/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210128.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 28, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 15 Headlines 7500 OLD DOMINION: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Arroyo Claims 9F INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline 9F INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline AFSCME LOCAL 3299: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Marsh Class Suit AIRBNB INC: Looks to Arbitrate COVID-19 Repayment Dispute ALLIANCE HOME: Pasban Seeks to Recover Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT AMERICAN AIRLINES: Kincheloe et al. Sue Over Age Discrimination BANK OF AMERICA: California Man Records Call as Account Closed BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Hand's Class Notice Plan in TCPA Suit Approved BEST MAIDS: Federal Judge Okays Housekeeper Class Action Lawsuit BIT DIGITAL: Class Action Filed Over Alleged Fraud Allegations BOOM BOOM RESTAURANT: Faces Sparks Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming BUTTS COUNTY, GA: McClendon Appeals M.D. Ga. Ruling to 11th Cir. CANADA: Ex-Social Worker Named in Second Foster Care Class Action CANADA: Plans to Settle Class Action Over Veterans Benefits CASHBOX PARTYWORLD: Fire Victims File Class Action Lawsuit CATHOLIC HEALTH: Faces Mahoney Suit Over Analysts' Unpaid Overtime CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Younger Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter CD PROJEKT: Faces Second Cyberpunk 2077 Video Game Class Action CD PROJEKT: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action CHAMPION PETFOODS: Sultanis Files Fraud Suit in N.D. California CLEANSPARK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 22 Deadline CLEANSPARK INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action COMMUNITY TAX: Faces Guerra Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages CONCHETTA INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Martinez Suit Claims CONNER LOGISTICS: $51K in Counsel Fees Recommended in Figueroa Suit CONNER LOGISTICS: Final Approval of $205K Deal in Figueroa Endorsed COULTER VENTURES: Court Consolidates Bishop and Braun Labor Suits COVIA HOLDINGS: Thornton Law Reminds of February 8 Deadline CVS HEALTH: California Court Enters Protective Order in Mier Suit FCI DANBURY: Bid to Enforce Whitted Suit Settlement Partly Granted FIDELITONE INC: Locke Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Giannini FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Settlement Just Got Closer to Approval FORSTER & GARBUS: Lebovits Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter FURLA USA: Chu Files Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Alleged ADA Violation HARBORSIDE INC: Plaintiff's Dismissal of Suit Without Prejudice IAS LOGISTICS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Parker Wage Suit INFINITY CAPITAL: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Illegal Phone Calls INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Faces Suit Over Factory's Chemical Odors JOSTEN'S INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Factory Staff, Reaves Says KANSAS APPLESEED: Judge Plans to OK Settlement in Foster Care Suit KROGER CO: Levi Sues Over Asst. Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime LBS FINANCIAL: Faces Russell Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages LEPRINO FOODS: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Howell Partly OK'd LIVENT CORPORATION: Labaton Sucharow Announces Settlement Suit LIVENT CORPORATION: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of May 8 Deadline LIZHI INC: Faces Yutan Suit Over 70% Decline in Share Price MAHENDRA AMIN: ICE Frees Potential Witnesses in Medical Abuse Case MARS WRIGLEY: BakerHostetler Attorneys Discuss Vanilla Class Suit MCGRAW HILL: Textbook Authors Sue Over Slashed Web Royalties MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action MORGAN HILL: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Arroyo Suit Says MYLAN INC: Pharmacy Benefit Managers' Class Action Can Proceed NINTENDO CO: Lambert Avocat Files Joy-Con Drift Class Action NORTHERN DYNASTY: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline NORTHERN DYNASTY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 2 Deadline OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Affirmative Defenses in Crumpton Partly Struck OSLEEPER MANUFACTURING: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime PENUMBRA INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of March 16 Deadline PENUMBRA INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline PENUMBRA INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline PHILIP MORRIS: Ruling on $20.7MM Punitive Award to Berger Affirmed PLURALSIGHT INC: Pullan Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties QIWI PLC: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action QUANTUMSCAPE: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline RICE UNIVERSITY: Students' Class Action Seeks $5MM Damages ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sued Over Issues Tied to 'Dark Pool' of Payments SAINT GOBAIN: Decision in PFOA Class-Action Delayed by COVID-19 SAN DIEGO, CA: Bid for Leave to File 3rd Amended Montoya Suit Nixed SAN DIEGO, CA: Verdun Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Circuit SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Brant FLSA-TILA Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice SERVICE 247: Court Dismisses Schroeder's Claims on Behalf of SCG SOAR COLLECTIVE: McCon Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SPLUNK INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline STANWELL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Electricity Prices SURGICAL CARE: Faces Suit in Illinois Over Antitrust Violations SWEET SPECIALTY: Flores Sues Over Illegal Biometric Info Storage TEKSYSTEMS INC: Underpays Systems Trainers, Brown Suit Claims TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Court Dismisses Wynn's First Amended Complaint ULTRA MUSIC: Cancels Music Festival Over COVID-19 Concerns UNITED MAINTENANCE: Court Trims Claims in Binns Discrimination Suit UNITED STATES: Missouri River Flooding Class Action Can Proceed UNITED STATES: Settlement in Saravia Class Suit Gets Final Approval VITA-MIX MANUFACTURING: Etheridge Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 24 Deadline WALMART INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline WALMART INC: Shareholders Face Hurdle in New Opioid Fraud Suit WALMART INC: Thornton Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline WALT DISNEY: Seeks Dismissal Over TV Series' Sexual Harassment Suit WESTBORO STATION: Court Rejects Proposed Class-Action Lawsuit WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Ragsdale Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages [*] Gov. Evers Seeks Suit Against Firms Releasing Toxic Chemicals ********* 7500 OLD DOMINION: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Arroyo Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rafael Arroyo v. 7500 Old Dominion Court Associates, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and Does 1-10, Case No. 5:21-cv-00214-EJD (N.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated alleging violations of the Defendant of the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and 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 information 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. 7500 Old Dominion Court Associates, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company owns and operates the Best Western Seacliff Inn located in Aptos, 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 9F INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of 9F Inc shareholders. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. JFU Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/9f-inc-information-request-form?prid=12374&wire=1 9F Inc. (NASDAQ:JFU) Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased JFU securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with the Company's August 14, 2019 initial public offering; and/or (2) between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 22, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/9f-inc-information-request-form?prid=12374&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (1) the purported value and benefits of the Company's financial institution partners and its tri-party cooperation business model did not in fact exist and/or were materially overstated, given that 9F and Property and Casualty Company Limited ("PICC") had been engaged in an ongoing contractual dispute regarding payment of service fees under their cooperation agreement; (2) the collectability of service fees owed to 9F by PICC under the cooperation agreement was in doubt and at serious risk of non-payment; (3) there was a significant risk that PICC would no longer provide credit insurance and guarantee protection to investors and institutional funding partners; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's platform, business model, reputation and financial results had been materially impaired; and (5) 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. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] 9F INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against 9F Inc. ("9F" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: JFU) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's August 14, 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO"), or between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020, are encouraged to contact the firm before March 22, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/2Yn7lhS 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. 