/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210122.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, January 22, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 11
Headlines
360 GLOBAL: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Arroyo Suit Claims
ABA NOUB: Warren Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Pharmacy Staff
ABBVIE INC: Faces Baker Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ALABAMA: Thompson Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 11th Cir.
ALEXA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Pay, Claybern Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces E-Books Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit
APTIM SERVICES: Underpays Deputy Waste Managers, Hurlocker Says
AR RESOURCES: Sadon Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Chupa Seeks Initial OK of $3.75MM Settlement
ATX COCINA: Faces Gordon Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
AUSTRALIA: Robo-Debt Class Action Settled in November 2020
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over EDD Card Fraud
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Secure Systems and Controls, Yick Says
BAYLOR SCOTT: Class Certification Filing Deadline Set for July 30
BLACK DIAMOND: Alsaadi Files Tort Class Suit in California
BNSF RAILWAY: Macias, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
BNSF RAILWAY: Resolution Needed After Class Cert. Filing, Suit Says
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Underpays Porters, Binder Suit Claims
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Data Breach Suit Could Cost Billions in Settlement
BROWN UNIVERSITY: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Cohen Civil Rights Suit
BT GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Landline Overcharges
BUFFALO BILLS: Cheerleader's Unequal Pay Class Suit Pending
BUSINESS LISTING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Horowitz Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
CALIFORNIA: Tatoma Inc. Files Civil Rights Suit
CD PROJEKT: Faces Hain Suit Over Decline in Share Price
CENTURA HEALTH: Agardy Files ADA Suit in Colorado
CERNER CORP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
CHAMBERLAIN UNIVERSITY: Dean Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
CHENAULT CONSULTING: Martinez Has Until Apr. 19 to File Class Cert.
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Court Consolidates 4 Insurance Coverage Suits
CLEVELAND CLINIC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Deceptive Billing Class Suit
CONDUENT EDUCATION: Chery Seeks Student Loan Borrowers Class Status
CONSECO LIFE: Settles Life Insurance Class Action for $27 Million
COWORX STAFFING: Webber Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
CREDIT CORP: Faces Duran Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection E-mail
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Sanchez Sues Over 60% Drop in Share Price
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Schall Law Reminds of March 16 Deadline
ELITE MEDICAL: Williams Sues Over Biometrics Data Collection
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Hubert Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Perez Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
FABER & BRAND: Turner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
FLORIDA: Brown Appeals Ruling in Prisoner Suit to 11th Circuit
FONTANA & FONTANA: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
FRITO-LAY INC: Lopez Sues Over Warehouse Staff's Unpaid Wages
GENERAL MOTORS: Jackson Sues Over Defective Vehicle Airbag Systems
GENUINE PARTS: Class Certification Filing Deadline Set for May 17
GOOGLE LLC: May Be added to Child Labour Class Action in Mines
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Police Retirement System Seeks Class Status
GREENWICH LOGISTICS: Romero FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Parker Losses MDOC Prisoners Class Certification
HIRERIGHT INC: Zielinski FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
HOME DEPOT: Class Certification Filing Deadline Set for May 14
HOME DEPOT: June 28 Extension of Class Cert. Filing Deadline Sought
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Garrett Alleges WARN Act Violation Over Layoffs
HOWARD FROERLICHER: Class Action Dismissed Against Protesters
IRON SUSHI: Hutapea et al. Seek Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Overtime
JACK LONDON: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Whitaker Suit Says
JHS CONSTRUCTION: Taylor Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
JR SUSHI: Yi Mei Ke Labor Suit Wins Restaurant Staff Class Status
JUICE SUPPLY: Cunningham Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LIBERTY CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
LOUISVILLE METRO: Bid to Certify Class in Healey Suit Partly OK'd
MANNA PRO: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Continued to May 28
MARSHALLS OF CA: Faces Lacour Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
MELTECH INC: Eight Circuit Appeal Filed in Grove FLSA Suit
MRS BPO: Skvarla FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
MYLAN INC: Bid to Dismiss EpiPen-Related Suit Junked
NAPW INC: Court Denies Summary Judgment Pending Class Cert. Ruling
NETWORK CAPITAL: Stewart Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
PENUMBRA INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
PERFORMANCE PIPELINING: Beal Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
QBE INSURANCE: Expands COVID-19 Loss Provisions Amid Class Lawsuit
QIWI PLC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of March 8 Deadline
RAYKELL FOOD: Medina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Faces Blaise FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
REVERA INC: Still Reviewing COVID-19 Outbreak Class Action
RLJ HGN: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Whitaker Suit Alleges
SAGESTREAM LLC: Ikunika Has Until April 26 to File Class Cert. Bid
SAN DIEGO, CA: Restaurant Owners Join COVID-19 Class Action
SAVE MART: McDaniel Employment Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Court
SCATTER LAB: Faces Privacy Class Action Suit Over Chatbot Service
SIMS GROUP: Court Vacates Case Management Conference in Sanft Suit
SOLARWINDS CORP: Klein Law Firm Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SOLARWINDS CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 5 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
STANDARD HIGH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Nettle Suit Alleges
TIGER SAFETY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Allen Suit Alleges
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Snarr FDCPA Suit Removed to District of Utah
TURQUOISE HILL: Pentwater Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
UNITED AIRLINES: Two Class Actions Over Union Fees Pending
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Missouri River Flooding
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Olukayode Seeks to Certify Three Classes
V&S CLEANING: Faces Chan Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
WILKINS INVESTMENT: Loftus Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ZAGG INC: Nikoughadem Challenges Proposed Sale to Evercel
ZECHSAN BUSINESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Chu Claims
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justice Dept. Issues Statement in Bestwall Case
*********
360 GLOBAL: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Arroyo Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Arroyo v. 360 Global Venture Group, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:21-cv-00013-NC (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 4, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated, alleging the Defendant's violations of
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by, inter alia, failing to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to its
reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide on the
hotel's reservation Website that would permit Plaintiff to
determine if there are rooms that would work for people with
physical disabilities like him.
As a result of the Defendants' failure to comply with its ADA
obligations, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking
of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether
the room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Mr. Arroyo is a California resident with physical disabilities who
is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He is a paraplegic
and uses a wheelchair for mobility.
360 Global Venture Group, LLC is a California limited liability
company that owns and operates the Wyndham Garden San Jose Silicon
Valley located at 399 Silicon Valley Blvd. in San Jose,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
ABA NOUB: Warren Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Pharmacy Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY WARREN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ABA NOUB, LTD. d/b/a JOSEPH PHARMACY, AVA KIRELLOUS
LTD. d/b/a WELLNESS PHARMACY, SHERIF ELTAHAWY and LIZETTE ELTAHAWY,
Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-00365 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14,
2021) arises from the Defendants alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
provide overtime premium pay and furnish proper wage notices or
wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked as the vice president of pharmacy operations
and a pharmacy technician at Defendants' pharmacies in the Upper
West Side neighborhood of Manhattan.
The Corporate Defendants are New York-based retail pharmacy
companies that operate together as a single business enterprise
utilizing the same practices and policies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
Alison L. Mangiatordi, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
mangiatordi@peltongraham.com
ABBVIE INC: Faces Baker Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
ABBVIE INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00069 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 5, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by delivering more than one advertisement or
marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers
registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry without the prior
express invitation or permission required by the law.
AbbVie Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company that acquired
Allergan plc in May 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 322-3912
E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
ALABAMA: Thompson Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 11th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Treva Thompson, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled TREVA THOMPSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. JOHN H. MERRILL, etc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00783-ECM-SMD, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief on Sept. 26, 2016, and a supplemental, amended complaint on
March 1, 2018. After rulings on motions to dismiss, the case is
proceeding on several claims, and the Plaintiffs have sought class
certification as to some of those claims.
Specifically, Plaintiffs Darius Gamble, Thompson, Timothy Lanier,
and Pamela King seek to represent a class pursuant to counts 1, 2,
and 12 of the complaint as follows: All persons otherwise eligible
to register to vote in Alabama who are now, or who may in the
future be, denied the right to vote pursuant to Section 177(b)
because of conviction for a felony involving moral turpitude as
defined by section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1.
Named Plaintiffs Gamble, Thompson, Lanier, and King also seek to
represent a subclass relevant to the Ex Post Facto claim in count
11 and the Due Process claims in counts 16 and 17 as follows: All
persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama who were
convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude as defined by
section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1 before Aug. 1, 2017
but are unable to register to vote pursuant to Defendant Merrill's
retroactive implementation of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30-1 to
individuals with prior convictions.
The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal for review of the Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Final Judgment dated December 3,
2020, denying Defendants' motion to exclude, granting in part and
denying in part their motion to exclude, sustaining in part and
overruling in part Defendants' evidentiary objections, granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, denying their motion for
partial summary judgment, and denying as moot their motion to
clarify and continue. The Court's final judgment was entered
against the Plaintiffs and in favor of the Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned as Treva Thompson, et al. v.
Secretary of State for the State of Alabama, et al., Case No.
21-10034, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, Jan. 5, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- The appellant's brief is due on or before February 16, 2021;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on
January 19, 2021 as to Appellant Darius Gamble; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before February 2, 2021 as to Appellee Leigh Gwathney.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TREVA THOMPSON, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated; TIMOTHY LANIER, individually and
behalf of all others similarly situated; PAMELA KING; GREATER
BIRMINGHAM MINISTRIES; and DARIUS GAMBLE are represented by:
Jessica Ring Amunson, Esq.
Michael E. Stewart, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK, LLP
1099 New York Ave NW Ste 900
Washington, DC 20001-4412
Telephone: (202) 639-6000
E-mail: jamunson@jenner.com
- and -
James Uriah Blacksher, Esq.
JAMES U. BLACKSHER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
825 Linwood Rd
Birmingham, AL 35222-4432
Telephone: (205) 591-7238
E-mail: jblacksher@ns.sympatico.ca
- and -
Molly Danahy, Esq.
Jonathan Diaz, Esq.
Mark Gaber, Esq.
Joseph Gerald Hebert, Esq.
Danielle Marie Lang, Esq.
CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER
1101 14th St NW Ste 400
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 736-2200
- and -
Armand Georges Derfner, Esq.
DERFNER & ALTMAN, LLC
575 King St Ste B
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 723-9804
E-mail: aderfner@derfneraltman.com
- and -
Melissa Takara Fedornak, Esq.
Jason P. Hipp, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK, LLP
919 3rd Ave Fl 39
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 891-1600
E-mail: mfedornak@jenner.com
jhipp@jenner.com
- and -
Aderson B. Francois, Esq.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER
600 New Jersey Ave Rm 306
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (203) 887-8158
- and -
Pamela S. Karlan, Esq.
STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
Telephone: (650) 723-2892
- and -
Joseph Mitchell McGuire, Esq.
MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
31 Clayton St
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 517-1000
E-mail: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com
Defendants-Appellees SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA;
LEIGH GWATHNEY, in her official capacity as Chairman of the Board
of Pardons and Paroles; and JAMES SNIPES, III, in his official
capacity as Chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Registrars
and on behalf of a class of all voter registrars in the State of
Alabama, are represented by:
James W. Davis, Esq.
Steven Marshall, Esq.
Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Esq.
Winfield J. Sinclair, Esq.
ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
501 Washington Ave PO Box 300152
Montgomery, AL 36130
Telephone: (334) 242-7300
E-mail: jimdavis@ago.state.al.us
mmessick@ago.state.al.us
ALEXA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Pay, Claybern Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT CLAYBERN; and PAIGE JONES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALEXA ENTERPRISES, INC.;
KEVIN ELLIS; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; and JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00006-DLB-EBA (E.D. Ky., Jan. 15, 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.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as delivery drivers.
ALEXA ENTERPRISES, INC. owns and operates a pizza chain under the
brand Papa John’s Pizza. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erica F. Blankenship, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 715-8711
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
-and-
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces E-Books Price-Fixing Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
sea.pcmag.com reports that Amazon and a number of major book
publishers are facing a potentially very costly class-action
lawsuit after being accused of colluding to inflate ebook pricing
on retail platforms other than Amazon's own.
As Reuters reports, Amazon is accused of working with the five
largest US book publishers, collectively referred to a the "Big
Five," which includes Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan,
Penguin-Random House and Simon & Schuster. The lawsuit has been
brought by law firm Hagens Berman, who filed a similar lawsuit back
in 2011 against Apple and the Big Five.
In the 2011 lawsuit, Apple settled for $400 million and the Big
Five agreed to not interfere with retailers' discounts for two
years. Now Hagens Berman says Amazon has stepped in to the same
role Apple played back in 2011 while the Big Five "failed to learn
anything from the experience." The result is a collusion that has
seen the price of ebooks rise when sold though Amazon's retail
competitors, while at the same time protecting Amazon against such
increases. Consumers could be paying as much as 30 percent more for
their ebooks because of this.
"Amazon's behavior is astonishingly brazen, especially in light of
past litigation and recent government actions in the U.S. and
abroad," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.
"Time and again, Amazon's response to competition is not to compete
on a level playing field, but to try to eliminate the competition -
and that's not how things are supposed to work."
Amazon accounts for 90 percent of ebook sales according to the
lawsuit, but has declined to comment on the action being taken
against it. Seeing as Hagens Berman brought a similar class-action
lawsuit and won against Apple, it will at least have got Amazon's
and the Big Five's attention and their lawyers preparing.
Hagens Berman is hosting an Amazon E-Books Price Fixing form and is
requesting anyone who has purchased an ebook though Amazon.com to
enter their details because, "You likely overpaid due to an illegal
price-fixing scheme." [GN]
APTIM SERVICES: Underpays Deputy Waste Managers, Hurlocker Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HURLOCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APTIM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00403 (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 15, 2021) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the California Unfair Competition Law.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant violated the federal and
state laws by failing to pay wages and overtime compensation,
failing to provide compensation for missed meal and rest periods,
failing to keep accurate records regarding the rates of pay, and
failing to provide wages due and owing to the Plaintiff and Class
members upon separation from employment.
Mr. Hurlocker worked for APTIM from May 2014 until September 2019
as a deputy waste manager and was charged with monitoring the
transportation of hazardous waste from nuclear power plants for
APTIM's customers.
APTIM Services, LLC is a full-service provider of power plant
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
Melodie K. Arian, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
marian@mybackwages.com
AR RESOURCES: Sadon Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AR Resources, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Shuky Sadon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AR Resources, Inc., John
Does 1-25, Case No. 6:21-cv-00134 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
AR Resources, Inc. -- http://arresources.net/-- is a national debt
collection company that specializes in collection solutions for
business to business, consumer, property management and healthcare
debt recovery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Chupa Seeks Initial OK of $3.75MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CHUPA,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ARMSTRONG FLOORING, INC., et al., Case No. e 2:19-cv-09840-CAS-MRW
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 22,
2021, to enter an order:
1. preliminarily approving the Settlement:
-- The Settlement provides a recovery of $3,750,000 in
cash to resolve all claims in this Action;
2. holding that the manner and forms of notice satisfy due
process and providing the best notice practicable under
the circumstances, and directing that Notice be provided
to the Settlement Class;
3. setting a date for the Settlement Hearing at least 145
days after the Court grants the relief sought in this
motion;
4. appointing Strategic Claims Services as Claims
Administrator;
5. preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class; and
6. granting such other and further relief as may be required.
On November 15, 2019, this securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of investors who are now the Settlement Class.
Amstrong Flooring is a Pennsylvania corporation incorporated in
2016. It was spun off as an independent entity from Armstrong World
Industries in April 2016. On July 2, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed the
Amended Complaint, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against Armstrong Flooring
and the Individual Defendants. On August 17, 2020, the Defendants
Armstrong Flooring, McWilliams, Rice, and Vermette filed a motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On the same date, the other three
Individual Defendants each filed separate motions to dismiss the
Complaint. On October 1, 2020 Lead Plaintiff filed an omnibus
memorandum in opposition to the four separate motions to dismiss.
On November 2, 2020, the Defendants filed their respective reply
briefs. This Action was settled days prior to the scheduled hearing
on the motions to dismiss.
A copy of notice of unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
settlement dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com
at https://bit.ly/3oa9DLO at no extra charge.[CC]
Liaison Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Randy Marker, are:
Avi Wagner, Esq.
THE WAGNER FIRM
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 491-7949
Facsimile: (310) 694-3967
E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Randy Marker and Lead Counsel for
Proposed Settlement Class, are:
Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
Laurence J. Hasson, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 779-1414
Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
E-mail:bigin@bernlieb.com
lhasson@bernlieb.com
ATX COCINA: Faces Gordon Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GORDON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ATX COCINA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00055 (W.D. Tex.,
Jan. 18, 2021) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by retaining portions of employees' tips.
The complaint asserts that Mr. Gordon was employed as a waiter by
the Defendant from October of 2019 to August of 2020. Beginning in
or about May 2020, Defendant allegedly maintained a practice of
stealing some or all of the tips earned by its wait staff.
ATX Cocina, LLC operates a restaurant specializing in Mexican
cuisine in Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 474-7677
Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com
AUSTRALIA: Robo-Debt Class Action Settled in November 2020
----------------------------------------------------------
Asha Barbaschow, writing for ZDNet, reports that the federal
opposition is calling on the Coalition to take a leaf out of the
Dutch government's book and react with "integrity" over the way it
handled robo-debt.
In the Netherlands, tax officials wrongly accused thousands people
of fraud and ordered them to repay childcare benefits between 2013
and 2019. As a result, the Dutch government resigned.
The cabinet's resignation came after the publication of a
parliamentary report last month, which concluded that "fundamental
principles of the rule of law had been violated".
20,000 Dutch families were targeted with debt notices. The
Australian Labor Party has reminded the nation 470,000 Australians
were "illegally targeted" by robo-debt.
The department in 2016 kicked off the data-matching program of
work, colloquially known as robo-debt, that saw the automatic
issuing of debt notices to those in receipt of welfare payments
through the Centrelink scheme. The Centrelink Online Compliance
Intervention (OCI) program automatically compared the income
declared to the ATO against income declared to Centrelink, which
resulted in debt notices, along with a 10% recovery fee, being
issued whenever a disparity in government data was detected.
One large error in the system was that it incorrectly calculated a
recipient's income, basing fortnightly pay on their annual salary
rather than taking a cumulative 26-week snapshot of what an
individual was paid.
Centrelink's OCI program from 1 July 2016 through 31 August 2019
saw 1,159,662 assessments be initiated using the automated
data-matching technique.
The federal government in November 2019 paused the automated
data-matching element of robo-debt and in May, it admitted it got
around 470,000 debts wrong.
The federal government in November 2020 agreed to settle the class
action brought on by Gordon Legal on behalf of five representative
applicants and approximately 400,000 people who were included in
the case as group members.
