Pepper's business, accounting, and financial processes. James Pepper used to be a direct employee of Lanter. However, Lanter came up with a scheme to prop him up as a strawman, through a limited liability company that he owned (C Pepper), but whose business, payroll, accounting, and financial operations Lanter effectively directed and controlled, to employ truck drivers for Lanter's business. Acting in the interest of C Pepper, in association and conspiracy with Lanter, and under its direction and control, James Pepper allowed and helped facilitate the unlawful conduct alleged by the Plaintiff. The Defendants share the same corporate headquarters at 1600 Wayne Lanter Ave., in Madison, Illinois. They hire individuals to drive established delivery routes out of Lanter distribution centers in numerous states, including at least the following: Kansas; Georgia; Louisiana; North Dakota; and Tennessee. Flinn and other delivery drivers reported to work at and drove trucks out of Lanter distribution centers. They were issued Lanter fuel cards to pay for fuel. Fuel costs were later charged back to drivers as itemized deductions on the paystubs issued to them. Mr. Flinn alleges generally that Defendants Lanter, C Pepper, and James Pepper fraudulently misclassified drivers as independent contractors, willfully issued fraudulent paystubs to Flinn and other delivery drivers, and willfully filed and issued fraudulent tax documents showing that Flinn and other delivery drivers were independent contractors, rather than employees. He alleges two counts for relief against all the Defendants: (1) fraudulent filing of information returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434; and (2) violation of state wage laws. Before the Court are the Defendant Lanter's Motion to Dismiss, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave. Lanter moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on the basis that Flinn's tax claim fails to plead fraud with particularity because it alleges that C Pepper, and not Lanter, issued the 1099 forms that allegedly overreported Flinn's compensation. It further argues that the wage claim fails because Flinn fails to sufficiently allege an employment relationship with Lanter. Flinn seeks to amend to add James Pepper as a Defendant, to add facts to support his assertion that Lanter is a joint employer with C Pepper and James Pepper, and to clarify his wage claims. Judge Robinson first considers Lanter's argument that leave to amend should be denied on the basis of undue delay and prejudice. Then, she considers whether the proposed Second Amended Complaint is futile. Lanter first opposes the motion for leave to amend based on undue delay and prejudice because Flinn's counsel did not alert its counsel to potential amendments before Lanter filed its motion to dismiss, and instead waited until the motion to dismiss was fully briefed before moving for leave to amend without adequate explanation for the delay. The Judge declines to deny leave to amend on the basis of undue delay under the circumstances of the case. There has been no scheduling order in the case yet and, thus, no deadline set for amendments. And nothing in the federal rules prohibits a party from moving for leave to amend after a dispositive motion is briefed. Flinn did not file the motion for leave out of time, and given the liberal amendment standard in Rule 15, the Judge is not inclined to deny leave to amend on based on delay under the circumstances. Lanter moves to dismiss Count I, arguing that the First Amended Complaint fails as to Lanter because it alleges only that C Pepper issued the 1099. The statute requires that the Defendant at least willfully cause a fraudulent information return to be filed, and Rule 9 requires that fraud be pled with particularity. Yet, the Judge finds that there are no factual allegations in support of the Defendants' respective roles in issuing the 1099s. In all of the cases that extend Section 7434 liability to corporate officers, there were facts alleged that an agent took part in preparing or submitting the filing information on behalf of the principal. There are no such facts alleged in the case, either in the First Amended Complaint or the proposed Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Flinn's motion for leave to amend Count I to generically attribute filing conduct to the Defendants as a whole is denied as futile. Proposed Count II asserts a claim that the Defendants made improper and unlawful deductions from Flinn's and other Class Members' wages, in violation of various state wage payment laws and common law. Lanter argues that both pleadings lump together all the Defendants and fail to explain the conduct attributable to each one. Although the facts in the proposed Second Amended Complaint fail to touch on some of the factors used under Kansas and Illinois law, the Judge finds that Flinn alleges enough facts under either body of law to plausibly support an employment relationship. As to Illinois law, she finds that Flinn alleges facts suggesting that Lanter plays a role in setting drivers' wages, work hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and that Lanter plays a role in the day-to-day supervision and control of delivery drivers such as Flinn. Given these allegations, Flinn has alleged sufficient facts to support an employment relationship with Lanter under the KWPA and IWPA. Thus, the Plaintiff is granted leave to amend as to Count II. Based on the foregoing, Judge Robinson granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint. She granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend as to Count II, and denied it as to Count I. The Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint that complies with the Court's ruling by Jan. 20, 2021. Lanter's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3qmrmu2 from Leagle.com. CANADA: Faces Inmates Suit Over Systemic Bias in Risk Assessments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Cardoso, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the federal government is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit on behalf of tens of thousands of inmates over systemic bias in its security classifications, which affect inmates' living arrangements, access to treatment programs and likelihood of getting parole. Filed on Jan. 11 in Federal Court, the proposed suit concerns the Custody Rating Scale, a 12-question risk assessment tool developed by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) in the 1980s and in widespread use since the 1990s. That test is administered to all inmates when they are first taken into federal custody, and results in a minimum, medium or maximum security score, though it can be overridden by parole officers. Last year, a Globe and Mail investigation found the scores derived from some of Correctional Service Canada's most important risk tools, including the Custody Rating Scale, were systemically biased against racialized and female inmates. The statement of claim's allegations, which have not yet been proven in court, argue the federal government violated both the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and inmates' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by using a risk tool it knew to be flawed to classify inmates, leading to harsher security ratings than they would have otherwise received. "CSC's ongoing use of [the Custody Rating Scale] on Indigenous inmates must be recognized as the product of deliberate and conscious race-based discriminatory treatment of Indigenous inmates that resulted in, and continues to result in, longer and harsher prison sentences for Indigenous people, especially Indigenous women," the statement of claim reads in part. Security classifications have far-reaching consequences for an inmate's experience in custody. Depending on their score, inmates can expect decreased movement privileges, less access to treatment programs and difficulty getting paroled. In brief statements, CSC and Public Safety Canada spokespeople Marie Pier Lécuyer and Mary-Liz Power said the agencies could not comment on the lawsuit because it was before the courts. The Department of Justice, meanwhile, deferred to CSC. The Globe's investigation, which controlled for variables such as age, inmates' criminal history and the severity of their offence, found Black men were about 24 per cent more likely than white men to receive the worst possible security scores at admission. Indigenous men, meanwhile, were roughly 30 per cent more likely than white men to receive the worst reintegration potential score at any point during their sentence, a risk level that plays a large role in parole determinations. The House of Commons public safety committee has since announced a study into bias in prison risk assessments. The investigation also found Indigenous women were roughly 64 per cent more likely than white women to end up with a maximum security level at admission, and that they were also 42 per cent more likely to end up with the poorest reintegration score. CSC has stood by its risk tools in previous statements to The Globe and said it regularly conducts research to ensure they're still reliable. For close to two decades, reports by federal agencies and academics have raised concerns about racial and gender bias in CSC's risk assessment tools. In 2004, researchers at Public Safety Canada were commissioned by the head of CSC to look at whether the Custody Rating Scale was reliable for women. Their report -- made public by The Globe -- lambasted the tool, saying it seemed systemically biased against Indigenous women, and women in general, and that it was not clear the tool worked for men, either. The proposed class-action lawsuit lists Martha Kahnapace, a 63-year-old Indigenous former inmate, as its representative plaintiff. After being charged in 2005 with second-degree murder after stabbing her then-partner Donald Wall, Ms. Kahnapace spent years in and out of court because of a series of complex appeals before being acquitted of second-degree murder, convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to time served at her third trial in 2014. In between her appeals, Ms. Kahnapace spent extensive periods in medium- or maximum-security facilities because of her overclassification by the Custody Rating Scale, the suit argues. Vancouver-based civil-rights lawyer Jason Gratl, who filed the class action, will be representing Ms. Kahnapace, who is a member of the Pasqua First Nation in Saskatchewan. "The essence of the claim," Mr. Gratl said in an interview, "is that the Custody Rating Scale fails to provide appropriate security classifications for all inmates." Mr. Gratl is no stranger to litigating risk assessments - he previously represented Jeffrey Ewert, a federal inmate who challenged the validity of psychological tests used by CSC at the Supreme Court in 2018. During that case, Mr. Ewert successfully argued that several psychological risk tools had not been shown to be reliable with Indigenous inmates. At the time, the Supreme Court ordered CSC to study the issue. The suit proposes four classes of inmates, all of whom were classified as medium or maximum security by the Custody Rating Scale: female Indigenous inmates, female inmates generally, Indigenous inmates generally and all inmates. Before the suit can proceed, a judge will have to certify the proposed classes. Given the volume of people assigned a medium or maximum security at admission, the class action could ultimately represent tens of thousands of inmates, Mr. Gratl said. According to CSC data obtained by The Globe through a freedom of information request, from 2013 to 2018, the prison agency admitted an average of 59 Indigenous women each year with medium or maximum security classifications, 140 women, 704 Indigenous people and 2,552 people overall. Despite many warnings over the years from government agencies and academics, the Custody Rating Scale has not changed in two decades, a fact that points to a "problem of political inaction," Mr. Gratl said. A class-action lawsuit and trial could take years, but Mr. Gratl said he is looking to have CSC stop the use of its Custody Rating Scale immediately. In a letter addressed to CSC commissioner Anne Kelly, Mr. Gratl gave the federal government a deadline of Jan. 25 to stop using the tool on incarcerated Indigenous women. "Should [CSC] refuse this request," the letter reads, "I am instructed to bring application for injunctive relief." "We want to see the system change," Mr. Gratl told The Globe. "We don't believe that the Correctional Service Canada will change its behaviour unless it's compelled to do so by a court of law." [GN] CANCUN AND CANCUN: Santos Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nimia Santos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CANCUN AND CANCUN CORP. dba DELICIAS MEXICANAS, PEDRO DOMINGUEZ, ISAURO VALDEZ, and DONNA M. VALDEZ, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-00192 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought, alleging that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of hours" premium for each day she worked in a span of greater than 10 hours, liquidated and statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. During the Plaintiff's employment by the Defendants, she occasionally worked over 40 hours per week, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff generally worked 5 shifts per week. The Plaintiff was not paid minimum wages or overtime wages. The Plaintiff was pad a flat rate of $35.00 per shift. She was not paid hourly, or for every hour worked, and worked performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at tine and one-half the statutory minimum rate of pay as required by state federal law, the complaint adds. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a server at the Defendants' restaurant in September 2018. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as "Delicias Mexicanas" located in Corona, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com - and - Estee Ward, Esq. MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK 92-10 Roosevelt Avenue Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Phone: (718) 656-8500 Fax: (866) 420-9169 Email: estee.ward@maketheroadny.org CD PROJEKT: RM Law Files Video Game Consoles Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Game World Observer reports that Pennsylvania-based RM Law filed a class action lawsuit on January 8 against CD Projekt. This is the fifth firm to do so after Schall Law, Rosen Law, Bragar Eagel & Squire, and, most recently, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. RM LAW is calling on CD Projekt shareholders to join the litigation. The lawsuit claims that the Polish studio delivered "an unplayable, bug-ridden product on the current generation video game consoles," while misleading the investors who, as a result, suffered damages. [GN] CD PROJEKT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Cyberpunk 2077 Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Game World Observer reports that law firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz has become the latest to file a class action lawsuit against CD Projekt. The firm claims that CD Projekt made statements about the condition of Cyberpunk 2077 that were false or misleading. Similar lawsuits were filed by Rosen Law, Schall Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire. At the same time, Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection is now looking into actions the video games company is taking to amend the situation around the troubled launch. The regulator has requested a report from the publisher explaining the reasons that led to the problems with the game. It also intends to find out how the company is working on patches and what it is doing to reimburse the dissatisfied customers. Dominik Jędrzejko, attorney-at-law and partner at Kaszubiak Jędrzejko Adwokaci, believes that hotfixes and refunds might not adequately remedy the alleged unfair practices. In that case, the authority may impose a fine of up to 10 percent of the company's revenue. CD Projekt said it was prepared to take "vigorous action" to defend itself in court. As for Cyberpunk 2077 itself, it has lost almost 80% of its active players since launch a month ago when it hit a whopping 1 million concurrent players on Steam. This kind of decline, though, is actually quite normal for single-player titles. [GN] CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Davis Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00044-LPL (W.D. Penn., January 11, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking injunctive relief, damages and other relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent various prerecorded voice calls on his cellular telephone number ending in 8118 between the end of July 2020 and beginning of November 2020. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive such calls. Although the Plaintiff asked the Defendant's employees to stop calling his cellular telephone, the Defendant continued placing unsolicited prerecorded calls. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded calls caused him actual harm, which include invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. operates a bank. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 628-5793 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and – Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (786) 469-4496 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Must Face Christchurch Quake Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Gabriel Olano, writing for Insurance Business, reports that earthquake advocate Bryan Staples - owner of Claims Resolution Service Ltd - and lawyer Grant Shand will face a potential class action claiming the defendants and their firms have engaged in "unconscionable" deals worth millions of dollars. The Court of Appeal has denied a motion by Staples and Shand to reverse a decision by the High Court to allow a class action from a group of almost 180 ex-clients, according to a report by Stuff. Staples gained fame in the Christchurch region for aggressively going after insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and was hailed as a fighter for the people's welfare. Claims Resolution Service and Grant Shand Barristers and Solicitors are involved in legal disputes at the district Court level, seeking to collect what they claim are debts from clients in the form of commissions and fees. However, the class action alleges that the contracts signed by Claims Resolution's clients are unenforceable due to being unconscionable. This is due to Staples and Shand allegedly being in an undisclosed joint venture, therefore breaching obligations to act in the interest of the clients. The Court of Appeal sided with the ex-clients and the High Court decision, agreeing that these people had modest means, making access to justice more difficult, and that they had a "shared vulnerability when contracting with Claims Resolution and dealing with those service providers", the report said. The case stemmed from Karlie Margaret Smith, a Christchurch homeowner whose property was damaged in the 2011 quakes. EQC paid her around $130,000, while her insurer Tower offered her $79,332, with repairs estimated at around $208,342. A company associated with Staples and Shand said that the repairs would cost around $500,000. Smith then signed a contract with Claims Resolution in 2014 to act on her behalf. As part of the contract, Smith would pay all costs incurred by Claims Resolution, as well as an 8% commission on the final settlement. In 2018, Smith accepted Tower's settlement worth $380,000, which was lower than the initial claim of $546,000. She was then billed by Claims Resolution for $72,000, inclusive of its commission and Shand's legal fees of $29,000. Along with many other clients, Smith refused to pay this and applied for a potential class action with the High Court. Smith claimed that Staples and Shand were working in a joint venture that was undisclosed to her and other clients. This, they claimed, had several conflicts of interest and breached obligations, making the contract unenforceable. [GN] CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Staples, Grant Fail to Avert Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Van Beynen, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that lawyer Grant Shand and earthquake advocate Bryan Staples have failed to stop a potential class action that exposes them to claims of "unconscionable" dealing involving millions of dollars. Staples became well known in Christchurch for his fearless attitude towards insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission. Many saw him as a white knight who went into battle for the little people. The Court of Appeal has rejected an attempt by Staples and Shand to overturn a High Court decision clearing the way for a class action on behalf of a group of ex-clients, said to be 178 strong. Claims Resolution Service Ltd (Staples' company) and Grant Shand Barristers and Solicitors are currently involved in District Court action to collect debts said to be owed by clients for commissions and fees. The class action will allege contracts signed by the Claims Resolution clients were unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. It will claim Staples and Shand were in an undisclosed joint venture and breached obligations to act in the interests of clients. Clients who have already paid bills issued by Claims Resolution are expected to join the action to get their money back. The appeal court was swayed by argument that clients who came to Claims Resolution had modest means, making access to justice more difficult, and they had a "shared vulnerability when contracting with Claims Resolution and dealing with those service providers". Shand and Staples went to the Court of Appeal last year to appeal the High Court decision allowing the class action. The High Court rulings related to Christchurch homeowner Karlie Margaret Smith, whose house was damaged in the earthquakes in 2011. The Earthquake Commission paid about $130,000 to Smith, and insurer Tower Insurance offered her $79,332, estimating repairs would cost $208,342. She then got a report from a company associated with Staples and Shand which estimated the repairs would cost nearly $500,000. In September 2014 she signed a contract which engaged Claims Resolution to act on her behalf. Smith was to pay all costs and payments Claims Resolution incurred, including those for quantity surveyors, legal fees and eight per cent commission on the final settlement. Shand's firm filed High Court proceedings in September 2016, claiming about $546,000 from Tower on the basis of repairs costing $675,000 and other claims of $75,000. In May 2018, Smith accepted Tower's offer of $380,000. Claims Resolution billed her for $72,000, including its commission and Shand's fee of $29,000. Smith, as had many others, refused to pay and applied to the High Court to defend the debt as part of a potential class action. She claimed Staples and Shand had established a joint venture that benefited them both but was not disclosed to her or the clients her action represented. That failure, the various conflicts of interests and breached obligations had rendered the contracts unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. Claims Resolution denied the existence of a fiduciary relationship and any breach of obligations. Shand accepted he had fiduciary obligations but denied breaching them. "Moreover, both say they did what they said they would: negotiate a settlement of Smith's insurance claim on significantly better terms than first offered by her insurer," the Court of Appeal said. In the appeal Claims Resolution and Shand said the High Court had erred in deciding a class action could identify claimants with sufficient certainty, and that they had enough common issues. They also said since many claims could only be assessed individually, the class action had no purpose. Smith said the commonality of interest was obvious and the cost savings and efficiencies of a class action would benefit homeowners. The Court of Appeal agreed with Smith and upheld the High Court decision, saying "the existence of a common interest in issues of law and fact is "virtually self-evident". "The findings in the first stage of Smith's claim, whether the appellants owed and breached fiduciary duties, and as to what relief, if appropriate, could be expected to resolve not only Ms Smith's claim, but to assist the resolution of other claims which are materially similar to hers. "As to efficiencies . . . the benefits of a single process are manifest." The Court of Appeal rejected a request by Claims Resolution and Shand for the money owed to them to be paid into a trust account as security. It also ordered an approved opt-in notice (notifying former clients of the class action) to be published on Claims Resolution's Facebook page. [GN] CLEARVIEW AI: Burke CCPA and BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SEAN BURKE and JAMES POMERENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN TON-THAT; RICHARD SCHWARTZ; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-03104, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00171 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California's Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 and the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using the Plaintiffs' and Class members' photographs and biometric information and identifiers without consent. Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with its principal place of business located in in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amber L. Eck, Esq. Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. Ian Pike, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878 E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com alreenh@haelaw.com aarono@haelaw.com ianp@haelaw.com CLEARVIEW AI: Calderon BIPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARIO CALDERON and JENNIFER ROCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC. and CDW GOVERNMENT LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01296, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00168 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing and using the Plaintiffs' and Class members' biometric information and identifiers without informed written consent. Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with its principal place of business located in in New York, New York. CDW Government LLC is a supplier of computer products to public education institutions and other federal, state, and local government agencies based in Vernon Hills, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. 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: scott@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com - and – Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com CLEARVIEW AI: John BIPA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DEAN JOHN, RYAN BALFANZ, BENJAMIN JAIS, ROSEMARY ARIAS, and AIMEE ALBRECHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03481, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00173 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, the California Business and Professions Code, the California Common Law Right of Publicity, the California Constitutional Right to Privacy, intentional interference with contractual relations, and unjust enrichment by collecting, capturing, obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using the Plaintiffs' and Class members' photographs and biometric information and identifiers without consent. Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with its principal place of business located in in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Martin, Esq. Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall St., 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com snathan@hausfeld.com - and – James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K St., NW, Ste 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and – Greg G. Gutzler, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: ggutzler@dicellolevitt.com - and – Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com - and – Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94611 Telephone: (510) 350-9713 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com dmb@classlawgroup.com CLEARVIEW AI: McPherson BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOHN McPHERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN TON-THAT; RICHARD SCHWARTZ; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-03053, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00170 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment by collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using the Plaintiff's and Class members' photographs and biometric information and identifiers without consent. Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with its principal place of business located in in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Carey Alexander, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com calexander@scott-scott.com - and – Erin Green Comite, Esq. Margaret B. Ferron, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com mferron@scott-scott.com - and – Amber L. Eck, Esq. Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. Ian Pike, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878 E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com alreenh@haelaw.com aarono@haelaw.com ianp@haelaw.com CLEARVIEW AI: Roberson Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHELBY ZELONIS ROBERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEARVIEW AI, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03705, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00174 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Virginia Code Section 8.01-40 and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act by obtaining, trading or otherwise profiting from or using the Plaintiff's and Class members' photographs and biometric information and identifiers without consent. Clearview AI, Inc., is a facial recognition software company, with its principal place of business located in in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. Aaron S. Book, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 300 N. Washington St., Suite 404 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com abook@websterbook.com COCKE COUNTY, TN: Sheriff, Jailers Face Civil Rights Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- WBIR reports that the Cocke County sheriff and jailers are facing a federal class-action civil rights lawsuit, according to court records. A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Tennessee on January 11, 2021 claims the Cocke County Jail has been unable to "protect the safety and security of inmates" due to severe overcrowding and under-staffing. The lawsuit cited public statements Sheriff Armando Fontes made about the jail. He went on record with 10News in February 2020 -- saying the jail was "grossly overcrowded and understaffed" and that there was a "serious risk of safety, and a serious liability for the county." Officials said the lawsuit is for the "hundreds" of inmates injured by assaults over the last 8 to 10 years. It is seeking $30 million in compensatory and punitive damages: $15 million to recover compensatory damages, and another $15 million for punitive damages. It said the jail is consistently the second-most crowded in Tennessee, had exceeded its 120-person maximum capacity for more than eight consecutive years, and that there had not been any effort by jail officials to separate violent offenders from non-violent ones. The jail was decertified in 2017 for "lax employee training, staffing shortages, inadequate medical care and safety violations," according to the lawsuit. At the focus of the lawsuit is a beating it claims happened on Jan. 10, 2020. It said inmate Nathaniel Manning had been picked up by officials for a probation violation and placed in a cell with up to 35 other inmates. Another inmate started beating him while another held him down, according to the lawsuit. Correction officers were in another facility, too far away to stop the incident, according to the lawsuit. Manning was taken to a hospital 5 hours after the beating with multiple facial fractures and severe cuts, according to records. He needed surgery, according to the lawsuit. Manning was later released on his own recognizance, without paying a bond. The lawsuit claims that the county has adopted a policy of releasing prisoners who are injured and taken to the hospital because by releasing them the county is not responsible for their medical bills. His bills ended up costing more than $58,000, according to records. [GN] COLORADO WEST: Underpays Peer Specialists, Futch Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- IAN FUTCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLORADO WEST REGIONAL MENTAL HEALTH, INC. (dba MIND SPRINGS HEALTH, INC.) and COLORADO WEST, INC. (dba MIND SPRINGS, INC.), Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00046-SKC (D. Colo., January 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Minimum Wage Order, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a peer specialist in Frisco, Colorado from approximately September 24, 2019 through June 24, 2020. Colorado West Regional Mental Health, Inc., doing business as Mind Springs Health, Inc., is a drug rehabilitation facility, with a principal business office located in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Colorado West, Inc., doing business as Mind Springs, Inc., is a provider of counseling and therapy for mental wellness, with a principal business office in Grand Junction, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lotus Cannon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Martinez-Sanchez Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CARLOS W. MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CONCESIONARIA VUELA COMPANIA DE AVIACION, S.A.P.I. DE C.V., and CONTROLADORA VUELA COMPANIA DE AVIACION, S.A.B. DE C.V. (VOLARIS AVIATION HOLDING COMPANY), foreign corporations collectively d/b/a VOLARIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01966, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 12, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00173 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract by refusing to provide contractually guaranteed full cash refunds for cancelled flights to passengers, including the Plaintiff, and instead requiring them to accept rapidly expiring coupons or vouchers in lieu of refunds for cancelled or substantially delayed/interrupted flights. Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. is a low-cost airline carrier, with its principal place of business in Santa Fe, Mexico City, Mexico. Concesionaria Vuela Compania De Aviacion, S.A.P.I. de C.V. is a low-cost airline carrier and wholly-owned subsidiary of Volaris Holding Company, with its principal place of business in Santa Fe, Mexico City, Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Dubin, Esq. Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 392-0015 Facsimile: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: ddubin@ldclassaction.com ncoulson@ldclassaction.com CONSTRUCTION & TURNAROUND: Sica Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled FRANK SICA and GARY ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CONSTRUCTION & TURNAROUND SERVICES, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20079034, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00188 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 meal periods, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, and unfair business practices. Construction & Turnaround Services, LLC is a company that provides engineering and construction services based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq. Timothy B. Nelson, Esq. Rabindra M. David, Esq. MEDINA McKELVEY LLP 925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300 Roseville, CA 95678 Telephone: (916) 960-2211 Facsimile: (916) 742-5488 E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com tim@medinamckelvey.com rabi@medinamckelvey.com CONSUMER REPORTS: Koller Suit Stayed Pending Settlement Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled NINO KOLLER and MICHELLE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONSUMER REPORTS, INC., a New York nonprofit corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 20-CV-660 JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting joint motion for stay of proceedings. Presently before the Court is the Parties' Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings. Having read and considered the Motion, the papers filed, and the proceedings had therein, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Motion is granted; 2. The action is stayed pending the outcome of class action settlement approval proceedings, which the parties will pursue in the state court action, McKinney, et al. v. Consumer Reports, Inc., Case No. 37-2020-00046677-CU-BT-CTL; and 3. The parties will file a status report within three court days after a motion for preliminary approval is filed, and within three court days after the Superior Court enters an order on a motion for preliminary approval and a motion for final approval. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2378eu4 from Leagle.com. CORAL CAST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Laborers, Duran Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CRUZ DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORAL CAST, LLC; and JOSEPH MARDEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00174 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Duran was employed by the Defendants as construction laborer. CORAL CAST, LLC manufactures precast concrete products and the distributes concrete balusters. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CORAL SPRINGS: Faces Snarski Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW A. SNARSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORAL SPRINGS KGB, INC. d/b/a CORAL SPRINGS HONDA, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-000484 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Ct., Broward Cty., January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to the cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff and Class members using an automatic telephone dialing system in an attempt to promote its vehicle dealership business without obtaining prior express written consent. The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused the Plaintiff and Class members actual harm, including invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of their daily lives. Coral Springs KGB, Inc., doing business as Coral Springs Honda, is an automobile dealership business located in Coral Springs, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and – Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 628-5793 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com D&S CLEANERS: Holgado FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELVA LUZ HOLGADO a/k/a ELVA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D&S CLEANERS INC. d/b/a AMERICAN DRY CLEANERS d/b/a/ AMERICAN GARMENT RESTORATION, and DANIEL KUCHLIK, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00134 (E.D.N.Y., January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to provide wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about September 2, 2001 through December 2020. Her duties include cashier, marking clothes, assist customers, bagging clothes, and delivery of clothes. D&S Cleaners Inc., doing business as American Dry Cleaners and American Garment Restoration, is a provider of cleaning services, with principal places of business at 1928 A. Jericho Turnpike, East Northport, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadia M. Pervez, Esq. Aneeba Rehman, Esq. PERVEZ & REHMAN, P.C. 68 Southside Service Road, Suite 100 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 427-0700 Facsimile: (631) 824-9020 E-mail: npervez@pervezrehman.com DARIOHEALTH CORP: Chavakula Sues Over Removal Provision in Bylaws ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANAND K. CHAVAKULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DARIOHEALTH CORP.; YOAV SHAKED; EREZ RAPHAEL; HILA KARAH; DENNIS MATHEIS; DENNIS M. McGRATH; ADAM K. STERN; and RICHARD B. STONE, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0030 (Del. Ch., Jan. 12, 2021) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other stockholders of DarioHealth against Dario and the members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Removal Provision in the Company's bylaws violates the Delaware General Corporation Law. According to the complaint, a certain provision of the Company's bylaws, the "Removal Provision", adopted and maintained by the Defendants, provides the Company's directors with the authority to remove other directors, contrary to Delaware law. Stockholders of a corporation organized and existing under Delaware law have the exclusive authority to remove directors. DarioHealth Corp. designs and develops healthcare software solutions. The Company offers blood sugar monitoring, clinical trials, diabetes care, and other medical solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange St. #1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3889 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com -and- Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com -and- Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: +44-20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com DARKTRACE INC: Court Enters Final Judgment in Der-Hacopian Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued Final Judgment in the lawsuit captioned NICHOLAS DER-HACOPIAN, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DARKTRACE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-06726-HSG (N.D. Cal.). The matter came before the Court on the Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Final Approval of the proposed class action settlement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Attorneys' Fees and in Support of Service Award. The Court conducted a final fairness hearing on Sept. 10, 2020. The Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement was entered on Dec. 10, 2020. The Class Settlement has been approved such that each class member will receive $300. If it has not already done so, the Defendant will deposit all settlement monies comprising the Settlement Payment, into an account through the Settlement Administrator. If it has not already done so, the Defendant will tender $150,000 by check payable to the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., rules that the Judgment adjudicates all the claims, rights, and liabilities of the Parties, and is final and will be immediately appealable. The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement and enabling any party thereto to apply for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or carrying out of the Court's Final Approval of the Class Settlement. The Clerk is directed to enter the Final Judgment immediately pursuant to Rule 54. A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6z7zq4l from Leagle.com. DIETZ & WATSON: Faces Smoke Flavoring Labeling Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Ken Schachter, writing for Newsday, reports that a Great Neck attorney who filed scores of lawsuits charging that food companies improperly labeled vanilla-flavored products has a new target: smoke flavoring. Spencer Sheehan, who estimates he has filed more than 100 lawsuits related to vanilla flavoring since February 2019 -- with more to come -- filed four cases involving smoked cheese and almonds in the past nine months. "The issue with all these products is they're labeled as smoked cheese or almonds, but they don't tell you on the [front] labels that there's no actual smoke," he said. "There's just smoke flavor." Sheehan's lawsuits contend that disclosing smoke flavor on the back label does not satisfy labeling regulations of the Food and Drug Administration. His food-related lawsuits generally are filed in federal district courts and seek class-action status, in which a large number of people with a common matter sue as a group. In 2019, a record 177 food and beverage class action lawsuits were filed nationwide, almost four times the 45 filed in 2010, according to a report by Seattle-based Perkins Coie, a law firm that defends major food manufacturers. Meredith R. Miller, who teaches contract and commercial law at Touro College's Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, said there are two views related to such lawsuits. One depicts an attorney filing "frivolous" claims and "milking the system," she said. In the other perspective, lawyers are ensuring that regulations "on the books to protect consumers" are respected. In August, Sheehan filed a $5 million lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Philadelphia cold cuts manufacturer Dietz & Watson Inc. The case contends that the company's smoked Gouda cheese is not smoked with wood chips, but by the addition of "natural smoke flavoring." Instead of being displayed on the front of the package as required by regulations, the "natural smoke flavoring" is disclosed on the ingredient list, Sheehan said. An attorney for Dietz & Watson did not respond to a request for comment. Miller said that if attorneys convince the court to grant class action status, "there's a huge incentive" for the food companies to settle. "Legal costs can be astronomical," she said. In the settlements, each class member may get $1 or $2, but the attorneys can get 25-30% of the total, Miller said. If a case is settled for $5 million, for example, the attorney might receive more than $1 million plus costs. "There are a lot of instances where companies will seek a resolution," Sheehan said. "It's normally a private individual settlement and not typically disclosed to the court." Sheehan, who declined to discuss specific settlements, said that in about 10 of the vanilla cases, there was a "notice of voluntary dismissal." Observers generally surmise that a voluntary dismissal means that an outside settlement was reached, he said. Sheehan's lawsuits against makers of yogurt, cookies, oatmeal, almond milk, soy milk, cream soda and ice cream allege that they should be labeled as "vanilla flavored" because the predominant flavoring ingredient is not costly botanically derived vanilla, but synthetic vanillin and other flavor enhancers. [GN] EAST PALACE: Court Dismisses Dong's Claims From Cui FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled RUIXUAN CUI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST PALACE ONE, INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese Restaurant, EAST PALACE 43 INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese Restaurant, EAST PALACE 819 INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese Restaurant, NEW EAST PALACE REST. INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese Restaurant, EAST PALACE 2ND AVE. INC. d/b/a East Palace Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS REST. INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 38 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 711 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 74 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS EAST INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS MIDTOWN INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 1413 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 73RD INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 39 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS UPTOWN INC., d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, SIX HAPPINESS 88 INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, NEW SIX HAPPINESS CHINESE RESTAURANT INC. d/b/a Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, XI LIN, RUI HUA CHEN, LAI YIN HO, XUE DU CHEN, QI YENG LIN, XUE XIAN CHEN, MEI QIN WENG, XIAN LIN, JIAN FENG LIN, LIN FUI, FEI LIN, and TAN HUI LIN, Case No. 17 Civ. 6713 (PGG) (S.D. N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed without prejudice Cunming Dong's claims for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff Ruixuan Cui brings the putative collective and class action against numerous individuals and corporate entities associated with East Palace Chinese Restaurant and Six Happiness Chinese Restaurant, for which Cui once worked as a deliveryman. On a collective and class basis, Cui alleges numerous violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). On an individual basis, Cui alleges violations of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law (the "GBL") and the Internal Revenue Code. On Dec. 4, 2017, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman for general pretrial supervision. On May 14, 2018, Dong opted in as an FLSA plaintiff. After opting in, however, Dong did not maintain communication with the Plaintiffs' counsel, and did not cooperate with discovery. On Oct. 22, 2019, the Plaintiffs' counsel moved to withdraw from representing Dong -- citing his lack of cooperation -- and requested that Dong's claims be dismissed without prejudice. On Nov. 7, 2019, Judge Freeman ordered Dong to respond to the counsel's motion. Judge Freeman warned Dong that while he could proceed pro se, he would be expected to proceed with this action diligently and to attend all court conferences and other proceedings in person, and to comply, on his own, with all rules and procedures of the Court. Judge Freeman also scheduled a conference for December 11, 2019, and ordered Dong to personally appear. He did not appear for the Dec. 11, 2019 conference. Judge Freeman denied the Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw and directed defense counsel to depose Dong by Jan. 10, 2020. Dong did not respond to the Plaintiffs' counsel's attempts to reach him to schedule his deposition. Accordingly, on Dec. 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs' counsel renewed their motion to withdraw. On Jan. 23, 2020, Judge Freeman issued an order directing Dong to appear at a Feb. 21, 2020 conference. In her order, Judge Freeman warned that a failure to appear as directed may result in the Court recommending sanctions, including dismissal of Dong's claims for failure to prosecute them. The order was served on Dong on Jan. 27, 2020. Dong did not appear at the Feb. 21, 2020 conference, nor did he provide any explanation for his absence. In a Feb. 26, 2020 order, Judge Freeman granted the Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw, and directed Dong to show cause, in writing, no later than March 5, 2020, why the Court should not recommend that Judge Gardephe dismiss his claims in the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Dong never responded to Judge Freeman's Feb. 26, 2020 order. On July 21, 2020, Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") recommending that Dong's claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The R & R recites the requirement that Dong must file objections within 14 days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and warns that a failure to do so will result in a waiver of judicial review. Dong did not file any objections to the R & R. In her Feb. 26, 2020 order, Judge Freeman analyzes the factors courts consider before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As to the duration of Dong's non-compliance, she notes that Dong had been uncooperative with the Plaintiffs' counsel for months, and did not make himself available for a deposition the Defendants had noticed. Judge Freeman also noted prior orders in which she had put Dong on notice that he could face sanctions for his lack of cooperation, up to and including dismissal of his claims. Despite these warnings, Dong did not appear before Judge Freeman for two scheduled conferences. Moreover, Judge Freeman's Feb. 26, 2020 order was served on Dong, with a translation in his first language. Dong never responded. Finally, Judge Freeman found that the Defendants had been prejudiced by Dong's failure to appear for deposition. The Court finds no error in Judge Freeman's analysis. Accordingly, Dong's claims will be dismissed without prejudice. The R & R is adopted in its entirety and Dong's claims against the Defendants are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Chambers will mail a copy of the Order to Cunming Dong, at 949 55th St., in Brooklyn, New York. The Clerk of Court is directed not to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y43mgr3p from Leagle.com. ELENI'S NYC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eleni's NYC Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Eleni's NYC Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00294 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Eleni's New York -- https://elenis.com/ -- is a gourmet cookie company specializing in highly decorative, "playfully unique" cookies and delicious cupcakes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Bid to Strike Defenses in Fodera Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion to strike affirmative defenses in the lawsuit titled FRANK J. FODERA, JR., et al. v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 19-cv-05072-WHO (N.D. Cal.). In the putative class action, Fodera and Michael M. Bonella, who are fitness instructors and trainers, bring various claims against their employer Equinox, which owns and operates luxury health clubs in California, for alleged violations of the California Labor Code, including laws related to paying minimum wage, overtime, providing meal and rest breaks, and providing accurate wage statements. The Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in the case on May 8, 2020. Equinox subsequently moved to dismiss one cause of action in the SAC and the Court denied the motion. Then, Equinox filed its Answer to the SAC. The Plaintiffs responded by moving to strike all 20 affirmative defenses asserted in the original Answer. They withdrew that motion, explaining that the parties had agreed that Equinox could file an amended answer in lieu of the parties litigating the motion to strike. They consented to Equinox filing an amended answer on the condition that Equinox would not assert any new affirmative defenses. Equinox filed the Amended Answer ("AA") on November 2, 2020, which asserts 13 affirmative defenses. The Plaintiffs' new motion to strike asserts that all 13 defenses fail to meet the pleading standard under Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal because they are too conclusory and do not allege sufficient facts. They further allege that some defenses should be struck as duplicative or because they are not proper affirmative defenses, and they argue that part of Equinox's eleventh defense was not asserted in the original Answer and should be struck because the Plaintiffs' consent to Equinox filing the AA was conditioned on Equinox not adding any new affirmative defenses. The Defendant's affirmative defenses include its assertion of several statutes of limitations as a complete or partial defense to the Plaintiffs' claims, including California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338(a) and Section 343, as well as California Labor Code Sections 203 and 226; and that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by their failures to follow Equinox's policies regarding wages, meal and rest breaks, and timekeeping as set forth in its employee handbook and standard operating procedures. Citing Free Speech Sys., LLC v. Menzel, 390 F.Supp.3d 1162, 1176 (N.D. Cal. 2019), Judge William H. Orrick holds that motions to strike affirmative defenses seldom simplify litigation, and the instant one is no exception. He finds that the Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike all affirmative defenses that Defendant Equinox has asserted in its AA is equally meritless. Judge Orrick holds that Equinox has alleged sufficient facts to support its affirmative defenses. They are not from recitations of standard defenses but contain specific facts and law to put the Plaintiffs on notice as to the basic substance of the defenses claimed. Rule 8 does not require extensive factual allegations to sustain an affirmative defense, citing Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc., Case No. 17-CV-04790-HSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2018). Further, while some of the affirmative defenses may prove to be duplicative, or are arguably not actual affirmative defenses, their assertion does not add complexity to this action and will not require the Plaintiffs to incur additional time or expend additional money to defend the action, Judge Orrick states. He adds that the issues raised by these defenses will need to be litigated or resolved in the action regardless and it makes sense to wait and see how the evidence and facts in this case develop before dismissing them. For the reasons set forth in Order, Judge Orrick denied the Plaintiffs' motion to strike. He concludes that there was no substantive benefit to be gained from the motion. In the event that the Plaintiffs' counsel eventually seek attorney's fees in the case, they should explicitly exclude from their lodestar (and indicate that they did so in the fees motion) any time spent in researching, filing or briefing the motion. The hearing set for January 6, 2021 is vacated. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5l6fq8j from Leagle.com. ERIE INSURANCE: Highland Park Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE. The case is styled as Highland Park Ford Lincoln, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00038-MRH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 13, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance - Breach of Contract. 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: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com EXODUS BUILDING: Faces Fabricant Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXODUS BUILDING SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00225 (C.D. Cal., January 11, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's illegal actions that violated the Plaintiff's civil rights under the TCPA. According to the complaint, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending in -8950 beginning in or around September 2019 in an attempt to solicit the Plaintiff to purchase the Defendant's services. The Defendant purportedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" in placing its calls without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive such calls. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons were harmed and suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future, statutory and treble damages, and any other relief that the Court deems just and proper, the suit says. Exodus Building Solutions, Inc. is a mergers and acquisitions firm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Lok FCRA Class Suit Goes to S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SIMON LOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 036086/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Rockland County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 7:21-cv-00154-NSR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a company that offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services based in Costa Mesa, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Kerianne Tobitsch, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-8321 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 E-mail: ktobitsch@jonesday.com FACEBOOK INC: Rosenman Antitrust Class Suit Goes to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHARI ROSENMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 20-CIV-05582, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 13, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00336 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment by illegally maintaining its monopoly power through deploying a buy-or-bury strategy that thwarts competition and harms both users and advertisers. Facebook, Inc. is an American technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com FASTRAK: Court Rules on Class Action Over Unfair Toll Penalties --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Finney and Renee Koury, writing for abc7, report that with the start of the new year: a new toll system is coming to Bay Area bridges. Toll takers who were removed in the pandemic are gone for good. All Bay Area bridge tolls are now all-electronic, and penalties will apply for non-payment of invoices. It's the same system used on the Golden Gate Bridge since 2013. It means motorists without a Fastrak account of some sort will get an invoice in the mail. But at its inception, thousands of motorists claimed they were charged penalties before the got their invoices. That led to a class-action lawsuit against FasTrak filed in 2014, claiming thouse thousands of motorists were due a refund on penalties they didn't deserve. Now, after six long years and a bitter court fight, a surprising ruling by the court. The outcome belied the drama that took place during six years of litigation. Laywers for FasTrak operators, and the Bay Area Toll Authority accused class action attorneys of fraud. They tried to keep the public from attending the trial and to keep a public policy secret on how they enforced toll violations. So, after six years of litigation, did the court award sweeping compensation for blindsided motorists? Actually, the court awarded one dollar to two people. The lawsuit began after the Golden Gate Bridge switched to all-electronic tolling in 2013. Motorists without a FasTrak account were supposed to get a toll invoice in the mail. But the suit claimed thousands never received their invoices, mostly due to address mistakes. Rather than finding a correct address, the suit says FasTrak kept piling on penalties. "They just shredded the return mail (bridge-toll invoices) and imposed penalties on these motorists for failing to pay the toll," class-action attorney Adam Gutride said.. "I never got a single notice," said plaintiff Michael Saliani,of San Rafael. He said he racked up more than $9000 in penalties before he saw a single invoice. Fastrak said he should have known to look for them and inquire, since he'd crossed multiple times without paying. FasTrak said it changed its policies over the years of the lawsuit, to prevent unwitting violators from incurring multiple penalties. But it wanted to keep those policies a secret, saying motorists could use the information to "game the systemn" and avoid paying tolls. The Bay Area Toll Authority, hoping to keep that policy under wraps during the trial, tried to bar the public from the courtroom. The effort failed after 7 On Your Side objected. "It's troubling that the tolling agencies have this view of California motorists," Gutride said. "They believe the public is out to cheat. Out to get them.". The lawsuit asked for refunds for motorists who never received their bridge toll invoices before FasTrak piled on penalties. But in an 81-page ruling, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo found little evidence to show motorists were denied due process rights. The court did rule in favor of a Mill Valley couple named in the suit. In their case, the bridge toll invoice was mailed with no street address. So they never got it, and they racked up $2,500 in penalties. The court ordered FasTrak to provide them a hearing. MORE: FasTrak has the wrong stationery, sends 'toll violation' notices instead of invoices And she awarded them a nominal one dollar. Now that all bridges use electronic tolling, FasTrak will have to send invoices to millions more motorists. Already it's caused a problem for Khara in Mountain View. She writes that she never received an invoice for a one-dollar toll road crossing, and FasTrak charged her a $25 penalty. She spent hours arguing with FasTrak before it waived the fee. Class action attorney Adam Gutride believes the trial did force FasTrak to treat the public more fairly. "That's a good thing for motorists in California," he said. "They can't pile on penalties if the mail is returned and they will waive up to 75 penalties if you call to complain." And what about that policy that FasTrak tried to keep secret? FasTrak has stopped tacking on penalties if the post office can't deliver an invoice. If you get a FasTrak violation under the new system, let 7 On Your Side know. [GN] FIAT CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Dodge Demon Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Dodge Demon class action lawsuit alleges 2018 Challenger SRT Demons in California are equipped with hood scoops that warp and lead to repairs that make the cars lose their values. But attorneys for Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) argue the class action is really about nothing more than a hood scoop cosmetic issue. The Dodge Demon lawsuit was filed by the owner of a 2018 Challenger SRT Demon who says he paid more than $166,000 for a car advertised as having 840 horsepower. But the owner says to achieve that horsepower he had to pay $250 to have components installed on the Dodge Demon. According to the class action lawsuit, the Demon had 808 horsepower when the plaintiff received a "Crate" from Fiat Chrysler with the components that had to be installed to reach 840 horsepower. In addition, the plaintiff says he was surprised to learn the only way to achieve 840 horsepower was to use racing fuel. Then within 20 miles of first driving the Demon, the hood scoop allegedly warped, so the plaintiff says he contacted the dealership to report the alleged defect and determine if there was a repair. According to the Demon class action, about a year later the plaintiff learned about technical service bulletin 23-033-19 issued to Chrysler dealerships regarding the hood scoops. The TSB says Dodge Demon owners may complain the "hood bezel is warping and in some cases, chipping the paint on the sides and corners of the hood bezel opening." Chrysler dealers were told to replace the hood bezel, inspect the hood for paint damage and if required, refinish the entire hood. His Demon hood scoop was repaired, but the plaintiff alleges the paint and finish were different and a different hood scoop insert was installed. The owner also says it's clear that numerous holes were drilled into the hood. The class action lawsuit further alleges the hood scoop insert began "bowing down" within a week and the plaintiff says he must push the insert into place each time he drives the Dodge Demon. The automaker allegedly concealed defects in the hood scoops which cause warping, sagging and bulging. Then trying to repair the hood allegedly causes even more damage and noticeable issues with the paint and finish. FCA's Motion to Dismiss the Dodge Demon Class Action Lawsuit In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Chrysler argues the entire class action is about a cosmetic issue and nothing more. FCA says the plaintiff admits that at the time he filed the class action lawsuit, Chrysler was offering to fix the hood scoop for free but the owner refused because a first attempted repair allegedly did not work. Attorneys for FCA say the plaintiff makes allegations the horsepower was misrepresented, but he also admits his Dodge Demon can operate at 840 horsepower if he uses the extra components he was provided and uses the type of fuel necessary. According to Chrysler, this means the plaintiff has no plausible claim. Chrysler further alleges there is not one allegation in the Demon class action lawsuit that claims any alleged hood scoop problem impacts the use of the car. The automaker says the plaintiff may have contacted the dealer but the owner provides no details about what was said. The plaintiff also allegedly doesn't say who advised him of the fix about a year later or how he learned about the service bulletin. The motion to dismiss also argues the plaintiff doesn't allege that FCA ever failed to offer him a free hood scoop repair and the owner doesn't claim he paid anything for repairs. Chrysler says the plaintiff mentioned information he saw from the automaker about the Dodge Demon, yet he allegedly didn't know about the need for racing fuel or how the car required extra components to achieve 840 horsepower. According to the motion to dismiss, both press releases specifically say 100+ unleaded high-octane fuel and additional "performance parts" are needed to "unleash[]" the Demons' full performance attributes and specifically to "unleash the full potential 840 horsepower." The attorneys for FCA also told the judge: "Remarkably, after filing this case and professing to represent a class, Plaintiff offered a dismissal in exchange for a payment of $95,000." The Dodge Demon class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Peralta, et al., v. FCA US LLC, et al. The plaintiff is represented by the Law Offices of Connor Olson, and Tiangay Kemokai Law, P.C. [GN] FUNIMATION GLOBAL: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Funimation Global Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Funimation Global Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00299 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Funimation Global Group, LLC -- https://www.funimation.com/ -- is an American entertainment company that specializes in the dubbing and distribution of East Asian media, most notably Japanese anime.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com GIFT SERVICES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gift Services, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gift Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00311 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gift Services, Inc. -- https://www.giftservices.com/ -- is a gift basket supplier to the promotional products industry, delivering gifts for a variety of corporate needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com GOEDECKER INC: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goedeker Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Goedeker Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00315 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Goedeker Inc. -- https://www.goedekers.com/ -- operates as an online consumer goods retailer. The Company offers microwave ovens, grills, fridge, dishwashers, dryers, space heaters, furniture, rugs, garbage disposals, lamps, and home improvement products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com GOODRX HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Jan. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) Class A common stock between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period"). GoodRx investors have until February 16, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. In September 2020, GoodRx completed its initial public offering ("IPO"), selling over 39.8 million common shares for $33 per share. GoodRx provides consumers with free information and tools to compare prices for prescription drugs. The Company primarily earns revenue from its prescription transaction fees. On November 17, 2020, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") announced two new pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a discount card program, that would directly compete with GoodRx's platform. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.51, or 23%, to close at $36.21 per share on November 17, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Amazon had been in the process of developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service; and (2) that Amazon's services would directly replicate and compete with the GoodRx business model. If you purchased GoodRx securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 16, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased GoodRx securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Cabrera Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting Google's motion to dismiss, and remanded the lawsuit entitled RENE CABRERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, and RICK WOODS, individually and on behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-16466 (9th Cir.) In the putative class action, the Appellate Court considers the district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of class representative Cabrera's complaint for lack of standing. It first considers whether the district court erred by dismissing Cabrera's complaint for lack of standing. The district court concluded that Cabrera had suffered no injury because Cabrera and his wife sold Training Options' (TO) tangible and intangible assets, including any causes of action against Google. But Cabrera's standing is premised in part on ownership of the AdWords account, which was not transferred by the Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA"). Cabrera was a party to the AdWords contract. He registered his personal email address for a Google account and signed up for the AdWords program. He accepted the terms of the AdWords Agreement by clicking through the document. Cabrera also continued to use the AdWords account from his personal email address after the sale of TO, and he testified that he did not transfer the AdWords account when he sold TO "because it was my personal account. The concurrence argues that mere ownership of the account does not give rise to a cognizable injury because Cabrera did not incur liabilities or obligations imposed by the AdWords agreement, and because Cabrera made only occasional use of the account after he sold TO. But in 2010, months after the sale of TO, Cabrera personally created and paid for a test AdWords ad campaign linked to his personal email address. And Cabrera's AdWords account was not cancelled for lack of activity until 2018, nine years after Cabrera sold TO. The Appellate Court opines that Cabrera's personal control over the AdWords account after the sale of TO and his receipt of the benefits of the AdWords agreement suffices to support his claim for ownership of the account and creates a cognizable injury for standing purposes. The district court also erred by concluding that the sale of TO included the sale of TO's causes of action against Google, according to the Appellate Court. Per the relevant clause of the APA, the assets sold included general intangibles pursuant to the terms and conditions of the APA and any addendums or amendments. The APA contained an addendum that defined six intangible categories, but none of the categories contemplated the transfer of TO's causes of action. And pursuant to Florida law, which governs the APA, it is a general principle of contract interpretation that a specific provision dealing with a particular subject will control over a different provision dealing only generally with that same subject. Cabrera also produced an affidavit from the other party to the APA, who stated that TO's causes of action were not part of the sale of TO. Finding the affidavit was belatedly produced pursuant to Cabrera's Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 obligations, the district court did not consider the affidavit pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a decision the Appellate Court reviews for abuse of discretion, citing Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1105-06 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 26 only obligates a party to disclose information that it "may use to support its claims or defenses." Cabrera consistently asserted that he relied on his status as a party to the AdWords contract to establish standing. Rule 26 did not require Cabrera to anticipate Google's defenses and produce evidence to defeat defenses that Google had not yet asserted. The district court erred by excluding the affidavit, and consequently erred by concluding that even if Google breached the AdWords contract, Cabrera did not suffer a cognizable injury, the Appellate Court holds. Because it concludes that the district court erred by ruling that Cabrera's claim to standing failed for lack of a cognizable injury, the Appellate Court vacates the district court's dismissal on that ground and do not reach whether the district court should have granted Cabrera leave to supplement his pleadings. Defendant-Appellee Google to bear costs. Circuit Judge Atsushi Wallace Tashima concurs in part and concurs in the judgment. Judge Tashima finds that mere ownership of the account cannot and does not give rise to a cognizable injury under the circumstances of the case, where the owner did not incur any of the liabilities or obligations imposed by the agreement and was not the beneficiary of any of its prospective benefits. Cabrera appears to be no more than the classic straw purchaser. For these reasons, Judge Tashima suggests that the majority errs in relying on Cabrera's bare ownership of the Ad Words account to give rise to a cognizable injury to Cabrera and, thus, to serve as a basis that he has met the concrete injury requirement to give rise to Article III standing, and does not join in that portion of the disposition. Judge Tashima concludes, however, that even without reliance on Cabrera's ownership of the Ad Words account, there remains a disputed issue of fact of whether Cabrera's sale of TO included the sale of TO's causes of action, including those causes of action which arose under the Ad Words account. Accordingly, Judge Tashima concurs in the majority's judgment vacating the district court's judgment and remanding for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyp6ezx4 from Leagle.com. GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Greenlane Holdings, Inc. ("Greenlane" or "the Company") (GNLN), a global house of brands and one of the largest sellers of premium cannabis accessories, child-resistant packaging, and specialty vaporization products, on Jan. 11 disclosed that a complaint filed on March 6, 2020, with the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida ("the Court"), Case No. 9:19-cv-81259-RKA, has been dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and the case closed. The plaintiffs in this action had alleged that the Company's registration statement related for its initial public offering contained material omissions and false or misleading statements. The Court's opinion held that Greenlane had "candidly" outlined in clear terms the relevant risks and that the registration statement did not contain false or misleading statements or material omissions. In doing so, the Court deemed the Plaintiffs claims "meritless." Greenlane is a defendant in a related case in Florida state court and has moved to dismiss that litigation on the same grounds. About Greenlane Holdings, Inc. Greenlane (GNLN) -- https://gnln.com/ -- is the leading global platform for the development and distribution of premium cannabis accessories and lifestyle products. The company operates as a powerful house of brands, third-party brand accelerator, and omni-channel distribution platform. Greenlane serves the global markets with an expansive customer base of more than 7,000 retail locations, including licensed cannabis businesses, smoke shops, and specialty retailers. As a pioneer in the cannabis space, Greenlane is the partner of choice for many of the industry's leading brands, including PAX Labs, Storz & Bickel (Canopy-owned), Cookies, Grenco Science, and DaVinci. Greenlane also proudly owns and operates a diverse brand portfolio including packaging innovator Pollen Gear(TM), the K.Haring Glass Collection by Higher Standards, Marley Natural(TM), and VIBES(TM) rolling papers. Higher Standards, Greenlane's flagship brand, offers both a high-end product line and immersive retail experience with groundbreaking stores in both New York City's Chelsea Market and Malibu, California. Greenlane also owns and operates both Vapor.com and VapoShop.com, two industry-leading, direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms in North America and Europe respectively. [GN] GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Greenlane Holdings, Inc. ("Greenlane" or "the Company") (Nasdaq: GNLN), a global house of brands and one of the largest sellers of premium cannabis accessories, child-resistant packaging, and specialty vaporization products, on Jan. 11 disclosed that a complaint filed on March 6, 2020, with the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida ("the Court"), Case No. 9:19-cv-81259-RKA, has been dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and the case closed. The plaintiffs in this action had alleged that the Company's registration statement related for its initial public offering contained material omissions and false or misleading statements. The Court's opinion held that Greenlane had "candidly" outlined in clear terms the relevant risks and that the registration statement did not contain false or misleading statements or material omissions. In doing so, the Court deemed the Plaintiffs claims "meritless." Greenlane is a defendant in a related case in Florida state court and has moved to dismiss that litigation on the same grounds. About Greenlane Holdings, Inc. Greenlane (NASDAQ: GNLN) is the leading global platform for the development and distribution of premium cannabis accessories and lifestyle products. The company operates as a powerful house of brands, third-party brand accelerator, and omni-channel distribution platform. Greenlane serves the global markets with an expansive customer base of more than 7,000 retail locations, including licensed cannabis businesses, smoke shops, and specialty retailers. As a pioneer in the cannabis space, Greenlane is the partner of choice for many of the industry's leading brands, including PAX Labs, Storz & Bickel (Canopy-owned), Cookies, Grenco Science, and DaVinci. Greenlane also proudly owns and operates a diverse brand portfolio including packaging innovator Pollen Gear(TM), the K.Haring Glass Collection by Higher Standards, Marley Natural(TM), and VIBES(TM) rolling papers. Higher Standards, Greenlane's flagship brand, offers both a high-end product line and immersive retail experience with groundbreaking stores in both New York City's Chelsea Market and Malibu, California. Greenlane also owns and operates both Vapor.com and VapoShop.com, two industry-leading, direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms in North America and Europe respectively. For additional information, please visit: https://gnln.com/. [GN] GRETNA, LA: $106.5K in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Nelson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TAMARA G. NELSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. BELINDA C. CONSTANT, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-14581 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses. For the foregoing reasons, Judge van Meerveld granted the Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses. She awarded the Plaintiffs $96,478.21 in attorneys' fees and $10,089 in costs, to be paid by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on Dec. 5, 2017, to correct what they describe as egregious Due Process and Equal Protection violations occurring at the Mayor's Court of the City of Gretna. The Original Complaint advanced three causes of action: Count 1: A Due Process challenge to the alleged financial conflict of interest in the Mayor's Court based on the theory that the Mayor, the police department, the city prosecutor, and the magistrate judges of the Mayor's Court are incentivized to maximize the fee and fine income generated through Mayor's Court prosecutions; Count 2: An Equal Protection and Due Process challenge to Gretna's Deferred Prosecution Program based on the theory that Mayor's Court defendants without the ability to pay the program fee are excluded from participation; and Count 3: A Due Process and Equal Protection challenge to the alleged summary suspension of driver's licenses without a hearing when those defendants are unable to pay fees and fines assessed in Mayor's Court proceedings. In May 2018, the Plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint that dropped Count 3. They explained that they had obtained information from the Office of Motor Vehicles in response to their subpoena that resulted in the decision not to pursue Count 3. The amended complaint was entered into the record on June 7, 2018. After supplemental briefing was ordered by the Court, the Plaintiffs' original motion to certify the class was denied without prejudice in September 2018. The parties began discussing settlement in October 2018 and agreed that only Count 2 could be settled. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs proceeded to conduct discovery with regard to Count 2. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on both Counts 1 and 2 in March 2019. Thereafter, but before a ruling by the District Court, the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Trial was set to begin on March 23, 2020. On Feb. 20, 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Count 1, granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count 1, and denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to their immunities' arguments. At a telephone conference with the Court on Feb. 28, 2020, the parties discussed the status of settlement of Count 2. The Court continued the March 23, 2020, trial in light of the parties' representations that only one issue remained and that they expected to negotiate a resolution. The parties came to an agreement and on May 14, 2020, Plaintiff Timothea Richardson filed a Motion to Certify a Settlement Class and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement. The settlement agreement includes refunds and credits to a small number of Deferred Prosecution Program participants. The primary relief is injunctive and comes in the form of changes to the Deferred Action Program to provide alternatives for people who cannot afford the program's fee. Following a status conference with the court, follow up discussions via email, and supplemental filings by the Plaintiff, the Court issued an Order and Reasons granting the motions on Sept. 3, 2020. On Sept. 5, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Attorneys' Fees seeking an award of $143,665 in attorneys' fees and $10,089 in costs. The Defendants oppose, arguing that the requested billing rate for one of the Plaintiffs' attorneys is too high given his experience. They also argue that some of the billing entries improperly include clerical work, block billing, travel, work on unsuccessful issues and claims, duplicative work, and vaguely described work, and that these entries should be stricken or reduced. The Plaintiffs have filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion, arguing that the requested billing rates are appropriate. Meanwhile, on Dec. 4, 2020, the court held a Fairness Hearing and on Dec. 18, 2020, issued an Order and Reasons approving the settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court now turns to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Magistrate Judge van Meerveld holds that there is no dispute that the Plaintiffs are prevailing parties as to Count 2 as a result of the concessions they garnered in the settlement agreement. There are no special circumstances justifying a total denial of fees. Accordingly, she finds that an award of attorneys' fees is appropriate under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. The Judge notes that the Plaintiffs appropriately excluded time related to Count 1 and Count 3 from their fee request. However, upon review of the time entries and in light of the Court's familiarity with the dispute, she agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs' estimate unfairly weighs Count 2 as accounting for two-thirds of the time entries prior to the dismissal of Count 1. Many of the time entries are for shared work. But some entries seem more clearly related to one count or the other. The Judge acknowledges that most exclusively Count 1 or Count 3 time entries have already been stricken from the claimed time. However, she cannot find that Count 2 accounted for two-thirds of the claimed time entries. She finds that it more appropriate to reduce the time entries prior to the dismissal of Count 1 by 50%. Considering the reasonableness of the Count 2 time claimed, the Judge finds a number of entries that appear to be excessive and because they were block billed, it is difficult to determine whether the time spent was appropriate. Other time entries are not block billed but appear to be excessive in light of the minimal detail provided. Additionally, the counsel's time keeping records do not reflect any time entries written off as "excessive, duplicative, or inadequately documented." Because of the lack of billing judgment, the use, at times, of block billing, and the fact that some entries appear excessive in light of the minimal explanation provided, the Judge finds it appropriate to reduce the requested fees for which recovery is due by 15% as to Eric Foley, an attorney, who has been practicing law for 11 years. She will not reduce the time entries of M. Rose Falvey, an investigative paralegal, because there has been no block billing and time entries do not appear to be excessive. She also finds it appropriate to reduce the requested fees for which recovery is due by 15% as to attorney Jim Craig. The Plaintiffs seek an award of $10,089 in costs. The Defendants do not dispute the reasonableness of the costs claimed. The Judge finds it appropriate to award the full $10,089 in costs requested. For the foregoing reasons, Judge van Meerveld granted the Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses. She awarded the Plaintiffs $96,478.21 in attorneys' fees and $10,089 in costs, to be paid by the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order & Reasons is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4w95uyj from Leagle.com. GRIFFIN HOSPITAL: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Insulin Pens ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rich Scinto, writing for Patch, reports that a Superior Court judge has certified class-action status for a lawsuit against Griffin Hospital and Griffin Health Services regarding the use of multi-dose insulin pens. The lawsuit alleges that the pens that are meant for one patient were used by medical personnel on multiple patients. The misuse of pens at the hospital was caused by institutional failures, including a lack of appropriate procedures and training, according to the lawsuit. Griffin Health Services held a news conference in 2014 about the insulin pen misuse. The pens are meant to be used on only a single-patient. Needles for the devices are single-use, but backflow of blood or skin cells can backflow into the pen and potentially infect another person, according to Griffin's 2014 statement. Around 3,100 hospital patients were ordered insulin pens between Sept. 1, 2008 and May 7, 2014, according to a hospital news release. The hospital notified patients via mail and offered screening for HIV, and hepatitis B and C. At the time hospital officials said that the risk of disease transmission is believed to be minimal. The lawsuit was originally filed by Anthony Diaz, Bruce Sypniewski and Daiy Gmitter. They are being represented by attorneys Ernie Teitell and Marco Allocca with Silver Golub & Teitell LLP. Notice to potential class-action members will likely occur sometime in the spring or summer of 2021 after court approval, according to a statement from Silver Golub & Teitell. Griffin Hospital declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. "Griffin has been open and transparent about the events relating to the prior use of insulin pens from the time the hospital voluntarily came forward in 2014," said Todd Liu, vice president of accountable care and general counsel for Griffin in a statement. "Griffin's first priority was ensuring that people potentially exposed were notified, safe, and given the opportunity to be tested, which Griffin initiated and did at its expense. Griffin voluntarily disclosed what occurred in its letter to individuals potentially affected." Superior Court Judge Linda Lager defined potential members of the class action lawsuit as: All patients of Griffin Hospital, located in Derby, Connecticut, for whom a multi-dose insulin pen was prescribed during their hospitalization between September 1, 2008 and May 7, 2014 and to whom insulin was administered from a multi-dose insulin pen, who received a notification letter from Griffin Hospital dated May 16, 2014 and who subsequently underwent testing for Hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). [GN] GT EXPRESS INC: Rogers Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Rogers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GT Express, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-07780, (N.D. Ill., December 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. GT Express is a licensed freight shipping and trucking company in a freight hauling business based in Mokena, Illinois. Rogers underwent a driver's orientation and training program at its corporate training facility. GT Express allegedly failed to compensate Rogers minimum wage rates of pay for all hours while undergoing orientation and training within weekly pay periods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Andrew Head, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC 4422 N. Ravenswood Ave. Chicago, IL 60640 Tel: (404) 924-4151 Fax: (404) 796-7338 Email: ahead@headlawfirm.com bhilbert@headlawfirm.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 13 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of GTT Communications, Inc. (NYSE: GTT) between May 5, 2016 and November 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GTT investors under the federal securities laws. To join the GTT class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1927.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's internal controls suffered from issues related to the recording and reporting of Cost of Telecommunications Services; (2) the Company's previously reported Cost of Telecommunications was inaccurate or accounted for unsupported adjustments; (3) inadequate internal controls would result in delays in the Company's 10-Q quarterly reports; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 15, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1927.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Omar Santos, Amanda Clements, Ethan Dornhelm, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC d/b/a ARS Account Resolution Services, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-23084-KMW, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 13, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-mc-80008 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group (HRRG) -- https://www.healthcarerevenuerecoverygroup.com/ -- is a debt collection agency, specializing in the collection of medical debt.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Jaeger, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 203-4000 Fax: (310) 229-1285 Email: michael.jaeger@faegredrinker.com HIGGINS BENJAMIN: N.C. Court Refuses to Dismiss Golden FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned as MARK GOLDEN and GENEVA GOLDEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00627 (M.D.N.C.). The case a putative class action by Plaintiffs Mark Golden and Geneva Golden, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Defendant Higgins, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. Higgins is a law firm engaged in the collection of debts. On April 22, 2020, Higgins sent the Plaintiffs a collection letter, commonly known as a dunning letter, to collect a total balance of $903.05 in allegedly overdue homeowners' association fees. On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the action against Higgins, alleging one violation of the FDCPA. Higgins moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' cause of action for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs responded in opposition, and Higgins replied. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that the dunning letter, in accordance with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a), notifies them that the debt will be assumed valid in the absence of a timely dispute and that the debt referenced was the homeowners' association fees. They allege, however, that the letter fails to comply with 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) because it fails to inform them that the Debt will be assumed to be valid by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that this failure could lead the least sophisticated consumer to be uncertain about what entity will make the assumption and for what purpose. The Plaintiffs assert, in the absence of language indicating the identity of who will assume the debt to be valid, that the least sophisticated consumer could be misled into believing that their debt will be determined to be valid by a court, credit reporting agency, or other authority. In response, Higgins argues that the absence of identifying language in the relevant sentence is not misleading because the letter clearly indicates that Higgins is a debt collector. It refers to other portions of the same paragraph which indicate the responsibilities of the firm in relation to the debt and asserts that, taken together, the letter makes clear that only the firm will assume the debt to be valid. As Higgins correctly argues, there is no requirement in the FDCPA that a debt collector quote the statute's language verbatim, District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder opines, citing Kirkpatrick, 379 F. Supp. 3d at 542; Emanuel v. Am. Credit Exch., 870 F.2d 805, 808 (2d Cir. 1989). Judge Schroeder states that the key sentence is worded passively, fails to identify who is to assume that the debt is valid, and does not indicate the purposes for which the assumption is to be made. Further, nothing in the context or language of the surrounding paragraph indicates that it is the debt collector who will assume the validity of the debt and only for collection purposes. Although Higgins is not required to use "magic words" in order to comply with the FDCPA, it must include some language that makes clear it is only the debt collector that may assume validity and only for collection purposes; otherwise the debtor is left uncertain about what entity will make the assumption and for what purpose, Judge Schroeder explains. He concludes that the exclusion in the key sentence of the statutory language regarding the identity of who may assume the debt to be valid or the purposes of that assumption is sufficient to state a violation of the FDCPA. Higgins argues that any ambiguity regarding the assuming entity is eliminated by the statement, "This law firm is a debt collector," and the use of identifying phrases, "we," "us," and "our firm" in other sentences in the relevant paragraph. However, viewing Higgins's debt collection letter as a whole, and from the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, the presence of identifying language elsewhere in the same paragraph, combined with the conspicuous absence in the key sentence, does not eliminate the ambiguity but may increase the tendency to be misleading, Judge Schroeder opines. The Plaintiffs are, therefore, correct that the phrases "we," "us," and "our firm" do not sufficiently inform a least sophisticated consumer that the assumption of the debt is limited to Higgins and not some other entity such as a credit reporting agency or court, Judge Schroeder points out. In light of the absence of identifying language as to the key sentence, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim for violations of the FDCPA upon which relief may be granted. Hence, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y46baj3f from Leagle.com. HOWMET AEROSPACE: Navarro Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSE NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOWMET AEROSPACE INC., ARCONIC INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV46141, 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 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00164 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to provide meal period or compensation in lieu of, failure to provide rest breaks or compensation in lieu of, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to pay vacation wages to employees. Howmet Aerospace Inc. is an American aerospace company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Arconic Inc. is a manufacturer of aluminum sheet, plate, extrusions and architectural products based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Todd L. Nunn, Esq. Spencer Hamer, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 1 Park Plaza Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 623-3553 Facsimile: (949) 253-0902 E-mail: todd.nunn@klgates.com spencer.hamer@klgates.com HP HOOD: Faces Binns Suit Over Mislabeled Vanilla Ice Cream ----------------------------------------------------------- SARAH BINNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP HOOD LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00319 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021) alleges that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly markets its "vanilla bean" ice cream known as the "Vanilla Ice Cream With Ground Vanilla Beans" ("Product"). According to the complaint, Defendant's Vanilla Bean Ice Cream likewise contains exhausted vanilla bean specks, which deceives consumers because they are unaware that the seeds are added to the Product after all flavor has been removed. Consumers are unable to know that the "Ground Vanilla Beans" do not contain any vanilla flavor and should be listed as "exhausted vanilla bean seeds," the suit says. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is allegedly sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $4.79 per 1.5 QT, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way and higher than the price of the Product if it was to be represented in a non-misleading way. HP Hood LLC manufactures dairy foods. The Company offers milk, cream, ice cream, cottage cheese, sour cream, half and half, and eggnog. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com HSBC BANK: New York Eastern Dist. Tosses EFTA Claim in Cheng Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the Plaintiff's EFTA claim in the lawsuit titled JI DONG CHENG v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 20-cv-1551 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.). The Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings on the Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, a violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and a violation of New York General Business Law Section 349. The motion is granted as to the EFTA claim and otherwise denied. The Plaintiff opened a savings account with the Defendant by online application. According to the Defendant's Terms and Charges Disclosures, interest begins to accrue on the Business Day you deposit noncash items. Noncash items are instruments like checks and wire transfers. That same document defines "Business Day" as "every day except Saturday, Sunday and Federal holidays." The case concerns two deposits that the Plaintiff made. First, on Friday, May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred $100,000 to his account with the Defendant through an Automated Clearing House ("ACH") network. He alleges, however, that the Defendant did not apply interest on the account until, at the earliest, Tuesday, June 4, 2019. Second, on Tuesday, November 26, 2019, the Plaintiff made another $100,000 ACH transfer to the account, but the Defendant did not apply interest on the deposit until, at the earliest, Friday, November 29, 2019. Upon the Plaintiff notifying the Defendant of the alleged delay in crediting interest to his deposits, the Defendant responded that its policy is to not credit interest on deposits until 3 to 5 business days after they are made. The Plaintiff contends that thepolicy is contrary to the representations contained in the Defendant's Disclosures. He filed the putative class action for breach of contract and violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and New York General Business Law Section 349. The Defendant argues that all of the Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because interest properly began to accrue upon receipt of each deposit. It points to the Electronic Balance Transfer Service ("EBTS") agreement, which provides more information about electronic banking for the services an account owner is using. The EBTS states that an "Electronic Bank Transfer may take up to four business days before it is credited to your HSBC account." According to the Defendant, this explanation -- read together with the Disclosures' statement that "interest begins to accrue on the Business Day you deposit noncash items" -- unambiguously establishes that the relevant date for interest accrual to begin is not the date that the account owner initiates an ACH transaction to transfer funds, but instead is the date that the electronic transferred funds are credited to the account and the transaction is completed. The Defendant's contention that common sense suggests that interest cannot accrue on funds that have been only provisionally-credited to an interest-bearing account pending verification and valuation does not persuade Judge Cogan opines. The argument ignores the fact that there is a competitive market for banking products and services. Although courts must reject interpretations of provisions that are commercially unreasonable or illogical, it is perfectly conceivable that an institution might offer a few days of pre-receipt interest to attract deposits. The Plaintiff's proposed interpretation is not any less ambiguous, Judge Cogan notes. The Plaintiff's cited cases focus on check deposits and ATM transfers, not ACH transfers, and so are not persuasive. He adds that there can be a reasonable difference in opinion as to whether the date "you deposit" funds refers to the date an account holder requests a transfer of funds or the date the bank receives the funds, and thus the provision is ambiguous. Judge Cogan says he cannot resolve the ambiguity on the present motion because extrinsic evidence that is not before him may shed light on the parties' actual intent. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claim under the EFTA must fail because the uncredited interest is not a "fee" or "charge" requiring disclosure. The Defendant defines a charge or fee as an amount that constitutes an affirmative debit from the account. Whether uncredited interest can constitute a "charge" requiring disclosure under the EFTA is a matter of first impression in this Circuit. Supporting the Plaintiff's position is Berenson v. Nat'l Fin. Servs., LLC, 403 F.Supp.2d 133 (D. Mass. 2005), in which the court held that the loss of an opportunity to earn interest constitutes a fee requiring disclosure under the EFTA. Notwithstanding Berenson, Judge Cogan agrees with the Defendant that the loss of an opportunity to earn interest is not a fee or charge requiring disclosure under the EFTA. He points out that there is no basis in the statute to expand the meaning of "fee" or "charge" to include the loss of the opportunity to earn interest during the pendency of an ACH transfer request. In addition, Judge Cogan holds, the loss of the opportunity to earn interest is not a term or condition of an electronic fund transfer that must be disclosed in "clear and readily understandable" language. Rather, it is an "obvious opportunity cost inherent in the concept of a deposit," quoting Turner v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 980 F.Supp. 737, 742 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd, 180 F.3d 451 (2d Cir. 1999). The lost opportunity stems from the fund transfer but is neither a term nor condition of it. The EFTA claim is, therefore, dismissed. The Plaintiff states a Section 349 claim because he alleges the Defendant used deceptive or misleading language in its Disclosures regarding the date interest accrual would begin, causing a loss to the Plaintiff. If the Plaintiff's claim was simply that the Defendant failed to apply interest on the same Business Day that deposits were made, it would not be sufficiently separate and apart from his breach of contract claim, Judge Cogan notes. Such a claim would merely allege that the Defendant deceptively failed to comply with its contractual obligations. However, the Judge interprets the Plaintiff's claim as alleging that the Defendant's consumer-oriented Disclosures contain misleading material terms regarding interest accrual in light of its policy to not apply interest until 3 to 5 days after an electronic transfer is requested or upon the bank's receipt of the funds. Construed that way, the Plaintiff states a claim under Section 349 claim that is separate from his claim for breach of contract. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted to the extent of dismissing the EFTA claim and otherwise denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxznsklm from Leagle.com. HY-VEE INC: Settles Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Brennan, writing for Little Village, reports that Hy-Vee has reached a preliminary settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit filed by customers who had their credit and debit card information stolen during a massive data breach at some of the company's stores in 2018 and 2019. According to papers filed in an Illinois federal court on Jan. 12, the company began negotiating the proposed settlement deal with the plaintiffs' attorneys after a judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit in April 2020. The next step in the lawsuit would have been the discovery phase, during which company officials would have been compelled to testify about the data breach under oath and produce documents related to it. On Aug. 14, 2019, Hy-Vee issued a press release announcing it had discovered a data breach that affected customers who used debit and credit cards at its fuel pumps, drive-thru coffee shops and restaurants (Market Grilles, Market Grille Expresses and its Wahlburgers locations). No purchases at "our grocery stores, drugstores and inside our convenience stores" were at risk, the company explained, because those sales are processed using a different, more secure system. Locations in all eight Midwestern states where the chain has its more than 240 stores were affected by the breach, which lasted between seven to eight months, starting in December 2018 at some locations. Information from more than 5.3 million debit and credit cards was stolen during the data breach. The stolen debit and credit card information was later reported to be on sale at Joker's Stash, a site that traffics in stolen card data. In October, two Hy-Vee customers who had their data stolen -- one a resident of Illinois, the other a resident of Missouri -- filed a class action lawsuit against Hy-Vee over the data breach. The following month, two Iowans were added as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. According to a database of sites involved in the data breach, posted by the company, Hy-Vee locations in 41 Iowa cities were infected with the data-stealing malware, including locations in Iowa City, Coralville, Cedar Rapids and Marion. If the court approves the settlement deal, people "residing in the United States who used a payment card to make a purchase at an affected Hy-Vee point-of-sale device during the Security Incident" will be eligible for a reimbursement of up to $225 "for the following categories of potential expenses incurred as a result of the Data Breach." -- reimbursement of up to three (3) hours of documented lost time (at $20 per hour) spent dealing with replacement card issues or in reversing fraudulent charges (only if at least one full hour was spent and if it can be documented with reasonable specificity); -- an additional $20 payment for each credit or debit card on which documented fraudulent charges were incurred that were later reimbursed; -- unreimbursed bank fees, card reissuance fees, overdraft fees, late fees, charges related to unavailability of funds, and over-limit fees; -- long distance telephone charges, postage, cell minutes (if charged by the minute), text messages (if charged by the message), and Internet usage charges (if charged by the minute or by the amount of data usage); -- unreimbursed charges from banks or credit card companies; -- interest on payday loans due to card cancelation or due to over-limit situation; -- costs of credit report(s); and -- costs of credit monitoring and identity theft protection Some people "who experienced extraordinary expenses will be eligible for reimbursement in the amount up to $5,000 per claim." The 11 people listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit will also receive "incentive awards" of $2,000 each. The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking $727,000 in fees, "a number that the parties agreed upon with the assistance of the mediator through a mediator's proposal," according to the legal memorandum on the settlement filed on Jan. 12. Hy-Vee is also expected to pay $12,000 to cover the attorneys' expenses. In addition to agreeing to these payments, Hy-Vee agrees as part of the settlement to take "certain measures to increase its data security and consumer information protection procedures for a period of two years." These measures include: appointment of a Group Vice President, IT Security; maintenance of a written information security program; employee training on data security policies and detecting/handling suspicious emails; maintenance of a policy for responding to information security events; compliance with [current payment card industry data security] standards; and requiring third-party vendors to use multi-factor authentication to access Hy-Vee's payment card environment. If the proposed settlement is approved by the federal judge overseeing the case, anyone affected by the data breach will have 120 days following public notice of that approval to file a claim through a website the plaintiffs' attorneys will create. [GN] iANTHUS EMPIRE: Dorsey Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Terri Dorsey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00300 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. iAnthus Empire Holdings, LLC -- https://www.ianthus.com/ -- focuses on building vertically integrated cannabis operations in high-growth markets.[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 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com IQVIA: Supreme Court Won't Overturn Junk Fax Case Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that the U.S. Supreme Court said on Jan. 11 it will not consider overturning the Seventh Circuit's decision allowing consumers from other states into an Illinois proposed class action over unwanted faxes. Justices declined to hear a bid from health information tech company IQVIA to undo a lower court ruling on the putative class in a federal junk-fax suit spearheaded by a doctor. [GN] JATOLA HOMES: Kallai RESPA Class Suit Removed to D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSHUA KALLAI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JATOLA HOMES LLC d/b/a THE AMY WENGERD GROUP, et al., Case No. 2020 CV 01648, was removed from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Ohio on January 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of Ohio assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00056 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Practice Act and the Ohio Revised Code for allegedly giving fees, kickbacks, and/or things of value to certain other Defendants. Jatola Homes LLC, doing business as The Amy Wengerd Group, is a residential construction company based in Ohio. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patrick T. Lewis, Esq. Mary Pat Brogan, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 Cleveland, OH 44114-3485 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 E-mail: plewis@bakerlaw.com mbrogan@bakerlaw.com JEANNIE'S DELI: Faces Arriaga Suit Over Cashiers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- KYUNG HEE CHU, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET); PARK FRESH DELI EXPRESS CORP. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET); DELICIOUS FOOD MARKET, INC. (D/B/A PARK FRESH DELI F/D/B/A JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. F/D/B/A CHELSEA FOOD MARKET); SUK N PARK; and MIKE DOE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00247 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Chu was employed by the Defendants as cashier. JEANNIE'S DELI CORP. owns and operates a deli, located at 194 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10011 under the name "Jeannie's Deli Corp." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 JOYY INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of January 21 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY) investors that acquired shares between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020. Investors have until January 21, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the Class Period, defendants made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues relating to live streaming sources; (2) at any given time, the majority of users were bots; (2) these bots were utilized by JOYY to effect a roundtripping scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) JOYY overstated its cash reserves; (4) JOYY's acquisition of Bigo was largely contrived in order to benefit corporate insiders; and (5) defendants' public statements were materially misleading and/or false at all relevant times, as a result. The lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages, when the true details entered the market. Muddy Waters Research, an equity research firm, published a report about JOYY on November 18, 2020 titled: "YY: You Can't Make This Stuff Up. Well . . Actually You Can." A series of problems with JOYY were detailed in the Muddy Waters Research Report. Specifically, the report stated that the JOYY is a multibillion-dollar fraud" whose component business are a "fraction of the size it reports." It was also noted in the Muddy waters report that JOYY's "reported user metrics, revenues and cash balances are predominantly fraudulent." JOYY American depositary shares ("ADSs") price fell $26.53 per ADS, or 26% on this news, to close at $73.66 per ADS on November 18, 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 January 21, 2021. Please visit our https://portnoylaw.com/joyy to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] KAEL FOODS: Salazar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against KAEL FOODS, et al. The case is styled as Luis Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KAEL FOODS, DOES 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC21588813 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 13, 2021). The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS". Kael Foods -- https://kaelfoods.com/ -- is a local dairy wholesale distributor serving the San Francisco Bay Area since 1930.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ottinger, Esq. OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 535 Mission St 14th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-508-7786 Email: robert@ottingerlaw.com KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 9 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 Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KNDI) from March 15, 2019 through November 27, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Kandi securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Kandi 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) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did not have an arms length relationship with Kandi; (2) the majority of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on the Company's reputation and valuation; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report entitled: "Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed Company Used Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S. Investors." Citing "extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi's factories and customer locations in China, interviews with over a dozen former employees and business partners, and review of numerous litigation documents and international public records," the Hindenburg report asserted that almost 64% of Kandi's sales over the year have been to undisclosed related parties. The report also alleged that "[Kandi] has consistently booked revenue it cannot collect, a classic hallmark of fake revenue[.]" Following publication of the Hindenburg report, Kandi's stock price fell $3.86 per share, or 28.34%, to close at $9.76 per share on November 30, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 9, 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 Kandi securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/kanditechnologiesgroupinc-kndi-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-337/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 https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm on Jan. 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI). Investors who purchased KNDI stock or other securities between March 15, 2019 and November 27, 2020 may contact the Thornton Law Firm to obtain a copy of the complaint or to discuss the lead plaintiff process. Interested investors are encouraged to visit: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Kandi. Investors may email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. Interested Kandi investors have until February 9, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Kandi The case alleges that Kandi and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did not have an arms-length relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; and (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on the Kandi's reputation and valuation. It is alleged that when the public was made aware of the truth, Kandi's stock price fell, thereby damaging investors. FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Kandi The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action and can select a law firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. Interested Kandi investors have until February 9, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 www.tenlaw.com/cases/Kandi [GN] KEURIG GREEN: June 4 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit called In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2542, Master Docket No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC, Civil Action No. 1:13-03790-VSB-SLC, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig") monopolized or attempted to monopolize and restricted, restrained, foreclosed, and excluded competition in order to raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of Keurig K-Cup Portion Packs (single-serve beverage portion packs manufactured or licensed by Keurig that are compatible with Keurig brewers and generally displays the Keurig brand name or logo on the package) at artificially high levels in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 14, and various state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, unjust enrichment, and other laws. Keurig denies the allegations. The Court has not ruled on the merits of the claims. Who Is A Class Member? All individuals and entities that purchased Keurig K-Cup Portion Packs in the United States and its territories, from persons other than Keurig and not for the purpose of resale, during the period September 7, 2010, to August 14, 2020 (except for claims under Mississippi -- which are for purchases during the period from March 24, 2011, to August 14, 2020, and for purchases in Rhode Island -- which are for purchases from July 15, 2013, to August 14, 2020) (collectively, the "Settlement Class Members"). What Are The Terms of the Settlement? Keurig has agreed to pay $31 million into a "Settlement Fund" as described in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Fund will be used to pay Settlement Class Members who submit a timely and valid claim, after attorneys' fees and costs and other expenses have been deducted. Settlement Class Members will give up certain rights to sue Keurig. Any uncashed checks or amounts remaining in the Settlement Fund after payments are made to Settlement Class Members will be distributed cy pres to Consumer Reports. How Do You Get a Payment? Go to www.KeurigIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com to file or download the notice and a claim form. Claims must be submitted online or postmarked and mailed no later than July 15, 2021. What Are My Other Options? If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you may send a request for exclusion no later than May 14, 2021. If you exclude yourself, you will not receive any money, but you will keep your right to sue Keurig for the claims in the Actions as specified in the Settlement Agreement. If you do not exclude yourself, you may object to the Settlement by writing to the Court explaining why you do not like the Settlement or the attorneys fees no later than May 17, 2021. You will still be bound by the Settlement if your objection is rejected. If you do nothing, you will not receive any Settlement benefits; you will be bound by the Settlement; and you will give up certain rights to sue Keurig. For details on how to opt out or object, please read the long form notice available at www.KeurigIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com. Final Approval Hearing. The Court will hold a hearing on June 4, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern,, at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, or by telephonic or electronic means, to consider whether to approve the Settlement, attorneys' fees, expenses, and Class Representative service awards as detailed in the Notice. You or your attorney may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense, but you don't have to. The Final Approval Hearing date may change, so check the Settlement website regularly. For More Information. Visit www.KeurigIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com, write Keurig Indirect Purchasers Antitrust Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91382, Seattle, WA 98111. or call toll-free 1-833-794-0948. Class Counsel can also be contacted at www.kaplanfox.com, www.whafh.com, www.pswlaw.com, access the court docket through the Court's PACER System at https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov, or visit the office of the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE. http://www.KeurigIndirectPurchaserSettlement.com[GN] LANDRY'S INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Ontiveros et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROLAND ONTIVEROS and MARTHA ALVAREZ, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LANDRY'S, INC., LANDRY'S SEAFOOD INN & OYSTER BAR-SAN ANTONIO, INC., and SALTGRASS, INC. D/B/A SALTGRASS STEAKHOUSE, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00016 (W.D. Tex., January 11, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to compensate them and other similarly situated tipped employees, such as waiters and bartenders, at the federally mandated minimum wage as a result of its unlawful policy and practice of utilizing the tip credit to meet their minimum wage obligation to their waiters and bartenders. Moreover, although they were required by the Defendants to perform non-tipped duties, the Defendants did not pay them at the full minimum wage rate, the suit says. The Defendants allegedly failed to track or record the amount of time their tipped employees spent performing non-tipped work. The Plaintiffs also added that the Defendants did not reimburse them for the costs of their uniform, which was required to perform work for the Defendants and was primarily for the benefit and convenience of the Defendants. The Defendants operate a nationwide chain of restaurants under the name "Saltgrass" throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@hftrialfirm.com - and – Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com LAROSA'S PIZZERIA: Franchisees Settle Delivery Drivers' Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Grasha, writing for Cincinnati Enquirer, reports that nearly a dozen LaRosa's franchises have agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit that said delivery drivers were not being paid enough and were not fully reimbursed for their expenses. The case involves an estimated 500 current or former delivery drivers for 11 LaRosa's franchises in places including Mason, Loveland, West Chester as well as Northern Kentucky. A federal judge in Cincinnati has granted preliminary approval of a $900,000 settlement reached between attorneys for the drivers and entities that own the franchises, court documents show. U.S. District Judge Matthew McFarland scheduled a hearing for June 21 to finalize the settlement. "I think it's a great result for a number of drivers in Southwest Ohio and Northern Kentucky," said Phil Krzeski, an attorney representing the drivers. "We hope this money makes a big difference for a lot of people." A LaRosa's spokesman, Pete Buscani, said the case involved a franchise owner, and he didn't know the details. Buscani said "many times cases will settle for many reasons, including the costs and hassle of litigation." The lawsuit said the franchises didn't pay delivery drivers enough for the expenses they incurred using their own vehicles. Instead of reimbursing drivers for their actual vehicle expenses, the lawsuit said, drivers were reimbursed based on a percentage of the price of each order, between 6.5 and 7.5 percent. Settlement documents said drivers were being paid .38 cents a mile, substantially less than the IRS standard business mileage rate, which last year was 57.5 cents per mile. The documents say it is undisputed that food delivery companies must pay minimum wage workers for expenses incurred when they use their own vehicles. The lawsuit also said drivers, who actually are paid an hourly wage below minimum wage because they receive tips, were performing work, like folding pizza boxes and cleaning, that required them to be paid a higher wage during those times. About 40 nearly identical lawsuits have also been filed against other LaRosa's franchises as well as Domino's, Papa John's and Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwiches, including in other states. One of those lawsuits involved LaRosa's Inc., which owns a dozen stores. It was dismissed in December, court records show. Buscani said the case "had no merit." [GN] MAJOR ENERGY: Customer Must Arbitrate Rate-Change Class Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Porter Wells, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a Major Energy Electric Services LLC customer must arbitrate her proposed solicitation and rate-change class claims against the services provider at the Maryland Public Service Commission on an individual basis, a federal judge in Maryland has ruled. Patricia Brito is bound by the individual arbitration clause in Major's service contract and therefore may not pursue a class action in Maryland federal court, Judge Ellen L. Hollander said Jan. 8 for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. [GN] MAJOR ENERGY: Maryland District Court Dismisses Amended Brito Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PATRICIA BRITO, Plaintiff v. MAJOR ENERGY ELECTRIC SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. ELH-20-0230 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland: (i) granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1); (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Stay or Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file surreplies. In the putative class action, Plaintiff Brito has sued Defendant Major, an electricity provider. The suit concerns Major's methods of soliciting and acquiring new residential customers, as well as the rates it charges for electricity. In sum, Ms. Brito avers that Major's misrepresentations and omissions caused injury to her and the members of the Class because they were either unlawfully slammed and/or unjustifiably induced to believe that they would receive energy costs savings on their monthly bills when, in actuality, they were charged substantially more for their energy needs after Major switched to its services. The Amended Complaint defines the putative "National Class" as follows: All persons who are or have been Major Energy customers in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio and Washington DC and any other locations where Major Energy markets its services who used Major Energy as their electricity supplier. The Amended Complaint defines the putative "Maryland subclass" as: "All persons who are or have been Major Energy customers in Maryland who used Major Energy as their electricity supplier." In the "Amended Class Action Complaint," Ms. Brito asserts four counts, each founded on Maryland law and lodged on behalf of a putative class and a putative subclass. Count I alleges violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code (2013 Repl. Vol.), Section 13-101 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article. In Count II, the Plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment. Count III lodges a claim for Common Law Fraud, Including Fraudulent Inducement, and Fraudulent Concealment. In Count IV, the Plaintiff asserts negligent misrepresentation. The Amended Complaint asserts subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Plaintiff seeks class certification, as well as declaratory relief, disgorgement, compensatory and actual damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Major has moved to dismiss, supported by a memorandum of law. It asserts that dismissal is warranted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for improper venue, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). According to Major, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Brito has not exhausted her administrative remedies with the Maryland Public Service Commission ("PSC"). And, Major contends that venue is improper because Brito is bound by the arbitration clause in her contract with Major. In addition, Major opposes class certification and argues that all of the Plaintiff's claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6). The Defendant has also filed its FAA Motion. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law. The exhibits supporting the FAA Motion are identical to those appended to the Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dismiss and the FAA Motion. The Defendant has replied to both submissions. Ms. Brito has also moved for leave to file two surreplies: The proposed surreply supporting her opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and the proposed surreply supporting the Plaintiff's opposition to the FAA Motion. The two proposed surreplies are virtually identical, and each is accompanied by the Plaintiff's Declaration. At the outset, Judge Hollander addresses Ms. Brito's motion for leave to file two surreplies. Ms. Brito asserts that Major raised "several new arguments" for the first time in its replies. But, the only purportedly new argument that she actually identifies is Major's contention that she failed to present any evidence in her Opposition regarding the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Judge opines that the Plaintiff is attempting to recast the Defendant's characterization of her Opposition as a new argument. The Judge is not persuaded. Major presented all of its substantive arguments regarding arbitration, along with the evidence supporting those arguments, in its Motion to Dismiss and in the FAA Motion. Its observation in its replies that the Plaintiff did not include any evidence in her Opposition does not rise to the level of argument that warrants the filing of a surreply. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file surreplies. Next, under the circumstances of the case, the Judge turns first to Major's FAA Motion and its motion under Rule 12(b)(3), which concern the enforceability of the Agreement's arbitration clause. If Ms. Brito is bound by the arbitration clause, as Major contends, then she may only bring her claims in the PSC or in arbitration--not in the Court. In other words, the Court would be unable to adjudicate Ms. Brito's suit, regardless of whether she exhausted her administrated remedies. The parties disagree on whether there exists an enforceable written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute. Major contends that the Agreement is an enforceable contract and that its arbitration clause precludes Ms. Brito from litigating her claims in the Court. Conversely, Ms. Brito is firmly of the view that she is not bound by the arbitration clause, or by the Agreement at all, because no contract was formed between her and Major. In this regard, she asserts that she never consented to Major Energy as her service provider, and therefore no agreement exists. The Judge opines that the determination that a contract was formed is supported by application of principles Maryland contract law. Therefore, it follows that the Plaintiff is bound by the arbitration clause. Ultimately, the Judge holds that each count of the Amended Complaint falls within the scope of the Agreement's arbitration clause, which states that "any claim by customer," except for one challenging the validity or enforceability of the arbitration clause, "must be resolved by the PSC or arbitration." Accordingly, she dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. And, the Judge need not address the parties' arguments regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies or the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's claims. An Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2q7r37s from Leagle.com. MASS PRECISION: Failed to Pay All Wages Owed, Zamora Says ---------------------------------------------------------- Alicia Zamora, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. MASS PRECISION, INC., a California limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21CV375211 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, for the Defendants' failure to pay all wages owed to them upon discharge or resignation, including overtime and minimum wages and meal and rest period premiums. The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with the Defendants. The Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from June 2017 to April 2018. MASS PRECISION, INC. manufactures sheet metalwork products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 265-1020 Fax: (818) 265-1021 MEDNAX SERVICES: Data Breach Exposes Customers' Info, Davis Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ KASHARI DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. MEDNAX SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-000625 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud. Ct., Broward Cty., January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant breached its obligations to the Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly maintain and safeguard the sensitive personal information of its customers, including personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI). The personal information of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and unlawfully accessed by unknown third party due to the Defendant's failure to maintain the information on computer network in a manner that are not vulnerable to cyberattacks. Moreover, the Defendant also failed to provide timely and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and Class members that their information had been subjected to unauthorized access and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. MEDNAX Services, Inc. is a national healthcare services provider based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGA COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-2434 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmaxey@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 60606 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Gross Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Cheskel Gross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00072-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management (MCM) -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Stekel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc. The case is styled as Toby Stekel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00068-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management (MCM) -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Ziegler Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------ ESTHER ZIEGLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00264 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, Defendant Midland Credit Management sent the Plaintiff a deceptive and misleading collection letter on behalf of Defendant Midland Funding regarding the alleged debt owed to Citibank, N.A. The collection letter did not provide adequate explanation about the third payment option whether it is a settlement or a full pay option. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection company located at 80 State Street, Albany, New York. Midland Funding LLC is a debt collection company located at 80 State Street, Albany, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MOHAWK CAPITAL: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Fitch Ratings has affirmed the ratings of Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK) and Mohawk Capital Finance S.A., including MHK's Long-Term Issuer Default Rating (IDR), at 'BBB+', and removed the Rating Watch Negative from all ratings. The Rating Outlook is Stable. Fitch has removed the Rating Watch Negative and affirmed the ratings due to better clarity surrounding the fraud allegations and the ongoing securities class action lawsuit filed against the company, combined with Mohawk's significantly stronger liquidity position than Fitch had anticipated at the time of the previous review. The company's audit committee, with the assistance of outside legal counsel, completed its internal investigation into the allegations and concluded that the allegations of wrongdoing are without merit. The result of the internal investigation, combined with Fitch's current expectation that financial statements will not require restatement, alleviates some of Fitch's concerns around management's credibility and its oversight over internal controls. Additionally, stronger than anticipated performance and cash generation provide the company with substantial liquidity to handle potential settlements in the securities class action case in the intermediate term without raising long-term debt. The Stable Outlook also reflects Fitch's expectation that total debt to operating EBITDA will be about 2.0x at YE 2020 and about 1.8x at YE 2021, below Fitch's negative rating sensitivity of sustained above 2.0x. The company's robust liquidity position and Fitch's stable building products end-market outlook is also reflected in the Stable Outlook. However, Fitch notes that negative rating action may occur in the intermediate- to long-term if findings in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia (USAO) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suggest a material failure in corporate governance has occurred absent proper remediation. KEY RATING DRIVERS Ongoing Investigation and Class Action Case: The conclusion of the internal investigation by Mohawk's Audit Committee that allegations of fraud are without merit, combined with Fitch's current expectation that historical financial results will not be restated, alleviate some of Fitch's concerns regarding material weakness in Mohawk's internal controls and reliability of historical financial statements. Both the securities class action case and USAO and DOJ investigations into the matters are still ongoing. Fitch will continue to monitor the progress in both the class action case and the government investigations into the allegations in assessing future rating actions, but it is Fitch's current view that the risk that there are ongoing severe corporate governance or financial reporting failures has lessened. Strong Financial Flexibility: MHK has limited short-term debt outstanding and abundant liquidity as of end-3Q20, following financing transactions earlier in 2020 which improved the company's maturity schedule and liquidity. The company had about $1.8 billion of availability under its revolving credit facility, $781 million of cash and $407 million of short-term investments at the end of the third quarter. Fitch believes that the company's higher than typical levels of cash and short-term investments combined with anticipated FCF generation in 2021 and 2022 provides the company with strong liquidity to address potential legal settlements in connection with the class action lawsuit, replenish inventories, and execute on its share repurchase program in the intermediate term without increasing total debt on a long-term basis. Stronger Earnings Outlook than Anticipated: A strong pickup in demand in global residential repair and remodel and new housing activity in 2H20 has led to a stronger revenue and operating margin outlook for 2020 and 2021 than Fitch forecasted in the early stages of the pandemic. Fitch's prior forecast had assumed that a global contraction in these end-markets would persist through 1Q21 before recovering through 2022. Fitch now expects revenues to decline mid-single-digits in 2020 and increase low-to mid-single-digits in 2021 with a more modest contraction in EBITDA margins in 2020 than previously forecast. Fitch forecasts total debt to operating EBITDA to remain at or below 2.0x in the intermediate term, compared to our prior assumption of total debt to operating EBITDA exceeding 3.0x at YE 2020. Conservative Capital Allocation: Mohawk maintained stronger credit metrics than most of its 'BBB' category investment-grade peers during the upcycle. The company typically maintains total debt/operating EBITDA at or below 2x and only exits that range for 18-24 months for acquisition opportunities. Mohawk's credit metrics have been relatively consistent, despite some earnings volatility beginning in 2018, due to its efforts to reduce debt outstanding. Fitch expects the company's total debt to operating EBITDA to be about 2.0x at YE 2020 and to decline to about 1.8x by YE 2021. From fiscal 2016 to fiscal 2019, the company generated about $5.1 billion in cumulative CFFO. Mohawk allocated about $2.9 billion towards capex, $0.9 billion towards net acquisitions, $0.8 billion towards debt reduction and $0.4 billion towards share repurchases during those years. Fitch is comfortable with this strategy because of the flexibility it provides management in deploying its FCF. Additionally, the company has a strong record of integrating acquisitions and deleveraging following large acquisition. Leading Market Position: Mohawk has leading market positions in most flooring categories that it competes in and is the largest flooring manufacturer globally. Fitch believes the company's leadership position provides competitive advantages, such as access to a wide range of distribution channels and a platform to execute organic and inorganic growth initiatives. Additionally, companies such as MHK with leading brands across product categories typically generate strong profitability. The company's Global Ceramic segment maintains a strong leading position in North America and leading positions in Brazil, Europe and Russia. Mohawk estimates that it has a 23% market share in its Flooring North America segment, with Shaw being its closest competitor followed by competitors with less than 10% market share. In Flooring Rest of World (ROW), the company believes it has leading market positions in mid- to high end product offerings. Diverse Revenue Sources: The company's end-market exposure is predominantly focused on residential markets within the U.S. combined with some exposure to commercial end-markets, providing the company with exposure to sectors with typically differing cycling timing. The company has modest exposure to the more highly cyclical new construction market, which is a risk to the stability of profitability through economic cycles. Fitch believes the stronger diversity of end-markets relative to 'BBB' category building products peers helps partially insulate the company from cyclical downturns in an individual end-market, providing some stability to credit metrics through the cycle. DERIVATION SUMMARY The rating reflects the company's leading market position in most flooring categories and regions and its position as the largest flooring manufacturer globally. The ratings consider the company's conservative capital allocation strategy, as evidenced by total debt to operating EBITDA maintaining below 2x, only exiting this range for short periods for acquisition opportunities during the upcycle. The company's strong geographic and end-market diversity support the 'BBB+' rating. Mohawk's credit metrics are better positioned relative to 'BBB'-category U.S. building products peers, including Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. (FBHS; BBB/Negative) and Whirlpool Corp. (WHR; BBB/Negative). The company employed a more conservative capital allocation strategy than these peers historically. Mohawk's end-market and geographic diversity is stronger than Masco Corporation (BBB-/Positive) and FBHS, but weaker than 'A' category peers such as Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. (A-/Negative) and PPG Industries, Inc. (A-/Negative). KEY ASSUMPTIONS --Revenues decline about 5% in 2020 and improve low-single digits in 2021. Revenue growth in 2021 limited by potential supply constraints related to COVID safety measures, lagging commercial construction activity and macroeconomic uncertainty. --Fitch-adjusted EBITDA margins of near 14.0% in 2020 and improving to 14.7% in 2021. --Mohawk maintains robust liquidity position, aided by near full availability on its revolving credit facility and higher than typical cash flow generation in 2020. --We assume any settlement or fine related to the ongoing fraud investigation will not result in higher leverage or compromised liquidity. --Total debt to operating EBITDA around 2.0x at YE 2020 and 1.8x at YE 2021. RATING SENSITIVITIES Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to positive rating action/upgrade: Fitch does not anticipate positive rating actions in the intermediate term. However, one may be considered if MHK commits to maintaining a lower leverage target and the company's total debt to operating EBITDA is consistently at or below 1x, FFO net leverage is sustained below 1x and the company maintains a solid liquidity position. Factors that could, individually or collectively, lead to negative rating action/downgrade: --Fitch's expectation that total debt to operating EBITDA or FFO net leverage will consistently be above 2.0x due to factors such as poor operational performance or the company adopting a more aggressive capital allocation policy; --A material judgment or other developments related to the fraud lawsuit and ongoing government investigations that undermine Fitch's view of management credibility, corporate governance strength, and the quality of financial disclosures. BEST/WORST CASE RATING SCENARIO International scale credit ratings of Non-Financial Corporate issuers have a best-case rating upgrade scenario (defined as the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a positive direction) of three notches over a three-year rating horizon; and a worst-case rating downgrade scenario (defined as the 99th percentile of rating transitions, measured in a negative direction) of four notches over three years. The complete span of best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings for all rating categories ranges from 'AAA' to 'D'. Best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings are based on historical performance. For more information about the methodology used to determine sector-specific best- and worst-case scenario credit ratings, visit https://www.fitchratings.com/site/re/10111579. LIQUIDITY AND DEBT STRUCTURE Strong Liquidity Position: Mohawk has strong liquidity, with cash of $781 million at the end of 3Q20 and nearly full availability under its $1.8 billion revolving credit facility and no CP outstanding. The company also had $408 million of short-term investments at the end of 3Q20. The company's nearest maturity is in September 2021, when a EUR300 million note comes due. Fitch expects the company to maintain a strong liquidity position during the rating horizon, supported by its cash on hand, revolver availability, and forecast FCF generation over the intermediate term. REFERENCES FOR SUBSTANTIALLY MATERIAL SOURCE CITED AS KEY DRIVER OF RATING The principal sources of information used in the analysis are described in the Applicable Criteria. ESG CONSIDERATIONS Mohawk Industries, Inc. has an ESG Relevance Score of '4' for Financial Transparency due to fraud allegations, which could worsen Fitch's view of corporate governance strength should ongoing government investigations deem that material misrepresentation or misstatement of financial disclosures has occurred, which has a negative impact on the credit profile and is relevant to the ratings in conjunction with other factors. Fitch had previously assigned an ESG Relevance Score of '5' for Financial Transparency prior to the conclusion of the company's internal investigation into the matters. Unless otherwise disclosed in this section, the highest level of ESG credit relevance is a score of '3'. This means ESG issues are credit-neutral or have only a minimal credit impact on the entity, either due to their nature or the way in which they are being managed by the entity. For more information on Fitch's ESG Relevance Scores, visit www.fitchratings.com/esg [GN] NEVADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over COVID Vaccine Distribution ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Ferrara, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that a Las Vegas attorney filed a class-action lawsuit on Jan. 11 urging Gov. Steve Sisolak to prioritize COVID-19 vaccinations for those 65 and older. Las Vegans Daniel Itzhaki, 74, and Natalie Hetly, 70, were named in the federal complaint as those among an "especially vulnerable and protected class, more susceptible to comorbidities and serious bodily harm or death from COVID-19." At the time that attorney Sigal Chattah filed the lawsuit, which also names Nevada's chief medical officer, Dr. Ihsan Azzam, and Attorney General Aaron Ford as defendants, the state had a tiered system of vaccine distribution, which gave priority to those 75 and older. The lawsuit called Nevada's tiered immunization plan "arbitrary," accusing state officials of violating constitutional rights, including the protection from cruel and unusual punishment, of vulnerable people precluded from the initial round of vaccinations. But at a news conference on Jan. 11, Sisolak moved those 70 and older to the highest priority. Chattah said that was not enough, arguing that Sisolak could have pushed to vaccinate more people quickly. "The infrastructure is there," the attorney said. "They're just not utilizing it because they're incompetent." Chattah said Itzhaki and Hetly were both heart patients who had not received the vaccine. "It is indisputable that Defendants have no viable empirical data to preclude such a vulnerable and protected class from obtaining priority vaccinations," Chattah wrote in the complaint, "specifically when Defendants have earmarked special COVID-19 access to grocery stores to Nevada's elderly population at the inception of the pandemic measures, knowing this classes vulnerability." By Jan. 11, 3,500 people in Nevada had died of the coronavirus, while COVID-19 infections surpassed 250,000. As of Jan. 10, 61,644 doses of vaccine have been administered and reported to the state, including 8,700 second doses for Nevadans first immunized in December, said Shannon Bennett, state immunization program manager. Nevada has received a total of 170,400 doses to date with more coming, she said. Chattah claimed in the lawsuit that the state had received 205,200 as of Jan. 11, pointing to figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The lawsuit accused the defendants of acting with "reckless disregard to the elderly population by hoarding the vaccines distributed to the State and failing to efficiently and productively vaccinate this population group." Through a spokeswoman, the governor declined to comment on the lawsuit, but in the news conference on Jan. 11, Sisolak said he had "recognized the importance of prioritizing our senior population . . . We all share the same goal of getting the vaccine to Nevadans faster." [GN] NEVADA: Gorsline Alleges Injuries Over Unsafe Prison Environment ---------------------------------------------------------------- AJA GORSLINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NEVADA, a governmental entity; NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a state agency; CHARLES DANIELS in his official capacity as Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDC) and JOHN OR JANE DOE DANIELS; BRIAN WILLIAMS, Deputy Director of Operations and JOHN OR JANE DOE WILLIAMS; TIM R. GARRETT, Acting Warden and Associate Warden of the Lovelock Correctional Center (LCC) and JOHN OR JANE DOE GARRETT; KARA LEGRAND, Associate Warden and ROBERT LEGRAND; KIRK R. WIDMAR, Acting Associate Warden and Correctional Lieutenant of the LCC and THERESA D. WIDMAR; BOBBY K. PRESTON, Correctional Lieutenant of the LCC and CORIANNE P. PRESTON; JASON C. CHACON, Shift Commander of the LCC and MARSELA CHACON; JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE CAPTAIN; JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE LIEUTENANT; JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE SARGEANT; JOHN AND/OR JANE DOES CORRECTIONS OFFICERS; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1–40, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00019 (D. Nev., January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of civil rights. The case arises from the permanent injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated correctional officers as a result of the Defendants' noncompliance with Administrative Regulation (AR) 105 and certain institutional operational procedures that aim to provide a safe and secure working environment for staff and inmates. The Defendants' failure to comply with AR 105, including staffing shortage, insufficient working radios assigned to workers, and lack of weapons, caused the Plaintiff to sustained substantial bodily harm after an inmate attacked her at her office. The Defendants should have known the heightened risk of harm by their choice of non-compliance but they failed to take any steps to ameliorate the danger. Nevada Department of Corrections is a governmental agency in the U.S. state of Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole M. Harvey, Esq. BLANCHARD, KRASNER & FRENCH 5470 Kietzke Lane, Ste. 200 Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 384-0022 E-mail: nharvey@bkflaw.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Hospitals' Claims for Nominal Damages in Doe Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled John Doe, et al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 18-cv-1039-JD (D.N.H.), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted the motion to dismiss as to the hospitals' claims for nominal damages and is otherwise denied. Four individual Plaintiffs brought suit, challenging practices used by the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services and four New Hampshire hospitals to involuntarily detain individuals, who experience mental health crises and seek treatment in hospital emergency rooms. The Plaintiffs' action was filed as a putative class action against the Commissioner, and a plaintiff class has now been certified for purposes of the Plaintiffs' federal claim against the Commissioner, Count I. The New Hampshire Hospital Association and 20 hospitals were granted leave to intervene in the action to bring claims against the Commissioner. The Commissioner moves to dismiss the hospitals' remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and a lack of standing. The hospitals object. The hospital plaintiffs include the New Hampshire Hospital Association, Alice Peck Day Memorial Hospital, Androscoggin Valley Hospital and the Catholic Medical Center. The hospitals allege that the Commissioner requires the hospitals to examine, evaluate, and board psychiatric patients, who are subject to involuntary emergency admission ("IEA") certification, until such time as they are transported to a designated receiving facility. They bring three federal claims against the Commissioner, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the Commissioner's practice of boarding IEA-certified persons in their emergency departments is violating their constitutional rights. In Count I, the hospitals allege that the Commissioner's boarding practice constitutes an unlawful taking of their property for public use in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Count II, they allege that the practice interferes with their possessory rights in their emergency departments which constitutes an unreasonable seizure of their property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In Count III, they allege that the practice violates their rights to procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by seizing and taking their property and denying them their fundamental right to use their emergency departments. The hospital plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Commissioner's practice violates their federal constitutional rights and a permanent injunction against the practice. They also are requesting nominal damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Commissioner moves to dismiss the hospitals' claims on the grounds that the claims are barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and that the hospitals lack standing to bring the claims. The hospitals object, arguing that the exception to sovereign immunity provided under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), applies to their claims. They also argue that they have standing to bring their claims. The hospitals allege that the Commissioner, in her official capacity, is violating their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights through her policies and practices with respect to persons, who are experiencing mental health crises and are certified for involuntary emergency admission to the mental health services system. According to District Judge Joseph A. Diclerico, Jr., the Commissioner is responsible for supervising and administering the state's mental health services system and the participation of others in the process does not relieve her of that responsibility. Judge Diclerico notes that the Commissioner's other arguments in support of her position that the state is the real party defendant were addressed in the prior order and were decided against her. Her argument that the circuit court is responsible for providing hearings does not implicate the state as the real party in interest. Any purported disruption in the Commissioner's boarding practice in order to conform her policies and practices to constitutional requirements does not convert the hospitals' claims into claims against the state. Further, funding that is ancillary to an injunction to stop violations of the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights does not make the claims fall outside the exception to sovereign immunity provided by Ex Parte Young. Therefore, the Commissioner in her official capacity is the Defendant in the case, Judge Diclerico holds. Although the request at the end of the amended complaint is limited to an injunction to stop violations of state law, in Count III, the hospitals have requested an injunction to stop the Commissioner's continuing violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and ask for a declaratory judgment that the Commissioner is violating their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Therefore, Judge Diclerico states, the Commissioner is mistaken that the hospitals failed to request relief based on federal law. As previously stated, although a federal court cannot enjoin violations of state law, under Ex Parte Young, a federal court can enjoin a state official sued in her official capacity from continuing to violate the federal constitution. In addition to declaratory and injunctive relief, the hospitals seek an award of nominal damages in their federal claims (Counts I, II, and III). The Commissioner moves to dismiss the claims for nominal damages as barred by sovereign immunity. The hospitals did not object or even address that part of the motion to dismiss. Judge Diclerico opines that the Commissioner, when sued in her official capacity, is entitled to sovereign immunity from suit brought in federal court by citizens of New Hampshire, citing Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100. That immunity includes a bar against nominal damages. The hospitals cite no exception to sovereign immunity that would permit that relief here. Therefore, the hospitals' claims for nominal damages are dismissed. The Court also holds that the hospitals have standing to maintain their claims in Counts I, II, and III. For these reasons, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss is granted as to the hospitals' claims for nominal damages and is otherwise denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ecr69u from Leagle.com. NEW YORK, NY: United Probation Alleges Job Discriminatory Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED PROBATION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of its members, JEAN BROWN, TANGA JOHNSON, TARA SMITH, EMMA STOVALL, and CATHY WASHINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00218 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly discharge their obligation to ensure that the employment practices in the Department of Probation have been non-discriminatory. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are engaged in discriminatory employment practices including but not limited to disparate employment opportunities such as lack of promotions, suppression of wages in a segregated workforce, and discriminatory hiring and compensation practices which have adversely impacted women and people of color. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, current and former probation officers have been subjected to a pattern and/or practice of discrimination in the terms, conditions, benefits, and privileges of their employment by Defendants based upon the sex, gender, and/or race of the individual members. United Probation Officers Association is an association of probation officers, with offices at 2510 Westchester Avenue, Suite 207, Bronx, New York. City of New York is a municipality duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and maintains its principal place of business at 260 Broadway, New York, New York. New York City Department of Probation is an agency of the City of New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yetta G. Kurland, Esq. THE KURLAND GROUP 85 Broad Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 253-6911 Facsimile: (212) 614-2532 E-mail: kurland@kurlandgroup.com OMNILIFE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrillo Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA MAGDALENA CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMNILIFE USA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV375194 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 12, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Carrillo was employed by the Defendants as staff. Omnilife USA, Inc. was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of groceries and related products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin F. Marquez, Esq. Benjamin H. Haber, Esq. Rachel J. Vinson, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire B1vd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: iustin@wilshirelawfirm.com beniamin@wilshirelawfirm.com rvinson@wilshirelawfirm.com ON CAMPUS MARKETING: Richwine Suit Alleges Retaliatory Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL RICHWINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ON CAMPUS MARKETING, and JOHN DOES #1-5, JOHN DOES #6-10, AND ABC CORPS #1-10, Defendants, Case No. MER-L-000073-21 (N.J. Super., Mercer Cty., January 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff's employment in retaliation of his disclosures of the inaccuracies in On Campus Marketing's financial statements and his implication of upper-level management's role in fraudulently misrepresenting the company's financial position to its lenders and investors. The Plaintiff was hired by On Campus Marketing as an assistant controller in or about June 2019 until his employment was terminated in June 2020. On Campus Monitoring, LLC, is a company with a corporate address at 58 Graphics Dr., Trenton, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick F. Carrigg, Esq. LENOX, SOCEY, FORMIDONI, GIORDANO, LANG, CARRIGG & CASEY, LLC 136 Franklin Corner Road, Unit B2 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (609) 896-2000 PAREA GROUP: Filing of Bid for Final Nod of Argudo Deal Due Jan. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HENRY ARGUDO, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAREA GROUP LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-678 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to move for final approval of the proposed class action settlement no later than Jan. 21, 2021. As discussed, and for the reasons stated, on the record during the telephone conference conducted on Jan. 7, 2021, the Judge directed the Plaintiffs to make any motion for contempt sanctions by formal motion no later than Jan. 12, 2021. The Defendants will file any opposition no later than Jan. 22, 2021. Any reply will be filed no later than Jan. 26, 2021. The Judge further directed that no later than Jan. 13, 2021, the counsel for the Defendants will either file a notice of substitution of counsel; move to withdraw; or indicate that a change of counsel is not necessary. Any motion to withdraw should indicate whether the Plaintiffs or the Defendants intend to oppose the motion and, if so, propose an expedited schedule for resolving the motion. The Plaintiffs will move for final approval of the proposed class action settlement no later than Jan. 21, 2021. Any opposition will be filed no later than Jan. 26, 2021. No reply may be filed absent leave of Court. Unless and until the Court orders otherwise, the fairness hearing will proceed as scheduled on Jan. 28, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. and will be conducted remotely by teleconference. At least 24 hours before the conference, the counsel will send a joint email to the Court with the names and telephone numbers of those who will have speaking roles at the conference, and the Court will provide call-in information to those counsel. All others -- counsel who will not have speaking roles, class members, and members of the public--may listen to the conference by calling the Court's dedicated conference call line at (888) 363-4749 and using access code 542-1540 followed by the pound (#) key. The Judge reminded the parties to follow the procedures for teleconferences described in the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5eovv8j from Leagle.com. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY: High Court Refuses to Hear Coverage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co.'s challenge to a recent Montana high court ruling that a hotel group's dispute with the insurer over coverage for a proposed employment class action can be litigated in Montana. [GN] POINT 2 POINT: Cotzomi FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PABLO COTZOMI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. POINT 2 POINT GLOBAL SECURITY, INC.; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP; UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LLC; ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES; ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20080769, 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 13, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00322 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide a proper disclosure and failing to give a proper summary of rights. Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. is a woman-owned business enterprise specializing in physical security services, headquartered in Forney, Texas. Universal Protection Service, LP is a private security company in the United States, headquartered in Santa Ana, California. Universal Protection Service, LLC is a provider of security guard services based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Allied Universal Security Services is an American facility services company, headquartered in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. Allied Universal Security Services, LLC is a provider of security products and services based in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Bobb, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: mbobb@HuntonAK.com - and – Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20037-1701 Telephone: (202) 955-1500 Facsimile: (202) 778-2201 E-mail: rquackenboss@HuntonAK.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Rottenberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- Rivka Rottenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does l-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00193 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On November 3, 2020, an obligation was allegedly incurred to U.S. Bank National Association. The alleged obligation is a "debt." The Defendant PRA collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet. According to the complaint, on November 3, 2020, the Defendant PRA sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice (the "Letter") regarding the alleged debt owed to U.S. Bank National Association. The Letter states a balance of $1,896.18. The Letter offers two options regarding the balance: Pay the full amount in either one, six or twelve payments or choose a "savings plan" that allows the consumer to pay the balance for a discounted amount in one, twelve or eighteen consecutive months. The Defendant's letter does not make any mention of any benefit or incentive to pay the full balance rather than the discounted amount. Therefore, the consumer is left confused and misled on which option to choose; on the one hand the discounted amount saves her money, but on the other hand, the full payment option must have some benefit or else it would not even be a consideration. Yet, Defendant's letter mentions no benefit whatsoever of paying the full balance, making the letter illogical and leaving the consumer wondering if there is a "catch" or if this is a real offer, says the complaint. The Defendant's letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate, it says. The Plaintiff incurred an informational injury because the Defendants deceptively makes an offer without properly qualifying and explaining the offer. As a result of Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, Plaintiff has been damaged, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York. The Defendant PRA is a "debt collector".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 201. POSH TOT: Fuino Sues Over Member's Unauthorized Use of Firm's Money ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARLENE R. FUINO, derivatively as co-member-manager, on behalf of nominal Defendant THE POSH TOT, LLC, Plaintiff v. BREANNA E. FUINO, as putative co-member-manager of THE POSH TOT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-000170-CI (Fla. 6th Jud. Cir., Pinellas Cty., January 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty and care, conversion, unjust enrichment, and expulsion. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged withdrawal of money from Posh Tot's accounts, including, but not limited to, checking, savings, and PayPal, for her own personal use and benefit without approval or authorization from the company or other member-manager. The Defendant also removed cash money from Posh Tot's cashier drawers and began to remove product from the company's inventory without approval or authorization. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction to enjoin the Defendant's wrongdoing and expel her as a co-member-manager of the company. The Posh Tot, LLC is a children's clothing manufacturing company located in Pinellas County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon B. Coats, Jr., Esq. J. Patrick Walsh, Esq. COATS SCHMIDT, P.A. 4055 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (727) 456-4462 Facsimile: (727) 456-4463 E-mail: Jon@Coats-Schmidt.com Patt@Coats-Schmidt.com QIWI PLC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Remind of February 9 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Jan. 11 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Qiwi PLC ("Qiwi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QIWI) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Qiwi American Depository Shares ("ADS," also referred to as "stock") or other securities between March 28, 2019 and December 9, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Qiwi operates electronic online payment systems primarily in Russia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Belarus, Romania, and the United Arab Emirates. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective, and that, consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon its ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards. 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 had suspended the Company from conducting most types of payments to foreign merchants and money transfers to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts. On this news, the price of Qiwi ADS fell $2.80 per share, or 20.6%, to close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020. What You Can Do If you purchased Qiwi securities between March 28, 2019 and December 9, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is February 9, 2021. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. Contacts: Joe Pettigrew Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (844) 818-6982 jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Jan. 11 disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against QuantumScape Corporation (NYSE: QS) ("QuantumScape") on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired QuantumScape publicly traded securities between November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or acquired QuantumScape publicly traded securities during the Class Period may, no later than March 8, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Esq. (484-270-1413) or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484-270-1435)); toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/quantumscape-corporation-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=qunatumscape#overview According to the complaint, QuantumScape develops and commercializes solid-state lithium-metal batteries for electric vehicles ("EVs"). In 2012, QuantumScape began working with Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("Volkswagen") and Volkswagen Group of America Investments, LLC ("VGA") to develop an EV battery. In 2018, Volkswagen, VGA and QuantumScape announced the establishment of a joint production project to prepare solid-state batteries for mass production. On September 3, 2020, QuantumScape announced a merger with Kensington. Upon completion of the transaction, QuantumScape would receive $1 billion in financing, including funding from VGA and the Qatar Investment Authority. That transaction was completed on November 27, 2020, and QuantumScape Class A common stock and warrants began trading on the NYSE. On January 4, 2021, prior to the open of trading, Seeking Alpha published a research report entitled "QuantumScape's Solid State Batteries Have Significant Technical Hurdles To Overcome." The introduction of the Seeking Alpha report emphasized that "QuantumScape's science is very good," "[b]ut their batteries are small and unproven – not yet as big as an iWatch battery, and never tested outside a lab," adding that "[t]here are significant risks associated with solid state batteries that have not been overcome," and emphasizing that "[t]hey will likely never achieve the performance they claim." Following this news, the market prices of QuantumScape publicly traded securities fell precipitously, with the price of QuantumScape's Class A common stock declining more than 63% from its Class Period high of more than $131 per share on December 22, 2020 to close down at $49.96 per share on January 4, 2021, including a one-day decline of more than $34 per share, or 41%, on January 4, 2021. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (a) QuantumScape's battery technology was not sufficient for EV performance as it would not be able to withstand the aggressive automotive environment; (b) QuantumScape's battery technology likely provided no meaningful improvement over existing battery technology; (c) the successful commercialization of QuantumScape's battery technology was subject to much more significant risks and uncertainties than the defendants had disclosed; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants materially overstated the value and prospects of QuantumScape's battery technology. QuantumScape investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or at info@ktmc.com. QuantumScape investors may, no later than March 8, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com [GN] RAPI INC: Resto Staff Sue to Recover Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marcelino Zapoteco, Jorge Rivas, Auner Guardado Hernandez, Carlos Sebastian Sandobal, Yani Macareno and Fredy Rojas Perez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rapi, Inc., Pietro DiMaggio, Raffaele DiMaggio and Lisa DiMaggio, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06335 (E.D. Cal., December 29, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own an upscale Italian restaurant in Staten Island, New York under the name "Brioso Ristorante" where Plaintiffs are restaurant staff. They claim to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite requiring Plaintiffs to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiffs also claim to have never received wage statements, it adds. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica E. Harris, Esq. Kent Y. Hirozawa GLADSTEIN, REIF & MEGINNISS LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 2430 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 228-7727 Email: jharris@grmny.com khirozawa@grmny.com - and - Elizabeth Joynes Jordan, Esq. Frank Kearl MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK 92-10 Roosevelt Avenue Jackson, Heights, NY 11372 Tel: (718) 565-8500 x4425 Email: elizabeth.joynesjordan@maketheroadny.org frank.kearl@maketheroadny.org READING, PA: Declaratory Judgment in Ziegler Class Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Alan Ziegler, Nicolas Bene, Lissette Chevalier, Jose Munoz, and Efrain Caban, Individually and on Behalf of all Similarly Situated Persons v. The City of Reading and Reading Area Water Authority, Appeal of: City of Reading, Case No. 1777 C.D. 2019 (Pa. Cmmw.), Judge Michael H. Wojcik of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County's Nov. 6, 2019 order reentering declaratory judgment in favor of the Appellees. The case returns to the Court for the third time following its remand to trial court for additional calculations of the cost of the City's recycling program to include leaf and yard waste collection costs, prior years' deficits, or anticipated program costs. In the appeal, the City challenges the trial court's Nov. 6, 2019 order reentering declaratory judgment in favor of the Appellees (Residents) upon determining that the City's residential curbside recycling fee is inconsistent with the Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act. It argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not complying with the Court's remand directive and by considering the City's accounting practices as evidence that its recycling fees violated Act 101. The City is a third-class city located in Berks County, operating under a home rule charter. The Reading Area Water Authority ("RAWA") is a municipal authority created under the Municipality Authorities Act. The City delegated the responsibility for solid waste planning and plan implementation under Section 303(d) of Act 101 to RAWA. The Residents either reside in or maintain a place of business in the City and have paid recycling fees to the City or RAWA. Under Act 101, cities of the third class operating under a home rule charter with populations over 10,000 are required to implement a recycling program. Pursuant thereto, the City enacted ordinances establishing its recycling program. In March 2014, the City revised its recycling program by enacting Ordinances 20-2014 and 21-2014, which are the subject of the litigation. Ordinance 20-2014 amended Chapter 496, Part 2 of the City's Code of Ordinances, which pertains to the storage and collection of solid waste. Specifically, Ordinance 20-2014 eliminated a separate recycling fee and instituted a "Curbside Waste Collection Fee" to cover the combined costs of collecting municipal waste, recyclable materials, and organic waste. Ordinance 21-2014 amended Chapter 212 of the City's Code governing fees by setting the Curbside Fee at $303.10 per property per year. Imbedded in the Curbside Fee is a $91.83 user fee for recyclables. The Recycling Fee applies to owners of residential properties with four or fewer units. Although owners are permitted to opt out of the City's curbside municipal waste service by securing the services of a private hauler, they are not permitted to opt out of the City's curbside recycling service. In June 2014, the Residents filed a three-count class action Complaint against the City and RAWA, challenging the assessment and collection of a service fee for curbside recycling. In Count I, they sought a declaratory judgment that the Recycling Fee currently assessed and collected by the City is in violation of the laws of the Commonwealth, namely, Act 101 and the Solid Waste Management Act ("SWMA). By joint request and agreement of the parties, the trial court considered only Count I and deferred disposition of the other two counts. On Dec. 5, 2014, the trial court ruled that the Recycling Fee was permissible and entered an order granting judgment in favor of the City. The trial court later amended its order to facilitate interlocutory appeal to the Court. On appeal, an en banc panel of the Court vacated the order and remanded the matter to the trial court for further analysis consistent with the Court's then-recent decision in Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 107 A.3d 273 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), in which it held that recycling fees are not per se prohibited, but the program costs are subject to scrutiny to ensure that they are fiscally sound and in compliance with Act 101. Based on the evidence and arguments presented, the trial court ultimately concluded that the Recycling Fees the City imposed enabled it to operate its recycling program without properly pursuing Act 101's purposes of efficiency and self-sufficiency. Thus, it entered declaratory judgment in favor of Residents on Count I of their Complaint. From the decision, the City appealed to the Court, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court disregarded credible evidence proving the City's compliance with Act 101. The Court agreed with the City on that particular point. It vacated and remanded for further calculations to permit the inclusion of such costs in the calculations, but otherwise affirmed in all other respects. On remand, the trial court conducted evidentiary hearings. Ultimately, it concluded that the City failed to present evidence to prove the efficiency of its recycling program through credible, reliable testimony or evidence sufficient to satisfy Act 101 under the Waste Management criteria. Thus, it reaffirmed the declaratory judgment previously entered in favor of the Residents that the City's Recycling Fee was contrary to Act 101. The appeal follows. Upon review, Judge Wojcik affirmed. The City argues that the trial court failed to make the required calculations in violation of the Court's remand decision and Pa. R.A.P. 2591. The Judge opines that the trial court, as fact-finder, properly exercised its discretion over evidentiary weight and credibility determinations. The Court is bound by the trial court's credibility determinations. There is no support for the City's position that the trial court was required to accept any evidence proffered by the City, without considering its veracity or reliability, and apply it to the calculation. The City had alleged that these costs, if proven, would justify its Recycling Fees. The trial court followed the Court's remand order by providing the City an opportunity to present evidence and by fully considering the same before reaching its determination. Ultimately, the trial court determined that, despite numerous opportunities, the City failed to offer credible evidence regarding these other costs to justify its Recycling Fees and defend the efficiency of its recycling program. The Judge discerns no abuse of discretion in that regard. Next, the City contends that the trial court abused its discretion by considering the City's accounting practice of including certain costs, which were unquestionably recycling costs, in the General Fund, rather than the recycling enterprise fund when calculating the efficiency and self-sufficiency of the City's recycling program. The Judge holds that Act 101 does not require the City to account for its costs in a particular way. However, once the Residents presented evidence tending to show that the ordinances had a negative effect on the efficiency and self-sufficiency of the recycling program, it was up to the City to rebut this evidence. Despite multiple opportunities, the City simply failed to offer credible evidence that costs related to recycling and accounted for elsewhere in the budget were legitimately covered by its Recycling Fee or were otherwise factored into the program's efficiencies. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2gnr6j7 from Leagle.com. REALPAGE INC: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Christina Lamoureux, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that as a litigator, there's nothing more important than pleading your case - and a recent case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reminds us that in litigation, more often than not, there are no chances for do-overs. In Kelly v. Realpage, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01706-JDW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 842 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2021), plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging that Realpage had violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in collecting and disclosing information about eviction proceedings. The court, however, denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court found that plaintiffs' proposed classes were not ascertainable, as there was no easy way to tell which potential class members' file contained a public record and could fall within the class, and that individual inquiries predominated over current issues. Two weeks after the court issued the opinion, Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration based on three purportedly "new" pieces of evidence: excerpts of two depositions, taken in February 2020 and November 2020, and a declaration from December 2020. With respect to the February and November depositions, the court found that the evidence was not new. The February deposition took place months before the parties briefed Plaintiffs' class certification motion, and Plaintiffs had even included another excerpt of the declaration in their class certification motion -- so it was not "new". The November deposition was also taken before the court ruled on the motion, and the court explained that Plaintiffs had ample opportunities to put that evidence before the court, including by filing a supplemental brief. Because Plaintiffs had both the February and November depositions available before the court ruled, the court found that they could not be considered "new" for the purposes of a reconsideration motion. Plaintiffs had previously had the opportunity to put both pieces of evidence before the court, but had made the choice not to. The court also considered the December declaration, which Plaintiffs had obtained after the court had already ruled on class certification - but Plaintiffs did not explain why they had waited until after the ruling to obtain the declaration. The court noted that the issue that was the topic of the declaration - whether a manual search would be needed to determine class members - had been disputed in the briefing on the class certification motion, and Plaintiffs could have obtained the declaration then. Instead, as the court put it: "they got [the] declaration so that they could respond to the Court's ruling. But that's not how litigation works." Because the Kelly court found that the evidence was not "new", it also denied Plaintiffs leave to file a new class certification motion, finding that there was not "good cause" to amend the parties' scheduling order. The court noted that scheduling orders are intended to keep cases moving forward, which could not happen "if parties could file renewed motions any time they thought of a way to address a court's decision." Kelly also demonstrates the critical importance of following the local rules, which can make or break a case. Plaintiff had argued that class members could be identified administratively with the aid of computers -- but did so in a footnote. The court found that Plaintiffs had not satisfied their burden in arguing the point and noted that the judge's policies and procedures explained that the court would not consider substantive arguments raised in footnotes -- so even if the argument had been properly supported, the court would not have considered it. As Kelly demonstrates, the applicable rules of civil procedure can have just as much of an impact on the outcome of a case as the merits. Your time before the court is valuable - and limited. [GN] SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Austin Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled WILLIE AUSTIN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-587314, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on January 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00191 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code including failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest periods, failure to pay wages upon separation of employment and within the required time, failure to pay overtime, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc. is a provider of automotive glass fulfillment services, with a principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: M. Leah Cameron, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 440 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-3233 E-mail: lcameron@cdflaborlaw.com SINAI I INC: Faces Jenkins Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- DAVID FREDDRICK, JR JENKINS and CORDELL JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SINAI I INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00135 (E.D.N.Y., January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Executive Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law including discrimination, unpaid overtime, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, failure to provide wage notices, and unpaid minimum wage. Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Johnson were employed by the Defendant as ambulette drivers from July 2018 until December 2018 and from July 2017 until March 2019, respectively. Sinai I Inc. is a transportation company with its principal place of business located at 259 Burnside Avenue Lawrence, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ismail S. Sekendiz, Esq. SEKENDIZ LAW GROUP P.C. 45 Broadway Suite: 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 380-8087 E-mail: isinan@hotmail.com SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Estrada Sues Over Misleading SEC Statement -------------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO ESTRADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEWART BUTTERFIELD, ANDREW BRACCIA, EDITH COOPER, SARAH FRIAR SHEILA JORDAN, MIKE McNAMARA, JOHN O'FARRELL, GRAHAM SMITH, SALESFORCE.COM, INC., SKYLINE STRATEGIES I INC., and SKYLINE STRATEGIES II LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00180 (N.D. Cal., January 8, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially deficient Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2020 in support of the proposed acquisition of Slack Technologies, Inc. by Salesforce.com, Inc. The Registration Statement omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for management; (b) the financial projections for Slack and Salesforce, provided by Slack and Salesforce to Slack's financial advisors Qatalyst Partners L.P. and Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses, if any, that purport to support the fairness opinions created by Qatalyst and Goldman and provide to Slack and the Board. The Registration Statement deprives Slack's stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the proposed transaction, and is thus in breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties. Moreover, the Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Slack without first taking steps to ensure that the Plaintiff and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the proposed transaction to benefit themselves and/or Salesforce without regard for Slack public stockholders. The Plaintiff and Class members seek to enjoin the proposed transaction and compel the Individual Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to Slack stockholders. Slack Technologies, Inc. is a business technology software company, with its principal place of business at 500 Howard Street, San Francisco, California. Salesforce.com, Inc. is a developer of enterprise cloud computing solutions, with its primary place of business at Salesforce Tower, 415 Mission Street, 3rd Fl., San Francisco, California. Skyline Strategies I Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Salesforce.com, Inc. Skyline Strategies II LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Salesforce.com, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Ryan P. Cardona, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com rcardona@brodskysmith.com SOBE USA: Penalba Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMARAY PENALBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOBE USA, LLC d/b/a OCEANS 10, Defendant, Case No. 119390524 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., January 11, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a bartender and server at Oceans 10 restaurant in Florida from on or about May 2014 through on or about January 2020. Sobe USA, LLC, doing business as Oceans 10, is a restaurant owner and operator location in Miami Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry Hernandez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HENRY HERNANDEZ, P.A. 2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 771-3374 E-mail: Henry@hhlawflorida.com - and – Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 704-3172 E-mail: me@espino-law.com SOLARWINDS CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 5 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, on Jan. 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of investors that purchased SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE: SWI) securities between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until March 5, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On December 15, 2020, Reuters published an article stating that, last year, security researcher Vinoth Kumar "alerted the company that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using the password 'solarwinds123.'" The article also disclosed that, according to Kyle Hanslovan, the cofounder of Maryland-based cybersecurity company Huntress, "days after SolarWinds realized their software had been compromised, the malicious updates were still available for download." On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.56 per share or 8% to close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 2020. The complaint, filed on January 4, 2021, alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased SolarWinds securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] SOLARWINDS CORP: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of March 12 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE: SWI) investors that acquired shares between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020. Investors have until March 12, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. On December 13, 2020, it was reported in Reuters that the IT systems of federal government agencies were penetrated by state-sponsored hackers, who manipulated software updates released by SolarWinds. On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds disclosed that its Orion monitoring product was targeted by hackers, which interfered with updates between March and June 2020. On December 14, 2020, shares of SolarWinds dropped by 17% based on this news. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 12, 2021. Please visit our website, https://portnoylaw.com/solarwinds, to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] SPLUNK INC: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Thornton Law Firm alerts Splunk investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Splunk stock or other securities (NASDAQ:SPLK) between August 26, 2020 and December 2, 2020. SPLK investors may visit www.tenlaw.com/cases/splunk-inc/ to learn about the case and the lead plaintiff process. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/splunk-inc/ Splunk investors have until February 2, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be eligible to recover as class members. The case alleges that Splunk and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (a) Splunk was facing pushback from clients across its largest and most important accounts as it attempted to implement a new pricing model and secure customer renewals; (b) Splunk had failed to close several deals with its largest customers; and (c) Splunk had fallen far behind previously announced financial targets. FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: www.tenlaw.com/cases/splunk-inc/ The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action and can select a law firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. Interested Splunk investors have until February 2, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys represent individual and institutional investors in lawsuits to recover damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 www.tenlaw.com/cases/splunk-inc/ [GN] ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Magistrate Recommends Mock Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELANIE MOCK, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE PARTNERSHIP, L.P., LLP, Case No. A-19-CV-611-RP (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed without prejudice. The case is a putative class action suit in which Plaintiff Mock asserts Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act and Federal Declaratory Judgment Act claims against Defendant St. David's. Mock asserts that St. David's improperly charged her and other patients hidden emergency department fees for "overhead expenses" in the form of a surcharge. The Plaintiff seeks to proceed on behalf of all patients who received treatment at St. David's Emergency Room and who were charged certain emergency department fees. Mock filed the suit in state court and St. David's removed the suit to the Court pursuant to the authority granted in the Class Action Fairness Act. After removal, St. David's asked the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice on several grounds. With minor exceptions, the motion was denied, based on the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Austin. Mock, thereafter, requested that the Court permits her to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She notes that the case was removed under CAFA. Although neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants have previously raised the application of the exception in the case, the Plaintiff now believes that at least two-thirds of emergency room patients at the Defendant's hospitals must necessarily be citizens of the State of Texas and that only a very small minority of patients are likely to be citizens of other states who experienced a need for emergency room medical treatment during their stay in Texas. After noting that two federal district courts had recently dismissed nearly identical suits sua sponte based on the two-thirds exception, Mock states that she believes the propriety of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction is likely to be put into question sooner or later in the cause, either by the Defendants or by the Court, and thus she believes the case is proper to dismiss at the present time under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) before the Court must take up any additional dispositive matters in the cause. St. David's opposed the motion. Its primary contention is that Mock's objections to jurisdiction are untimely, and should have been raised sooner. It also argued that Mock has failed to carry her burden that CAFA's "local controversy" and "home state" exceptions apply, and also argues that the case implicates certain federal policies. It also contends that dismissal of the case at this juncture would prejudice St. David's because it would require it to duplicate work and incur significant additional costs. In her reply, Mock states that she too would prefer to keep the case in federal court, but has concerns that the exception to jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4) is mandatory, and might be raised at a later time, by St. David's or sua sponte by the Court. She concedes that facially, the Court has jurisdiction under CAFA and that if the Court agrees with the Defendant that the lapse of time or other reasons makes it too late to raise any jurisdiction exceptions, and if the Court is content to hear the case regardless of any potential exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, then the Plaintiff has no problem with the case continuing to be litigated in federal court. However, if the Court determines that an exception to its jurisdiction applies and prevents the action from being heard in federal court, then the suit should be dismissed without prejudice and without penalty to the Plaintiff. After all, it was the Defendant that removed the case to federal court, but she is content to have the case remain in the Court. Magistrate Judge Austin explains that in spite of the fact that the case has been pending in the Court for 19 months, it is (regrettably) still in its very initial stages. Indeed, all that has happened is the resolution of an initial motion to dismiss filed by St. David's that was largely rejected, and during its pendency the case was stayed. It was St. David's that removed the case, surely knowing full well that the case fell within the scope of the mandatory abstention provisions of Section 1332(d)(4)(A) and (B). And it was St. David's that almost immediately after removal filed a motion to dismiss, which it renewed upon an amendment by Mock, and it sought a stay of the case while it was pending. Given that straight out of the box Mock was defending a motion to dismiss her claims--that was not ruled upon by the Court until September of 2020--seeking the voluntary dismissal of the case eight days later based on a concern that the home state and local controversy exceptions may cause the dismissal anyway, was "reasonable." It is additionally true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic which has slowed the work of many courts, this one included. The Magistrate Judge adds that the timing of Mock's motion is reasonable--from the outset Mock was defending a motion to dismiss, the case is still in its preliminary stages, and the parties have not engaged in discovery. Although more time than the Court would prefer has passed since removal, very little has actually occurred to move the case forward. Mock is not attempting to avoid an adverse ruling as she largely prevailed on St. David's motion to dismiss. Additionally, no limitations defense is adversely affected by her motion. If anything, the Plaintiffs may suffer some statute of limitations damage through dismissal. All of this supports allowing Mock to voluntarily dismiss the case. In its final request, St. David's asks that if the Court permits the dismissal of the case, the dismissal be conditioned on Mock paying St. David's attorneys' fees and costs incurred while the case was pending. The Magistrate Judge rules that imposing a condition that Mock pays St. David's attorneys' fees is not warranted. First, in large part, the fees St. David's incurred in the case were due to its own action in removing a case to federal court it knew fell within that the exceptions to jurisdiction. St. David's--not Mock--was in possession of the relevant facts on that issue. Second, the case has not progressed very far, despite the length of time it has been pending. St. David's has not invested substantial time and effort in this case to date, and there is little reason to believe that the work it has done on the case in the Court will not have value when the case is refiled in state court. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, Magistrate Judge Austin recommended that the District Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss, and dismisses the case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). He directed the Clerk to remove the case from his docket and return it to the docket of Judge Robert Pitman. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 8, 2021 Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6kmdhuo from Leagle.com. STATE FARM: Vogt's Bid to Shift Notice & Distribution Costs Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL VOGT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:16-cv-04170-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied the Plaintiffs' motion for an order shifting to State Farm the costs of notice and distribution of net damages. The Supreme Court has held that courts must not stray too far from the principle that the representative plaintiff should bear all costs relating to the sending of notice because it is he who seeks to maintain the suit as a class action, citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 359 (1978). Ordinarily there is no warrant for shifting the cost of the representative plaintiff's performance of those tasks necessary to send the class notice to the defendant. Some courts have shifted the cost of notice to defendants after liability has been established. However, those cases largely involved scenarios not presented in the instant case, District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey notes, citing Macarz v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 201 F.R.D. 54, 59 (D. Conn. 2001), et al. Judge Laughrey finds that the Plaintiffs have pointed to no special circumstances warranting the shifting of costs associated with providing notice. Moreover, the costs associated with the class notice ($32,795.61), which represent less than .08% of the damages award with prejudgment interest, are not substantial relative to the common fund. The Plaintiffs' request to shift the costs of distributing the common fund to the class also is denied for similar reasons, Judge Laughrey rules. The only authority that they cite in support of their position that the costs of distribution should be shifted is distinguishable. Finding no basis to shift the costs of distribution -- which are estimated to be $61,947, or just .16% of the common fund without post-judgment interest, the Court must decline the motion to shift those costs. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion to shift to State Farm the costs associated with notice and the costs of distribution is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 4, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6xh4xlk from Leagle.com. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Bare Consumers Suit Transferred to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled SUZANNE BARE and MICHAEL NICKEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-01743, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on January 11, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00478 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law by manufacturing and selling the 2015-2019 Subaru Legacy, 2012-2018 Subaru Forester, and 2015-2019 Subaru Outback vehicles with a defective brake override system. Subaru of America, Inc. is the United States-based distributor of Subaru's brand vehicles, headquartered in Camden, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101-1486 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 - and – Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com - and – Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 275-9295 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and – John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com THAI UNION: Settles Canned Tuna Price-Fixing Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Mutter, writing for IntraFish, reports that Thai Union has reached a final agreement to settle the class-action lawsuit by customers. Thai Union subsidiary Tri-Union Seafoods was one of the United States's canned tuna producers to be caught up in accusations of price-fixing. [GN] TORRI OHIO: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Quinlan Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTORIA QUINLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TORRID OHIO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00119-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, January 11, 2021) brings this complaint seeking damages against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid warehouse worker, asserts that the Defendant did not compensate him and other similarly situated warehouse workers for the time they spent performing pre-shift duties as well as for the 30-minutes meal breaks which they are required to clock-out. As a result, although they regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant failed to pay them all of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit says. Torrid Ohio, LLC operates a Distribution Center. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg R. Mansell, Esq. Carrie J. Dyer, Esq. MANSELL LAW, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Tel: (614) 610-4134 Fax: (614) 547-3614 E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com TRANSUNION LLC: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristine Argentine, Esq., Emily Kesler, Esq., and Esther McDonald, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the United States Supreme Court has again granted a petition to examine standing in the context of class actions, specifically whether Article III of the Constitution permits members of a certified class to recover money damages when members of the certified class suffered no actual injury. This issue was presented to the Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion and order in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, 951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2020), finding absent class members in a class action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") had Article III standing where it was undisputed that, in the case of the majority of the certified class members, allegedly inaccurate credit information was not disclosed to any third party. The Supreme Court's consideration of the issues presented in Ramirez will allow the Court to provide more defined boundaries on what type of "intangible" harm suffered by absent class members can constitute a "concrete" injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, an issue largely left open after the Supreme Court's prior landmark decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. 