9F touted value and benefits to its financial institution partners and tri-party cooperation business model that did not exist. In fact, the Company and Property and Casualty Company Limited ("PICC") were engaged in an ongoing dispute regarding payment of service fees. The Company's collectability of service fees from PICC was at serious risk of non-payment. There was also significant risk that PICC would discontinue credit insurance and guarantee protection to investors and institutional funding partners. 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 9F, 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. [GN] AFSCME LOCAL 3299: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Marsh Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TERRANCE MARSH, et al., Plaintiffs v. AFSCME LOCAL 3299, a labor organization, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted: (i) AFSCME Local 3299's Motion to Dismiss; (ii) University of California President Michael V. Drake's Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) Attorney General Xavier Becerra's Motion to Dismiss. Ten University of California employees ("Plaintiffs") filed the lawsuit against Becerra, Drake, and the Union under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, asserting the Defendants' payroll deduction scheme violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The present Motions are the second set of motions to dismiss before the Court. On July 27, 2020, the Court granted the first set of motions to dismiss. The Court attached a chart to that Order summarizing which of the Plaintiffs' numerous claims were dismissed with prejudice and which Plaintiffs were given leave to amend. On Sept. 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Corrected Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which is now the operative complaint. The Plaintiffs repled only two of the three claims considered by the Court in its prior Order: the first count for violation of the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights and the second count for violation of their First Amendment rights ("Compelled Speech claim"). As to the first count, the Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive and declaratory relief and retrospective monetary damages. As to the second count, they seek only prospective injunctive relief. Additionally, the Plaintiffs added a new section of class allegations. The Defendants seek to dismiss the SAC under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs opposed these motions. The Defendants first move to dismiss the two remaining counts for lack of jurisdiction, contending the Plaintiffs lack standing and their claims are moot. As to their compelled speech claim, the Plaintiffs seek only prospective injunctive relief. Specifically, four Plaintiffs--Marsh, Edde, Mendoza, and Davidson--request prospective injunctive relief against the Union and Drake. All the Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief against Becerra. Judge Mendez agrees with the Defendants that the prospective relief portions of the Plaintiffs' two claims are moot and therefore must be dismissed. First, he dismissed the compelled speech claim as to the Union with prejudice. Because the class allegations are stricken and the four individual Plaintiff claims remain moot, the Judge again finds it does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Further, he finds that dismissal with prejudice is now appropriate. The Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to amend. They also had the opportunity in their opposition brief to set forth additional facts to convince the Court the mootness of the individual plaintiffs' claims could be cured by amendment. They failed to do so. Second, for the same reasons he discussed, the Judge finds these Plaintiffs' claims as to the Defendant to be moot. Dismissal with prejudice is also appropriate because the Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to amend, yet have failed to set forth facts demonstrating that the mootness problem identified by the Court in its prior Order could be cured by further amendment. Thus, amendment would be futile. Third, the Judge dismissed the compelled speech claim as to Becerra with prejudice. Their prospective relief claims, like Marsh, Edde, Davidson and Mendoza's, are moot. Because the individual Plaintiffs' claims are moot, the Court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the compelled speech claim as to Becerra. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because the Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to amend yet have failed to cure the mootness defect with the individual Plaintiffs' claims. Therefore, further amendment would be futile. Finally, the Judge dismissed the prospective relief portion of the Plaintiffs' procedural due process claim and finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because further amendment would be futile in light of the Plaintiffs' opportunity to correct the mootness deficiency identified in the prior Order and subsequent failure to do so. The Judge now turns to the Plaintiffs only remaining claim for retrospective money damages against the Union under their procedural due process cause of action. The Union contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In sum, the Judge finds that all the Plaintiffs have failed to state a due process claim for damages. Because the nine Plaintiffs signed and thereby authorized the deductions, they still have not shown they suffered a deprivation of a protected liberty or property interest in the first instance. The due process analysis ends there for all the Plaintiffs, except Mendoza. Because he finds that: (1) the allegations in the SAC do not infer that the forgery of Mendoza's signature was anything more than a random and unauthorized act; and (2) California provides Mendoza with adequate post-deprivation remedies for this random, unauthorized act, the Judge holds that Mendoza has not stated a claim for violation of procedural due process. Unlike the other nine Plaintiffs, Mendoza does sufficiently allege a deprivation, but he nevertheless fails to show the deprivation constitutes a due process violation because there are adequate state law remedies available to him. Given the ample opportunity Plaintiffs have had to correct the issues identified by the Court in its prior Order and their subsequent failure to do so, amendment would be futile. The Judge therefore dismissed the claim with prejudice. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Mendez granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' request for prospective relief on their compelled speech and due process claims are dismissed because once again the Court finds these claims are moot. The Plaintiffs' request for retrospective monetary relief on their due process claim against the Union is also dismissed because the Court again finds the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. Finally, the Court finds further amendment of the Plaintiffs' claims is futile and dismissed these claims with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyjlbodb from Leagle.com. AIRBNB INC: Looks to Arbitrate COVID-19 Repayment Dispute --------------------------------------------------------- law360.com reports that Airbnb has asked a California federal court to compel arbitration in a proposed class action challenging the home-sharing platform's purported failure to properly repay hosts and guests for canceled bookings during the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the dispute's claims must be arbitrated under an agreement the parties signed. Airbnb Inc. and its payments arm argued in their bid to compel arbitration and dismiss Anthony Farmer's suit that the former Texas-based host signed terms of service documents that governed his contractual relationship with the company and effectively assented to the TOS arbitration provisions. Farmer last summer had already sought a currently pending arbitration against Airbnb before the American Arbitration Association, seeking $1,000 in compensatory damages, according to Airbnb. But after Airbnb answered his arbitration demand and paid $3,200 to the AAA for filing and arbitrator compensation fees, Farmer improperly attempted to withdraw his claims from arbitration so he could pursue his lawsuit, Airbnb said. "Assent is unquestionably established here," Airbnb said. "Plaintiff admits that he was required under the TOS to arbitrate his claims, and he in fact initially filed a demand in arbitration, thereby conceding that he assented to the TOS and the arbitration agreements contained therein." Farmer filed suit in federal court on Nov. 5, saying the action's amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, as there are more than 100 members in the proposed class. He claims that he is "one of the hundreds of thousands of hosts" shortchanged by Airbnb when the pandemic hit. Farmer seeks to compel Airbnb to make a full accounting to hosts and pay them what the company has allegedly promised. When the coronavirus hit U.S. shores last year, Airbnb told guests they could cancel their reservations for a full refund and no cancellation fees, the suit said. The company then passed on the cost to hosts by saying it was establishing a $250 million fund to help refund them for canceled bookings but actually paying them with their own money as it attempted to burnish its reputation ahead of an initial public offering. "Airbnb is planning an IPO for later in the year and needed the positive press," Farmer's suit said. "But