The Commonwealth agreed to pay AU$112 million in compensation to
all of the eligible individual group members, including legal
costs. The Commonwealth is also repaying more than AU$720 million
in debts that Gordon Legal said was collected from group members
invalidly.
The Commonwealth has also agreed to drop claims for approximately
AU$398 million in debts that Gordon Legal said it had invalidly
asserted against group members of the class action.
"In reacting to their scandal, the Dutch government has acted with
integrity and with respect for principles of representative
democracy and parliamentary accountability. This is not just in the
resignation of the entire Cabinet, but in making publicly available
key documents that shed light on the origins of the Dutch Scheme
and where it went wrong," a statement from former opposition leader
Bill Shorten said.
"The Morrison government, by contrast, has taken a 'looking after
the boys' approach of denial and cover up."
Such cover ups, Shorten said, include that there has been no
inquiry launched into robo-debt and acceptance of "public interest
immunity" claims.
Not a single minister involved in robo-debt has resigned, either,
despite many being accused over the last few years of having
knowledge the scheme was illegal.
See more: Ministers and officials named in updated robo-debt class
action claim
While the current Dutch cabinet has resigned, opposition Labour
party leader Lodewijk Asscher also handed in his notice on Jan. 14.
Asscher was Social Affairs Minister in the previous government and
resigned because, as a minister, he said he was partly responsible
for the scandal.
Services Australia, the agency responsible for robo-debt, has
revealed 506,802 people in receipt of benefits from the Australian
government repaid debts last year.
In response to questions taken on notice during Senate Estimates in
October, Services Australia said during the period 3 April 2020 to
30 October 2020, the agency was repaid AU$373.7 million in social
welfare debts from 506,802 people.
It said in a normal year, the agency would "work" with over 1
million people in regards to their debts.
In early April, the government announced a pause on debt raising
and recovery activity to help ease pressure on people during the
coronavirus pandemic.
Throughout the debt pause no new debts were raised, Services
Australia said, except where it related to serious fraud and
non-compliance. The agency said pre-existing repayment arrangements
continued unless people sought to reduce or take a break from
repayments.
"This is consistent with the approach taken during disaster events,
and allowed people who wanted to keep paying their debt to do so if
they chose to and it could be managed within their personal
circumstances," Services Australia said.
During the same period, 331,700 people made repayments from their
income support payments. It said there were no tax garnishee
recoveries via the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) during the
nearly seven-month period. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over EDD Card Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
losangeles.cbslocal.com reports that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Bank of America alleging that it hasn't done
enough to protect unemployment accounts from fraud.
Kristine Lazar was the first to expose the massive fraud against
unemployed Californians who had their Bank of America EDD cards
drained by fraudsters.
Now a class action lawsuit has been filed against the banking giant
alleging BofA has violated the California consumer privacy act, the
electronic funds transfer act and the California unfair competition
law.
"We filed this case against Bank of America because Bank of America
has failed to protect recipients of unemployment insurance," said
attorney Brian Danitz. "This is absolutely a monopoly. Bank of
America has an exclusive contract with EDD and…has sole
responsibility for fraud claims, but they have dropped the ball big
time."
The suit also accuses BofA of not implementing basic security
measures "such as chips in the debit cards that they give out to
unemployment recipients", said Danitz.
EDD has said that chip technology was relatively new when it
entered into an exclusive contract with BofA. That contract is set
to expire this summer.
In a statement to us, BofA said:
"As California's unemployment program faces billions of dollars in
fraud, Bank of America is working every day with the state to
prevent criminals from getting money and ensuring legitimate
recipients receive their benefits."
But victims we spoke with - many of whom have had their accounts
frozen and are still waiting for a resolution - say they didn't get
their money back until they contacted us.
We have sent Bank of America dozens of cases involving compromised
EDD cards and in almost every case, they have gotten us a
resolution - even for claims they originally closed. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Secure Systems and Controls, Yick Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER YICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00376-JCS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act by failing to stop hackers from breaching Bank of
America's systems and controls, and from siphoning off millions of
dollars of California Employment Development Department (EDD)
benefits one account at a time.
Faced with the economic devastation of the Covid-19 pandemic,
millions of Californians now rely on unemployment insurance and
other benefits issued by the EDD.
According to the complaint, by failing to safeguard state benefits
from fraud, failing to detect the fraud as it was happening, and
failing so spectacularly at resolving the issues caused by these
failures, Bank of America has violated the state and federal laws;
has breached its contract with EDD cardholders; has negligently
failed to warn EDD cardholders about the risks associated with its
EDD cards and accounts; and has negligently performed its contract
with the California EDD, among other violations of law. Allegedly,
Bank of America's unlawful conduct has resulted in significant harm
to recipients of EDD benefits, depriving them of their financial
lifeline in the midst of a pandemic and full-blown economic
crisis.
Ms. Yick is a real estate professional who found herself out of
work during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves clients worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Danitz, Esq.
Noorjahan Rahman, Esq.
Andrew F. Kirtley, Esq.
Julia Q. Peng, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
nrahman@cpmlegal.com
akirtley@cpmlegal.com
jpeng@cpmlegal.com
BAYLOR SCOTT: Class Certification Filing Deadline Set for July 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.C. & L.C., individually
and as next friends to L.L.C., ET AL., v. BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE
HEALTH, ET AL., Case No. 4:18-cv-00828-SDJ (E.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Sean D. Jordan entered the following Second Amended
Preliminary Scheduling Order.
This case-specific order controls disposition of this action
pending further order of the Court. The following actions shall be
completed by the date indicated, says the Court:
DEADLINES
04/30/2021 All fact discovery related to class
certification shall be commenced in time to be
completed by this date.
05/21/2021 Disclosure of expert testimony and report
related to class certification issues, pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-
26(b) on issues for which the party bears the
burden of proof. Parties disclosing expert
testimony and reports by this deadline shall
make their expert available for deposition
within a reasonable time following disclosure.
06/30/2021 Disclosure of expert testimony and report
related to class certification issues, pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(2) and Local Rule CV-
26(b) on issues for which the party does not
bear the burden of proof. Parties disclosing
expert testimony and reports by this deadline
shall make their expert available for deposition
within a reasonable time following disclosure.
07/30/2021 Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification.
09/24/2021 Deadline for Defendants to file their opposition
to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
10/13/2021 at 10:00 a.m. Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
As the largest not-for-profit health care system in Texas and one
of the largest in the United States, Baylor Scott & White Health
includes 48 hospitals, more than 900 patient care sites, more than
6,000 active physicians, more than 40,000 employees and the Scott &
White Health Plan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qDHazp at no extra charge.[CC]
BLACK DIAMOND: Alsaadi Files Tort Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Diamond Auto
Sales, Inc. The case is captioned as Areej Alsaadi, an individual
and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Black
Diamond Auto Sales, Inc., a California Corporation, and Does 1-500,
Case No. 34-2021-00291725-CU-BT-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
Jan. 4, 2021).
The case is brought over business tort claims.
Black Diamond Auto Sales, Inc. is a California-based used car
dealer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian Otto, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF OTTO & GUILLEN, PC
2603 Camino Ramon, Ste 200
San Ramon, CA 94583-9137
Telephone: (510) 363-9981
Facsimile: (888) 458-8927
E-mail: info@ottoguillenlaw.com
BNSF RAILWAY: Macias, et al., Seek to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA MACIAS, et al., v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02305-TC-GEB (D.
Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the following two classes:
a. Total Area at Issue: Any and/or all owner/occupants,
renters, and/or residents of residential property in the
north that is south of the BNSF Argentine Railyard at any
point between June 1, 2016 and the present; any potential
southern boundary, upon information and belief, extends
along the low lying ground and contours of the typography
of the Argentine Area flowing from bluffs and hills in the
South to North beginning at approximately five-hundred
feet south of Strong Avenue in the Argentine Neighborhood
of Kansas City, Kansas; the western boundary is
approximately Forty-Second (42nd) street; with the eastern
boundary being approximately Twenty-Fourth Street.
b. Consequently, as stated in the foregoing above, there is a
need for two sub-classes (East and West):
i. West: west of the dividing line being the northwest
corner of Clopper Field on the east side of Thirty-
Fourth (34th ) street in the North and running South
along the west side of 34th Street to Strong Avenue.
This class will be represented by the named Plaintiffs
Leticia Macias and Juan Garcia, Elizabeth Magana
Zamora, San Juanita Schneider, Timothy Curry, and
Michael Schaeffer. This class will be referred to as
the Western Class.
ii. East: in fact, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers publishes at least one map that indicates the
Kansas River Flood Zone extends all the way to
Metropolitan Avenue in what amounts to the Eastern
Class, beginning upon information and belief from 35th
Street (for the south western boundary of the Eastern
Class at 35th and Metropolitan) to approximately 25th
Street before curving up to 24th Street as the flood
zone bends back north-northeast toward the apparently
glaciated path toward the Kansas River. This class will
be represented by Ann Brandau-Murguia. This class will
be referred to as the Eastern Class.
c. Consequently, the Plaintiffs propose these two classes for
monetary damages for any and/or all persons who have
damaged by the Defendants' conduct.
This case is about the improper and reckless set of circumstances
leading the consistent and repeated flooding of the Plaintiffs'
properties during the summer of 2017. These circumstances were due
to the reckless disregard and/or extremely poor maintenance of
known problems under the control of the Defendants BNSF, UG, Miles
Leasing, LLC (and the related people and companies contributing to
the Soyarkov's family's involvement), and the Kaw Valley Drainage
District.
As a result of Defendants' conduct (acts and omissions), the
Defendants were flooded on approximately four different dates: July
27, 2017, August 6, 2017, August 21, 2017, and/or August 27, 2017.
On behalf of the many other individuals subjected to the
Defendants' conduct, the named Plaintiffs challenge in this action
the Defendants' conduct and management of the drainage system in
the Argentine Neighborhood.
The BNSF Railway Company is the largest freight railroad network in
North America.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iuIPVf
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gerald Lee Cross, Jr., Esq.
CROSS LAW FIRM, LLC
7930 Santa Fe Drive, Ste. 103
Overland Park, KS 66204
Telephone: (913) 236-5297
Facsimile: (913) 904-1650
E-mail: lcross@GMOlaw.com
Attorneys for BNSF Railway Company, are:
Jennifer B. Wieland, Esq.
Carson M. Hinderks, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
4801 Main St No. 1000
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
E-mail: jwieland@berkowitzoliver.com
chinderks@berkowitzoliver.com
Attorney for the Defendant Unified Government of Wyandotte, are:
Susan Alig, Esq.
Daniel Kuhn, Esq.
E-mail: salig@wycokck.org
dkuhn@wycokck.org
Attorney for the Defendant Miles Leasing Company LLC
Donald McLean, Esq.
ADELSON MCLEAN, APC
4100 Newport Place Dr, Ste 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2400
Telephone: (949) 402-3338
E-mail: mmclean@adelsonmclean.com
dmcleanlaw@outlook.com
BNSF RAILWAY: Resolution Needed After Class Cert. Filing, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETICIA MACIAS, et al., v.
BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02305-TC-GEB (D.
Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order requiring the
parties to participate in mediation and/or alternative dispute
resolution.
The Macias case has been pending before this court since on or
about June 13, 2019 when Plaintiffs' filed their first complaint.
Since that time, the Plaintiffs have amended their complaint
several times, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs understand, pursuant to the scheduling order in the
case that alternative dispute resolution shall be ordered after
Plaintiffs move for class certification.
The Plaintiffs and their counsel have been diligently working
through the discovery process throughout this past summer, and have
taken several depositions in this matter, and have a few more
depositions to take. Throughout the course of discovery, the
Plaintiffs believe they have outlined liability in this matter that
may encourage the parties to settle.
The BNSF Railway Company is the largest freight railroad network in
North America.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for mediation dated Jan. 15, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sDgwIV at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gerald Lee Cross, Jr., Esq.
CROSS LAW FIRM, LLC
7930 Santa Fe Drive, Ste. 103
Overland Park, KS 66204
Telephone: (913) 236-5297
Facsimile: (913) 904-1650
E-mail: lcross@GMOlaw.com
Attorneys for BNSF Railway Company, are:
Jennifer B. Wieland, Esq.
Carson M. Hinderks, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP
4801 Main St No. 1000
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 561-7007
E-mail: jwieland@berkowitzoliver.com
chinderks@berkowitzoliver.com
Attorney for the Defendant Unified Government of Wyandotte, are:
Susan Alig, Esq.
Daniel Kuhn, Esq.
E-mail: salig@wycokck.org
dkuhn@wycokck.org
Attorney for the Defendant Miles Leasing Company LLC
Donald McLean, Esq.
ADELSON MCLEAN, APC
4100 Newport Place Dr, Ste 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660-2400
Telephone: (949) 402-3338
E-mail: mmclean@adelsonmclean.com
dmcleanlaw@outlook.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Jan. 17 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE:BSX)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form-2?prid=12211&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021
Class Period: April 24, 2019 - November 16, 2020
Allegations against BSX include that: (i) the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and
threatened the continued viability of the entire product line; (ii)
as a result, the Company had materially overstated the continued
commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:NERV)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/minerva-neurosciences-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12211&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 8, 2021
Class Period: May 15, 2017 - November 30, 2020
Allegations against NERV include that: (i) the truth about the
feedback received from the FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2"
meeting; (ii) the Phase 2b study did not use the commercial
formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the
United States; (iii) the failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its
primary and key secondary endpoints rendered that study incapable
of supporting substantial evidence of effectiveness; (iv) the
Company's plan to use the combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3
studies would be "highly unlikely" to support the submission of an
NDA; (v) reliance on these two trials in the submission of an NDA
would lead to "substantial review issues" because the trials were
inadequate and not well-controlled; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12211&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
Class Period: March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020
Allegations against KNDI include that: (i) Kandi artificially
inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party
transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers
that indicated those customers did not have an arms length
relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's sales in the
past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties
with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast
doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt
on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a
foreseeable negative impact on the Company's reputation and
valuation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES: Underpays Porters, Binder Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN BINDER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BRENTLINGER ENTERPRISES, d/b/a MIDWESTERN AUTO GROUP,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00136-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, January 13,
2021) brings this collective and class action complaint against the
Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from approximately
November 2015 until approximately March 27, 2020 as an hourly-paid
and non-exempt "porter".
The Plaintiff claims that during his employment with the Defendant,
he and other similarly situated employees worked more than 40 hours
in one or more workweeks. However, they were not fully and properly
paid by the Defendant in accordance with the minimum requirements
of the FLSA for all hours they worked. Specifically, the Defendant
did not compensate them for "rest" periods and/or "meal" periods
that are interrupted due to job duties they performed for the
primary benefit of the Defendant which resulted to unpaid
overtime.
Brentlinger Enterprises, d/b/a Midwestern Auto Group provides
retail sales of automobiles and other automobile services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laren E. Knoll, Esq.
THE KNOLL LAW FIRM, LLC
7240 Muirfield Drive, Suite 120
Dublin, OH 43017
Tel: (614) 372-8890
Fax: (614) 452-4850
E-mail: lknoll@knolllaw.com
- and –
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Tel: (614) 704-0546
Fax: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Data Breach Suit Could Cost Billions in Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Hodge at complianceweek.com reports that British Airways (BA)
faces the largest group claim ever made in U.K. legal history over
a 2018 data breach that exposed the financial and personal details
of more than 400,000 of its customers.
Last October, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the
U.K.'s data regulator, fined BA £20 million (U.S. $26 million) for
violations of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) --
the largest penalty it has ever imposed.
However, if BA was ever tempted to think it got off lightly (the
originally penalty proposed by the ICO was £183.39 million), it
might need to think again.
More than 16,000 customers have so far joined a consumer legal
action ahead of a March 19 deadline, according to law firm PGMBM,
the lead solicitors in the class-action suit. It is the first group
lawsuit of its kind to be brought in the United Kingdom under the
GDPR and is also the largest "opt-in" claim in relation to a U.K.
data breach.
Lawyers at PGMBM believe each of the 420,000 customers and staff
whose information -- names, billing addresses, email addresses, and
card payment details -- were leaked could be entitled to £2,000
(U.S. $2,730) in compensation. That would leave the company with a
compensation bill amounting to more than £800 million (U.S. $1.09
billion).
Another law firm representing claimants in the same case -- Your
Lawyers -- has suggested the airline could be facing a potential
compensation bill of up to £2.4 billion (U.S. $3.3 billion), with
affected customers each potentially receiving an average of £6,000
(U.S. $8,195).
Media reports have said the airline is willing to settle. However,
in a statement, BA refuted the claims: "We continue to deny
liability in respect of the claims brought arising out of the 2018
cyber-attack and are vigorously defending the litigation." The
company said it "does not recognize the damages figures put
forward" and added that "they have not appeared in the claims."
PGMBM says it has not yet received any settlement proposals from BA
but says it will push for the company to do so at a case management
meeting in the High Court in February.
Aman Johal, director at Your Lawyers, believes "justice will be
served, and the decision will send a strong message to other big
corporations that they must take data protection seriously or face
the financial and reputational consequences."
Britt Endemann, partner at consultancy Forensic Risk Alliance,
believes the 90 percent fine reduction BA received from the ICO
might have spurred more people to join the collective action.
"The question of whether the ICO has arrived at the right final
figure may become immaterial and could begin to undermine the
credibility of the ICO, leading consumer groups and others to
question its efficacy," says Endemann. "It is still early days when
it comes to GDPR enforcement, and we are gaining more clarity on
their approach to fine calculation, but there are key lessons to be
learned from the BA decision."
The rights for EU citizens and nonprofit organizations to take
legal redress over data privacy infringements is enshrined in
Articles 77-82 of the GDPR.
There are two principal mechanisms: group litigation orders (GLOs),
where large numbers of individual claimants "opt in" to having
their claims brought under the same case management framework, and
representative actions, where a lead claimant acts as the
representative of other individuals (unless they opt out) who are
victims of the same harm and have suffered the same loss.
BA is subject to a GLO, while Marriott -- which received an £18.4
million (U.S. $23.8 million) fine from the ICO -- faces a
representative action.
Lawyers say an adverse finding by a data regulator -- especially a
major fine -- could have devastating effects for a company's
liability to data subjects, as well as act as a real boost for
affected individuals looking to get a class action up and running
to claim compensation directly.
However, class actions are a relatively new phenomenon in the
United Kingdom and are largely alien to the rest of the European
Union.
According to research by European consumer rights group BEUC, only
18 EU member states allow for collective compensatory redress, and
of those about half relate to specific sectors only. Just six EU
countries have a fully functioning, efficient collective redress
system (Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden).
Nevertheless, lawyers are optimistic about the way the BA group
litigation case will pan out -- both for claimants and companies.
Joanne Elieli, a litigator at law firm Cooley, believes the BA case
"marks the potential rise of class-action litigation in the U.K."