2016). I. Case Background. The Ramirez case arose when the named plaintiff, Sergio Ramirez, brought a putative class action against a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") alleging violations under the FCRA. The credit files of Ramirez and other class members included an alert indicating that they potentially matched the name of a person on the United States government's list of Specially Designated Nationals ("SDN"), which if true, would prohibit companies from doing business with those individuals. Ramirez alleged that he suffered difficulty in obtaining credit and embarrassment in front of family members when an automobile dealer received a credit report allegedly indicating that it could not do business with Ramirez. Ramirez testified that he was embarrassed, shocked, and scared when he learned of this alert and his potential inclusion on the SDN List. Ramirez requested a copy of his credit report, which once received did not indicate that he was on the SDN List. However, the next day, Ramirez received a separate letter from the CRA (the "OFAC Letter") making him aware that he was considered a potential match on the SDN List. The OFAC Letter was not accompanied by a summary of rights form. As a result, Ramirez ultimately initiated a class action alleging three violations of the FCRA, seeking to represent a class that included "all natural persons in the United States and its Territories to whom [the CRA] sent a letter similar in form to the [OFAC Letter] [that the CRA] sent to [Ramirez] . . . from January 1, 2011-July 26, 2011." In other words, everyone in the class: (1) was labeled by the CRA as a potential SDN List match; (2) requested a copy of his or her credit file from the CRA; and (3) in response, received a mailing with the SDN List alert redacted and a separate OFAC Letter mailing with no summary of rights form. The district court rejected the CRA's arguments that the injury suffered by Ramirez was atypical to that of the class, and certified a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Notably, the parties stipulated that this class included 8,185 consumers, and that, out of those 8,185 consumers, only 1,853 consumers actually had their credit reports requested by a potential credit grantor during the relevant class period, meaning that the CRA did not furnish credit reports to third parties during the class period for the remaining 6,332 class members. The case went to trial, and the jury heard primarily about the experiences and injury suffered by Ramirez, and awarded every member of the 8,185-member class near the maximum in statutory damages and thousands more in punitive damages, for a total award of over $60 million. Ramirez did not provide evidence that any other class member actually read the OFAC Letter from the CRA or was even aware that such a letter had been sent, and did not prove that any other class member ever suffered injury (or even embarrassment) on account of the claimed deficiencies in how the CRA provided the "potential match" information. II. Ninth Circuit Analysis. The CRA appealed the jury verdict to the Ninth Circuit, arguing (1) the verdict could not stand because none of the class members other than Ramirez had standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution; (2) the class should not have been certified because Ramirez's claims were not typical of the class's claims; and (3) additional arguments regarding the statutory and punitive damage awards. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's rulings regarding Article III and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and also reduced the punitive damages award. The Ninth Circuit first considered the challenge to the absent class members' Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit first held that when a class is certified for money damages, each individual class member must establish standing at the final (damages) phase of the litigation. However, the Ninth Circuit went on to conclude that each absent class member had suffered an injury sufficient to satisfy Article III where the CRA had allegedly incorrectly placed SDN List alerts on the front page of consumers' credit files and later sent the consumers "confusing and incomplete disclosures" in the form of the OFAC Letters about the alerts and how to remove them. The Ninth Circuit determined that the CRA's alleged violation of the consumers' notification rights under the FCRA, by itself, constituted a concrete injury even if a class members credit file had not been disclosed to a third party. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. 2016) ("Spokeo II") and applied a "risk-of-harm" theory in analyzing whether absent class members suffered concrete harm sufficient to confer Article III standing even if their credit reports were not furnished to third parties. The Ninth Circuit relied upon language in Spokeo II that states that concrete harm sufficient to confer Article III standing can be intangible, and there is sufficient injury in fact when a defendant's statutory violation creates a "risk of real harm" to a plaintiff's concrete interest. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the fact that the CRA would have provided a class member's report to numerous potential creditors and employers if they had requested it was sufficient to show a material risk of harm to the concrete interests of all class members. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the CRA's challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 that, even if the absent class members had Article III standing, they could not be properly represented by an atypical named plaintiff who suffered far greater and different injuries. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that all class members' claims arose from the same event or practice and were based upon the same legal theory. Judge M. Margaret McKeown penned a dissent concluding that only the 1,853 consumers whose credit reports were requested by a potential credit grantor had Article III standing to assert a claim. Judge McKeown argued that the majority's conclusion that every class member suffered Article III injury-in-fact simply because the CRA's credit files contained allegedly inaccurate information about them could not be reconciled with prior Supreme Court precedent such as Spokeo II. She also pointed to several decisions from other U.S. Courts of Appeals that found no Article III standing where there was a mere existence of inaccurate information in a credit file without dissemination to any third party. Judge McKeown observed that Congress's main concern in enacting the FCRA was the "dissemination of inaccurate information, not its mere existence in the . . . database." See, e.g., Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n, Inc., et al., v. United States Department of Transportation et al., 879 F.3d 339, 345 (D.C. Cir. 2018). III. U.S. Supreme Court Grants Petition, Possible Repercussions. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the CRA's petition for certiorari in order to review whether either Article III of the Constitution or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits class members to recover money damages when members of the certified class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury similar to what the class representative suffered. The Supreme Court has long held that Article III standing requires a plaintiff to establish that she suffered an "injury in fact" that is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent." See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Spokeo II explains that mere statutory violations on their own are insufficient to confer Article III standing absent sufficient concrete injury. Spokeo II, 136 S. Ct. at 1547–49. Importantly, the Court in Spokeo II explicitly recognized that a violation of one of the FCRA's procedural requirements may result in no harm, while also instructing that an alleged procedural violation can by itself manifest concrete injury where Congress conferred the procedural right to protect a plaintiff's concrete interests and where the procedural violation presents a risk of real harm to that concrete interest. Id. at 1550. The Supreme Court's decision will resolve an apparent Circuit split created by the decision in Ramirez, and recognized by the dissent. The D.C. Circuit and other circuits have held that individuals who never had their information disseminated to third parties cannot claim Article III injury in an FCRA claim based on the bare fact that inaccurate information sat inchoate in a database. See, e.g., Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 879 F.3d 339 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Nor do other circuits allow individuals to claim injury in-fact merely because they were sent a purportedly incomplete disclosure that they may not have read, let alone found confusing. See, e.g., Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc., 946 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court's ruling is sure to affect future class action litigation and issues of standing, especially for claims under the FCRA. Will we have another Spokeo II on our hands, raising the bar further on Article III standing for absent class members? Will the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit majority's position or Judge McKeown's dissent win the day? We'll be sure to let you know. [GN] TRICEDA INC: Portnoy Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Triceda, Inc. ("Triceda" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: TCDA) investors that acquired securities between September 4, 2019 through October 28, 2020. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the Class Period, Triceda made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tricida's NDA in regard to veverimer was materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the NDA for veverimer would not be accepted by the FDA; and (iii) as a result, the Triceda's public statements were materially misleading and false at all relevant times. Tricida issued a press release on July 15, 2020 announcing that, on July 14, 2020, the it had received a notification from the FDA which stated that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the Company's NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and postmarketing requirements/commitments at this time." Tricida stated that "[t]he notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the FDA." Tricida's stock price fell $10.56 per share on this news, or 40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020. Then, on October 29, 2020, an update was announced by Triceda on its End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA in regard to the veverimer NDA, which advised investors that the Company "now believes the FDA will also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of efficacy." Tricida disclosed concurrently that it "is significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers to potentially provide additional financial flexibility." Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share on this news, or 47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] TRICIDA INC: Scott+Scott Attorney Reminds of March 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Jan. 13 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Tricida, Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCDA) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Tricida stock or other securities between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered losses, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Tricida is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of its drug candidate, veverimer (TRC101), a non-absorbed, orally-administered polymer designed as a potential treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with chronic kidney disease. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient, and, therefore, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not accept the NDA for veverimer. On July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release announcing "that on July 14, 2020, the Company received a notification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the Company's New Drug Application (NDA)" for Tricida's drug candidate, veverimer (TRC101), "the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and postmarketing requirements/commitments at this time." On this news, Tricida's stock price fell sharply $10.56 per share, or 40.31%, to close at $15.64 July 16, 2020. Then, on October 29, 2020, Tricida announced an update on its End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA regarding the veverimer NDA, advising investors that the Company "now believes the FDA will also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of efficacy." Concurrently, Tricida disclosed that it "is significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers to potentially provide additional financial flexibility." On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or 47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020. What You Can Do If you purchased Tricida securities between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is March 8, 2021. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. [GN] TRITERRAS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Jan. 13 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. BRY Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1 TRIT Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/triterras-inc-f-k-a-netfin-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1 TCDA Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * 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=12105&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. Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:TRIT) TRIT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 20, 2020 - December 16, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/triterras-inc-f-k-a-netfin-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCDA) TCDA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 4, 2019 - October 28, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12105&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tricida, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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] TRITERRAS INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group on Jan. 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Triterras, Inc. f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: TRIT, TRITW) from August 20, 2020 through December 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Triterras, Inc. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the extent to which the Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") to refer users to the Kratos platform; that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Triterras' business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] TSC DIGITAL: Blecha Suit Alleges Misclassification, Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH BLECHA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TSC DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00019-WJE (W.D. Mo., January 12, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to timely pay wages, and unjust enrichment under Arkansas Common Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a satellite installation and repair technician but was treated as an independent contractor from in or around October 2019 until he was terminated for taking on a job request from another company in September 10, 2020. TSC Digital Entertainment, Inc. is a satellite entertainment service company, headquartered in Fort Smith, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Edgar, Esq. Ryan J. Loehr, Esq. EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 531-0033 Facsimile: (816) 531-3322 E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com rjl@edgarlawfirm.com - and – James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and – Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 235-2416 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: csekino@sfmslaw.com - and – Monique Olivier, Esq. OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 E-mail: monique@osclegal.com TURQUOISE HILL: Faces Securities Class Action in Montreal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. ("Turquoise Hill" or the "Company") on Jan. 11 disclosed that Oyu Tolgoi LLC (Oyu Tolgoi) has evaluated the Tax Act ("2016-2018 Tax Assessment") claim for approximately US$228 million from the Mongolian Tax Authority (MTA), as announced on December 23, 2020, including the seeking of a reduction of Oyu Tolgoi's carried-forward tax losses by approximately US$1.5 billion. On February 20, 2020, the Company announced Oyu Tolgoi had been unable to reach resolution of its previously-announced dispute with the MTA with respect to the 2013-2015 Tax Assessment and would be proceeding with the initiation of a formal international arbitration proceeding (Arbitration) in accordance with the dispute resolution provisions within Chapter 14 of the Oyu Tolgoi Investment Agreement (IA) entered into with the Government of Mongolia in 2009 and Chapter 8 of the Oyu Tolgoi Underground Mine Development and Financing Plan (UDP) entered into with the Government of Mongolia in 2015. The dispute resolution provisions call for an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London before a panel of three arbitrators. Oyu Tolgoi has given notice of its intention to apply to the Tribunal in the Arbitration for leave to amend its Statement of Claim to include the issues raised in the 2016-2018 Tax Assessment. As many of the matters raised in the 2016-2018 Tax Assessment are of a similar nature to the matters raised in the 2013-2015 Tax Assessment, Oyu Tolgoi believes amending its Statement of Claim is an efficient and effective means of reaching resolution on both tax assessments. Turquoise Hill remains of the view that Oyu Tolgoi LLC has paid all taxes and charges required under the IA, the Amended and Restated Shareholder Agreement, the UDP and Mongolian law. In addition, the Government of Mongolia has advised Rio Tinto that it is dissatisfied with the results of the Definitive Estimate, which was completed and delivered by Rio Tinto and publicly announced by the Company on December 18, 2020, and is concerned that the significant increase in the development costs of the Oyu Tolgoi project has eroded the economic benefits it anticipated to receive therefrom. The Government of Mongolia has indicated that if the Oyu Tolgoi project is not economically beneficial to the country, it would be necessary to review and evaluate whether it can proceed. The Government of Mongolia has stressed the importance of achieving a comprehensive solution that addresses both financial issues between the shareholders of Oyu Tolgoi as well as economic and social issues of importance to Mongolia, such as water usage, tax payments, and social issues related to employees, in order to implement the Oyu Tolgoi project successfully. In particular, the Government of Mongolia has expressed its intention to initiate discussions with respect to the termination and replacement of the UDP. While acknowledging Oyu Tolgoi's significant contributions to Mongolia, Turquoise Hill is nevertheless committed to engaging immediately with the Government of Mongolia and Rio Tinto to address the UDP and revisit the sharing of economic benefits arising from the Oyu Tolgoi project in the context of agreeing on a comprehensive financing plan as well as addressing the other issues raised. Proposed Class Action A legal proceeding in the Superior Court in the District of Montreal has been served initiating a proposed class action against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The claim alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and material omissions with respect to, among other things, the schedule, cost and progress to completion of the development of Oyu Tolgoi in violation of, among other things, sections 225.8, 225.9 and 225.11 of the Quebec Securities Act. The Company believes that the complaint against it is without merit. [GN] TYSON FOODS: Settles Price Collusion Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Kim Souza, writing for TBP, reports that Tyson Foods followed Pilgrim's Pride in agreeing to settle a class-action price collusion lawsuit in the courts for the past four years. Tyson Foods said it reached an "agreement in principle" to settle the civil suit, but the company provided no details about how much that will cost. "Tyson believes the resolution is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, and the settlement does not constitute an admission of liability," company spokesman Gary Mickelson told Talk Business & Politics on Tuesday (Jan. 12). The Tyson settlement is subject to court approval and a joint notice of settlement was filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs on Jan. 11 as a first step in the court approval process, Mickelson said. The settlement comes a day after Pilgrim's Pride announced a $75 million settlement in the class-action litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Tyson Foods is in the 60-day quiet period ahead of its fiscal 2021 first-quarter earnings report in mid-February. At that time, Tyson may provide details of the settlement cost and the impact on earnings. Timothy Mulreinin, a former Tyson Foods director of sales, was one of 10 poultry executives indicted on federal antitrust charges in October. Tyson received leniency accommodations from the Department of Justice who said the company proactively self-reported details pertinent to the investigation. [GN] UBER EATS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Exorbitant Commissions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julien Arsenault, writing for Canadian Press, reports that a Quebec restaurant is launching a class-action lawsuit against food delivery companies for the alleged exorbitant and abusive commissions they are charging during the pandemic. Montreal restaurant Deli Boyz is the lead plaintiff in the case that is targeting food delivery companies that operate smartphone applications, including Uber Eats, DoorDash and SkipTheDishes. The restaurant says the commissions these companies demand are in excess of 15 per cent, which the applicant says are abusive during a pandemic because restaurants are limited to takeout as indoor dining is banned. The Quebec Superior Court filing -- which needs to be authorized by a judge -- seeks damages equal to the money paid to these companies in commissions charged above 15 per cent of customers' orders, since Jan. 8. It is also requesting a judge bar the defendants from charging a commission above 15 per cent of the total customer order. "There can be no doubt that by maintaining these same high commissions during the pandemic and curfew period -- when food delivery orders skyrocketed -- that Uber Eats' commissions are abusive and that it acted contrary to the requirements of good faith," the filing reads. Deli Boyz says between Dec. 27, 2020 and Jan. 4, 2021, it paid Uber Eats $737 in commissions for 67 orders totalling about $2,550. According to the filing, if the cap had been set at 15 per cent, the commissions would have totalled $368. "Consequently, an excessive disproportion exists when the defendants charge restaurants commissions in excess of 15 per cent," the filing reads. Lawyer Joey Zukran, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Deli Boyz on Jan. 11, said it could take up to one year for a judge to authorize the class action and even longer for the case to be heard on its merits. Zukran said restaurants have little choice but to work with food delivery companies that use smartphone applications. "In order to stay competitive and relevant, they have no choice." Places such as New York, California, British Columbia and Ontario, however, have capped delivery commissions at 15 per cent of customers' orders. "So restaurants in Montreal have been saying, 'Why do I have to pay double what a similar restaurant in Toronto has to pay?'" Zukran said. In a emailed statement, Uber spokesman Jonathan Hamel did not directly comment on the class action. "Uber Eats supports restaurants by driving demand with marketing campaigns, eliminating activation fees, instituting daily payments, and providing flexible options," he said. On Jan. 9, Montreal Mayor Valerie Plante called on the Quebec government to temporarily cap delivery commissions to ensure profitability for restaurant owners. Premier Francois Legault told reporters on Jan. 11 he was open to looking at the issue of commissions, but appeared hesitant when asked about imposing a cap. Deli Boyz's class action is in addition to two other lawsuits filed last month by a different law firm against Uber Eats and DoorDash over undisclosed service charges. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 12, 2021. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Judge OKs Sexual Abuse Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge has preliminarily approved a $73 million class action settlement involving sexual abuse claims against a former gynecologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. On Jan. 11, a federal judge preliminarily approved the settlement, which resolves claims for a potential 6,600 class members that Dr. James Heaps either made inappropriate comments or violated them with sexually invasive exams from 1983 to 2018. At least one firm plans to opt out of the deal on behalf of 140 women. [GN] US FOODS: Osorio Employment Class Suit Goes to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FELIPE OSORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US FOODS, INC., which will do business in California as U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV46858, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 8, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00179 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 compensate all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation, and failure to provide proper wage statements. US Foods, Inc., doing business as U.S. Foodservice, Inc., is an American foodservice distributor based in Rosemont, Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 Facsimile: (650) 614-7401 E-mail: jliburt@orrick.com - and – Katie E. Briscoe, Esq. Alexandra Guerra, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: (916) 447-9200 Facsimile: (916) 329-4900 E-mail: kbriscoe@orrick.com aguerra@orrick.com UZZAL EXPRESS: Hernandez Sues Over Failure to Pay Required Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UZZAL EXPRESS PIZZERIA INC. d/b/a 99 CENT EXPRESS PIZZA, and MOHAMMED UZZAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00177 (S.D.N.Y., January 8, 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 compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pizzeria employees applicable minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to maintain accurate records of total worked hours, failure to pay the required spread-of-hours pay, and failure to provide wage statements. Mr. Hernandez was employed as a pizza server at 99 Cent Express Pizza in New York. Uzzal Express Pizzeria Inc. is a company that owns and operates two pizzerias located at 301 W 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036 and at 82-18 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York under the name 99 Cent Express Pizza. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn R. Clark, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES Attorneys at Law, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 430 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 248-7431 Facsimile: (212) 901-2107 E-mail: sclark@tpglaws.com WELLPET LLC: Bush Sues Over Mislabeled Grain-Free Pet Foods ----------------------------------------------------------- MARLA BUSH; KIMBERLY DEHAVEN; NANCY MUNIE; and MONIQUE SALERNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLPET, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10059 (D. Mass., Jan. 12, 2021) is a class action lawsuit regarding the Defendants' false and misleading labeling and marketing of its cat and dog food products, the "Complete Health" line, and "Core" line (collectively the "Mislabeled Pet Foods"). According to the complaint, the labeling and packaging of the Mislabeled Pet Foods contain numerous false and misleading grain-free claims ("Grain-Free Claims"). The Defendants label their pet foods as "grain free" and claims that their Mislabeled Pet Foods contain "no wheat, corn or soy." This misleads consumers into believing that the Mislabeled Pet Foods contain no grain even though the Mislabeled Pet Foods in fact do contain gluten (i.e. grain). By doing so, the Defendants are able to charge a substantial price premium for its Mislabeled Pet Foods on account of these false Grain-Free Claims, the suit says. Wellpet LLC produces and supplies pet food products. The Company offers grain-free protein-focused formulas, biscuits, and nutritional products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael C. Forrest, Esq. FORREST LAMOTHE MAZOW MCCULLOUGH YASI & YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 Telephone: (617) 231-7829 E-mail: mforrest@forrestlamothe.com -and- L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Brittany Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com -and- Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com -and- Scott Kamber, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200 Telephone: (303) 222-9008 E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com -and- Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 1501 San Elijo Hills Road South, Suite 104-212 San Marcos, CA 92078 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 E-mail: nspector@kamberlaw.com WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barron Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELANDER BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV01318 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 12, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Baron was employed by the Defendants as staff. WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC owns and operates as a pistachio and almond grower and processor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio , Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: james@Jameshawkinsaplc.com christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com YUM! BRANDS: Coons Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Data Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY COONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YUM! BRANDS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00045-GCS (S.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff to put a stop to the Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiff's and putative Class members' sensitive biometric identifiers and biometric information, to have Defendant return or destroy the biometric information, including fingerprints, that it has retained for over three years and for which the initial use is no longer pertinent, and to issue a written retention policy, among other things. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the class with a written, publicly available policy identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendant failed to inform its employees of the complete purposes for which it collects their sensitive biometric data or to whom the data is disclosed, if at all, and failed to obtain their knowing consent to use their biometric data. Yum! Brands, Inc, owns and franchises quick-service restaurants worldwide. The Company develops, operates, franchises, and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants which prepare, package, and sell a menu of food items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (312) 212-5919 E-mail: nlange@carlsonlynch.com -and- Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (212) 292-4441 Facsimile: (212) 292-4442 E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com -and- Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com memert@kgglaw.com ZILLOW INC: Nears $1.1-Mil. Labor Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Zillow employees moved closer to a deal to get $1.1 million from the online real estate marketplace company to resolve claims they were shorted on commissions, after a California federal court preliminarily approved of a settlement. [GN] [*] AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over Covid-19 Restrictions ------------------------------------------------------------- Harriet Alexander, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that midway through her tirade against unnecessary masks, abusive vaccination programs, corrupt judiciary and lying public servants at an anti-lockdown rally in Melbourne last month, Melbourne lawyer Serene Teffaha seemed almost to run out of breath. "I've given birth to this class action," she said. One academic described the coronavirus protest movement as a whale shark, with every anti-5G, anti-vaxxer, medical sceptic, snake oil salesman and far-right libertarian feeding off it like pilot fish. Ms Teffaha, who rose from obscurity to reinvent herself as a "human rights lawyer" last year, has emerged as their champion. It is perhaps not a surprise that she's risen to prominence during a pandemic, a time when baseless conspiracy theories about the dangers of 5G and the origins and spread of coronavirus have swirled feverishly. Serene Teffaha has been drumming up clients for a catch-all class action that includes people affected by any form of detention, mandatory vaccination, business closures, residential aged care isolation, cross border rules, contact tracing, compulsory testing and masks and various other measures put in place to control the spread of coronavirus. She has raised at least $500,000 since May, but is yet to file any class actions. The federal government has made clear it will not make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory. She is also representing Jenny D'Ubios, who escaped hotel quarantine in Perth on Boxing Day after claiming her detention was a violation of her human rights and based on a virus that did not exist. Ms D'Ubios was put into a maximum-security prison after police found out Ms Teffaha had mistakenly given the wrong address in her bail application. Ms Teffaha appeared at a rally in Broadmeadows on December 6 to prosecute her argument against coronavirus restrictions, with a speech that described bureaucrats as "liars", judges as "corrupt" and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) as "the most terrorist organisation". She also said there was no need to wear masks at a time they were mandatory in numerous settings in Victoria. "This is gaslighting," she said. "This is abusive behaviour. This is not on and we will call them out and if these judges are going to be corrupt we will call the judges on it. "We will keep calling them all out until there's a revolution on the streets and if we need to shed blood for peace, then so be it." Ms Teffaha was previously a senior lawyer with the Australian Taxation Office but left after lodging a whistleblower complaint and subsequently sued the ATO. She said she has more than 2000 clients, each of whom must give a minimum upfront payment of $250. The money was being held in a trust, she said, and she had not yet paid herself for her work. However, she said she was not required to hold in trust monies donated by people who had not signed a costs agreement. Ms Teffaha has drawn the attention of anti-scamming activists including "Lucky Lance" Simon, a convicted criminal-cum-comedian married to Melbourne gangland lawyer Zarah Garde-Wilson, whose early scepticism about some coronavirus claims has been replaced by a crusade against those who seek to profit from it. Mr Simon started by skewering anti-coronavirus groups. He has also targeted libertarian Facebook group Reignite Democracy Australia and right-wing activist Avi Yemeni, who has raised $100,000 through crowdfunding for a constitutional challenge against the lockdown. He encouraged his followers to report Mr Yemeni to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for deceptive and misleading conduct. No action has been taken against Mr Yemeni regarding his fundraising. Mr Simon said he had been contacted by many people who had donated to Ms Teffaha's class action and were concerned that nothing had happened yet. The rally footage has been sent to the Victorian Legal Services Board. "Nothing she says makes sense, but she's a champion of the people because she's a lawyer," he said. "If someone like Serene Teffaha calls lawyers corrupt, people believe her and there's a huge attitude in society that the judges are all against us and I don't think that's helpful." The Legal Services Board is prevented under the legislation from confirming whether a complaint has been received. Ms Teffaha said she planned to file the "detention towers" class action followed by the national class action and a COVID-19 vaccine challenge once it had been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. She said her use of the term "blood on the streets" was not meant to be taken literally, but referred to the expression coined by Baron Rothschild and intended as a plea for people to go against the crowd. "My speech was a protest speech and was impassioned, which is not my usual demeanour," she said. "I was not referring to all judges as corrupt but specifically the Family Court of Australia has many corruption issues with people taking children and forcing them to go with the perpetrator parent -- I am doing an action on that." [GN] [*] Brownstein Hyatt Discusses COBRA-Related Litigation Trend ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemary Becchi, Esq. -- rbecchi@bhfs.com -- Christopher Humes, Esq. -- chumes@bhfs.com -- William Nobriga, Esq. -- wnobriga@bhfs.com -- Adam Segal, Esq., and Nancy Strelau, Esq., of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, in an article for JDSupra, report that over the past two years, there has been a steady uptick of class action litigation alledging deficiencies in the notices that employers are required to provide under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended ("COBRA"), to inform individuals of their right to elect health care continuation coverage following the occurrence of certain events resulting in the loss of coverage under their employer's group health plan. Employees have brought these class action lawsuits against employers, plan administrators and third-party administrators. These lawsuits all center on allegations that the COBRA election notices do not meet the applicable legal requirements and deviate from the model COBRA form provided by the U.S. Department of Labor. In some instances, plaintiffs argue that such deficiencies and deviations confused and misled them to such an extent that they failed to elect to continue their health coverage. Additionally, plaintiffs have brought these lawsuits as class actions, seeking the maximum statutory fine of $110 per participant per day that the deficient notice went uncorrected. This leads to plaintiffs requesting substantial sums from the above-referenced defendants. COBRA Election Notice Requirements These lawsuits have centered on the required COBRA election notices. COBRA election notices must contain, under federal regulations, numerous pieces of information, including, but not limited to: * identification of a qualifying event that triggers the ability to continue coverage; * identification of beneficiaries who are eligible to continue coverage; * an explanation of the plan procedures to continue coverage; * an explanation of the consequences of failing to continue coverage; * a description of the cost of the payment required to continue coverage; and * a description of the due date of the payment to continue coverage, etc. DOL Model COBRA Notice. The U.S. Department of Labor created, and has periodically updated, a model COBRA notice, which is intended to help plans comply with the COBRA notice requirements under the applicable regulations. The model COBRA election notice is not perfect for every plan and most group health plans add additional information to the model notice in order to reflect the idiosyncracies of the specific plan. Deviation from the model notice, however, may create liability to plans and lead to lawsuits based upon allegedly deficient COBRA notices. Thus, choosing to deviate from the COBRA model or choosing to strictly use the model is a double-edged sword -- sticking too closely to the model could lead to plan-specific information being omitted from participants, and deviating too far from the model could lead to omitting standardized language that includes necessary information required by the regulations. Plaintiffs' lawyers have picked up on these difficulties and have brought suits over allegedly deficient COBRA notices. How We Are Uniquely Positioned to Help Clients Mitigate the Possibility of Lawsuits or Defend Against Such Lawsuits Given the apparent increasing number of class action lawsuits involving COBRA notices, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP's legal team can assist in mitigating the possibility of these lawsuits and, if needed, defend against such lawsuits. Our legal team can help in the following ways: 1. Review of COBRA Notices: Our team can review plan administrators' COBRA notices to ensure that they comply with the statutes and regulations governing the notice requirements. Our team can assist in perfecting these notices, which will reduce the chances that the plan and its administrators will be liable for any COBRA violations, which could, in turn, lessen the likelihood of a lawsuit being brought. 2. Review of Third-Party Administrator Contracts: Many third-party administrator contracts, including COBRA administrator contracts, include indemnification clauses for the plan. Our team has determined that, in many instances, plaintiffs attempt to sue the plan, even though the plan uses a third-party administrator to send out COBRA notices. Our team can review your third-party administration contracts to ensure that the contract properly indemnifies the plan and plan sponsor for the actions of the third-party administrator. 3. Litigation Defense: While we believe the best defense is addressing compliance issues before any lawsuit is ever filed, it sometimes fails to prevent a lawsuit—especially where the goal is to achieve a settlement amount. Our team of litigators can assist in negotiating settlements and, when necessary, defending your plan against allegations of deficient COBRA notices. We have successfully litigated a variety of cases involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and related regulations. 4. Mitigation: Our team includes public policy experts who can provide strategic advice on seeking input from policymakers, including the U.S. Department of Labor, and other experts on what is adequate notice under COBRA. This guidance will help to mitigate plaintiffs' claims and may include an amicus brief, sub-regulatory or informal guidance. 5. Addressing Ongoing Administration Issues: Our team members are trusted advisors and regularly counsel clients on the complexities of COBRA administration, including when the third-party administrator seeks guidance from the employer. We expect COBRA administration to become more complex over the next few years as group health plans navigate the future termination of the temporary extension of certain time frames and deadlines for participant actions during the COVID‑19 national emergency. (For more information about the COVID-19-related extensions, see our May 6, 2020 Client Alert.) [GN] [*] Central District Court Dismisses Several ASL Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Peggy Sharon and Keren Marco, in an article for International Law Office, report that in August 2020 the Central District Court dismissed several requests for the certification of various class actions which had been filed against different airlines on the basis that statutory damages under the Israeli Aviation Services Law (ASL) (Compensation and Assistance for Flight Cancellation or Change of Conditions) 2012(1) cannot be claimed in class actions. In all of the class action requests, similar responses were raised by the airlines. The main argument was that according to the Class Action Law 2016, the court cannot award compensation where proof of damage is not required. Preliminary motions In some of the cases, the airlines filed a preliminary motion to dismiss the certification motion prior to filing a response to the merits. In some cases, this preliminary argument was raised within the response. Due to the similarity of all of the cases, which were dealt with by the same judge, it was decided that this preliminary issue would be heard at the first stage. The court stated that as a general rule in class action proceedings, preliminary arguments should not be dealt with in a separate motion for dismissal of the claim, but rather within the certification motion stage (which by its nature is a preliminary stage). However, there are exceptions to this rule - which have been established by the courts in previous cases - such as unique and extreme cases in which it is clear that there is no basis for the certification motion. The judge stated that in her opinion, the nature of these arguments fell within the above exception. Applicants' arguments The applicants in the various proceedings argued that although the first addendum to the ASL sets a fixed amount of damages for cancelled flights based on the length of the flight in kilometres, this should not be considered as being neither exemplary compensation nor compensation without proof of damage, and the language of the provision does not explicitly use these terms. Therefore, the court may award the fixed compensation set by the ASL in the framework of a class action. The applicants further argued that the certification motion is also based on other causes of action, such as tort law or the Consumer Protection Law; hence, there is no basis to dismiss in limine. Airlines' arguments The main argument raised by the airlines in all of the proceedings was that according to Clause 20(e) of the Class Action Law, it is not possible to claim the statutory compensation set by the ASL in case of a cancelled flight. Clause 20(e) of the Class Action Law provides that the court "will not award in a Class Action exemplary damages and will not award compensation without proof of damage". Several airlines also argued that it is not possible to base the certification motions on other causes of action (eg, tort or contract) due to the exclusive cause of action set by the Montreal Convention and the Carriage by Air Law 1980. Decision The court dismissed all of the actions which sought the statutory compensation. The judge accepted the airlines' arguments that the compensation according to the first addendum (according to Clauses 5(b) 6(a)(3) and 8(b)(1) of the ASL (the fixed compensation)) is considered compensation without proof of damage, which cannot be awarded in the framework of class action proceedings. It was further determined that although not specifically stated in the ASL, this is a form of compensation which does not require proof of damage, a principle deriving from the wording of the clauses. Any claimant can file: * a personal claim seeking fixed damages without proving that they have sustained any damage; or * a claim whereby a group of claimants join a class action which, under the Class Actions Law, requires proof of damage. Hence, fixed damages are not suitable for class actions. This principle was applied via various laws which provide for fixed damages without proof of damage, such as the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Public and Entertainment Places Law 2000. In a previous class action proceeding (Dahan), another district court judge reached a similar conclusion.(3) In Dahan the court stated that the fixed compensation under the ASL for a cancelled flight is statutory compensation. Passengers are entitled to this compensation without needing to prove actual damage. Therefore, it is compensation without proving damage. As to the applicants' argument on other causes of action, such as tort (negligence or breach of statutory duty) or unlawful enrichment, the court stated that in view of the exclusive cause of action provided by the Carriage by Air Law 1980,(4) parties cannot file a claim against a carrier based on causes of action which are not based on the ASL under the circumstances in which the Montreal Convention applies. An appeal to the Supreme Court was filed in some of the proceedings and is still pending. For further information on this topic please contact Peggy Sharon or Keren Marco at Levitan, Sharon & Co by telephone (+972 3 688 6768) or email (peggysh@levitansharon.co.il or kerenm@levitansharon.co.il). The Levitan, Sharon & Co website can be accessed at www.israelinsurancelaw.com. [GN] [*] Krieg DeVault Discusses Class Action Waiver, Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott S. Morrisson, Esq., and Alexander L. Mounts, Esq., of Krieg DeVault, in an article for Lexology, report that is it time you consider amending your plan document to provide a waiver of class actions and mandatory arbitration? We first visited this issue one year ago after a 2019 federal court decision approved use of class action waiver and mandatory arbitration provisions as a means to reduce potential exposure to fiduciary breach and related claim litigation. The law has evolved since that time, and thus we revisit the issue. In short, a no class action provision requires participants to litigate fiduciary breach claims on an individual basis, and generally limits damage claims to just the plaintiff-participants' individual accounts or claims. Mandatory arbitration clauses are exactly that, -- prohibit participants from filing lawsuits in court, and rather require arbitration, such as with the AAA. Most agreements couple these provisions together, but it is not necessary. A plan can provide for one or the other, or both. Such provisions can be added to many types of plans, including ESOPs and 401(k) plans. Under current law there is now little disagreement that a plan can enforce class action waiver and mandatory arbitration provisions if written into the plan from its inception. However, much of the litigation in 2020 instead focused on whether these provisions were enforceable following a plan amendment. Generally speaking, to enforce this plan amendment it is necessary to show that the participant was aware of and showed consent to the amended provision. For instance, did the participant have notice that the plan was amended, and did the participant continue employment after the plan was amended, so that the participant manifested agreement by continuing his or employment? The courts have recently allowed or disallowed enforcement of class action waivers or mandatory arbitration provisions in the following scenarios: * Arbitration clause added to plan after participant left employment and cashed out of plan. (No). * Arbitration clause added to the plan after participant left employment, but participant remained in plan. (No). * Arbitration clause added to the plan when participant was a current employee, but no notice of the plan amendment was provided to employee. (Pending and thus undecided). * Arbitration clause added to plan when participant was a current employee and participant had notice of it and continued employment. (Yes). These types of cases continue to work their way through the courts, and courts may further limit or expand enforceability of these provisions in the future. ERISA generally allows an employer to amend a plan at any time. Plaintiff's counsel has objected to class action waivers or mandatory arbitration, arguing that ERISA prohibits such waivers, but with only limited success. As a result, under the concept "you get what you ask for," some plaintiffs' counsel have filed mass individual arbitration demands against employers, literally hundreds of demands, flooding am employer with mandatory arbitration of hundreds of claims given the mandatory arbitration provision. The pros and cons to arbitration are well recognized, -- no appeal, conflicting decisions, questionable adherence to governing law, etc. The pros and cons to a class action waiver are more obvious, -- and in some instances an employer may actually want a class action determination to prohibit similar repetitive claims. Yet the benefits of class action waiver and arbitration provisions are many, and thus plans should consider amendments along these lines. We are happy to discuss the pros and cons of this approach for your plan. [GN] [*] New York State Legislature Introduces Standalone BIPA Bill -------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ahlering, Esq. Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Paul Yovanic Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the New York state legislature recently introduced a standalone biometric information privacy bill, AB 27, that mirrors Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS § 14/1 et seq., "BIPA"), which has spawned thousands of class actions in the Land of Lincoln. If enacted, The New York bill would become only the second biometric privacy act in the United States to provide a private right of action and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees for successful litigants. This represents a significant development for companies and employers operating in New York in light of the explosion of class action litigation over workplace privacy issues. Details Of New York's Proposed Legislation What can otherwise be characterized as BIPA 2.0, New York proposed and introduced its own "Biometric Privacy Act" on January 6, 2021. New York's proposed "Biometric Privacy Act" is a carbon copy of the Illinois BIPA, including identical definitions of both biometric identifiers and biometric information. The proposed law prohibits private entities from capturing, collecting, or storing a person's biometrics without first implementing a policy and obtaining written consent. Most notably, the proposed bill provides for identical remedies to BIPA, whereas an aggrieved person under the proposed bill will be afforded a private right of action with the ability to recover $1,000 for each negligent violation, $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Implications For Companies Companies that are already familiar with the Illinois BIPA are undoubtedly aware of the risks that the proposed New York biometric privacy bill poses. While the BIPA was enacted in 2010, Illinois has seen an explosion in class action litigation over the past few years brought by employees and consumers alleging that their biometric data was improperly collected for timekeeping, security, and consumer transactions. In fact, between 2015 and 2020 alone, there were over 1,000 Illinois BIPA class action complaints filed across the United States, with additional new filings continuing to be initiated every day. It remains to be seen if New York's biometric privacy bill will pass as drafted. However, if enacted as it is currently drafted, companies in New York can also expect to face an onslaught of biometric privacy litigation. Compliance is key, and there no better time to think about your company's biometric privacy compliance than right now. Companies with New York operations that are utilizing anything that could be considered biometrics, for any reason, should consider audit their practices, policies, and procedures to avoid potentially costly exposure in the event that the bill ultimately passed. Businesses with compliance questions should contact a member of Seyfarth Shaw's Biometric Privacy Compliance & Litigation Practice Group. While this proposed bill is only days old, we will provide immediate updates on its progress when available. [GN] [*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Workplace Class Action Trends --------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in the Law firm's continuing coverage of the top trends found in Seyfarth's 2021 Workplace Class Action Litigation Report, in 2020, government enforcement litigation slowed considerably. Although the value of government enforcement settlements went up, agencies like the EEOC downsized their litigation enforcement programs and brought fewer lawsuits in 2020 than in any year of the past decade. Most significant for employers, during the past year, the EEOC undertook multiple initiatives that reflected a shift away from systemic litigation as a priority. During 2020 employers saw significant shifts in the EEOC's enforcement agenda, including a notable shift away from litigation as a one-size-fits-all tool for combatting workplace discrimination. As the EEOC's enforcement agenda shifted, employers experienced a marked decrease in federal complaints and a marked increase in settlements as the EEOC sought to wind down its litigation docket. These shifts likely resulted from the pro-business stance of the Trump Administration. The EEOC saw considerable leadership turnover at the top as Trump's nominees for Commissioner slots were finally confirmed on May 3, 2019 (Janet Dhillon, Chair) and September 22, 2020 (Keith Sonderling, Vice Chair, and Andrea Lucas, Commissioner). Prior to September 2020, the EEOC's leadership consisted of only three of five Commissioners, including Janet Dhillon, Chair (Republican), Vicki Lipnic (Republican), and Charlotte Burrows (Democrat). Commissioner Lipnic's term technically expired in July 2020, but she was allowed to stay on through September 2020 so that the Commission would have a quorum and could operate. On September 22, 2020, the Senate confirmed three new Commissioners, two Republicans and one Democrat, for the two vacant seats and the seat formerly held by Lipnic. The Commission must remain bipartisan by law, but these new additions solidified a Republican majority at least until July 2022 when Dhillon's term expires, despite the result of the 2020 election in flipping the White House from red to blue. The total number of new lawsuits filed by the EEOC decreased significantly during 2020. The EEOC filed 94 merits lawsuits and seven subpoena enforcement actions, a stark decline compared to the 144 merits lawsuits and eight subpoena enforcement actions filed during 2019. This represented a 35% reduction in total actions commenced by the Commission year over year. Despite the shift in administrations, employers can expect that the EEOC's majority-Republican leadership will continue to curtail litigation efforts in 2021. Although the numbers declined, when considered on a percentage basis, the distribution of cases filed in terms of their theories of liability remained largely consistent compared to 2019. Title VII and ADA cases once again comprised the majority of cases filed by the Commission, suggesting that enforcement priorities did not shift dramatically and remained fairly consistent under the Trump Administration. This past year marked the fourth year of the EEOC's 2017-2021 Strategic Enforcement Plan ("SEP"), which guides enforcement activity. The six enforcement priorities set forth in the SEP include: (1) the elimination of systemic barriers in recruitment and hiring; (2) protection of immigrant, migrant, and other vulnerable workers; (3) addressing emerging and developing issues; (4) enforcing equal pay laws; (5) preserving access to the legal system; and (6) preventing harassment through systemic enforcement and targeted outreach. The Commission maintains discretion to interpret and pursue these priorities as it deems appropriate. Although the SEP defined priorities, they are broad and apply to an expansive landscape of issues. For example, the EEOC consistently has focused on the protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals over the past several years as an emerging and developing issue in the workplace. The EEOC's efforts in this area resulted in a body of case law across jurisdictions, culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in R.G. & G.R. Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC & Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against gay or transgender employees as a form of sex discrimination. The 6-3 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch represented a significant victory for the EEOC during 2020. Additionally, during 2020, employers saw a flurry of activity at the EEOC relative to its internal practices and procedures, with the Commission pushing to meet objectives prior to the change in administrations on January 20, 2021. Notably, the EEOC made strides to shift its internal decision-making authority, update its conciliation and mediation procedures, and voluntarily scale back some of its authority. First, on March 10, 2020, the EEOC released information about a significant internal resolution that reassigned authority for certain high-stakes litigation decisions within the Commission. The resolution reined in many of the powers previously held by the EEOC's General Counsel and, in turn, the Commission's various Regional Attorneys, who historically have wielded considerable discretion over the types of lawsuits that they file and the legal positions that they advance. Under the new resolution, the Commissioners -- and not the General Counsel (or Regional Attorneys) -- will make key litigation decisions concerning systemic litigation and various other matters. According to the resolution, the Commissioners now have exclusive authority over the following: -- Cases involving an allegation of systemic discrimination or a pattern or practice of discrimination; -- Cases expected to involve a major expenditure of agency resources, including staffing and staff time, or expenses associated with extensive discovery or expert witnesses; Cases presenting issues on which the Commission has taken a position contrary to precedent in the Circuit in which the case will be filed; -- Cases presenting issues on which the General Counsel proposes to take a position contrary to precedent in the Circuit in which the case will be filed; -- Other cases reasonably believed to be appropriate for Commission approval in the judgment of the General Counsel. This category includes, but is not limited to, cases that implicate areas of the law that are not settled and cases that are likely to generate public controversy; -- All recommendations in favor of Commission participation as amicus curiae; and -- A minimum of one litigation recommendation from each District Office each fiscal year, including litigation recommendations based on the above criteria. Even with respect to those cases that do not raise the issues enumerated above, the General Counsel is now obligated to communicate about more garden variety cases with the Chair and, at the Chair's request, shall consult with the Chair to decide whether those cases should be brought before the Commissioners for a vote. If the Chair does not advise the General Counsel within five business days as to whether a particular case must be submitted to the Commissioners for a vote, the General Counsel retains authority to proceed with a lawsuit on her own initiative. These changes represent a stunning reduction in the General Counsel's discretion. For many years, the General Counsel and attorneys in the field appeared to exercise broad control over the types of cases the EEOC would file, the theories of law that it would pursue, and the litigation tactics that it would employ. Because the General Counsel was encouraged to delegate that authority to Regional Attorneys across the country, the result was a sometimes fragmented, district-by-district approach to EEOC enforcement litigation. Second, on July 7, 2020, the EEOC issued a press release announcing two new six-month pilot programs aimed at increasing voluntary resolutions of discrimination charges via changes to its conciliation and mediation programs. Then, on October 8, 2020, the EEOC released the specifics of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") seeking to make additional changes to the conciliation process. In its NPRM, the EEOC acknowledged that, historically, it elected not to adopt detailed regulations relative to its conciliation efforts based on its belief that retaining flexibility over the conciliation process would "more effectively accomplish its goal of preventing and remediating employment discrimination. Although the Commission's NPRM makes clear that the Commission still believes that it is important to maintain a flexible approach to conciliation, it also acknowledged that, over the last several years, its conciliation efforts resolved less than half of the charges where a reasonable cause finding was made. Specifically, between fiscal years 2016 and 2019, only 41.23% of the EEOC's conciliations with employers were successful. Third, on September 3, 2020, the EEOC issued a rare opinion letter regarding the Commission's interpretation and enforcement of § 707(a) of Title VII, which authorizes the EEOC to sue employers engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination. The opinion letter addressed two seemingly technical questions, including: (1) whether a pattern or practice claim under § 707(a) requires allegations of violations of § 703 or § 704 of Title VII; and (2) whether the EEOC must satisfy pre-suit requirements such as conciliation before it can bring a § 707 case. In a lengthy discussion, the EEOC ultimately concluded that the answer to both questions is "yes." Notably, the Commission's letter first acknowledged that "[t]he Commission, like all agencies, is a ‘creature of statute' that only has the authority that Congress has given it . . . Therefore, in performing its duties, the Commission must follow the statutory language that Congress has provided." This language signals a new approach from the Commission that voluntarily limits the EEOC's authority, particularly relative to claims in pattern or practice suits to only concrete allegations of discrimination. Fourth, on November 2, 2020, the EEOC held its first public meeting of FY 2021 to consider a proposed memorandum of understanding ("MOU") between the EEOC, the Department of Labor ("DOL"), and the Department of Justice ("DOJ") aimed at recommitting to collaboration between the agencies and coordinating efforts to protect civil rights in the workplace. Key provisions of the MOU included strengthening procedures for coordination between the three agencies at the field and headquarters levels, including discussions on enforcement priorities and coordinating on issues like religious liberty, conscious protections, and novel or unique issues and bringing greater efficiencies to the investigation process. Collectively, these changes represent a significant shift in the EEOC's philosophy and practice toward a curtailment of its own powers and a shift away from using litigation as the blunt-force instrument of choice. These changes are apt to influence the Commission's approach into 2021 and beyond. Although the EEOC's total litigation filings for 2020 reflected a marked decline, the Commission's "Agency Financial Report" ("AFR"), which was released in November 2020, touted a surge in recoveries on behalf of employees. The AFR provided a snapshot of FY 2020 performance highlights, including the following: During FY 2020, the EEOC recovered a record amount of $535.4 million on behalf of alleged discrimination victims. By comparison, the EEOC recovered approximately $486 million in FY 2019; approximately $505 million in FY 2018; and approximately $484 million in FY 2017. The amount recovered through mediation, conciliation, and settlement dropped from $354 million in FY 2019 to $333.2 million in FY 2020. Conversely, litigation recoveries increased from $39.1 million in FY 2019 to $106 million in FY 2020, the highest in 16 years. The EEOC credits this surge in litigation recovery to its resolution of 165 lawsuits in FY 2020 and stated that it achieved "favorable results" in approximately 96% of its court resolutions. The Commission reported a reduction of the inventory of pending private sector charges by 3.7% - to 41,951 charges -- that now represents the lowest inventory of charges in 14 years. Further, national origin discrimination has continued to become an increasingly large part of the EEOC's enforcement agenda. The EEOC has expressed in a number of places that it is concerned about the impact that global phenomena can have on worker relations in the United States. Historically, those concerns have been focused on how global terrorism and unrest in the Middle East could lead to discrimination against Muslim or Sikh employees or those of Middle Eastern or South Asian descent, or how illegal immigration issues could give rise to discrimination against Mexican or South and Central American workers. The COVID-19 pandemic could change this focus somewhat moving forward, as the outbreak of a deadly pandemic that had its origin in China has given rise to increased concerns about national origin discrimination against Asian Americans, as cautioned by EEOC Chair Dhillon in a statement issued early during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the DOL front, like many agencies, its agenda this year was occupied with issues relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The DOL was busy enforcing and issuing guidance on implementation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, with the Wage & Hour Division consistently updating FAQ guidance on the Act. The DOL also issued final "temporary" regulations interpreting the FCRA. Despite the COVID-19 detour, the DOL accomplished many of its other objectives prior to the 2020 election. The agency announced new joint employer and independent contractor rules, discussed above; issued a final rule that allows employers to pay bonuses or other incentive-based pay to salaried, non-exempt employees whose hours vary from week to week; issued joint guidance with the IRS providing that insurers can allow the newly jobless to sign up for a coverage extension known as the COBRA, at any time up to 60 days after the national emergency declaration for COVID-19 is lifted; and announced it would no longer seek "double damages" in FLSA actions where there is no clear evidence of bad faith and willfulness or where the employer has no prior history of violations. Finally, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") continued its trend toward more conservative views of labor laws in 2020. It ruled that an employer may discipline workers for making profane, abusive, or offensive statements, so long as the employer's action is not based on specific anti-union animus, reinstating the previously-reversed Wright Line analysis, and it issued a final rule providing that an entity may be considered a joint employer of a separate employer's employees only if the two share or co-determine employees' essential terms and conditions of employment, which are exclusively defined as wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction. Employers can anticipate, however, that 2021 will look markedly different, as the Biden Administration has reiterated that supporting organized labor will sit atop of the agenda. The Board is currently operating with a vacant seat with a term running through August 2023, and the General Counsel's term expires in one year. Before any significant change can happen at the NLRB, the Biden Administration will need to fill the two open seats, necessitating additional changes in leadership. [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 ***