that press came at the expense of hosts, who had negotiated their own cancellation policies with guests and were hurt as much as anyone by the pandemic's sudden impact on travel." On Dec. 1, Airbnb launched an estimated $2.4 billion IPO, telling regulators that it planned to offer 51.9 million shares at between $44 and $50, raising $2.4 billion at midpoint and valuing the company at more than $30 billion. Based on that projection, Airbnb's offering would be among the largest U.S. IPOs in 2020 by an operating company. Behind the scenes, Airbnb did not issue full refunds to guests as it had promised, according to Farmer's suit. Instead, the company rejected many guests' refund requests, issued some partial refunds and forced others to accept travel credits that expire in 2021, the suit said. "Airbnb then kept the remaining funds for itself -- ignoring its fiduciary and contractual obligations to remit any such money to hosts," according to Farmer's suit. An Airbnb spokesperson told Law360 that the company stood by a statement it made when Farmer filed suit, saying that when the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a global pandemic, the company decided to activate its longstanding extenuating circumstances policy and provide full refunds to eligible guests. According to Airbnb, extenuating circumstances under the policy and the terms of service supersede hosts' cancellation policies, and include "unexpected serious illness," "travel restrictions imposed by a government" and "epidemic disease or illness." "Public health and safety comes first," Airbnb said in the statement. "While we know [the extenuating circumstances policy] had a significant impact on bookings and revenue for our host community, we still believe firmly that it was the right thing to do. The allegations in this complaint are completely frivolous and without merit." Counsel for Farmer did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Farmer is represented by Michael L. Schrag, Geoffrey A. Munroe and Joshua J. Bloomfield of Gibbs Law Group LLP; and Enrico Schaefer and Adrianos Facchetti of Traverse Legal PLC. Airbnb is represented by Jonathan H. Blavin, Hailyn J. Chen and Katherine G. Incantalupo of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. The case is Farmer v. Airbnb Inc. et al., case number 4:20-cv-07842, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] ALLIANCE HOME: Pasban Seeks to Recover Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- FATEMEH PASBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alliance Home Care LLC and Hamid Ramin Yadgari, Case No. 1:21-cv-00074 (E.D. Va., Jan. 19, 2021) seeks damages and other relief relating to Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff is an employee of Defendants as a home health aide and/or personal care assistant from approximately October 2018 to January 2020. Alliance Home Care LLC is a home health care agency that provides in-home health care services and related personal care assistant services for children and adults primarily in the Commonwealth of Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dirk McClanahan, Esq. Claudia Lopez-Knapp, Esq. MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC 8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130 Vienna, VA 22182 Telephone: (703) 520-1326 Facsimile: (703) 828-0205 E-mail: dmcclanahan@mcplegal.com clopezknapp@mcplegal.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Kincheloe et al. Sue Over Age Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ROBERT KINCHELOE, VONNA RUDINE, and SANDRA CHRISTAFFERSON, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00515 (N.D. Cal., January 21, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as flight attendants, alleges that the Defendant has unlawfully discriminated against its older flight attendants based on their age by providing them lesser consideration in exchange for their agreements to retire early. According to the complaint, the Defendant offered its older flight attendants in or about March 2020 a specified consideration in exchange for their agreements to retire early. The Defendant's CEO admitted that the motive behind the March 2020 Offer was to motivate people who really were close to retiring to retire. Some Flight Attendants have accepted the offer without agreeing to release any claims because the Defendant had failed to request releases of claims as part of the bargain for early retirements at the time of those offers. Later in or about May 2020, the Defendant offered a second round of consideration (the July 2020 Offer), to its remaining flight attendants which included more valuable consideration than the March 2020 Offer, such as healthcare flexible spending accounts and flights. Nevertheless, the flight attendants who accepted the March 2020 Offer received consideration less valuable than the Defendant's flight attendants who accepted the July 2020 Offer, the suit says. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action to recover the difference in value between the consideration provided with the March 2020 Offer and the greater consideration provided in the July 2020 Offer, along with other damages available under the ADEA. American Airlines, Inc. operates a commercial airline. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ferne P. Wolf, Esq. SILVERSTEIN|WOLF, LLC 530 Maryville Center Drive, Suite 460 St. Louis, MO 63141 Tel: (314) 744-4010 Fax: (314) 744-4026 E-mail: fw@silversteinwolf.com - and – Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Tel: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com - and – Mark A. Ptashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Tel: (314) 997-9150 Fax: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com BANK OF AMERICA: California Man Records Call as Account Closed -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Finney at abc7news.com reports that Brian Bolik lives in Victorville and has, like so many others, been receiving unemployment benefits. Then he got ripped off. "I had money taken out of my account from somebody I didn't know," Bolik says. "So I contacted Bank of America because they tell you that you have the fraud protection." RELATED: Class action lawsuit filed against Bank of America for rampant unemployment fraud Brian says he called the bank and was told to wait 10 days and his money would be replaced. He waited -- and still no money. So, he says, after a couple of follow-up telephone calls with Bank of America, he asked to be connected to a supervisor and then recorded the call. He was shocked to hear his account had been closed with no investigation. A Bank of America representative told him: "There was no investigation done because once we received the claim, EDD gets the alert there is a claim going on. They automatically close it, saying there is fraud risk, fraud risk so they don't give us time to actually work the claim." The Bank of America representative offered multiple times during the call to reopen the claim; still Bolik was frustrated. On the recording, he attempts to clarify what he's hearing. Bolik: "So EDD makes you guys, and EDD automatically claims denies any claim of fraud without even investigating?" The representative answers, "Yes, due to its high value." 7 On Your Side reached out to the EDD, and it responded: " . . . our UI (unemployment insurance) program people are looking into your inquiry. We'll reach back out to you when we have the information we need." Bank of America would not comment on the recorded conversation, but in an official written response, contradicts what Bolik believes he was told, writing that accounts are not automatically closed when fraud is reported. "However, accounts may be frozen to protect recipient's funds from more fraud if there are additional signs of fraudulent activity. A new card may be issued at that time," the company said. Bolik's account was reimbursed, but he still doesn't have access to his money because his identity has not been verified. That brings us to the important takeaway for everyone having issues with their unemployment insurance payments: When the issue is identity, contact the EDD. When your issue is with a transaction, like a fraudster making a withdrawal, contact Bank of America. [GN] BEACH ENTERTAINMENT: Hand's Class Notice Plan in TCPA Suit Approved ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, J.T. HAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEACH ENTERTAINMENT KC, LLC, d/b/a SHARK BAR, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:18-CV-00668 (W.D. Mo.), Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, granted Hand's motion for approval of class notice plan. In the Telephone Consumer Protection Act case, Hand states that he and other class members received text messages that they had not consented to from the Defendants advertising products and services for Shark Bar, a food and drink establishment in Kansas City, Missouri. Under Section 227(c)(5), any person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under the subsection may bring suit. The regulations further state that no person or entity will make any telephone solicitation to "a residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her number on the National Do Not Call Registry ("NDNCR") of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations." The Court previously certified a Do-Not-Call Class ("DNC Class") consisting of "all individuals on either the SendSmart or Txt Live Class Lists who received more than one text message from Shark Bar in any twelve-month period to a number included on the national do-not-call registry." The DNC Class contains approximately 17,576 telephone numbers, which were obtained