She also opines the rise of group litigation will likely push
companies faced with class actions "to pass liability down the
contractual chain."
"We should expect to see companies seeking to place at least some
of the blame at the door of their vendors and/or suppliers, as well
as arguments over who the processor and the controller of the data
in question was," says Elieli.
Such recourse would likely need to be taken by companies
themselves, as data regulators have so far been unwilling to hold
third parties accountable. [GN]
BROWN UNIVERSITY: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Cohen Civil Rights Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Brown University, et al., filed an appeal from court
rulings entered in the lawsuit entitled AMY COHEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. BROWN UNIVERSITY, CHRISTINA PAXSON, as successor to
VARTAN GREGORIAN, and JACK HAYES, as successor to DAVID ROACH, Case
No. 1:92-cv-00197-JJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Rhode Island, Providence.
The complaint contends that Brown University demoted its women's
gymnastics and volleyball teams from university-funded varsity
status to donor-funded varsity status in response to a
university-wide cost-cutting directive. Contemporaneously, Brown
demoted two men's teams, water polo and golf, from
university-funded to donor-funded varsity status. As a consequence
of these demotions, all four teams lost not only their university
funding, but most of all, the support and privileges that accompany
university-funded varsity status at Brown.
Plaintiff Amy Cohen, individually and on behalf of a class, which
was comprised of all present, future, and potential Brown women
students, who participate, seek to participate, and/or are deterred
from participating in intercollegiate athletics funded by Brown,
filed the class action lawsuit against defendants Brown, its
president, and its athletics director. Plaintiffs alleged that what
appeared to be the even-handed demotions of two men's and two
women's teams, in fact, perpetuated Brown's discriminatory
treatment of women in the administration of its intercollegiate
athletics program, thus, violating Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, and its implementing regulations. The district
court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction,
finding that Brown's interscholastic athletics program
discriminated against women. Consequently, the district court
ordered that the women's gymnastics and volleyball teams be
reinstated to university-funded varsity status, and prohibiting
Brown from eliminating or reducing the status or funding of any
existing women's intercollegiate varsity team until the case was
resolved on the merits.
The Defendants filed an appeal for review of the Court's Order on
Motion to Enforce Judgment, Order on Motion to Expedite, Order on
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion to Reassign Case,
Order on Motion to Adjudge in Contempt, and Order on Motion Final
Approval of Proposed Settlement.
The appellate case is captioned as Cohen, et al. v. Brown
University, et al., Case No. 21-1032, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 15, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees AMY COHEN, EILEEN ROCCHIO, NICOLE A. TURGEON,
KAREN A. MCDONALD, MELISSA KURODA, LISA C. STERN, JENNIFER HSU,
JENNIFER E. CLOUD, and DARCY SHEARER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; JODY BUDGE, MEGAN HULL, CATHERINE
LUKE, and KYLE HACKETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Leslie Brueckner, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE PC
475 14th St, Ste 610
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (202) 797-8600
- and -
Arthur Harry Bryant, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1555 Harrison St. Ste 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
- and -
Amato A. DeLuca, Esq.
DELUCA & WEIZENBAUM LTD
199 N Main St
Providence, RI 02903-0000
- and -
Sandra L. Duggan, Esq.
510 Walnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 01906-0000
- and -
Lynette J. Labinger, Esq.
128 Dorrance St
Providence, RI 02903-0000
Telephone: (401) 465-9565
- and -
Raymond A. Marcaccio, Esq.
OLIVERIO & MARCACCIO LLP
55 Dorrance St. Ste. 400
Providence, RI 02903-0000
Telephone: (401) 861-2900
- and -
Herbert B. Newberg, Esq.
KRONFELD, NEWBERG & DUGGAN
601 Walnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19106-0000
Defendants-Appellants BROWN UNIVERSITY, VARTAN GREGORIAN, in his
official capacity as President of Brown University, and DAVID
ROACH, individually and in his official capacity as Athletic
Director of Brown University, are represented by:
Walter B. Connolly, Esq.
150 West Jefferson Ste. 2500
Detroit, MI 48226-0000
Telephone: (313) 963-6420
- and -
Beverly E. Ledbetter, Esq.
BROWN UNIVERSITY
110 S Main St.
Providence, RI 02912-1913
Telephone: (401) 863-9900
- and -
Jeffrey S. Michaelson, Esq.
Julius C. Michaelson, Esq.
MICHAELSON & MICHAELSON
70 Romano Vineyard Way, Ste 117
North Kingston, RI 02852-8424
Telephone: (401) 295-4330
BT GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Landline Overcharges
------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!News reports that BT is facing a class action lawsuit over
claims it failed to compensate elderly customers who were
overcharged for landlines for years.
In 2017, Ofcom said people who only had a landline telephone were
"getting poor value for money in a market that is not serving them
well enough".
As a result, BT reduced the price of its landlines by £7 a month.
But campaigners are unhappy that "loyal customers" have still not
been compensated for previous overcharging.
"Ofcom made it very clear that BT had spent years overcharging
landline customers, but did not order it to repay the money it made
from this," said Justin Le Patourel, founder of consumer group
Collective Action on Landlines (CALL) and a telecoms consultant who
worked for Ofcom for 13 years.
"We think millions of BT's most loyal landline customers could be
entitled to compensation of up to £500 each, and the filing of
this claim starts that process."
BT said it "strongly disagrees" with the claim that it had engaged
in anti-competitive behaviour and intends to defend itself
"vigorously" in court.
A spokesman for BT said: "We take our responsibilities to older and
more vulnerable customers very seriously and will defend ourselves
against any claim that suggests otherwise.
"For many years we've offered discounted landline and broadband
packages in what is a competitive market with competing options
available, and we take pride in our work with elderly and
vulnerable groups, as well as our work on the Customer Fairness
agenda."
Law firm Mishcon de Reya has filed a claim with the Competition
Appeal Tribunal (CAT) worth £600m. The claim could result in
payments of £500 each for 2.3 million BT customers, should it be
successful.
The case represents customers who purchased a BT landline contract,
but did not also take BT broadband or pay TV packages.
Since 2009, the wholesale costs of providing landlines to consumers
have been falling by at least 25%.
But in October 2017, Ofcom found that all major landline providers
in the UK had increased the line rental charges by 28-41%.
Ofcom strongly criticised market leader BT for raising prices,
saying that customers were being given "poor value" for money.
It added that many of the affected customers had "been with BT for
decades" and were more likely to be old, on low incomes and
vulnerable.
BT announced that it would slash its landline prices by £84 a
year.
BT's argument is that Ofcom's final statement did not explicitly
accuse it of engaging in anti-competitive behaviour.
But independent telecoms analyst Ian Grant says that the telecoms
giant "has a history of abusing its position".
"Earlier in 2017, Ofcom fined BT £42m because it was late
providing high-speed Ethernet lines, and forced BT to make good the
losses of firms like Vodafone and TalkTalk," he told the BBC.
"Ofcom, which has a statutory duty to stop consumer abuses, could
have done the same for these customers. Instead, it allowed BT to
get away with a 37% price cut, at a time when the difference
between its costs and what it charged customers had risen between
50-74%."
Mr Grant added: "It is especially poor that BT was overcharging
customers who were mostly over 65, more than three-quarters of whom
had never used a different provider, and for whom the telephone was
their only communications link." [GN]
BUFFALO BILLS: Cheerleader's Unequal Pay Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Church, writing for CNN, reports that for decades, cheerleaders
have been synonymous with the NFL.
Providing a touch of glamor, dance teams across the US entertain
thousands of fans every week, representing their franchise in the
local community.
But behind some of the smiles and perfectly choreographed routines
lies a world of painstaking work and alleged unequal pay.
A new documentary, "A Woman's Work: The NFL's Cheerleader Problem,"
exposes the underbelly of a seemingly glamorous pursuit and follows
the lives of two women who say they decided enough was enough.
Former cheerleader Lacy Thibodeaux-Fields was the first to speak
out, filing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the Raiderettes
against the then Oakland Raiders in 2014, alleging wage theft and
illegal employment practices.
It led to several other cheerleaders following suit, including
Maria Pinzone -- a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Buffalo
Bills and the NFL in 2014.
The Raiders settled for $1.25 million in September 2014, paying
cheerleaders from 2010 -- 2014 what they were owed back in wages.
Individual payments ranged from $2,000 to $30,000, depending on the
number of seasons the women danced on the team, according to Sharon
R. Vinick, attorney at Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams, who represented
the women in the case.
Thibodeaux-Fields also received an additional $10,000 for acting
as the lead plaintiff.
In 2014, after the lawsuit was filed, the Raiders reportedly more
than doubled the cheerleaders' pay for mandatory events, amounting
to about $9 an hour -- minimum wage at the time.
CNN Sport reached out to the Las Vegas Raiders, previously the
Oakland Raiders, for comment but has yet to receive a reply.
Meanwhile, Pinzone's case against the Bills is still ongoing,
almost seven years after she filed the lawsuit.
The film, directed by Yu Gu and which is free to stream on the PBS
Video App, follows both Pinzone and Thibodeaux-Fields as they
navigate their legal battles and cope with the fallout of their
decision to stand up to their teams.
Gu had no idea the project would last so long when she started it
in 2014, but says it's been a window into the immense inequality of
the NFL and wider society.
"It's really a microcosm into what all women are facing right now
in the workplace, battling these stereotypes and these hypocritical
standards that we're faced with," Gu, who was born in China and
grew up in Canada, told CNN Sport.
"It's definitely looking at something bigger through this very
specific lens and even though the main participants, the
protagonists, they're women, I think this inequality affects men.
"It's that mixture of hypermasculinity and toxic masculinity that
is the source of this misogyny but it's also something that affects
all genders."
From an early age, Thibodeaux-Fields had dreams of cheerleading for
one of football's biggest teams and, after years of hard work, she
fulfilled her ambition by joining the Raiderettes cheer team for
the then Oakland Raiders.
Thibodeaux-Fields had previously danced in the NBA for the Golden
State Warriors. She looks back fondly on those two seasons and says
she was treated very well.
However, on joining the Raiderettes, she says, things were
different.
She told CNN Sport she wasn't paid minimum wage for the countless
hours she was putting in. There would be multiple community
appearances and practice sessions, she said, that were unpaid.
Equipment, uniforms and treatments, required to live up to the
expected image of a cheerleader, all came out of her own pocket,
she told CNN Sport.
Raiderettes made just $1,250 per season and pay would come at the
very end of the year, Vinick told CNN Sport.
Thibodeaux-Fields, who works as a dance teacher, calculated it to
be less than the then minimum wage, given the number of hours she
worked.
With a young family to support and with her husband questioning the
contract she signed, she took advice from a legal expert and, in
2014, filed a lawsuit against the Oakland Raiders alleging wage
theft.
"There are lots of jobs that people would do for free, but they
shouldn't have to just because it's their passion or their dream,"
Thibodeaux-Fields told CNN Sport.
"Yes, there are some girls that would probably dance for free, but
they're not going to be the caliber of [dancer] that I am. They're
not going to have the experience or the drive.
"That's why I'm here. You pay me for what I'm worth. That's the
point I'm making."
Vinick told CNN Sport that she was initially shocked when she first
read the cheerleaders' contract because "it had more illegal
provisions than any contract that I've read in almost 30 years of
practicing law."
Although she was satisfied with the eventual settlement from a
legal standpoint -- securing minimum wages for the Raiderettes --
Vinick says she was left disappointed by the overall outcome.
"It didn't end up with cheerleaders really being paid their worth.
It just ended up with them being paid minimum wage if they
continued," she added.
"Instead of arguing about whether these women should be paid
minimum wages, we should talk about paying these women their fair
worth for what they contribute to the game day experience."
Like Thibodeaux-Fields, Pinzone told CNN Sport she "worked her butt
off" to be selected for the Buffalo Bills' Jills.
She had previously failed twice in her bid to make the team but, on
her third attempt, she said she was "over the moon" to be chosen.
However, things quickly turned sour.
Pinzone says she was expected to spend $650 on her team outfit and
a further $500 on treatments to be ready for the team calendar
shoot. She would then participate in hours of unpaid appearances,
she said, some of which were mandatory, and sponsor events,
representing both the NFL and the Bills.
At the time, Pinzone did not want to speak out in case she was
kicked off the team and said the subject of money was always too
taboo to approach.
"I felt like I was being taken advantage of," she told CNN Sport.
"I felt like I was going to these appearances and [. . .]
supporting everything around that, and on the back end of it,
somebody else was getting paid for it."
After one season, she decided not to go back but still had friends
in the team going through similar experiences.
In 2014, Pinzone and five other women also decided to file a
lawsuit against her team over the way they were paid, a case which
later included the NFL (which was named on the contract they
signed).
The central legal question in the dispute was if the cheerleaders
were properly categorized as independent contractors, who aren't
subject to certain regulations like minimum wage, or should have
been considered employees.
Pinzone and the Jills won a summary judgment affirming their
employee status but the case has still not been resolved. Pinzone
says the trial has most recently been delayed after one of the
defendants filed for bankruptcy, and the Covid-19 pandemic is also
complicating proceedings.
Stejon Productions, the company managing the Jills, stopped the
operation in the wake of the lawsuit, and the Bills have been
without a cheerleading team ever since.
CNN has reached out to the Buffalo Bills and the NFL for comment
but has yet to receive a response.
CNN has also reached out to the lawyers representing the owner of
Stejon Productions for comment but is yet to receive a reply.
Gu says the fact that Pinzone's case is still ongoing shows the
lack of understanding and the need to speak more about gender pay
parity.
"It's a little bit disheartening to think they could just say we
will pay these women instead of spending so much money on actually
battling this case," she said.
"[The sport] really needs to look at changing the way they're
dealing with the cheerleaders, the way that they're treating them.
"Of course, there's a resistance to change. There's a resistance to
honest accountability of the wrongdoing and you see that across so
many different industries.
"That's why I feel like this film is not only just relevant to
cheerleading, you see a lack of accountability across the board."
The documentary shows the backlash the women received for speaking
out, both from within cheerleading and the wider NFL community.
They say some current and former cheerleaders ostracized those who
backed the lawsuits.
Despite the countless days in court and disruption it caused their
lives, both women say they are proud to have spoken out and
encourage others to come forward. However, in hindsight,
Thibodeaux-Fields would think twice about ever joining the NFL.
"If I would have seen this documentary before I decided to invest
all my time and energy into these auditions, I wouldn't have done
it," she told CNN Sport, admitting she misses the feeling of
performing on that stage.
"I would have taken my talent elsewhere. If I would have known then
what I know now, I would have never stepped foot in the NFL and I'd
probably encourage other girls not to either."
For Pinzone, the experience shows the lengths big business will go
to save money but hopes the documentary will encourage women from
all walks of life to fight for change.
"At the end of the day, I think it's about money. I mean, these
businesses, they just are so greedy.
"They want more and more and more, and they don't care who they put
down in the process. I feel like it's just so crazy. It really is.
"I think [the documentary] is a stepping stone and the more people
that come forward about their situation, I think will help everyone
in the long run."
As of September 2020, 10 of the 26 NFL teams with cheerleading
squads have been sued for wage theft, unsafe work conditions,
sexual harassment and discrimination, according to the documentary.
[GN]
BUSINESS LISTING: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT and WILLIAM LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BUSINESS LISTING SOLUTION LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:21-cv-00465 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 18, 2021) arises from the illegal
actions of the Defendants in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiffs on their cellular telephones in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated TCPA by using an
"automatic telephone dialing system" to place daily calls to
Plaintiffs seeking to sell or solicit their business services
without prior express consent. The Plaintiffs are not customers of
Defendants' services and have never provided any personal
information, including their cellular telephone numbers, to the
Defendants. The Defendants further violated the law since
Plaintiffs had been registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry for at
least 30 days prior to the alleged conduct, the suit says.
Business Listing Solution LLC is a business funding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
C.TECH COLLECTIONS: Horowitz Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Horowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C.Tech Collections, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00263
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, in its efforts to collect the alleged
debt that is related to personal medical services, Defendant
contacted Plaintiff by letters including the letter dated January
20, 2020.
The Plaintiff is enrolled in Medicare and Medicare patients may not
be balance-billed other than for co-pays. The complaint asserts
that the alleged debt is not a co-pay, but rather represents
unlawful balance billing. By sending a collection letter to
Plaintiff to collect on the alleged Debt, the Defendant
misrepresented the status of the debt as collectible, when it was
not, the suit says.
C.Tech Collections, Inc. regularly collects or attempts to collect
debts asserted to be owed to others.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
Facsimile: (516) 282-7878
CALIFORNIA: Tatoma Inc. Files Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newson, et al. The
case is styled as Tatoma, Inc. doing business as: Atelier Aucoin
Salon, a California Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Gavin Newson, in his official capacity as the
Governor of California; Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as
the Attorney General of California; Kristy Underwood, in her
official capacity as Executive Officer of the State Board of
Barbering and Cosmetology, Case No. 3:21-cv-00098-BEN-JLB (S.D.
Cal., Jan. 19, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Gavin Christopher Newsom -- https://www.gov.ca.gov/ -- is an
American politician and businessman who is the 40th governor of
California, serving since January 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis A. Bottini, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 914-2001
Fax: (858) 914-2002
Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
CD PROJEKT: Faces Hain Suit Over Decline in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------
RIVER HAIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CD PROJEKT S.A., ADAM MICHAL KICINSKI, PIOTR MARCIN
NIELUBOWICZ, and MICHAL NOWAKOWSKI, Case No. 2:21-cv-00354 (C.D.
Cal., Jan. 14, 2021) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CD
Projekt securities between January 16, 2020 and December 17, 2020,
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants'
issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.
The Company, for several years, had been devoting substantially all
its resources to the development of Cyberpunk 2077, which the
Company described as a "open world, narrative-driven role-playing
game."
According to the complaint, the Defendants released statements that
were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose that: (i) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually
unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems
due to an enormous number of bugs; (ii) as a result, Sony would
remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony,
Microsoft, and the Company would be forced to offer full refunds
for the game; (iii) consequently, the Company would suffer
reputational and pecuniary harm; and (iv) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company’s business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
The complaint asserts that the truth emerged when CD Projekt
launched Cyberpunk 2077 on December 10, 2020. The consumers soon
discovered that the current-generation console versions of
Cyberpunk 2077 were error-laden and difficult to play. On December
18, 2020, Sony issued a statement via the Playstation Website that
it would "offer a full refund for all gamers who have purchased
Cyberpunk 2077 via PlayStation Store" and "be removing Cyberpunk
2077 from PlayStation Store until further notice." Microsoft also
announced that it would offer refunds for the game.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, the suit says.