by cross referencing the SendSmart and Txt Live lists with the national do-not-call list to isolate individuals who received more than one message within one year. Hand retained Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC ("KCC") to compile the DNC Class and develop the proposed notice plan. The plan includes three notice methods: post card mailers, emails, and a case-specific website. KCC performed reverse phone number look-ups using multiple directories to associate the phone numbers with U.S. mailing addresses. Through that process, KCC linked 16,876 phone numbers with a mailing address, constituting more than 96% of the DNC Class. Additionally, 4,446 phone numbers are associated with email addresses which were obtained from DNC Class Members at the same time that Defendants obtained their phone numbers. The notice plan dictates that notice will be sent to each email address, and if an email address is undeliverable or if an email address is not available for that DNC Class Member, a postcard notice will be sent to the U.S. mailing address associated with the phone number. The email and postcard notices will include the web address for a case-specific website to be created and maintained by KCC. Information about the litigation including the long form notice, documents relevant to the case, answers to frequently asked questions, the Class Counsel contact information, and DNC Class members' options and rights will be included on the website. Finally, all three notice forms will include a toll-free phone number that DNC Class Members can call to speak to a live operator. Mr. Hand argues the notice plan is the best practicable under the circumstances, and asks the Court to approve the plan. The Defendants filed a response to Hand's motion, expressing concern that the notice plan will create unnecessary confusion, and arguing the notice plan should be modified in two respects. The notice plan seeks to contact each class member through mail or email, and a website. As required by Rule 23, the content of the notice includes the nature of the action, definition of the certified class, class claims, issues, or defenses, that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if so desired, that the Court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion, the method and timeline for requesting exclusion, and the binding effect of a class judgment on members. Finally, the notice plan is slated to reach more than 90% of the class members, which satisfies the Federal Judicial Center's recommendation of at least 70%. Judge Laughrey holds that Hand's proposed notice plan meets these requirements. Finding that Hand's notice plan comports with Rule 23's requirements, the Judge turns to the Defendants' arguments. The Defendants' response to Hand's motion argues the notice plan is both unreliable and deficient, and proposes at least two modifications. The Defendants argue Hand's methodology for identifying phone numbers on the NDNCR is unreliable because Hand failed to utilize an expert, resulting in an overly broad list of class members. They cite no authority for the proposition that an expert is required in performing NDNCR analysis, but they nonetheless express concern that KCC did not perform the NDNCR analysis itself to formulate the DNC Class list. To the extent the Defendants' arguments attack Hand's compilation of the DNC Class list, the Judge finds those arguments to be unavailing because the Court previously certified the DNC Class as well as the methodology for compiling the DNC Class list. Hand's pending motion is not an opportunity to relitigate those topics. To the extent the Defendants' arguments attack the breadth of the DNC Class, those arguments are also unavailing, the Judge says. She finds that the problem does not arise because the email addresses and mailing addresses to which notice will be directed are linked to phone numbers texted by the Defendants during the relevant class period. Hand does not suggest sending notice to every individual for which the Defendants have contact information. There is a link between individuals who provided their contact information to Defendants and the target class, and the Judge will not reject Hand's notice plan on the basis of being overbroad. The Defendants then argue that Hand's reverse look-up is unreliable because there are more than 5,200 mismatches between the name associated with a phone number compared to the names of the text recipients reflected in Shark Bar records. Hand responds that overbreadth is not fatal to a proposed notice plan. Hand offers several reasons why a benign mismatch may appear, including use of a partial name, nickname, legally changed name, or that the name returned in the reverse look-up resides at the same address as the person in Shark Bar's record. The Judge agrees that these explanations may clarify the mismatches, and that even if these explanations fail to account for all of the mismatches, the discrepancies identified by the Defendants do not suffice as rationale to reject Hand's notice plan. Hand's approach is practicable under the circumstances, and despite the Defendants' complaints with the reverse look-up methodology, they also fail to put forth any alternative options. Finally, the Defendants argue that the form of the class notice is deficient because it fails to state that individuals who have an existing business relationship ("EBR") with Shark Bar do not have a claim. Hand responds that neither Rule 23(c) nor due process requires that every possible outcome or ramification of evidentiary decisions be presented and explained to the class in the notice. The parties point to no cases, and the Court is unaware of any authority, holding that affirmative defenses must be explained in the class notice. In the absence of such a requirement, the Judge finds Hands' proposed class notice is not deficient in this regard. The Defendants also state that the long form notice informs recipients that they need not attend the trial, but that they reserve the right to call as witnesses individuals receiving notice. Hand responds that Defendants failed to identify any other notice plan in which class members were warned that their attendance was required or a possibility. Further, Hand suggests the phrase "unless otherwise notified" can be added to remedy the Defendants' concern. The Judge finds this compromise should alleviate the Defendants' concern, and Hand must modify the long form notice to include the sentence: "Unless otherwise notified, you do not need to attend trial." Because the proposed class notice plan conforms with the requirements of Rule 23, Judge Laughrey granted Hand's motion for approval of class notice plan. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyfcz3qp from Leagle.com. BEST MAIDS: Federal Judge Okays Housekeeper Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- cmmonline.com reports that two former Chicago-area housekeepers may pursue a class action lawsuit against their employer after a federal judge ruled in their favor this month, Cook County Record reports. The two women allege that their former employer, Best Maids Inc. of Hickory Hills, Illinois, neglected to pay its workers for travel time between worksites. Best Maids employs about 90 housekeepers who service more than 900 clients. The plaintiffs, who worked for Best Maids from 2015 to 2017, allege they were not paid for regularly driving themselves and co-workers to jobsites and for driving to their employer's office to pick up and drop off supplies, equipment, and keys. They also allege Best Maids set fixed times for housekeepers to finish a job. If the tasks took longer than allotted, they were usually not paid for the extra time. The plaintiffs claimed Best Maids violated the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, and they sought class action status for their suit. Best Maids representatives said the defendants failed to show the company followed a "common practice of denying compensation." In addition, the company contended class action status was not suitable, because claims of uncompensated travel time made by different housekeepers would be too individualized.[GN] BIT DIGITAL: Class Action Filed Over Alleged Fraud Allegations -------------------------------------------------------------- Sebastian Sinclair at coindesk.com reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Nasdaq-listed bitcoin mining company Bit Digital following recent allegations of fraud. According to a court document filed in the Southern District Court of New York, the class action seeks to recover damages for Bit Digital investors who made stock purchases between Dec. 21, 2020, and Jan. 8, 2021. Defendants allege the mining company made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose the true extent of its mining operations, which it said had 22,869 bitcoin machines in China, per the filing. [GN] BOOM BOOM RESTAURANT: Faces Sparks Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming ----------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN SPARKS and THOMAS FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOOM BOOM RESTAURANTS, LLC, SISTER LOUISA ATHENS, LLC, GRANT HENRY, and O. JON MCRAE, III, Case No. 3:21-cv-00005-CDL (M.D. Ga., Jan. 19, 2021) arises from the Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's governing tip pools by allowing managers and/or owners to participate, failing to inform the Plaintiffs of the terms of the tip pool, and failing to provide accurate, timely records of tip pool distributions. Ms. Sparks was employed by the Defendants from approximately August 2017 through early November 2020 as a bartender. Mr. Fletcher was employed by the Defendants from