CD Projekt S.A. is a Polish video game developer, publisher and
distributor based in Warsaw, Poland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
CENTURA HEALTH: Agardy Files ADA Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centura Health
Corporation. The case is styled as Janet Agardy, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Centura Health
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00155-STV (D. Colo., Jan. 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Centura Health Corporation -- https://www.centura.org/ -- is a
healthcare firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
CARLSON LTNCH LLP-Pittsburgh
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
CERNER CORP: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Labor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a representative action Complaint
against Cerner Corporation, alleging the company violated Labor
Code § 2699, et seq. seeking penalties for DEFENDANT's alleged
violation of California Labor Code §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210,
226(a), 226.7, 351, 510, 512, 558(a)(1)(2), 1194, 1197, 1197.1,
1198, and 2802. The lawsuit against Cerner Corporation, is
currently pending in the Placer County Superior Court, Case No.
S-CV-0045961. To read a copy of the Complaint, please click
https://bit.ly/3sNRYwD.
The lawsuit filed against Cerner Corporation alleges PLAINTIFF and
other AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES were from time to time unable to take
thirty (30) minute off-duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved
of duty for their meal periods. California labor laws require an
employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more
than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth
(5th) hour of work.
Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that PLAINTIFF and other
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES as a business expense, were required by
DEFENDANT to use their own personal cellular phones as a result of
and in furtherance of their job duties as employees for DEFENDANT
but were not reimbursed or indemnified by DEFENDANT for the cost
associated with the use of their personal cellular phones for
DEFENDANT's benefit. Specifically, PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED
EMPLOYEES were required by DEFENDANT to use their personal cellular
phones for work related issues.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against Cerner
Corporation, call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced
California employment attorney today.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange
County and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice
of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.
Media Contact:
Nicholas De Blouw
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
(800) 568-8020, nick@bamlawca.com [GN]
CHAMBERLAIN UNIVERSITY: Dean Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chamberlain
University, LLC. The case is styled as Tanesia Dean, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Chamberlain
University, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
1:21-cv-00145-JG (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 19, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Chamberlain University -- https://www.chamberlain.edu/ -- is a
for-profit healthcare and nursing school with locations across the
United States and online programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Phone: (480) 382-5176
Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
520 Liberty Plaza
5000 Rockside Road
Independence, OH 44131
Phone: (216) 525-8890
Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com
CHENAULT CONSULTING: Martinez Has Until Apr. 19 to File Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDDIE MARTINEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHENAULT CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00954-KWR-GJF (D.N.M.),
the Hon. Judge Gregory J. Fouratt entered an order setting pretrial
deadlines and briefing schedule as follows:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to move to amend pleadings
and/or join additional parties is March 18, 2021.
-- The deadline for Defendant to amend pleadings and/or join
additional parties is April 19, 2021.
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for
conditional and/or class certification is April 19, 2021.
The Court said, "Each party may serve up to 2 interrogatories, 30
requests for admission, and 30 requests for production on the
other. Responses shall be served within 30 days. With the exception
of depositions conducted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(6), the parties shall not conduct additional
depositions until the presiding judge has decided whether this case
will proceed as an individual, collective, or class action. The
Court will hold another scheduling conference soon after the
presiding judge's decision to develop a schedule for the remainder
of the pretrial proceedings in this case, to include authorizing
representative discovery, if appropriate. Motion practice must be
conducted in accordance with the local rules. In particular, the
Court would highlight Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.4, which
provides that response and reply deadlines "may be extended by
agreement of all parties. For each agreed extension, the party
requesting the extension must file a notice identifying the new
deadline and the document (response or reply) to be filed. If an
extension of time is opposed, the party seeking the extension must
file a separate motion within the applicable 14 day period."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p86z3O at no extra charge.[CC]
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Court Consolidates 4 Insurance Coverage Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the four class action lawsuits against THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an order
consolidating the cases and appointing interim co-lead counsel.
The Court said, "The bases for consolidation here are manifold.
First, the Related Actions clearly share common questions of law
and fact. They allege the same types of business losses caused by
the same pandemic and public responses to it. Their claims concern
coverage provisions based on similar or identical policy forms. The
actions have overlapping core facts, putative classes, and claims
for relief. They are all at the pre-discovery stage. They
anticipate similar discovery. And they are against the same
insurer. In light of these similarities, there is no doubt the
Related Actions hinge on issues they have in common. Second,
balancing of the competing risks tilts in favor of consolidation.
The risks of prejudice and possible confusion, to the extent they
exist at all, do not outweigh the value of alleviating the pretrial
burden and time and expense of litigating one case instead of
multiple. Cincinnati Insurance argues that consolidation would do
nothing to ease the burden on the parties or the Court. The Court
sees it differently. Consolidation will ease the burden on the
parties during the motions phase and discovery through the pooling
of resources. Consolidated motions practice and ruling on
consolidated case-dispositive motions will also be far less
burdensome on the Court than if those proceedings were multiplied
in four substantially similar cases. The alternative -- permitting
these actions to continue separately -- would result in needlessly
substantial burdens on everyone. So far, three of the Related
Actions have proceeded along the same lines: plaintiffs have filed
complaints and defendants have moved to dismiss them. Cincinnati
Insurance has given the Court no reason to think its pretrial
strategy would be any different if the actions were consolidated.
Consolidation, then, will streamline the litigation of each case
and alleviate the burdens on the time and expense of every party
and this Court."
The four consolidated cases are captioned as:
TROY STACY ENTERPRISES INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00312-MWM (S.D. Ohio);
ELEISHA J. NICKOLES DDS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE
COMPANY, THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, AND THE CINCINNATI
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-517 (S.D. Ohio);
REEDS JEWELERS OF NIAGARA FALLS, INC., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CINCINNATI
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-649 (S.D. Ohio);
BURNING BROTHERS BREWING LLC, CHICAGO MAGIC LOUNGE LLC, AND
CDC CATERING, INC. T/A BROOKSIDE MANOR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v THE CINCINNATI
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-920 (S.D. Ohio).
These four cases appear before the Court on a motion to consolidate
under Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and two motions
for appointment of interim co-lead class counsel under Rule 23(g).
Each case raises claims related to insurance coverage for business
interruption losses arising from the COVID-19 pandemic and the
resulting closure orders. The Plaintiff Troy Stacy Enterprises,
Inc., seeks to consolidate these four cases and all plaintiffs have
joined in that request. Troy Stacy and the plaintiff in one of the
other cases, Reeds Jewelers of Niagara Falls, Inc., also request
that the Court appoint interim co-lead class counsel that is
comprised of four law firms.
The Plaintiffs in the Related Actions have insurance policies with
Cincinnati Insurance. They experienced business losses due to the
COVID-19 public health emergency. When they sought coverage for
their losses, Cincinnati Insurance denied their claims.
The Defendants in the Related Actions are the Cincinnati Insurance
Company, the Cincinnati Casualty Company, and the Cincinnati
Indemnity Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ixavZr at no extra charge.[CC]
CLEVELAND CLINIC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Deceptive Billing Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola at beckershospitalreview.com reports that a Court of
Common Pleas judge denied Cleveland Clinic's motion to dismiss a
proposed class-action suit challenging its billing practices.
The lawsuit alleges Cleveland Clinic violated the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act and claims the health system's "unfair" and
"deceptive" billing practices created confusion, undue stress and
resulted in financial harm to patients.
According to the initial lawsuit filed in August, Amanda van Brakle
went to a Cleveland Clinic facility in Lakewood, Ohio, in August
2018 for radiology imaging services. At no time before the services
was Ms. van Brakel informed that she could receive an estimate of
the cost of the procedure nor was she given an estimate of the
cost, according to the lawsuit.
At the appointment, Ms. van Brakle was asked to make a $25 payment
toward the service, but she was not given a receipt. Over time, Ms.
van Brakle made additional payments totalling $288 toward the
radiology imaging service.
However, Cleveland Clinic never provided receipts of the payments,
nor did it apply all of the payments toward the radiology services,
instead crediting them toward a different service, prosecutors
allege.
At the end of 2018, Cleveland Clinic hired a debt collector to
pursue Ms. van Brakle for what she called the overinflated
outstanding balance for the imaging services.
According to the complaint, Cleveland Clinic's failure to provide
receipts of the payments and failure to notify and provide the
patient with the estimate violated Ohio's consumer protection law.
Ms. van Brakle amended the complaint in November, seeking not only
individual relief for herself, but also certification as a class
action for all others who faced similar billing scenarios.
In its November 2020 motion to dismiss the potential class-action,
Cleveland Clinic argued that the medical services it provided were
not considered a "consumer transaction" covered by the state's
consumer protection law.
The Cleveland Clinic claims that "nothing in [the language of the
rules] indicates or even suggests that the regulations apply to
medical billing for healthcare providers."
In a Jan. 14 decision, Judge John O'Donnell ruled that the lawsuit
may go forward and that Cleveland Clinic's arguments to dismiss
were unconvincing or unsupported.
The judge also said Ms. van Brakle's claims are sufficient to
support a class-action claim. [GN]
CONDUENT EDUCATION: Chery Seeks Student Loan Borrowers Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CHERY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CONDUENT EDUCATION
SERVICES, LLC, f/k/a ACS, ACCESS GROUP, INC., and ACCESS FUNDING
2015-1, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00075-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on March 18, 2021 to enter an order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
a. certifying the following class:
"all student loan borrowers who submitted an application
to consolidate one or more Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP) Loans into a Direct Consolidated Loan
between January 18, 2012, and the date of the Order
certifying the Class, for which the Defendants failed to
provide a Loan Verification Certificate (LVC) within 10
days of receiving the request therefor;"
b. appointing himself as class representative;
c. appointing the law firms Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. and
Moore Kuehn, PLLC as co-counsel to the class; and
d. granting such other and further relief as is just and
appropriate.
Conduent is a student loan servicing company that formerly operated
under the name of ACS Education Services.
A copy of the notice of motion to certify class dated Jan. 15, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3sGxciBat no
extra charge.[CC]
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class, are:
Justin A. Kuehn, Esq.
Fletcher W. Moore, Esq.
MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
30 Wall Street, 8th floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 709-8245
E-mail: jkuehn@moorekuehn.com
fmoore@moorekuehn.com
- and -
Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
David J. Stone, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 308-5858
E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
stone@bespc.com
CONSECO LIFE: Settles Life Insurance Class Action for $27 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide class action against an Indiana insurer that alleged
more than 3,600 policyholders were overcharged for premiums has
been resolved through a $27 million settlement, plaintiffs'
attorneys said. The settlement provides that each class member will
receive at least $500, but most will receive $1,000 or more.
Indianapolis attorney Kathleen DeLaney of DeLaney & DeLaney LLC
announced the settlement with Conseco Life Insurance Co. DeLaney
and Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC represented policyholders in the
federal suit filed in 2012.
Policyholders allege Conseco and its parent companies, CNO
Financial Group Inc. and CNO Services LLC, overcharged
policyholders through improper premiums and cost of insurance
charges. The plaintiffs claim thousands of policyholders
consequently gave up their policies or let them lapse, resulting in
the loss of tens of millions of dollars in valuable life insurance
policies.
The CNO Defendants are not included in the settlement. Litigation
is continuing concerning their alleged liability. Spokespeople for
CNO did not immediately reply to messages seeking comment.
"This is a great start," DeLaney said, "but most of the millions of
dollars in profits from the overcharges went to the parent company
and its affiliate, and we're going to continue to pursue a further
recovery from them for the benefit of former policyholders."
The settlement approved in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana provides Conseco Life will pay $27 million,
less fees and expenses, in cash compensation to approximately 3,666
policyholders who owned LifeTrend 3 and LifeTrend 4 policies. The
case filed is Burnett, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Co., et
al.
Under terms of the settlement order signed by District Judge James
P. Hanlon:
-- Class members will receive at least $500 each based on pro-rata
shares of the settlement fund.
-- About 1,120 policyholders' claims are expected to be less than
$1,000.
-- More than 2,600 policyholders' claims are likely to be between
$1,000 and $10,000.
-- Class members will be notified of further details by mail.
-- Donlin Recano & Co. has been appointed to administer the
settlement claims process.
Attorney fees from the settlement fund will not exceed $1.25
million, but class counsel were awarded $9 million in fees.
"The victims here were mostly elderly retirees and are some of the
most sympathetic plaintiffs you could imagine," said Stephen
Weisbrod, who was co-lead counsel with DeLaney. "We're thrilled to
be able to help them." [GN]
COWORX STAFFING: Webber Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEQUENTIN WEBBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COWORX STAFFING SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00251
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 15, 2021) alleges that the Defendant has violated
its employees' privacy rights, including the Plaintiff, by
unlawfully collecting, storing, and/or using their biometric data
and information, not in accordance with the Illinois Biometric
Privacy Act.
Mr. Webber was employed by the Defendant to work at RR Donnelley &
Sons at the CoWorx/RR Donnelley "On-Site" location in St. Charles,
Illinois from July to September of 2016.
According to the complaint, when Plaintiff and other employees are
hired by the Defendant, and placed at their St. Charles location,
they have their handprints scanned into one of its biometric time
clocks. The Defendant allegedly violated the law by disclosing,
re-disclosing, or disseminating Plaintiff's and the Class members'
biometric information and by failing to develop and maintain a
publicly available retention and destruction schedule as well as
comply with any such policy.
CoWorx is a staffing company that employs people by placing
employees with companies it is contracted with.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Drew, Esq.
NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC
20 N. Clark Street #3300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 967-7220
E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com
- and -
Michael Wood, Esq.
CELETHA CHATMAN COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC
20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 757-1880
E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
CREDIT CORP: Faces Duran Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection E-mail
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CRESLY DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-000862 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., January
13, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an e-mail to the
Plaintiff on January 4, 2021 in an attempt to collect an alleged
debt arising from a transaction between Synchrony Bank and the
Plaintiff. However, the collection e-mail does not comply with the
disclosure requirements because the Defendant failed to disclose
its identity as a debt collector, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from engaging in further
collection activities that violate the FCCPA and FDCPA, and other
relief as the Court deems proper.
Credit Corp Solutions Inc. is a consumer collection agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
Fax: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Sanchez Sues Over 60% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DECISION DIAGNOSTICS CORP.; and KEITH M.
BERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00418 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 15,
2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
that purchased or otherwise acquired Decision Diagnostics
securities between March 3, 2020 and December 17, 2020, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Decision
Diagnostics had not developed any viable COVID-19 test, much less a
test that could detect COVID-19 in less than one minute; (ii) the
Company could not meet the FDA's EUA testing requirements for its
purported COVID-19 test; (iii) accordingly, Defendants had
misrepresented the timeline within which it could realistically
bring its COVID-19 test to market; (iv) all the foregoing subjected
Defendants to an increased risk of regulatory oversight and
enforcement; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On December 17, 2020, the SEC filed a complaint in federal court
against the Defendants, alleging that they had issued a series of
press releases that falsely claimed that Decision Diagnostics had
developed a finger-prick blood test that could detect COVID-19 in
less than one minute (the "SEC Complaint"). According to the SEC
Complaint, from March 2020 to at least June 2020, the Defendants
made false and misleading statements about the existence of
Decision Diagnostics' COVID-19 device and progress towards
achieving FDA EUA for that device. As alleged, at the time of these
claims, Decision Diagnostics lacked a proven method for detecting
the virus and had no physical testing device. The SEC Complaint
further alleged that the statements created the misleading
impression that Decision Diagnostics would soon introduce the
COVID-19 test to the market, which led to surges in the price and
trading volume of the Company's stock.
Following the filing of the SEC Complaint, Decision Diagnostics'
common share price fell $0.06 per share, or 60%, to close at $0.04
per share on December 18, 2020, the suit says.
Decision Diagnostics Corp. develops smart phone based remote
Electronic Medical Record technologies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Schall Law Reminds of March 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Decision
Diagnostics Corp. ("Decision Diagnostics" or "the Company") (OTC:
DECN) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 3,
2020 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 16, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Decision Diagnostics failed to develop a
viable COVID-19 test in any form, let alone a test that could
detect the virus in less than one minute. The Company was not
capable of meeting the FDA's EUA testing requirements for its
purported COVID-19 test. Despite this inability to meet FDA
requirements, the Company touted an unrealistic time to market for
its tests. 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 Decision Diagnostics,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
ELITE MEDICAL: Williams Sues Over Biometrics Data Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Chynna Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Elite Medical Transportation, LLC, Case No. 2021L000007
(Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Jan. 4, 2021) is a class action seeking
money damages arising from the Defendant's violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Ms. Williams is, and at all times relevant to this action was, a
resident of Illinois and from about September, 2019 through
December 2020, an employee of Defendant's in Naperville, Illinois.
She was required to submit her biometric information at the
direction of, and for use by Defendant.
According to the complaint, the Defendant illegally collected,
stored and used Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without informed written consent, in direct violation of BIPA. The
Defendant's failure to provide a publicly available written policy
regarding their schedule and guidelines for the retention and
permanent destruction of individuals' biometric information further
violates Section 15(a) of BIPA, the suit says.
Based in Mokena, Illinois, Elite Medical Transportation, LLC owns,
operates, manages and controls an ambulance and transportation
service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Hubert Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARJORIE SAINT HUBERT, VALERIE MARTINEZ, and
THERESE SVENGERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EQUINOX HOLDINGS, INC., a Foreign
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
20STCV45589, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 4,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00086-VAP-JEM to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action under
California law: (1) failure to provide reimbursement of business
expenses under California Labor Code section 2802; (2) failure to
provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest breaks; (4)
failure to pay all earned wages; (5) failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements under Labor Code section 226; (6) waiting
time penalties under Labor Code section 203; and (7) unfair
business practices under Business & Professions Code.
Equinox Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides fitness services such as yoga
classes, studio cycling, cardio exercises, martial arts, spa, and
personal training. Equinox Holdings serves customers
worldwide.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Stacey M. Cooper, Esq.
John P. Nordlund, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 573-4900
Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
E-mail: Stacey.cooper@jacksonlewis.com
John.nordlund@jacksonlewis.com
ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Perez Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ,
and JOSE EDUARDO SANCHEZ ARIAS, on their own behalf and on behalf
of others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION,
INC.; NATIONS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; JRS SERVICES, LLC; JHONY A
ESCOBAR, ELIAS O. PALACIOS a/k/a Elias Escobar, NATALIE PALACIOS,
JENNY CAROLINA ALVAREZ, LUIS ENRIQUE MONZON, Case No.
1:20-cv-08010-LTS-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court to enter an order:
1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of
this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing
first and last name, last known address with apartment
number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers,
last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or
FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location,
dates of employment and position of:
"all current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
employees employed at any time from December 29, 2016
(three years prior to the filing of the Complaint in the
Northern District of New York, before it was transferred
to the Southern District of New York by consent) to the
date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and
Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide
the name list, whichever is later;"
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is
complete and from existing employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the Spanish-speaking American immigrant worker
community;
7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by
publication in newspaper should the Defendants fail to
furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the
Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding
address to be published in English, and Spanish; and
9. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of
limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the
expiration of the Opt-in Period.