approximately Summer 2017 through early November 2020 initially as a busser for approximately the first month of his employment and subsequently as a bartender until he resigned. Boom Boom and/or Church Bar Athens operates a bar located in Athens, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter H. Steckel, Esq. STECKEL LAW, L.L.C. 54 South Main Street Watkinsville, GA 30677 Telephone: (404) 717-6220 E-mail: peter@SteckelWorkLaw.com BUTTS COUNTY, GA: McClendon Appeals M.D. Ga. Ruling to 11th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Corey McClendon, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Corey McClendon, et al. v. Gary Long, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00385-MTT, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiffs are all subject to application of, and involuntary compliance with, O.C.G.A. Section 42-1-12, et seq., the Georgia Sex Offender Registry at present and in the future. Plaintiffs, as named class representatives, are registered sex offenders in Butts County who, like all other registrants in the county, had Butts County Sheriff's Deputies, acting under color of law and at the direction of Sheriff Long, place signs at their residences stating that they were registered sex offenders in the week prior to Halloween, 2018. Defendants are the Sheriff of Spalding County and his subordinates who, acting under color of law, but without lawful authority, entered upon Plaintiffs' property and compelled them to display signs alerting the public to the fact that they are registered sex offenders. Petitioners seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988, the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and O.C.G.A. Section 51-9-1 arising from the Defendants' actions. The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated December 10, 2020, denying their motion for summary judgment and motion for equitable relief and granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Corey McClendon, et al. v. Gary Long, et al., Case No. 21-10092, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Jan. 8, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before February 17, 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 22, 2021 as to Appellants Reginald Holden, Corey McClendon and Christopher Reed; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before February 5, 2021 as to Appellees Scott Crumley, Gary Long and Jeanette Riley.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants COREY MCCLENDON, CHRISTOPHER REED, REGINALD HOLDEN, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, are represented by: Mark Andrew Begnaud, Esq. ESHMAN BEGNAUD, LLC 315 W Ponce De Leon Ave Ste 775 Decatur, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 377-0599 E-mail: mbegnaud@eshmanbegnaud.com - and - Mark Allen Yurachek, Esq. MARK ALLEN YURACHEK & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1344 Lafrance St NE Ste 3 Atlanta, GA 30307 Telephone: (470) 319-8721 E-mail: mark@myappealslawyer.com Defendants-Appellee GARY LONG, in his official capacity and individually; JEANETTE RILEY, individually; and SCOTT CRUMLEY, individually, are represented by: Jason C. Waymire, Esq. WILLIAMS MORRIS & WAYMIRE, LLC 4330 S Lee St NE Bldg 400 Ste A Buford, GA 30518 Telephone: (678) 541-0790 E-mail: jason@wmwlaw.com - and - Terry Eugene Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS MORRIS & WAYMIRE, LLC 4330 S Lee St NE Bldg 400 Ste A Buford, GA 30518 Telephone: (678) 541-0790 E-mail: terry@wmwlaw.com CANADA: Ex-Social Worker Named in Second Foster Care Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a social worker charged with stealing money from vulnerable youths and who is the subject of a class-action lawsuit that was settled in October has been named in a second class-action lawsuit. In December, Robert Riley Saunders, who was a social worker in Kelowna from 2001 until he was fired in 2018, was arrested in Alberta after B.C. prosecutors approved 13 criminal charges against him, including fraud, theft, breach of trust and uttering a forged document. In October, a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 100 foster children which alleged Saunders stole funds deposited into accounts that belonged to the kids was settled. Court documents in that suit indicated Saunders forged his social-worker certificate back in 1994. Now a second class-action suit alleges that Saunders was involved in a systemic failure of the government to provide benefits to vulnerable youth after they had aged out of foster care at the age of 19. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the first class-action lawsuit alleged they discovered that many of the kids they were representing had not been advised they were eligible for the Young Adults Program. The program provides up to 48 months of support services and financial assistance to help the person complete a course or program in college or university, or a vocational or life skills program. The lawsuit claims that Saunders and another social worker only identified as John Doe were assigned in 2010 as social workers for an Indigenous youth named Zackary Alphonse, who is the representative plaintiff in the second class action. Alphonse, who is now 29, alleges that Saunders and John Doe failed to advise him of the existence of the program and he become homeless for about a month and applied for income assistance. "At that point, the plaintiff had only completed up to Grade 9 of his secondary schooling, and without financial support, he could not afford to work on his graduate equivalency degree," says the lawsuit. "For a period of approximately one year, the plaintiff could see no future for himself, felt hopeless and became depressed and unable to advance his interests." Alphonse started working part-time jobs and gradually stabilized his life, but his lack of a high-school graduation hampered his prospects, says the lawsuit. Jason Gratl, a lawyer involved in both class-action lawsuits, said the second lawsuit deals with a much larger class of former foster children, whether they were assigned to Saunders or other social workers. "From our experience with former foster children, it was a systemic failure that goes far, far beyond Riley Saunders." Gratl estimated the number of class members, involving both Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, may be in the thousands. Saunders could not be reached. In a statement, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which is also named as a defendant, said that while it would not comment on matters that are before the courts, it offers "our heartfelt apologies" to all the young people who have been affected by the "unfortunate and unacceptable" circumstances. "This issue remains before the courts as many youth may choose to seek further damages," said the ministry. "Since this issue came to light, the ministry has offered supports and services, including counselling, to the current and former youth in care affected by the social worker's actions." The ministry said it had taken concrete steps to protect youth and strengthen financial controls, including working to improve internal controls and procedures. "The ministry will also hire a professional organization to verify the educational credentials of social workers. We are working to determine the scope of this new program before going out to competitive market." [GN] CANADA: Plans to Settle Class Action Over Veterans Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------- Murray Brewster, writing for CBC News, reports that the federal government is in exploratory talks on settling a combined class-action lawsuit over a $165 million accounting error at Veterans Affairs Canada that shortchanged more than 250,000 former soldiers, sailors and aircrew -- most of them elderly -- CBC News has learned. The legal action (which began as five separate lawsuits that have since been amalgamated) was certified by a Federal Court judge on Dec. 23, 2020. The error stems from a bungled calculation of disability awards and pensions by Veterans Affairs staff -- an oversight that began in 2002 and ran undetected for almost eight years. When the department discovered and corrected the indexing mistake in 2010, it did not notify any of the 272,000 veterans who were affected or offer to reimburse them. The matter did not become public until former veterans ombudsman Guy Parent blew the whistle just before his retirement in the fall of 2018. A CBC News investigation in 2019 uncovered internal federal documents that explained how the error happened and detailed some of the flawed assumptions bureaucrats used to bury the mistake when it was discovered. The lawsuits were filed following the publication of that story. The class-action certification order -- a copy of which was obtained by CBC News -- said the consortium of law firms overseeing the case can only begin canvassing for those affected after March 1, 2021. The delay is meant to allow for "without-prejudice settlement negotiations between the parties." The Liberal government owned up to the accounting error and promised to reimburse veterans, beginning in 2020. Compensation process is underway, says department The process is not yet complete but it is well underway, said a spokesperson for Veterans Affairs Minister Lawrence MacAulay. John Embury said that, as of January 11, more than 107,000 of the quarter-million veterans and survivors affected by the error had received upwards of $77.3 million in reimbursement. The individuals who have been compensated by the federal government to date have tended to be veterans who are still alive, or family members who were easily reachable. The approximately 140,000 remaining cases