Escobar is a general contractor, specializing in commercial
construction.
A copy of the notice of plaintiffs' motion for conditional
collective certification dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3o3QcUO at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class, is:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
FABER & BRAND: Turner Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faber & Brand, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Ashley Turner, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Faber & Brand, LLC; Jared L.
Buchanan; Jeremy Forrest; Petersburg Hospital Company, LLC, d/b/a
Southside Regional Medical Center; Professional Account Services,
Inc.; Case No. 3:21-cv-00030 (E.D. Va., Jan. 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Faber and Brand LLC -- https://faberbrand.com/ -- has been
providing legal solutions to the collection industry since
1998.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dale Wood Pittman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DALW W. PITTMAN, P.C.
112-A W Tabb St
Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
(804) 861-6000
Fax: (804) 861-3368
Email: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com
FLORIDA: Brown Appeals Ruling in Prisoner Suit to 11th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff JOSEPH NORMAN BROWN, III, filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Brown, III v. Wayne
Ivey, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-02158-WWB-EJK, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The case is brought by the Plaintiff alleging a civil rights
violation by corrections officials.
The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order
dated Dec. 30, 2020, in favor of Defendants Wayne Ivey, Mike
Demorat and Jane Doe, denying his application to proceed in forma
pauperis.
The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Brown, III v. Wayne Ivey,
et al., Case No. 21-10062, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit, January 6, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH NORMAN BROWN, III, who is currently
incarcerated at Brevard County Jail in Florida, appears pro se.
FONTANA & FONTANA: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORNELIA BARDALES and
DONALD RUSSELL, v. FONTANA & FONTANA, LLC a Louisiana limited
liability company; DARRYL M. FONTANA, an individual; and JULES A.
FONTANA, III, an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv-00340-WBV-DMD (E.D.
La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting final approval of the class action settlement;
2. granting final approval of the Louisiana Settlement Class
of:
"persons who: (i) within one year prior to the filing of
this action; (ii) were sent a letter by the Defendants;
(iii) in an attempt to recover an alleged obligation
accruing interest and/or fees incurred for personal,
family, or household purposes; and (iv) in which the
Defendants did not disclose that they were continuing to
add interest and/or fees to the subject account;"
2. finding the class notice adequate;
3. approving the Settlement Agreement in its entirety;
4. determining the amount of Class Counsels’ attorneys' fees
and costs;
5. authorizing a service award of $3,000.00 plus $1,000.00
for a total of $4,000.00 to each named Plaintiff; and
6. dismissing the case pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.
The Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement on
September 19, 2020, and Notice to the Class has been issued as
directed. Members of the Class will be paid a pro rata share of the
$10,000.00 recovery, an amount greater than one percent (1%) of
Defends' net worth, the maximum recovery permitted pursuant to the
FDCPA. Of the 836 notices mailed to consumers, there have been no
objections, one (1) request for exclusion, and 78 members. The
proposed distribution of settlement funds as proposed will result
in a net payment of $128.20, in statutory damages, to each of the
78 Class Member who submitted a claim. Two of the Class Members
claim forms were tardy, but the Parties have agreed that they
should be included in the Class.
The Plaintiffs Cornelia Bardales and Donald Russell, move the Court
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for final approval of a class
settlement reached in this matter involving alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
A copy of the consent motion for final approval of class settlement
and class certification dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qF60ip at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class, are:
O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
Chicago, II 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-8822
E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com
- and -
Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
GESUND AND PAILET, LLC
3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 836-2888
Facsimile: (504) 265-9492
E-mail: keren@gp-nola.com
FRITO-LAY INC: Lopez Sues Over Warehouse Staff's Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
RIDEL LOPEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
aggrieved v. FRITO-LAY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV01652 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 14, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations
of the California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act by
failing to provide proper meal and rest periods, pay for all hours
worked up to 40 per week, pay proper overtime, provide itemized
wage statements, and pay all wages earned and unpaid at the time of
discharge.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt warehouse
worker for approximately eight months until his last day worked, on
or about November 18, 2019.
Frito-Lay, Inc. is an American subsidiary of PepsiCo that
manufactures, markets, and sells corn chips, potato chips, and
other snack foods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
Blake R. Jones, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 496-5818
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
blake@crosnerlegal.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Jackson Sues Over Defective Vehicle Airbag Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD JACKSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00053 (E.D. Va.,
Jan. 15, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
Virginia's Consumer Protection Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act by failing to disclose, and concealing, the defective nature of
the Class vehicles' airbag system from the Plaintiff and
prospective Class members.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knew that the Class
vehicles' airbag system suffered from an inherent defect, would
fail prematurely, and were not suitable for their intended use. By
failing to disclose the defect, Defendant knowingly and
intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to
do so, the suit says.
General Motors Company is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan that designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells
financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS & SKILLING, P.C.
7104 Mechanicsville Turnspike, Suite 204
Mechanicsville, VA 23111
Telephone: (804) 447-0307, ext. 305
Facsimile: (804) 447-0367
E-mail: cwilliams@williamsandskilling.com
- and -
Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9156
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
- and -
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
mgodino@glancylaw.com
dmanning@glancylaw.com
GENUINE PARTS: Class Certification Filing Deadline Set for May 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yoakum v. Genuine Parts
Company, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00718 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Beth Phillips entered an order granting the Motion to Amend Class
Certification Scheduling Order:
-- Motions to amend pleadings and/or join parties due by
February 15, 2021.
-- Plaintiffs shall disclose class experts by March 19, 2021.
-- Defendant shall disclose class experts by April 19, 2021.
-- The deadline to file the motion for class certification is
May 17, 2021.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property
Damage Product Liability.
Genuine Parts Company is an American service organization engaged
in the distribution of automotive replacement parts, industrial
replacement parts, office products and electrical/electronic
materials.[CC]
GOOGLE LLC: May Be added to Child Labour Class Action in Mines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Africa Intelligence reports that Google may be added to class
action over child labour in mines.
Terry Collingsworth, representing plaintiffs who accuse US tech
firms of faciltiating child labour in mines, has accepted the
arguments of Hogan Lovells, the law firm representing Alphabet,
which state that as it is simply Google's parent company, it is not
directly responsible for the activities of its subsidiary. [GN]
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Police Retirement System Seeks Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE POLICE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, JAMES H.
ROBERTS, JIGISHA DESAI, and LAUREL J. KRZEMINSKI, Case No.
3:19-cv-04744-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
1. certifying the Class:
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Granite common stock during the period of April
30, 2018 through October 24, 2019, inclusive ("the Class
Period") and were damaged thereby;"
2. appointing itself as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP (BFA) as Class
Counsel.
The Plaintiff says that this Unopposed Motion incorporates the
thorough recitation of the alleged facts as presented in the
Court's Order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss entered May
20, 2020. Since the Complaint was filed, Granite has not filed
audited 2019 financials, or any Form 10-Qs for 2020, due to an
ongoing Audit Committee investigation into the accuracy of
"prior-period reporting for the Heavy Civil Operating Group" and
internal control over financial reporting. The deadline for 2019
financials was pushed to June 2020, then pushed again to November
2020, with Granite agreeing to provide monthly statements to
creditors.
On November 17, 2020, Granite filed a Form 8-K announcing that it
had agreed with its lenders to extend the filing deadline to
February 28, 2021 for its audited financial statements on Form 10-K
for the year-ended December 31, 2019 and for its unaudited
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2020.
Since October 1, 1957, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis
has been helping ensure the financial security of its members and
their families.
Granite Construction Inc. is a member of the S&P 600 Index based in
Watsonville, California, and is the parent corporation of Granite
Construction Company, a heavy civil general contractor and
construction material producer.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35ZsmTO
at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff the Police Retirement System of St.
Louis and Lead Counsel for the Putative Class, are:
Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
Joseph A. Fonti, Esq.
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: pborkon@bfalaw.com
jfonti@bfalaw.com
jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
GREENWICH LOGISTICS: Romero FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Arturo Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Greenwich Logistics, LLC a Delaware
corporation; Amazon Logistics, Inc.; Need It Now, LLC, a California
corporation; SOS Logistics, LLC, a California corporation; ASAP
Courier and Logistics, a business entity of unknown form; Lucky 2
Logistics, LLC, a business entity of unknown form; WDS Logistics,
LLC, a business entity of unknown form; Need It Now Courier of MD,
a business entity of unknown form, Lexington Logistics, business
entity of unknown form; and Fastmile Delivers, LLC, a business
entity of unknown form, Case No., Case No. RG20079679, was removed
from the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
January 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00035-JST to the proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and is assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.
The Defendants are American logistics companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Keledjian, Esq.
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: david@setarehlaw.com
shaun@setarehlaw.com
- and -
Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
Telephone: (415) 393-8200
Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
E-mail: rbrass@gibsondunn.com
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Parker Losses MDOC Prisoners Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE PARKER, v. HEIDI E.
WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-11413-MFL-KGA (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Leitman entered an order:
1. denying Parker's motions to require the Defendants to
preserve evidence:
2. denying Parker's motion to certify a class of:
"all Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) prisoners
who are similarly situated to him."
The Court said, "Based on the Defendants' representations, the
Court does not believe that it is necessary to order Defendants to
preserve evidence. Defendants have already, voluntarily, preserved
much of the evidence that Parker identifies in his motions. And
Parker has not sufficiently explained the relevance of video from
areas of the MCF where he is not housed and to which he does not
have access. Thus, Parker has not persuaded the Court that
Defendants should be ordered to preserve that footage."
The Court also concluded that Parker's Complaint does not include
any class allegations. Nor does it ask for relief on a class-wide
basis. Because Parker has not pleaded any facts in his Complaint
that could support class relief, he is not entitled to class
certification. The Court has now referred this action for a limited
settlement conference before the assigned Magistrate Judge so that
the parties can attempt to resolve Parker's pending motion for a
preliminary injunction. Until the parties have completed that
settlement conference, neither party shall file any additional
motions in this action.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MdJPAM at no extra charge.[CC]
HIRERIGHT INC: Zielinski FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled William Michael Zielinski, Jr., individually, on
behalf of other similarly situated individuals, and on behalf of
the general public v. HireRight, Inc., a California corporation,
and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 30-02020-01166965-CU-OE-CJC, was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-00006-DOC-ADS to the proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and is assigned to Judge David O. Carter.
HireRight, Inc. provides on-demand employment screening solutions.
The Company offers services including criminal, motor vehicle, and
public records searches, as well as employment, education, and
professional license verifications, credit checks, drug, and health
screening services. HireRight serves enterprises in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devin H. Fok, Esq.
16 North Marengo Avenue Suite 403
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (888) 651-6411
Facsimile: (818) 484-2023
E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jessica Rose Ellis Lohr, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
11682 El Camino Real Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 509-6000
Facsimile: (858) 509-6040
E-mail: jessica.lohr@troutman.com
HOME DEPOT: Class Certification Filing Deadline Set for May 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRIS CARLSON, v. HOME
DEPOT USA INC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01150-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Marsha J. Pechman entered an order setting trial date and
related dates:
BENCH TRIAL DATE April 11, 2022
Deadline for joining additional February 24, 2021
parties
Deadline for filing amended pleadings March 8, 2021
Plaintiff's Motion for Class May 14, 2021
Certification and Defendant's
Cross-Motion to Deny Class
Certification due by
Plaintiff's and Defendant's Responses June 11, 2021
to the Class Certifications-related
Motions due by
No replies shall be filed Reports September 13, 2021
from expert witness under
FRCP 26(a)(2) due
All motions related to discovery October 13, 202
must be filed by and noted on
the motion calendar on the third
Friday thereafter
Should this case settle, counsel shall notify Grant Cogswell as
soon as possible at 206−370−8518. Pursuant to GR 3(b), an
attorney who fails to give the Deputy Clerk prompt notice of
settlement may be subject to such discipline as the Court deems
appropriate, says the Court.
Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.
A copy of the Court's order setting trial date and related dates
dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/390ALZ4 at no extra charge.[CC]
HOME DEPOT: June 28 Extension of Class Cert. Filing Deadline Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNIE SANCHEZ BARRAGAN,
ARACELI BARRAGAN, and JEREMEY BURCHAM, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-01766-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
the Parties jointly ask the Court to extend the filing deadlines
for the summary judgment and class certification motions by 45
days, as follows:
1. The deadline for filing motions for summary judgment shall
be continued to May 3, 2021.
2. The deadline for filing a motion for class certification
shall be continued to June 28, 2021.
On November 19, 2019, the Court set February 28, 2020 as the
deadline to file motions for summary judgment, and set April 24,
2020 as the deadline for plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification.
On October 19, 2020, the Parties jointly moved to further continue
the filing deadlines for the summary judgment and class
certification motions pending a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. On
October 21, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' joint motion,
setting February 2, 2021 as the deadline for any summary judgment
motions and March 29, 2021 as the deadline for the Plaintiffs'
class certification motion.
Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United
States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.
A copy of joint motion to further continue summary judgment and
class certification motion deadlines dated Jan. 15, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2KyXm5L at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Shaun Markley, Esq. (SBN
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
smarkley@nicholaslaw.org
- and -
Noam Glick, Esq.
GLICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 2100
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 382-3400
Facsimile: (619) 615-2193
E-mail: noam@glicklawgroup.com
Attorneys for the Defendant Home Depot, are:
Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
Dorothy Kaslow, Esq.
KIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94101-1036
Telephone: (415) 765-9500
Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
- and -
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
John D. Hayashi, Esq.
Nancy Nguyen, Esq.
P. Bartholomew Quintans, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
john.hayashi@morganlewis.com
nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com
bart.quintans@morganlewis.com
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Garrett Alleges WARN Act Violation Over Layoffs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARA GARRETT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00154 (S.D.
Tex., Jan. 15, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation
of the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act.
The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated current and/or former employees of the Defendant
who were terminated without cause or suffered other employment loss
as part of or as the result of a plant closing or mass layoff
ordered by the company on or about March 16, 2020, and 30 days of
that date and who were not provided with advance written notice of
the plant closing or mass layoff as required by the WARN Act.
The Defendant employed Garrett as a server and bartender from July
2018 until her termination on March 16, 2020, without cause.
Hooters of America, LLC operates and franchises more than 420
Hooters restaurants in more than 40 states and about 30
countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Renu Tandale, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
renu@mooreandassociates.net
HOWARD FROERLICHER: Class Action Dismissed Against Protesters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pat LaFleur at wcpo.com reports that a class-action lawsuit aimed
at recuperating property damage incurred during last summer's
protests for social justice and police reform will not go forward.
In a notice filed Jan. 11, attorney for Court Street Executive
Suites, LLC, William H. Blessing, dismissed his client's complaint
against 90 individuals who were arrested between May 29 and June 1,
2020, in connection to demonstrations protesting the death of
George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.
Blessing told WCPO in an email that the dismissal was filed at the
direction of the client and did not offer any further comment.
Blessing's firm filed the suit in October on behalf of properties
in "downtown Cincinnati, Over-the-Rhine, West End, Clifton Heights,
University Heights, and Fairview" that were "broken into, looted,
vandalized, damaged, defaced, or destroyed."
The suit sought judicial and punitive damages, arguing that the
defendants "engaged in a malicious combination, conspiracy, and
concerted behavior to perpetrate, promote, ratify, and execute the
riotous conduct."
A June analysis by Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation
(3CDC) estimated the protests resulted in more than $275,000 in
property damage and impacted about 80 businesses.
At the time the suit was filed, Howard Froerlicher -- the first of
the 90 defendants named in the suit -- said the protests were not
about destruction but were instead about peace.
"It was about George Floyd, Colin Kaepernick taking a knee,
everyone having equality," he told WCPO in October.
According to a WCPO analysis of arrest records, the vast majority
of the people arrested on those nights were charged with
"misconduct at an emergency," a misdemeanor offense applied to
anyone found outside after a citywide curfew went into effect.
Previous reporting by WCPO 9 News reporter Jake Ryle and real-time
editor Sarah Walsh contributed to this story. [GN]
IRON SUSHI: Hutapea et al. Seek Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TANTI HUTAPEA, FERDENAND DELOS SANTOS, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRON SUSHI LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and MASAMITSU OCHI, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-20137-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 13, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to perform all tasks
at the restaurant such as dealing with customers, assisting with
food preparation, cleaning tables, restrooms, and the kitchen, and
all other such tasks. Tanti began working for the Defendants from
August 2017 to October, and again from December 2019 through
December 2020. Delos Santos worked for the Defendants from 2014
through December 2020.
According to the complaint, although the Plaintiffs worked 60 and
70 hours per week, every week, and without breaks, the Defendants
did not pay them 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 Plaintiffs seek at least double all unpaid overtime wages, and
all reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs.
Iron Sushi LLC is a sushi restaurant located in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
amy@nklegal.com
JACK LONDON: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Whitaker Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Whitaker v. Jack London Square Existing (Oakland) Owner, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00008-JCS
(N.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated, alleging Defendant's violations of
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by, inter alia, failing to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to its
reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide on the
hotel's reservation Website that would permit Plaintiff to
determine if there are rooms that would work for people with
physical disabilities like him.
As a result of the Defendants' failure to comply with its ADA
obligations, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking
of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether
the room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Mr. Whitaker is a California resident with physical disabilities
who is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He suffers
from a C-4 spinal cord injury. He is a quadriplegic and uses a
wheelchair for mobility.
Jack London Square Existing (Oakland) Owner, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company owns and operates the Waterfront Hotel
located in Oakland, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
JHS CONSTRUCTION: Taylor Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LYNN TAYLOR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. JHS CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JUSTIN STEADMAN,
Case No. 7:21-cv-00006 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 14, 2021) is brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all current and former
employees of the Defendants who were paid at the same rate of pay
for all of the hours they worked during the past three years, to
recover back wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Taylor was employed by JHS Construction from approximately
March of 2018 to March 2020 as a welder's helper.
JHS Construction Inc. is a welding services company for the oil and
gas industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
JR SUSHI: Yi Mei Ke Labor Suit Wins Restaurant Staff Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YI MEI KE, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. JR SUSHI 2 INC., et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07332-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara
Moses entered an order:
1. granting conditional certification of her Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) claims as a collective action,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of:
"all non-managerial, non-exempt employees at JR Sushi and
Famous Sichuan from August 6, 2016 (three years before
plaintiff filed this action) to the present;"
2. directing the defendants to provide the names, last known
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and social
media usernames of all potential collective members,
together with information about where, when, and in what
positions they worked for defendants;
3. approving the plaintiff's proposed notice and consent
form;
4. permitting the plaintiff's counsel to disseminate the
notice, in English and Chinese, via mail, email, text
message, and/or social media, and to post it on counsel's
website, and directing defendants to post it in their
restaurants and include it in the pay envelopes of
potential members of the collective;
5. setting a 90 day opt-in period; and
6. tolling the statute of limitations "for 90 days until the
expiration of the Opt-In period."
The Court said, "The plaintiff has adequately described
conversations with other employees of JR Sushi concerning their
wages and has thereby satisfied her minimal burden of showing that
she is "similarly situated" to other members of the proposed group,
at least to the extent it consists of non-managerial employees at
JR Sushi. More generally, the plaintiff asserts that the two
restaurants "share materials, including delivery bags and garbage
bags," and "host combined employee team-building events," including
a "New Year's party for the employees at both restaurants." In
light of plaintiff's minimal burden at this stage, the Court
concludes that these assertions, taken together, suffice to suggest
that the two restaurants were operated as a single integrated
enterprise and permit the Court to infer that the allegedly
unlawful pay policies at JR Sushi extended to Famous Sichuan."
The Plaintiff Yi Mei Ke was employed as a "miscellaneous kitchen
helper and cook" at the JR Sushi, located at 86A West Broadway in
Manhattan. According to the plaintiff, "more or less the same group
of individuals" owns and operates JR Sushi and another
restaurant, known as Famous Sichuan, located nearby at 10 Pell
Street in Manhattan. In this action, brought on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, the plaintiff sues the Defendants,
alleging that all defendants violated the minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the FLSA, as well as the minimum wage, overtime,
spread-of-hours, wage notice, and wage statement provisions of the
New York Labor Law (NYLL) and its implementing regulations.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3qGG8D0at no
extra charge.[CC]
JUICE SUPPLY: Cunningham Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUICE SUPPLY COMPANY, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00296 (C.D.
Cal., January 13, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent approximately 23
unsolicited text messages on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -9191 beginning in or about February 2020 in an
attempt to promote its products. The Defendant allegedly used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" in transmitting text messages
without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to
receive such unsolicited text messages.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers were harmed for
causing them to incur certain cellular telephone charges or reduce
cellular telephone time for which they previously paid, and
invading their privacy. Thus, on behalf of the Class, the Plaintiff
seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic
and personal injury, the suit says.
Juice Supply Company is an electronic cigarette company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Tel: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
LIBERTY CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-00372 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 14, 2021) arises from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to the Plaintiff
seeking to solicit its services. During all relevant times, the
Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's prior express consent to
receive calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice on his
cellular telephone, in direct violation of TCPA, the suit says.
Liberty Capital Group, Inc. provides leasing and financing
solutions to companies in the Unites States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
LOUISVILLE METRO: Bid to Certify Class in Healey Suit Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB HEALEY, et al., v.
LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00071-RGJ-RSE
(W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings entered an
order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify Class;
2. maintaining Counts I, II, III, IV, V, VII, and VIII of the
Third Amended Complaint as a class action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3) by Plaintiff Class Representatives on
behalf of the subclasses, defined as:
Subclass A:
"all persons who from February 3, 2016 to present were
imprisoned in the Louisville Metro Department of
Corrections for more than four hours after satisfaction of
their term of imprisonment set by prior court order due to
the failure of the Defendants to implement and maintain an
adequate process for timely releasing imprisoned inmates;"
and
Subclass B:
"all persons who from February 3, 2016 to present were
detained in the Metro Government Department of Corrections
for more than twelve hours after receipt of an order
directing their release due to the failure of Defendants
to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely
releasing detained inmates;"
3. appointing Attorneys James D. Ballinger and Gregory A.
Belzley as co-class counsel for Plaintiffs as they meet
all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);
4. directing that Plaintiffs Larry Louis Hibbs, Jr. and Allen
Goodfleisch are not part of the proposed class.; and
5. directing the Plaintiffs' counsel to file a status report
as to Plaintiffs Hibbs and Goodfleisch within 30 days of
this Order.
The Court said, "Because the release process appears to be
different for imprisoned and detained inmates, the Court will
create two subclasses: one for imprisoned inmates and one for
detained ones. The Court will also increase the over-detention
threshold for detained inmates from four hours to twelve hours. The
Defendants have produced no evidence that delays of more than 12
hours could be because of individual issues. Twelve hours is a
"practical compromise" between the rights of detained inmates and
the realities of processing release orders for detained inmates in
LMDC. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 53. By tripling the maximum time
allowed under the Defendants' goal, the new class definition
provides time to resolve issues that may arise, such as
clarification of court orders. In addition, the Court will edit the
class definition to include what the Plaintiffs have affirmatively
demonstrated is the cause of a substantial majority of
over-detentions: The Defendants' failure to implement and maintain
an adequate process for timely releasing detained inmates and
imprisoned inmates."
The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against
Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, Mark Bolton, Director
of the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections ("LMDC"), Arnetta
Al-Amin, Coordinator of LMDC's records department, and Dwayne
Clark, Chief of Staff of LMDC, alleging violations of state law and
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for violating the
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "regularly imprison,
detain or incarcerate persons longer than ordered by Courts of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, and under conditions that violate the
orders of such Courts. Such actions have been perpetrated by the
Defendants even though there exists no objectively reasonable legal
grounds or justification for denying such persons timely and proper
release from incarceration."
A copy of the Court's memorandum, opinion and order dated Jan. 15,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Y08N9G
at no extra charge.[CC]
MANNA PRO: Hearing on Final OK of Settlement Continued to May 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashley Hale individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, v. Manna Pro Products, LLC; DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00209-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order granting the parties' stipulation contingent on the parties
providing additional support for their proposed cy pres
distribution prior to the final approval hearing.
The court amends its preliminary approval order to approve the
parties' notice by publication plan. The court amends its Notice
Schedule as set forth in the preliminary approval order, directing
that all relevant deadlines should run from the date of the entry
of this order.
The court continues the hearing date for the Motion for Final
Approval to May 28, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.
On July 6, 2020, the Court granted preliminary class certification
and settlement approval. On October 15, 2020, the parties
stipulated to an amendment of the court's order to allow notice by
publication. The court twice deferred its decision: First, because
parties did not address how the unclaimed residual funds would be
distributed. Second, because the parties did not explain how the cy
pres charity, Public Justice, was an appropriate beneficiary.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ixScU0 at no extra charge.[CC]
MARSHALLS OF CA: Faces Lacour Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LACOUR, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company; MARSHALLS OF MA, INC., a Massachusetts
corporation; THE II TJX COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES I through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG21084368 (Cal. Super.,
Alameda Cty., Jan. 4, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violation
of the California's Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.
Mr. Lacour alleges that the Defendants have failed to provide him
and all other similarly situated individuals with meal periods,
failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay them
premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, failed to pay
them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the
regular rate of pay, failed to pay them at least minimum wage for
all hours worked, failed to pay them overtime wages at the correct
rate, failed to pay them double time wages at the correct rate,
failed to reimburse them for all necessary business expenses,
failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements, and
failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of
employment.
The Defendants operate a chain of retail department stores
throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Sega, Esq.
Farrah Grant, Esq.
SET AREH LAW GROUP
315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
MELTECH INC: Eight Circuit Appeal Filed in Grove FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Meltech, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANDREA GROVE, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. MELTECH, Inc.;
H&S CLUB OMAHA, INC., and SHANE HARRINGTON, Case No.
8:20-cv-00193-JFB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska - Omaha.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Defendants have misclassified exotic dancers working
at Club Omaha as independent contractors rather than employees,
have failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 a week, and have required dancers to
pay fees and tip-outs, which constitute unlawful kick-backs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Nebraska Wage and Hour
Act.
The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order
dated January 5, 2021, denying their motion to dismiss or for
summary judgment and to compel arbitration; and Memorandum & Order
dated January 14, 2021, denying their motion for a stay.
The appellate case is captioned as Andrea Grove, et al. v. Meltech,
Inc., et al., Case No. 21-1115, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, January 15, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appendix is due on February 24, 2021;
-- BRIEF OF APPELLANT H&S Club Omaha, Shane Harrington and
Meltech, Inc. is due on February 24, 2021; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Andrea Grove, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals; and Chrystina Winchell,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, are
represented by:
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
evan@evanspenceresq.com
Defendants-Appellants Meltech, Inc., H&S Club Omaha, Inc., and
Shane Harrington are represented by:
Evan Spencer, Esq.
EVAN SPENCER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (917) 547-4665
E-mail: evan@evanspenceresq.com
MRS BPO: Skvarla FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled Brian Skvarla, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC and John and Jane Does 1-10,
Case No. 159552/2020, was removed from the Supreme Court of New
York for New York County to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on January 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00055-ER to the proceeding.
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and is assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos.
MRS BPO LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alla Gulchina, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Telephone: (908) 591-8417
Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
E-mail: alla@sternthomasson.com
- and -
Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
818 East 16 St.
Brooklyn, NY 11230
Telephone: (347) 640-4357
Facsimile: (347) 472-0347
E-mail: simon@goldenbergfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael Thomas Etmund, Esq.
MOSS & BARNETT
150 S Fifth Street, Ste 1200
Minneapoilis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 877-5309
Facsimile: (612) 877-5050
E-mail: mike.etmund@lawmoss.com
MYLAN INC: Bid to Dismiss EpiPen-Related Suit Junked
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit In re: EpiPen Direct Purchaser
Litigation, Case No. 0:20-cv-00827-ECT-TN (D. Minn.), the Hon.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the PBM Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss as follows:
a. The motion is granted as to Defendants CVS Health
Corporation, Express Scripts Holding Company, United
Health Group Incorporated, United Healthcare Services
Inc., Optum Inc., and OptumRx Holdings, LLC. The claims
against those Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
b. the motion is denied in all other respects; and
2. denying the Mylan Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The Court said, "Both motions to dismiss will be denied in
substantial part. The PBM Defendants' motion will be granted only
as to the PBMs' corporate parents because Plaintiffs have not
alleged a plausible basis for holding those entities liable. In all
other respects, both motions will be denied. The Plaintiffs have
stated plausible claims under RICO and the Sherman Act, and while
discovery may reveal that the statute of limitations has run on
those claims, it would be inappropriate to dismiss them as untimely
at this stage."This is a case about prescription-drug prices. The
Plaintiffs Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., and Dakota Drug,
Inc., are drug wholesalers. On behalf of a proposed class, the
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Mylan Inc. and Mylan Specialty
L.P., the manufacturers of a device called the "EpiPen," paid
bribes and kickbacks to a group of pharmacy benefit managers --
referred to collectively as CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and
OptumRx -- to ensure that Mylan could raise the price of the EpiPen
with impunity while also keeping a monopoly share of the market.
In doing so, the Plaintiffs claim, all Defendants violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), U.S.C.
section 1962(c), and Mylan violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. section 2. Mylan and the PBM Defendants have filed separate
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The PBM Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
plausible RICO claims, that the claims are time-barred, and that
the claims against the PBMs' corporate parent entities should be
dismissed. Mylan raises substantially similar arguments about the
RICO claims and adds that Plaintiffs have not alleged a timely or
plausible antitrust monopoly claim.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bYV0s7 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., and Dakota Drug,
Inc., are represented by:
Noah Silverman, Esq.
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Joseph Opper, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP,
Wall Street Plaza
88 Pine St No. 10
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 398-0055
- and -
David F. Sorenson, Esq.
Caitlin Coslett, Esq.
Andrew C. Curley, Esq.
Aurelia Chaudhury, Esq.
E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
Nicholas Urban, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
www.bergermontague.com
- and -
David S. Golub, Esq.
and Steven Bloch, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic St
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203)-325-4491
- and -
Susan C. Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
221 Ansley Blvd
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
www.ssrllp.com
- and -
Russell Chorush, Esq.
Eric Enger, Esq.
Christopher M. First, Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
1111 Bagby St No. 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 221-2000
- and -
Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
Peter Kohn, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1617 John F Kennedy Blvd No. 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-277-5770
- and -
Stuart Des Roches, Esq.
Andrew Kelly, Esq.
Amanda Leah Hass, Esq.
Chris Letter, Esq.
Dan Chiorean, Esq.
Thomas Maas, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
650 Poydras St No. 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (229) 794-3412
The Defendants Mylan Inc. and Mylan Specialty L.P., are represented
by:
Adam K. Levin, Esq.
Carolyn A. DeLone, Esq.
Christine A. Sifferman, Esq.
Justin Bernick, Esq.
Kathryn Marshall Ali, Esq.
Charles A. Loughlin, Esq.
David M. Foster, Esq.
Peter H. Walsh, Esq.
Katherine Booth Wellington, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Columbia Square
555 13th St NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
Attorneys for the Defendants CVS Health Corporation, CaremarkPCS
Health LLC, Caremark LLC, and Caremark Rx LLC, are:
John W. Ursu, Esq.
Isaac B. Hall, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Wells Fargo Bank
90 S 7th St UNIT 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 766-7000
- and -
Daniel M. Dockery, Esq.
Enu A. Mainigi, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP
725 12th St NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
The Defendants Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts
Inc., and Medco Health Solutions, Inc., are represented by:
Donald G. Heeman, Esq.
Jessica J. Nelson, Esq.
Randi J. Winter, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
100 S 5th St UNIT 2500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 268-7000
- and -
Jonathan G. Cooper, Esq.
Carolyn L. Hart, Esq.
Michael J. Lyle, Esq.
Eric C. Lyttle, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel , Esq.
URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
1300 I St NW No. 900
Washington, DC 20005
The Defendants United Health Group Incorporated, United Healthcare
Services Inc., Optum, Inc., OptumRx Holdings,
LLC, and OptumRx Inc., are represented by:
Kadee J. Anderson, Esq.
Andrew Glasnovich, Esq.
STINSON LLP
50 South 6th St UNIT 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
- and -
Elizabeth Broadway Brown, Esq.
D. Andrew Hatchett, Esq.
Bradley Harder, Esq.
Brian D. Boone, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 W Peachtree St NE No. 4900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
NAPW INC: Court Denies Summary Judgment Pending Class Cert. Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bayne v. NAPW, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03591 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo K.
Brodie entered an order denying both parties' requests to move for
summary judgment until the Court decides Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
The parties are directed to confer and file a proposed briefing
schedule for the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class
certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking
collection of unpaid wages.
NAPW is is a Chinese-American for profit professional association
and networking platform fully owned by Professional Diversity
Network since 2014.[CC]
NETWORK CAPITAL: Stewart Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
JERMAINE STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NETWORK CAPITAL FUNDING CORPORATION; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-00368
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2021) arises from the illegal actions of the
Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting
Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to
solicit its services. Such calls allegedly constitute solicitation
calls as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's
services. As a result of the conduct, Plaintiff and the DNC Class
members were damaged thereby, the suit says.
Network Capital Funding Corporation provides home loan services.
The Company offers fixed rate mortgages, home equity, government
loans, and adjustable mortgage services. Network Capital Funding
conducts its business in the United States.[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
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
PENUMBRA INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or the "Company")
(NYSE: PEN) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Penumbra common stock between August 3, 2020 and
December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased Penumbra common stock during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court no later than March 16, 2021. You may contact
David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and Director at
Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment
of lead plaintiff or your interest in the class action. You may
also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at
this time to be a class member.
Penumbra is a global healthcare company that develops, manufactures
and sells innovative medical devices for patients suffering from
stroke and other vascular and neurovascular diseases. Until
recently, one of the Company's flagship products was the "Jet 7
Xtra Flex," an aspiration catheter designed to be inserted into an
affected artery, navigated to a blood clot, and used to suck the
clot out of the patient's body. In mid-2020, concerns about the Jet
7 Xtra Flex's safety began to emerge. Despite these concerns,
Penumbra repeatedly assured investors during the Class Period that
the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was "absolutely safe," "exactly what we hoped
it would be," and "not a product that has any possibility of
needing to be recalled." The Company further assured investors that
it was taking all necessary steps to protect patients.
As alleged in the Class Action Complaint, these statements and
other statements that Defendants made during the Class Period were
materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, as well as the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Among other things,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal
use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of Jet 7
Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact
already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be
recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's
public statements as set forth above were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
The truth emerged through a series of disclosures that caused
Penumbra's stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial
losses. On September 14, 2020, the Foundation for Financial
Journalism, an independent non-profit news outlet, published an
article raising serious issues about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety
profile, citing twelve deaths reported to the FDA that occurred
after a surgeon injected an iodine contrast dye into the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex, and claiming that warnings against using the product with
contrast dye and non-Penumbra products did little to address the
Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety issues. In response, Penumbra's stock
price fell by nearly 3%, from $199.43 per share on September 13,
2020 to $193.66 per share on September 14, 2020, a decline of $5.77
per share.
On November 9, 2020, the securities research firm Quintessential
Capital Management ("QCM") released a presentation concerning
Penumbra and the safety of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex. Titled "Penumbra
and Its Killer Catheter," QCM's report detailed injuries and deaths
resulting from product malfunctions, and accused Penumbra of a
"seemingly blatant disregard for patients' lives" and essentially
"blaming doctors" for the devices' design defects.
On November 23, 2020, an article was published in the Journal of
NeuroInterventional Surgery presenting the cases of three patients
who suffered as a result of Jet 7 Xtra Flex device malfunctions,
including two fatalities. As this report became more widely
circulated, it caused Penumbra stock to fall from $254.71 on
November 23, 2020, to $224.12 on November 25, 2020, a decline of
about 12%.
On December 8, 2020, QCM issued another report reiterating its
prior assertions and disclosing additional facts about the Jet 7
Xtra Flex's safety issues. In particular, QCM's second report
questioned the validity and independence of the scientific research
supporting the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, and accusing the Company
of using a fake author to publish studies regarding the purported
safety and efficacy of its products. In response, Penumbra's stock
price declined by 9%, falling from $224.02 per share on December 7,
2020 to $204.07 per share on December 8, 2020, a decline of $19.95
per share.
Finally, on December 15, 2020, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release announcing that it was issuing an "urgent"
and "voluntary" recall of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex because the catheter
"may become susceptible to distal tip damage during use" which
could lead to injury or death. In response, Penumbra's stock price
fell 7%, from $188.82 per share on December 15, 2020 to $174.98 per
share on December 16, 2020, a decline of $13.84 per share.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the class action at www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, Delaware, and
California, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. [GN]
PERFORMANCE PIPELINING: Beal Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Spencer Beal, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Performance Pipelining Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00285
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 18, 2021) seeks to recover minimum wages for all
hours worked and time and half for all hours worked over 40 hours
per week pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act.
Mr. Beal was employed by the Defendant as an hourly non-exempt
employee.