involve the estates of former soldiers, sailors and aircrew who have passed away. Veterans Affairs is working on an advertising campaign to bring the outstanding files to a close, said Embury. There's no timeline yet for closing out all of those cases. Embury would not comment on the preliminary settlement negotiations, saying the matter is before the courts. Plaintiffs and the law firms involved have had very little to say publicly about the case to date, other than they're pleased it's moving forward. The certification order indicates that the legal team has, through federal information access law, amassed a trove of federal documents about how the federal government dealt with the enormous error. The 2019 CBC News investigation showed how Veterans Affairs officials made the mistake in the first place by reacting to changes in Canada Revenue Agency forms related to the 2001 overhaul of the Income Tax Act. Documents obtained by CBC News also demonstrate how Veterans Affairs officials tried to gloss over the benefits calculation error when it was discovered. To justify not repaying veterans, officials operated on the assumption that they had the law on their side because the legislation was "silent" on the precise method of conducting the calculations and the "Pension Act does not specify the calculation for the annual adjustment." But while the law may not be precise, the documents showed the regulations supporting the legislation do spell out the proper method for calculating the adjustment. Some of the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit have called for accountability. Conservative leader Erin O'Toole, himself a former veterans minister, called for an investigation into how the mistake was covered up in 2019. Embury said the federal Office of the Controller General did conduct a review of the case -- a copy of which was quietly posted online last fall. The review did not find fault with federal officials -- but did recommend that, in future, Veterans Affairs should have clear "interpretations of legislation" and that those interpretations should be "obtained from, as well as regularly confirmed and validated with, relevant [experts]." [GN] CASHBOX PARTYWORLD: Fire Victims File Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Flor Wang and Lin Chang-shun, writing for Focus Taiwan, report that the Consumers' Foundation on Jan. 20 filed a class action lawsuit against Cashbox Partyworld KTV Chairman Lien Tai-sheng and six others on behalf of 20 claimants injured in a fire at the company's Linsen outlet in Taipei last year. In the lawsuit filed with Taipei District Court, the foundation asked Lien and six related people -- five employees and a maintenance foreman identified by the surname Wang -- to pay NT$39.72 million (US$1.42 million) in total compensation to 20 individuals injured in the fire at the Cashbox Partyworld club on Linsen North Road on April 26. According to the foundation, the 20 claimants are asking for compensation ranging from NT$55,000 to NT$10.49 million depending on the severity of their injuries. Six people were killed in the fire and 54 hospitalized. While the families of the six deceased and 97 injured have reached compensation settlements, the remaining 20 have been unable to agree terms with Lien. Although Cashbox managers have tried to reach settlements with them, the claimants said they rejected the terms offered and demanded an apology from Lien. Lien and and the other six have been indicted by the Taipei District Prosecutors Office in October on charges of negligent homicide and negligence resulting in injury. Tee Kuang International Co., the Cashbox Partyworld KTV subsidiary that operated the karaoke club was also charged with violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Cashbox Partyworld KTV fire at the Linsen outlet is believed to have been caused by a power tool that was left to charge in a storage room on the fourth floor by Wang, prosecutors said. As many fire safety doors had been left open, the fire and smoke spread rapidly to other floors in the building via the stairway and temporary elevator shafts built to facilitate major renovations, prosecutors said. Investigators later found that all five major safety systems at the site -- an indoor fire hydrant, automatic sprinkler system, automatic fire alarm, emergency broadcasting system, and smoke extraction equipment -- were switched off by management to facilitate the renovation work, they said. With the fire safety systems disabled and the stairway, which was the only escape route, filling up with smoke, those in the building received no warning and had difficulty getting out, prosecutors said. [GN] CATHOLIC HEALTH: Faces Mahoney Suit Over Analysts' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLOTTE MAHONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-00023 (D. Neb., Jan. 19, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Ms. Mahoney was employed by the Defendant as an Epic Analyst 1 from 2013 until February of 2019, primarily responsible for performing data entry, setting up new users in Defendant's computer system, and upgrading software. Catholic Health Initiatives Physician Services, LLC operates hospitals and health centers throughout the United States, including in Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CAWLEY & BERGMANN: Younger Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY YOUNGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAWLEY & BERGMANN, LLC, CAVALRY SPC I, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00916-MCA-MAH (D. New Jersey, January 20, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an obligation that was allegedly incurred to Citibank, N.A./Best Buy. According to the complaint, Defendant Cavalry purportedly purchased the rights to collect the Citibank, N.A./Best Buy debt who contracted with Defendant C&B to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about March 31, 2020, Defendant C&B sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant Cavalry regarding the alleged debt owed to Citibank N.A./Best Buy. Although the letter offers various offers of settlement on the full balance, but it confused and misled the Plaintiff because it did not clearly state whether the payments under the settlement agreement would be due on the 15th of each month or within 30 days of the last payment, the suit says. The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated Section 1692e as the Letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, and by making false and misleading representation. Cawley & Bergmann, LLC and Cavalry SPC I, LLC are deb collectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com CD PROJEKT: Faces Second Cyberpunk 2077 Video Game Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Arvedon, writing for CBR.com reports that Cyberpunk 2077 publisher CD Projekt has been hit with a second class-action lawsuit stemming from the game's troubled release. "The Management Board of CD PROJEKT S.A. with a registered office in Warsaw (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') hereby announces that it received confirmation from a law firm cooperating with the Company that a second civil class action lawsuit had been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a law firm acting on behalf of a group of holders of securities traded in the USA under the ticker symbols 'OTGLY' and 'OTGLF' and based on Company shares," CD Projekt announced. "The content of the claim, including its subject and scope, is the same as the one disclosed by the Company in Current Report 68/2020 of 25 December 2020." The publisher also confirmed the suit doesn't specify what damages are being sought but noted it would "undertake vigorous action to defend itself against any such claims." CD Projekt is already facing a class-action lawsuit filed by Rosen Law Firm on behalf of investors alleging violations of federal securities law by making false claims about the game. This includes failing to make consumers aware that Cyberpunk 2077 is "virtually unplayable" on last-gen consoles. Cyberpunk 2077 has been marred with controversy. Even before its release, which was delayed on three separate occasions, developer CD Projekt Red made headlines for forcing employees to work overtime. Despite this, the final product was -- by CD Projekt Red's own admission -- not refined for last-gen consoles. Furthermore, players have reported that the game can cause epileptic seizures, with many requesting a warning, as well as a long-term fix for this issue. As such, Sony and Microsoft are now issuing full refunds to those who request them, while PlayStation even pulled the game from the PlayStation Store altogether. CD Projekt Red has issued several apologies since the game's Dec. 10, 2020 release, with the most recent arriving on Jan. 13. "We are committed to fixing bugs and crashes and will continue to work and improve the game via future updates to make sure you are enjoying the game regardless of the platform," the company wrote. "We will use this space to inform you about the progress being made on Cyberpunk 2077's further development, including information about updates and improvements, free DLCs and more." Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world, action-adventure story set in Night City, a megalopolis obsessed with power, glamour and body modification. You play as V, a mercenary outlaw going after a one-of-a-kind implant that is the key to immortality. You can customize your character's cyberware, skillset and playstyle, and explore a vast city where the choices you make shape the story and the world around you. Developed by CD Projekt Red, Cyberpunk 2077 is available now on PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Google Stadia and PC. [GN] CD PROJEKT: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of CD Projekt S.A. shareholders. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CD Projekt S.A. (OTC PINK:OTGLY) Investors Affected : January 16, 2020 - December 17, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in CD Projekt SA. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Throughout the class period, defendants were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous number of bugs; (2) 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; (3) consequently, the Company would suffer reputational and pecuniary harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form/?id=12375&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] CHAMPION PETFOODS: Sultanis Files Fraud Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Champion Petfoods USA Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Patricia Sultanis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP, Case No. 3:21-cv-00162-JCS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2021). The case is brought over fraud-related claims and is assigned to Judge Joseph C. Spero. Champion Petfoods LP retails pet food products. The Company offers meat ingredients, carbohydrates, vegetable proteins, supplements, and other protein based products. Champion Petfoods serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Telephone: (310) 450-9689 Facsimile: (310) 496-3176 E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Daniel Kent Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbyrson.com - and - Gary Michael Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 Facsimile: (773) 496-8617 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com CLEANSPARK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 22 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of CleanSpark, Inc. ("CleanSpark" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CLSK) from December 31, 2020 through January 14, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased CleanSpark securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit CleanSpark Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report alleging, among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of its business, including purported customers and contracts" and that it is "rife with undisclosed related party transactions." Specifically, it alleged that the most recent acquisition of ATL Data Centers, LLC "is another Gutless Promotion Attempt." On this news, CleanSpark's shares fell $3.63 per share, or 9%, to close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby damaging investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on January 15, 2021. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased CleanSpark securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cleansparkinc-clsk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-356/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN] CLEANSPARK INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Bishins v.CleanSpark, Inc, et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-00511) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CleanSpark, Inc. ("CleanSpark" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CLSK) securities between December 31, 2020 and January 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your CleanSpark investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/cleanspark-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report titled "Cleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash Can," alleging, among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of its business, including purported customers and contracts" and is also "rife with undisclosed related party transactions." On this news, the Company's share fell $3.63 per share, or 9%, to close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on January 15, 2021. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired the CleanSpark securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] COMMUNITY TAX: Faces Guerra Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- AMAELE GUERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY TAX LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00544 (C.D. Cal., January 20, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have transmitted numerous SMS or MMS text messages to her cellular telephone number ending in 3107 without obtaining her prior express written consent. For the purpose of selling its products and services, the Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone dialing system" in transmitting its text messages to consumers en masse, including the Plaintiff and the members of the Class. According to the complaint, the Defendants' unsolicited text messages received by the Plaintiff were invasive and intruded upon the Plaintiff's seclusion upon receipt because she is alerted by her cellular device whenever she receives a text messages, thereby the Plaintiff became distracted and aggravated. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated individuals who received the Defendants' unsolicited text messages, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. Community Tax, LLC provides tax resolution services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and – Michael R. Parker, Esq. Kevin Cole, Esq. PARKER COLE, P.C. 6700 Fallbrook Ave., Suite 207 West Hills, CA 91307 Tel: (818) 292-8800 Fax: (818) 292-8337 E-mail: michael@parkercolelaw.com kevin@parkercolelaw.com CONCHETTA INC: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Martinez Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCHETTA, INC., d/b/a Risque Philadelphia; TACONY 2008, INC. d/b/a Club Risque Northeast; RT 413, INC. d/b/a Club Risque Bristol; CONNIE INNEZZELLI; ROBERT CRUDELE; DEAN PAGANO; THEODORE PAGANO SR.; and THEODORE PAGANO JR., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00264 (E.D. Penn., January 20, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968. The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer, alleges that the Defendants improperly classified her and other similarly situated exotic dancers as independent contractors. Although they regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendants did not pay them the employees' mandatory minimum wages and overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, the Defendants required them to provide "house fees" for each shift, and intentionally withheld a portion of their earned tips to share with non-tip workers, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensation for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, improper withheld tips, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The Corporate Defendants operate a night club owned by the Individual Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Manes, Esq. RUPPERT MANES NARAHARI LLC 600 Grant St., Suite 4875 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 626-5570 Fax: (412) 650-4845 E-mail: DM@RMN-Law.com CONNER LOGISTICS: $51K in Counsel Fees Recommended in Figueroa Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, UBALDO FIGUEROA, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated; Plaintiff v. CONNER LOGISTICS, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01004-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs and Service Award be granted in part and denied in part. The case is a hybrid wage-and-hour case alleging both a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action as to state law claims. The Defendant is a trucking company. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a truck driver from May 2014 through September 2014. The operative second amended complaint, filed on June 21, 2019, alleges that the Defendant: (1) engaged in unfair competition; (2) failed to pay minimum wages; (3) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (4) failed to provide wages when due; (5) violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") of 2004 (i.e., California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq.), and (6) failed to pay straight and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. On July 23, 2019, the matter was removed to the Court from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno, and on Oct. 