Performance Pipelining, Inc. provides water utility line
construction services. The Company offers sewer line renewal and
installation services. Performance Pipelining serves customers in
the State of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Ireland, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
636 Spruce Street
South Elgin, IL 60177
Telephone: (630) 464-9675
Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com
QBE INSURANCE: Expands COVID-19 Loss Provisions Amid Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Grieve writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that global insurer QBE has expanded its provision for COVID-19
losses by $US185 million ($240 million) after facing another defeat
in the UK courts and being threatened by a local class action.
QBE told the market it would increase its COVID-19 allowance to
$US785 million, up from $US600 million, after the UK courts
delivered another blow to insurers battling potentially billions of
dollars in business interruption claims.
QBE's share price sunk more than 5 per cent after it added an
additional $US185 million risk margin to include the potential for
Australian business interruption claims. Its shares closed down
5.72 per cent at $8.08.
The insurance industry was caught by surprise last year after it
discovered the bulk of business interruption policies included
pandemic exclusions that referenced an outdated Act of Parliament.
The industry has sought to prove the exclusions were valid by
launching a test case in the NSW Supreme Court of Appeals however
five judges unanimously sided with policyholders in November. The
Insurance Council of Australia has since launched an appeal to the
High Court.
"While the insurance industry is sympathetic to businesses,
particularly small and medium enterprises, that have experienced
hardship as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, it remains of the
view that pandemics were not contemplated for coverage under most
business interruption policies and that the Quarantine Act
exclusion excludes COVID-19 related claims," an ICA spokeswoman
said.
In the UK, a similar test case was launched by the corporate
regulator. The initial ruling found mostly in favour of
policyholders and on Jan. 15 the UK Supreme Court knocked out the
insurers' main grounds for appeal.
Litigation funder ICP and law firm Clayton Utz have now set up a
taskforce to analyse Australian business interruption policies and
help business owners make claims for losses relating to COVID-19.
If the insurers refuse to pay out claims deemed eligible, ICP
managing director John Walker said a class action would be launched
to redeem funds.
The industry has argued it never intended to cover businesses from
the financial fallout from the pandemic, and it has not been
charging the correct premiums to reflect this.
However, Mr Walker said this perspective was "an admission of a
stuff-up".
"The actual intent of the industry is not relevant to its
obligations," he said. "Its contractual obligations are to be
construed from the words of the policy. If they wrote words in
their policy that was not consistent with their intention, that's
their issue it's not the insured's issue."
More than 100 small businesses had contacted his firm, however, Mr
Walker said he expects this to reach "in the tens of thousands",
adding failure to pay could have wider implications for the
economy.
"The insurers are now provisioning billions of dollars for the
potential payout of these policies. That's money that has been lost
by businesses in Australia," Mr Walker said. "So the ramifications
of denial and delay in paying out valid claims is immense to those
individuals and to the economy."
Insurance Australia Group was placed into a trading halt after the
unfavourable NSW Court ruling and subsequently launched a $750
million capital raising in November to brace for a spike in
claims.
Business interruption policies are typically held by public-facing
businesses, including restaurants, bars and gyms, that were forced
to close due to nation-wide lockdowns. [GN]
QIWI PLC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds Investors of February 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Qiwi stock or
options between March 28, 2019 and December 9, 2020 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/QIWI or
call Faruqi & Faruqi partner James Wilson directly at 877-247-4292
or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned
national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims
against Qiwi plc ("Qiwi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:QIWI) and
reminds investors of the February 9, 2021 deadline to seek the role
of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has
been filed against the Company.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping
were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia
would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose
restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign
merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
Specifically, on December 9, 2020, after the market closed, Qiwi
filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, announcing that the Central Bank of
Russia had imposed a fine of approximately $150,000 for
deficient record-keeping and reporting, and suspended the Company's
conduct most types of payments to foreign merchants and money
transfers to pre-paid cards from corporate accounts.
On this news, Qiwi's ADS price fell $2.80 per share, or 20.6%, to
close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020, damaging
investors.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Qiwi's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington
Capital Acquisition Corp. ("Kensington") ("QuantumScape" or the
"Company") (NYSE: QS) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-00150, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise, acquired QuantumScape
securities between November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased QuantumScape securities
during the Class Period, you have until March 8, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
QuantumScape develops battery technology for electric vehicles and
other applications.
QuantumScape went public via business combination with Kensington,
which closed on November 25, 2020 (the "Merger"), with QuantumScape
as the surviving public entity. Kensington was a special purpose
acquisition company that was formed for the purpose of effecting a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization or similar business combination. Though Kensington
was not limited to a particular industry or sector, it focused its
search for a target business in the automotive and
automotive-related sector.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) that the Company's purported success related to
its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density
were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to
be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary
to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha
pointing to several risks with QuantumScape's solid-state batteries
that make it "completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicles." Specifically, it stated that the battery's power means
it "will only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving." As solid-state batteries are temperature
sensitive, "the power and cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above
would have been significantly worse if run even a few degrees
lower."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
RAYKELL FOOD: Medina Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
WAGNER ALEXANDER MEDINA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. RAYKELL FOOD CORP., d/b/a RAYKELL DELI & GROCERY, LAY
DELI GROCERY INC., JONY FOOD CORP., d/b/a MAEBA GROCERY, MERCEDES
FOOD MARKET INC., JOAQUIN CASTILLO and RAKIL CASTILLO, Case No.
1:21-cv-00398 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2021) seeks from the Defendants
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
Mr. Medina was employed by the Defendants in various roles and
positions, from on or around February 1, 2018, until the
termination of his employment on or around December 16, 2020.
The Defendants owned and operated at least four bodegas in New York
City comprised of four corporate entities Raykell Food Corp., d/b/a
Raykell Deli & Grocery, Lay Deli Grocery Inc., Jony Food Corp.,
d/b/a Maeba Grocery, and Mercedes Food Market Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1744
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (718) 971-0326
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Faces Blaise FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Receivable
Management Services LLC. The case is captioned as Sanchez Blaise,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Receivable Management Services LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
4:21-cv-00002-AWA-RJK (E.D. Va., Jan. 4, 2021).
The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and is assigned to Judge Arenda L. Wright
Allen.
The Receivable Management Services Corporation provides debt
recovery services to companies from a wide range of
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
Baltimore, MD 21208
Telephone: (443) 326-6011
Facsimile: (410) 653-1061
E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com
REVERA INC: Still Reviewing COVID-19 Outbreak Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Raymond, writing for CTV News, reports that as COVID-19
vaccines are delivered to local long-term care homes, one Ottawa
retirement home is battling an outbreak that has so far claimed the
lives of four residents.
The Valley Stream retirement home on Valley Stream Drive in Nepean
has, to date, seen 46 residents and 27 staff members test positive
for COVID-19 since Jan. 2.
Revera runs the home.
In a statement dated Jan. 14, the company's chief medical officer,
Dr. Rhonda Collins, said COVID-19 protocols are in place to help
limit the spread.
"Residents are isolated in their rooms and monitored for symptoms
twice daily. All staff are screened at the beginning and end of
their shifts and are required to wear a surgical mask and eye
protection in the residence at all times," Dr. Collins said. "We
are doing enhanced cleaning at Valley Stream, disinfecting high
touch surfaces like handrails and doors, resident rooms, common
areas and staff rooms frequently."
Non-essential visits to the home have been cancelled.
A spokesperson for Revera told CTV News on Jan. 17 that Valley
Stream is awaiting confirmation from Ottawa Public Health of a date
for residents to begin receiving COVID-19 vaccinations and staff
have been preparing the informed consents required.
On Jan. 15, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson said mobile vaccination teams
had visited all 28 long-term care homes in Ottawa to deliver first
doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, and focus would soon turn to the
city's high-risk retirement homes. However, with recent news that
Pfizer is temporarily cutting shipments of its vaccine to Canada in
half, it remains unclear how many doses will be available in Ottawa
in the coming weeks.
"We would normally get about 5,800 to 6,000 doses on Tuesday. We
don't know what we're going to get and that will determine how many
more arms we can put the vaccine in, because of course the next
round goes to the retirement homes," Watson told CTV News at Six on
Jan. 16.
According to Ottawa Public Health, there are 10 active COVID-19
outbreaks in local retirement homes and 13 in long-term care homes
as of Jan. 16, accounting for 244 total cases of COVID-19 in
residents and staff and 10 resident deaths.
Revera was named in a $50 million class action lawsuit in April
2020 that alleged the company failed to keep residents safe from
COVID-19. The suit was brought forth "on behalf of all persons who
have lived, or are currently living, at one of the Revera
retirement living residences in Ontario," according to a press
release. The suit was later expanded to also include another
long-term care industry giant, Sienna Senior Living.
A response from Revera at the time said, "We are currently
reviewing the class action lawsuit and will respond in due course,
however, we will not let it distract us from our singular focus at
this time, which is to prevent further illness and loss of life."
The allegations have not been proven in court. [GN]
RLJ HGN: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Whitaker Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Whitaker v. RLJ HGN Emeryville, LP, a Delaware Limited
Partnership, Case No. 4:21-cv-00006-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2021)
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated, alleging violations of the Defendant of the California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act by, inter alia, failing to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to its reservation
policies and practices of a place of lodging.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide on the
hotel's reservation Website that would permit Plaintiff to
determine if there are rooms that would work for people with
physical disabilities like him.
As a result of the Defendants' failure to comply with its ADA
obligations, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking
of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether
the room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Mr. Whitaker is a California resident with physical disabilities
who is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He suffers
from a C-4 spinal cord injury. He is a quadriplegic and uses a
wheelchair for mobility.
RLJ HGN Emeryville, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, owns and
operates the Hilton Garden Inn located at 1800 Powell St.,
Emeryville, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
SAGESTREAM LLC: Ikunika Has Until April 26 to File Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FUNMILAYO IKUNIKA, v.
SAGESTREAM, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-62390-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order setting civil trial date and pretrial
schedule, requiring mediation, and referring
certain motions to Magistrate Judge:
The following timetable shall govern the pretrial procedures in
this case, says the Court:
04-26-2021 Motions to join additional parties, amend the
complaint, and class certification.
05-24-2021 The Parties shall exchange expert witness
summaries and reports.
06-03-2021 The Parties shall exchange written lists
containing the names and addresses of
all witnesses intended to be called at trial
and only those witnesses listed shall be
permitted to testify.
06-23-2021 The Parties exchange rebuttal expert witness
summaries and reports.
08-12-2021 All discovery, including expert discovery,
shall be completed.
08-23-2021 A mediator must be selected.
09-13-2021 All Daubert, summary judgment, and other
dispositive motions must be filed.
10-21-2021 Mediation shall be completed.
11-05-2021 All pretrial motions and memoranda of law
must be filed. Each party is limited to
filing a single motion in limine, which may
not, without leave of Court, exceed
the 20-page limit allowed by the Rules.
11-22-2021 Joint Pretrial Stipulation must be filed.
12-13-2021 Proposed jury instructions and/or proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law must
be filed.
12-13-2021 Proposed voir dire questions must be filed.
SageStream is a credit reporting agency that issues consumer
reports regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LJ2JA0 at no extra charge.[CC]
SAN DIEGO, CA: Restaurant Owners Join COVID-19 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
kusi.com reports that restaurants have been a flashpoint for
controversy amid the pandemic stay-at-home orders.
Class action lawsuits have been filed in San Diego, Orange, San
Francisco and Sacramento counties against the state and local
agencies that involve operation fees.
"We've sustained a huge blow to our bottom line and are just
struggling to keep the doors open," said Jon Weber, a lead
plaintiff and owner of the Cowboy Star Restaurant and Butcher Shop
in San Diego. "We usually pay these fees in full at the beginning
of the year so we can sell liquor and serve food."
The legal action is a result of restaurants across the state facing
unprecedented challenges to stay open and maintain cash reserves
amid new operating restrictions in the COVID-19 era.
"The defendants are collecting these fees while at the same time
ordering the business to shut down or drastically limit
operations", said lead plaintiff attorney Brian S. Kabateck. "We
are encouraged, however, that some governmental entities have
reached out to say they are willing to do the right thing and
return these fees and we're hopeful others will soon follow suit,"
added Kabateck.
Weber and Kabateck joined Good Morning San Diego to discuss the
lawsuit. [GN]
SAVE MART: McDaniel Employment Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Save Mart
Companies, Inc. The case is styled as Jason McDaniel Sr., on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. The
Save Mart Companies, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1
through 100, Case No. 34-2021-00291895-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., January 6, 2021).
The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.
Save Mart Companies, Inc. is an American grocery store
operator.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS For JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Ave Ste 203
Glendale, CA 91203-4007
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: edwin@calljustice.com
SCATTER LAB: Faces Privacy Class Action Suit Over Chatbot Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
world.kbs.co.kr reports that a class action lawsuit will be filed
against an artificial intelligence(AI) chatbot service called "Lee
Luda."
Developed by a local startup, the chatbot has been mired in
controversy over its use of discriminatory and offensive language
as well as an alleged leak of personal information.
A notice recruiting victims of the privacy leak has been posted on
an online platform for joint litigation.
A representative of the lawsuit said in the message that Scatter
Lab, the chatbot's developer, collected personal information of its
users without proper consent and used it as learning algorithms in
training the AI.
The representative further said that people's real names, addresses
and bank account numbers have been exposed, which is punishable
under the Personal Information Protection Act, and added that
victims have the right to claim compensation for psychological
damage.
The Facebook-based deep learning chatbot was suspended early this
week following complaints. It had gained popularity, attracting
more than 750-thousand users since its debut late last month. [GN]
SIMS GROUP: Court Vacates Case Management Conference in Sanft Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanft v. Sims Group USA
Corporation, Case No. 4:19-cv-08154 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon
S. Tigar entered an order on Jan. 15, 2021:
1. vacating case management conference scheduled for 1:30
p.m.; and
2. issuing a decision on the pending motion for conditional
class certification, within the week.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Sims Group was founded in 1987. The company's line of business
includes the assembling, breaking up, sorting, and wholesale
distribution of scrap and waste materials.[CC]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Klein Law Firm Reminds of March 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Jan. 17 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE:PINS)
Class Period: May 16, 2019 - November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 22, 2021
The complaint alleges that during the class period Pinterest, Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's addressable market in the U.S. was
reaching its maximum capacity; (ii) which significantly decelerated
Pinterest's future ability to monetize on U.S. average revenue per
user; (iii) Pinterest was at an increased risk of losing
advertising revenue; (iv) and as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts.
Learn about your recoverable losses in PINS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/pinterest-inc-loss-submission-form?id=12212&from=1
SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI)
Class Period: March 1, 2020 - December 14, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 5, 2021
SolarWinds Corporation allegedly made materially 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in SWI:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=12212&from=1
Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCDA)
Class Period: September 4, 2019 - October 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
Throughout the class period, Tricida, Inc. allegedly 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in TCDA:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?id=12212&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of March 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or "the "Company") (NYSE:
SWI) between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than March 5, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
SolarWinds investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the SolarWinds Securities Class Litigation
SolarWinds, headquartered in Austin, Texas, provides information
technology infrastructure management software products in the
United States and internationally.
The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) since at least mid-2020, SolarWinds's Orion monitoring
products possessed a vulnerability that allowed hackers to
compromise the server on which these products ran; (2) SolarWinds's
update server could be easily accessed with a password of
'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds's customers,
including, the United States federal government, Microsoft, Cisco,
Nvidia, and others, were vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result of
these vulnerabilities, the Company would incur serious damage to
its reputation; and (5) consequently, Defendants' statements
concerning SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported that hackers who were
allegedly working for the Russian government had monitored email
traffic at the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments and gained
access to the agencies' email traffic by interfering with
SolarWinds updates.
On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds disclosed that it had been the
subject of a hack of its Orion monitoring products. On this news,
the price of SolarWinds's stock fell $3.93 per share, or 16.69%,
from its closing price of $23.55 on December 11, 2020, to close at
$19.62 per share on December 14, 2020, on extremely elevated
trading volume.
On December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that during the previous
year, a security researcher had "alerted the company that anyone
could access SolarWinds' update server by using the password
'solarwinds123.'" The report also noted that "days after SolarWinds
realized their software had been compromised, the malicious updates
were still available for download." On this news, the price of the
Company's stock fell $1.56 per share, or 7.95%, from its closing
price of $19.62 on December 14, 2020, to close at $18.06 per share
on December 15, 2020, on heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210115005095/en/ [GN]
SPLUNK INC: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Splunk, Inc. ("Splunk" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: SPLK). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Splunk and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On December 2, 2020, post-market, Splunk announced its financial
results for the quarter ended October 31, 2020. Among other
results, Splunk reported total revenues of $559 million,
representing an 11% year-over-year decline and missing estimates by
nearly $60 million. Splunk also announced quarterly non-GAAP
earnings per share ("EPS") of -$0.07, missing estimates by $0.15
per share, as well as GAAP EPS of -$1.26, missing estimates by
$0.24 per share. On an earnings call with analysts that same day,
Splunk's Chief Executive Officer admitted that despite the Company
having reiterated its guidance for the quarter just ten days before
the close of the quarter, Splunk's financial results fell
"certainly short of both our expectations and our communication of
those expectations."
On this news, Splunk's stock price fell $47.88 per share, or
23.25%, to close at $158.03 per share on December 3, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]
STANDARD HIGH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Nettle Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN "GENO" NETTLE; and GUILHERME PARREIRAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STANDARD HIGH
LINE EMPLOYER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 501183/2021 (N.Y. Sup.,
Kings Cty., Jan. 15, 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.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
STANDARD HIGH LINE EMPLOYER, LLC owns and operates a restaurant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
Michael C. Danna, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 3rd Ave. 25th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
TIGER SAFETY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Allen Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALISSA CATHERINE ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIGER SAFETY, LLC a/k/a TIGER
SAFETY OF TEXAS, LLC d/b/a TIGER SAFETY f/k/a TIGER RENTALS, LLC
d/b/a TIGER RENTALS, LTD.; THE MODERN GROUP, LTD. d/b/a THE MODERN
GROUP OF COMPANIES, LTD. d/b/a MODERN GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD. f/k/a
THE MODERN GROUP, INC. f/k/a THE MODERN GROUP GP-SUB, INC.; and THE
MODERN GROUP GP, INC. d/b/a THE MODERN GROUP OF COMPANIES, LTD.
d/b/a MODERN GROUP OF COMPANIES LTD. d/b/a THE MODERN GROUP GP-SUB,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-00114 (W.D. La., Jan. 15, 2021)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Allen was employed by the Defendants as staff.
TIGER SAFETY, LLC offers specialized services and equipment
tailored to meet the demanding safety requirements of on and
offshore oil and gas companies worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Snarr FDCPA Suit Removed to District of Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled James T. Snarr, on behalf of Plaintiff and Class v.
Transworld Systems Inc., U.S. Bank, and National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2006-3, Case No. 200907478, was removed from the Third
Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, Utah, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah on Jan. 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Utah assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-00003-HCN to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' conduct of illegally
collecting and attempting to collect allegedly owed debts in
violation of the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act and the federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Transworld Systems, Inc. is a debt collector which acts on behalf
of U.S. Bank for the NCSLT Trust and is engaged in the business of
a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect
consumer debts allegedly owed to others.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
George W. Burbidge II, Esq.
CHRISTENSEN & JENSEN, P.C.
275 East 200 South, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 323-5000
E-mai: George.burbidge@chrisjen.com
- and -
Milo Steven Marsden, Esq.
Adam C. Buck, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
111 South Main Street, 21st Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 933-7360
E-mail: marsden.steve@dorsey.com
buck.adam@dorsey.com
TURQUOISE HILL: Pentwater Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit IN RE TURQUOISE HILL RESOURCES LTD.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order:
1. appointing the Pentwater Funds as lead plaintiff and
appointing their counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP, as class counsel;
2. denying the remaining motions for appointment to lead
plaintiff;
3. directing the newly-appointed lead plaintiff to meet and
confer with the Defendants on a briefing schedule for a
consolidated amended complaint and any motion to dismiss;
and
4. directing the parties to jointly submit a proposed
schedule on ECF no later than January 29, 2021. If the
parties are unable to agree on a proposed schedule, they
may file separate proposal.
Before the Court are competing motions from movants seeking to be
appointed lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Each movant also proposes
its respective retained counsel as class counsel. The group
identifying themselves as the Pentwater Funds have the largest
financial interest and satisfy all other requirements under the
PSLRA. The Court, therefore, appoints the Pentwater Funds as lead
plaintiff.
The Plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against Turquoise Hill, Rio Tinto plc, Rio Tinto
Limited, Rio Tinto International Holdings, Ltd., and five officers
and directors of Turquoise Hill and Rio Tinto.
The action is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Turquoise Hill from July 17,
2018 to and including July 31, 2019.
Turquoise Hill is an international mining company focused on the
operation and development of the Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine in
Southern Mongolia (the "Oyu Tolgoi project"), which is the
Company's principal and only material resource property. Turquoise
Hill's subsidiary, Oyu Tolgoi LLC, holds a 66% interest in the Oyu
Tolgoi project; the remainder is held by the Government of
Mongolia. Rio Tinto plc and Rio Tinto Limited own 50.8% of
Turquoise Hill through their subsidiaries. One of their
subsidiaries, Rio Tinto International is also the manager of the
Oyu Tolgoi project. Through its subsidiaries, Rio Tinto owns 50.8%
of Turquoise Hill.
The Turquoise Hill individual defendants include the Company's
chief executive officer and director, Ulf Quellmann, its chief
financial officer, Luke Colton, and its former vice president of
operations and development from February 1, 2016 until March 2019,
Brendan Lane. The Rio Tino individual defendants include Rio
Tinto's chief executive officer and director, Jean-Sebastien
Jacques, and the chief executive of its copper & diamonds product
group and director, Arnaud Soirat.
The case arises out of a series of allegedly materially false and
misleading statements and omissions related to project delays and
cost overruns incurred in connection with the development of the
Oyu Tolgoi project. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the progress of
underground development of the Oyu Tolgoi project was not
proceeding as planned.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Jan. 15, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iy66FH at no
extra charge.[CC]
UNITED AIRLINES: Two Class Actions Over Union Fees Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
With free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal
Defense Foundation staff attorneys, two airline workers have filed
cases challenging union boss policies that require workers to opt
out in order to exercise their First Amendment right not to fund
union political activities, as recognized in the Foundation-argued
2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision.
The two federal class-action lawsuits were brought for United
Airlines fleet service employee Arthur Baisley and JetBlue Airways
pilot Christian Popp. They are currently pending in the U.S. Courts
of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits respectively.
Workers Challenge Compelled Political Speech
Baisley's case against the International Association of Machinists
(IAM) union has been fully briefed and is tentatively set for oral
argument the week of November 30. Meanwhile, the opening brief for
Popp's case against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) union
was filed in early October.
The lawsuits contend that under Janus and the 2012 Knox v. SEIU
Supreme Court cases -- both argued and won by Foundation staff
attorneys -- no union dues or fees can be charged for union
political activities without a worker's affirmative consent.
Despite this, union officials at the IAM and ALPA enforce
complicated opt-out policies that require workers to object to
funding union political activities or else pay full union dues.
Foundation staff attorneys argue that the Janus decision's opt-in
requirement applies to airline and railroad employees covered by
the Railway Labor Act (RLA), taken together with longstanding
precedent protecting private sector workers from being required to
pay for union political and ideological activities.
Mr. Baisley and Mr. Popp both work in Right to Work states (Texas
and Florida, respectively), but the RLA preempts state law.
Consequently, they can be forced to pay union dues or fees or be
fired. Even under the RLA, however, union bosses cannot legally
force workers to pay for political activities.
Cases Could Expand Janus Protections to Private Sector
The lawsuits argue IAM and ALPA's opt-out policies are designed to
trap unwilling participants into full dues in violation of their
First Amendment rights. This forces workers to subsidize union
political activities against their will, including the part of full
dues that union officials use to support their radical political
agenda and handpicked candidates for office.
"IAM and ALPA union officials have demonstrated a blatant disregard
for the rights of the very workers they claim to represent by
creating complicated obstacles for independent-minded workers who
want to exercise their right not to fund union ideological
activities," said National Right to Work Foundation Vice President
Patrick Semmens. "Although Janus' biggest impact was to secure the
First Amendment rights of all public employees across the nation
not to be required to fund Big Labor, these cases demonstrate that
Janus' implications can also protect the rights of private sector
workers." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Missouri River Flooding
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the federal government faces a
second lawsuit over flooding along the Missouri River after it was
ordered last month to pay some landowners for damages.
R. Dan Boulware, of the Polsinelli law firm, filed the new
class-action lawsuit on behalf of 60 plaintiffs who experienced
damages during flooding in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013 and 2014, The St.
Joseph News-Press reports.
"This is the sequel," said Boulware, who successfully argued in the
earlier case that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers knowingly
flooded some farmland when it made changes to protect endangered
species.
Steve Milne of Holt County, Missouri, is one of the plaintiffs in
the new class-action suit. Six hundred acres (242.81 hectares) of
his land has seen flooding during the years that qualify. Like many
farmers, Milne has insurance, but recurring flooding causes the
premiums to go up.
"We're gonna pay more for the insurance and receive less help,"
Milne said.
Boulware currently is waiting for the class-action lawsuit to be
certified. If that occurs there could be additional plaintiffs
added to the case. He estimates that the current claim of damages
exceeds $50 million. [GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Olukayode Seeks to Certify Three Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OLURO OLUKAYODE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, OPTUM, INC. and THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY,
Case No. 0:19-cv-01101-DSD-HB (D. Minn.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, granting his motion for class certification
of the following classes:
(a) all individuals who worked for the Defendants providing
training and support to Defendants' clients in connection
with the implementation of electronic recordkeeping
systems in Maryland from April 23, 2016 to the present
and were classified as independent contractors (the
"Maryland Class");
(b) all individuals who worked for the Defendants providing
training and support to Defendants' clients in connection
with the implementation of electronic recordkeeping
systems in Maine from April 23, 2016 to the present and
were classified as independent contractors (the "Maine
Class"); and
(c) all individuals who worked for Defendants providing
training and support to Defendants' clients in connection
with the implementation of electronic recordkeeping
systems in Maine from April 23, 2013 to the present and
were classified as independent contractors (the "New York
Class").
The Plaintiff has brought this case against the Defendants
UnitedHealth Group, Optum Clinovations, and the Advisory Board
Company, alleging that Defendants misclassified him and other
consultants as independent contractors under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law, and, as a result, failed to
pay them the legally required time-anda half for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a week.
The Plaintiff Olukayode filed this case on April 23, 2019, alleging
violations of the FLSA, Maryland, Maine and New York law. On June
10, 2019, Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Conditional
Certification under the FLSA. The Magistrate Judge denied this
Motion without prejudice. The Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for
Conditional Certification. Following oral argument, on October 28,
2019, the Magistrate Judge issued an order granting in part
Plaintiff's Motion, and conditionally certifying a collective of
"individuals who signed contracts to work as independent
contractors providing ATE services for Defendants prior to
September 15, 2018."
On November 12, 2019, the Defendants filed their Appeal and
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order. On January 29, 2020,
the District Court Judge issued an Order overturning the
Defendants' objections and affirming the Magistrate Judge's
decision. In February 2020, the Plaintiff's Counsel issued
collective action notice, and in the following three months, more
than 50 individuals opted into the case. On October 16, 2020, the
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking certification of a Maryland class
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subsequently, counsel for both parties conferred and proposed a
briefing schedule consolidating the briefing for Plaintiff's Rule
23 motions and Defendants' FLSA decertification motion, which the
Court approved.
UnitedHealth Group is an American for-profit managed health care
company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It offers health care
products and insurance services. Optum, a part of UnitedHealth
Group, is a pharmacy benefit manager and care services group. The
Advisory Board Company was a best practices firm that used a
combination of research, technology, and consulting to improve the
performance of health care organizations. The company was acquired
by Optum in 2017.
A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify classes dated
Jan. 15, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2XYsUoG at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes, are:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
- and -
Adam Hansen, Esq.
APOLLO LAW, LLC
333 Washington Ave N Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
- and -
David M. Blanchard, Esq.
BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 929 4313
E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
V&S CLEANING: Faces Chan Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
SOPHEATEVY CHAN, individually, and as a representative of other
aggrieved employees v. V&S CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a corporation;
V&S MAINTENANCE AND REMODELING, INC. a business entity, MANUEL
SANCHEZ, an individual; MARIA VAZQUEZ, an individual, and DOES 1
through 250, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV01592 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 14, 2021) arises from the Defendants' violations
of the California Labor Code for failing to pay minimum wages,
overtime wages and all wages on a timely basis, failing to pay meal
and rest period premiums, and for constructive termination in
violation of public policy.
Ms. Chan worked for the Defendants as a "controller" from August of
2018 until her constructive termination on or about July 20, 2020,
due to Defendants' alleged illegal conduct.
V&S Cleaning Services, Inc. is a carpet cleaning service provider
in Artesia, California.
V&S Maintenance and Remodeling, Inc. is a property maintenance
provider in Artesia, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 733-2498
Facsimile: (562) 733-2498
E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com
WILKINS INVESTMENT: Loftus Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM LOFTUS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WILKINS INVESTMENT GROUP, L.L.C. d/b/a ALWAYS YES
PROPERTIES, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-00347 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2021) arises from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in negligently contacting Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The complaint contends that the Plaintiff received an unsolicited
text message on February 3, 2020 placed by the Defendant via an
"automatic telephone dialing system" as prohibited by TCPA. The
Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendant's and never provided
his cellular telephone number Defendant for any reason whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Defendant and their agent never received
Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text
messages, the suit says.
Wilkins Investment Group, L.L.C. d/b/a Always Yes Properties is a
real estate investment company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
ZAGG INC: Nikoughadem Challenges Proposed Sale to Evercel
---------------------------------------------------------
ARASH NIKOUGHADEM, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. ZAGG INC, CHERYL A. LARABEE, CHRIS AHERN, DAN MAURER,
SCOTT STUBBS, MICHAEL BIRCH, RON GARRIQUES, and EDWARD TERINO, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00358 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2021) is a stockholder class
action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other public
stockholders of ZAGG Inc. against ZAGG and the Company's Board of
Directors for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts
to sell the Company to Zephyr Parent, Inc. ("Parent"), and Zephyr
Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub," and collectively with Parent,
"Evercel") in an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin
an upcoming stockholder vote on a proposed all cash transaction
valued at approximately $132.8 million.
The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in a
December 11, 2020, filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 8-K, attaching the definitive agreement and plan
of merger. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Evercel will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of ZAGG's common stock at a
price up to $4.45 per share in cash.
According to the complaint, the proposed transaction is unfair and
undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly, the preliminary
proxy describes an insufficient process in which the Board
acquiesced to two activist stockholder groups who forced through a
sale of the Company despite the fact that the Board had previously
concluded that continuing as a standalone entity was in the
Company's best interest.
In approving the proposed transaction, the Individual Defendants
have allegedly breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good
faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell
ZAGG without first taking steps to ensure that 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 the Evercel without regard for ZAGG's
public stockholders. In violation of the Exchange Act and in
further violation of their fiduciary duties, Defendants caused to
be filed the materially deficient preliminary proxy on January 7,
2021, with the SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote
their ZAGG shares in favor of the proposed transaction, the suit
says.
Zagg Incorporated designs, manufactures, and distributes mobile
phone accessories. The Company offers protective coverings, audio
accessories, and power solutions for consumer electronics and
hand-held devices. Zagg serves clients globally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
240 Mineola Boulevard First Floor
Mineola, NY 11501
Telephone: (516) 741-4977
Facsimile: (516) 741-0626
E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
ZECHSAN BUSINESS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Chu Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZECHSAN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, INC. d/b/a
EXECUTIVE ORDER BAR & LOUNGE, a California corporation, and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00312 (N.D. Cal.,
January 13, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
is dependent of screen reading software to be able to read Website
content using his computer. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website, https://executiveordersf.com/, to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by him and other blind or
visually impaired people.
The Plaintiff asserts that he was denied full and equal access to
the Defendant's facilities, goods, and services offered to the
public due to the Website's multiple access barriers which he has
encountered during his numerous visits. Due to these access
barriers, the Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours
of the Defendant's business operation on its Website, thereby it
deterred him from visiting the Defendant's physical location and
enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.
The Plaintiff also alleges the Defendant of engaging in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, which would provide
him and other visually impaired consumers with equal access to the
Website.
Zschsan Business Development, Inc. d/b/a Executive Order Bar &
Lounge is a restaurant that owns the Website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Justice Dept. Issues Statement in Bestwall Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice has filed a Statement of Interest in In
re Bestwall LLC in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, according to the Department's press
release dated December 28, 2020.
In this bankruptcy case, the debtor Bestwall LLC seeks to establish
a trust to resolve its asbestos liabilities pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Section 524(g), a provision in the Bankruptcy Code that provides
the framework for responding to the unique issues associated with
asbestos liability.
As part of the bankruptcy, the court will evaluate the submitted
asbestos claims and estimate the amount of the debtor's asbestos
liabilities. In order to ensure the accuracy of the estimation,
the debtor has asked the court to require asbestos claimants to
fill out a questionnaire providing basic information about their
claims and to authorize discovery from other asbestos trusts to
which claimants have submitted claims. The department's Statement
of Interest supports these proposed procedures on the ground that
they will further transparency in the evaluation of the submitted
asbestos claims and ensure the reliability of the estimation of the
debtor's asbestos liabilities.
"It has become increasingly common for claimants' counsel to seek
duplicative recoveries from multiple sources by misrepresenting the
asbestos products to which claimants were exposed," said Deputy
Assistant Attorney General Douglas Smith of the Justice
Department's Civil Division. "Such duplicative claiming depletes
resources that would otherwise be available to compensate deserving
claimants filing claims in the future. The Statement of Interest
is one of many actions the department has taken over the last
several years to encourage greater transparency in asbestos
bankruptcy proceedings and prevent fraud."
"In recent years, numerous courts and commentators have recognized
that many asbestos claims are based on inaccurate or even
fraudulent information," said U.S. Attorney R. Andrew Murray for
the Western District of North Carolina. "That lack of transparency
in the compensation of asbestos claims has been a significant
problem,"
Congress enacted 11 U.S.C. Section 524(g) to create a comprehensive
mechanism for addressing injuries caused by asbestos. Under
section 524(g), asbestos-related claims may be channeled to a
special trust created under the bankruptcy plan of reorganization,
which then assumes responsibility for both the defense and payment
of those claims. The trusts are managed by trustees, who often
must secure support for major decisions from a "trust advisory
committee," whose members are often the same attorneys who
represented asbestos claimants during the bankruptcy. Since 1994,
more than 60 such trusts have been established by chapter 11
debtors with asbestos-related liabilities. According to the
Government Accountability Office, asbestos bankruptcy trusts paid
US$17.5 billion from 1988 through 2011, and more recent studies
estimate higher amounts.
Both courts and commentators have expressed growing concerns that
claims submitted in these bankruptcies may be fraudulent. In 2014,
the same bankruptcy court in which the United States filed its
Statement of Interest found a substantial pattern of
misrepresentation in another case, In re Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014). The court
found that, in a sample of asbestos claims submitted before the
bankruptcy, in each and every case key evidence about asbestos
exposure had been misrepresented or withheld. In several
instances, plaintiffs made claims against defendants to whose
products they had previously represented they had never been
exposed. Similarly, several studies have demonstrated problems
with claims submitted to asbestos trusts. One study found that, in
the study period, people without malignant asbestos injury
accounted for 86 percent of all claims made to the trusts and 37
percent of all trust payments. Another found that many of the
claim forms submitted by the same claimants and law firms to
different trusts contradicted each other. The secrecy with which
asbestos claims are processed by asbestos trusts has facilitated
the payment of claims that do not deserve compensation and has made
it difficult to detect when plaintiffs are seeking a recovery based
on inaccurate or fraudulent representations. Recognizing this
problem, 16 states have already passed legislation requiring
disclosure of basic information regarding other sources of asbestos
compensation as well as the asbestos products to which claimants
were exposed.
The United States' Statement of Interest argues that there should
be transparency in the estimation of asbestos claims in bankruptcy
proceedings in order to prevent fraud and abuse. As the statement
explains, courts presiding over asbestos bankruptcy cases
increasingly are putting in place procedures requiring claimants to
provide basic information documenting their allegations regarding
product identification (and other elements of their claims) as well
as any prior claims they have filed in the courts or with other
asbestos trusts. Courts increasingly recognize that such
transparency is critical to the fair and efficient resolution of
asbestos claims.
The filing is part of broader efforts by the department to look for
opportunities to increase the transparency of asbestos bankruptcy
proceedings and asbestos trusts in order to protect the interests
of legitimate claimants and the United States. This includes
objecting to bankruptcy plans that lack critical provisions to
ensure transparency and accountability and to prevent fraudulent
claims and mismanagement of asbestos trust funds, including
provisions: that require compliance with the Medicare Secondary
Payer Statute that notify claimants of their potential obligation
to reimburse Medicare; that prevent excessive administrative costs
and attorney contingency fees; that avoid conflicts of interest
among members of the trust advisory committee; and that prevent
payments to those who cannot demonstrate exposure to the
defendants' products or who have made inconsistent claims in other
asbestos proceedings.
This matter is being handled by the Justice Department's Civil
Division with assistance from the U.S. Trustee Program and the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina.
*********
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 ***