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a notice of a class-wide settlement. The settlement agreement proposes a total payment of $205,000 to be allocated as follows: up to $18,000 in settlement administration; a $10,000 enhancement payment to the named Plaintiff; attorneys' fees up to 25% ($51,250); litigation costs and expenses up to $15,000; and $1,537.50 to the Labor Workforce Development Agency from the PAGA payment of $2,050. After subtracting the litigation costs, attorneys' fees, enhancement payment, settlement administration costs, and the LWDA payment, the remaining settlement fund will be allocated to the participating class members. On March 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the class and collective settlement. At the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval, the Court expressed concern regarding the proposed service award of $10,000. The Plaintiff filed supplement briefing on July 6, 2020, which acknowledged that the Court may ultimately award less than $10,000 at the time of final approval. On July 10, 2020, the Court issued findings and recommendations regarding preliminary approval of the class action settlement. An order adopting the findings and recommendations issued on Aug. 7, 2020. On Sept. 11, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of the class and collective action settlement. Concurrent with the motion for final approval, he filed the instant motion for the award of attorneys' fees and costs as well as a service award. By the motion, he seeks an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $51,250, representing 25% of the gross settlement amount, and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $15,000. The Plaintiff also requests the Court approves payment of the service award in the amount of $10,000. Magistrate Judge McAuliffe recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs and Service Award be granted in part and denied in part. She finds and determines that the service award initially sought is not reasonable. Having considered the work performed by the Plaintiff and presumptively reasonable awards, the Judge recommended that the amount of $7,000 be paid to the Plaintiff as his service award, according to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Magistrate Judge also finds that an award of attorneys' fees to the Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $51,250 falls within the range of reasonableness and the results achieved justify such an award. She further finds that this amount is fair, reasonable, and appropriate, and recommended that it be approved. She recommended that this amount be paid to the class counsel in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Finally, the Magistrate Judge finds that an award of costs to the Plaintiff's counsel in the amount of $15,000 is reasonable. She recommended that this amount be paid to the class counsel for litigation costs and expenses in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the "right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings" on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Findings & Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyuexlp9 from Leagle.com. CONNER LOGISTICS: Final Approval of $205K Deal in Figueroa Endorsed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, UBALDO FIGUEROA, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONNER LOGISTICS, INC., a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01004-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement be granted. The case is a hybrid wage-and-hour case alleging both a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action as to state law claims. The Defendant is a trucking company. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a truck driver from May 2014 through September 2014. The operative second amended complaint, filed on June 21, 2019, alleges that the Defendant: (1) engaged in unfair competition; (2) failed to pay minimum wages; (3) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (4) failed to provide wages when due; (5) violated the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") of 2004 (i.e., California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq.), and (6) failed to pay straight and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. On July 23, 2019, the matter was removed to the Court from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno. The parties agreed to settlement of all claims following private mediation with Judge Howard Broadman (ret.) and subsequent negotiations. The settlement agreement proposes a total payment of $205,000 to be allocated as follows: up to $18,000 in settlement administration; a $10,000 enhancement payment to the named Plaintiff; attorneys' fees up to 25% ($51,250); litigation costs and expenses up to $15,000; and $1,537.50 to the Labor Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") from the PAGA payment of $2,050. After subtracting the litigation costs, attorneys' fees, enhancement payment, settlement administration costs, and the LWDA payment, the remaining settlement fund will be allocated to the participating class members. The settlement share for each participating class member will be calculated by (1) calculating the total weeks worked by all Participating Class Members based on the Class Data; (2) dividing each Participating Class Member's work weeks based on the Class Data by the Total Work Weeks to determine his or her proportionate share of the Net Settlement Amount; and (3) multiplying each Participating Class Member's Settlement Share Proportion by the Net Settlement Amount. Additionally, participating class members who are FLSA opt-in members will receive an increase of 10% as to their work weeks in the calculation of their Settlement Share Proportion. Settlement checks will remain valid for 180 days from the date of issue. If the check of a Participating Class Member remains uncashed, the funds from such uncashed checks will be paid to the California Controller's Unclaimed Property Fund in the name of the Participating Class Member. On March 13, 2020, the Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 10, 2020, the Court issued findings and recommendations regarding preliminary approval of the class action settlement. An order adopting the findings and recommendations issued on Aug. 7, 2020. By its approval, the Court: (1) preliminarily approved the settlement; (2) conditionally certified the class; (3) certified the FLSA collective action for settlement purposes; (4) appointed Plaintiff Ubaldo Figueroa as the representative for the class and FLSA collective; (5) appointed Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as the class counsel; (6) approved the Class Notice and FLSA Consent Form; (7) directed that notice be disseminated pursuant to the terms of the settlement; (8) preliminarily approved the proposed procedure for class members to request exclusion and object to the settlement; and (9) set a final fairness hearing. The settlement class was defined as: all individuals who were California residents who worked for Defendant, Conner Logistics, Inc. in California as truck drivers at any time during the Class Period. The Class Period is Aug. 11, 2011 through July 11, 2016. On Oct. 20, 2020, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to change the settlement administrator to ILYM Group. On the same date, the Settlement Administrator received the Court-approved text for the Notice Packet from the Class Counsel. It also received a class data file from the defense counsel. The data list contained information for 90 individuals. On Oct. 30, 2020, after conducting a National Change of Address search, the Settlement Administrator mailed the Notice Packet to the class members. As of the date of the motion, five notice packets remained undeliverable. The Settlement Administrator did not receive any objections or requests for exclusion from any class members. No objectors appeared at the hearing on the motion for final approval of the class and collective action settlement. On Dec. 18, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for final approval of the class and collective action settlement. According to the motion, all 90 class members will be deemed to be participating members who will be paid their portion of the net class settlement amount. Additionally, 24 FLSA members will be participating members. The net class settlement amount is estimated to be $112,268.70 for distribution, the highest gross class payment is estimated to be $4,816.93, and the average gross class payment is estimated to be $1,247.43. Magistrate Judge McAuliffe recommended that the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement be granted. She recommended that Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik be confirmed as the counsel for the Settlement Class and FLSA Members, and Plaintiff Ubaldo Figueroa be confirmed as the representative of the Class. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the final approval of the Settlement be granted and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class Members and FLSA Members as a whole. She also finds and determines that the Gross Settlement Amount of $205,000 and the Settlement Shares to be paid to the Participating Class Members are fair and reasonable. She recommended payment of those amounts be distributed to the Participating Class Members out of the Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Settlement Administrator be directed to make payment to each Participating Class Member in accordance with the Settlement. Finding that the fees and expenses of ILYM Group in administering the settlement, in the amount of $14,994.30, are fair and reasonable, the Magistrate further recommended granting final approval to and ordering that the payment of that amount be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. Because PAGA Payment in the amount of $2,050 fair and reasonable, the Magistrate Judge likewise recommended that the PAGA Payment be allocated in accordance with the Settlement. Any person who is a Participating Class Member of the Class who does not opt-out is recommended to be deemed to have fully and finally released the Defendant and all of the other Released Parties, and each of them, from any and all Claims during the Class Period. Magistra Judge McAuliffe recommended entry of final judgment and dismissal of the action, with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement Agreement or other order of the Court. Her findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the "right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings" on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Findings & Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3j5z7fy from Leagle.com. COULTER VENTURES: Court Consolidates Bishop and Braun Labor Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Defendant's motion to consolidate the case, Allen D. Bishop, III and Marcellus Murray, Plaintiff(s) v. Coulter Ventures, LLC DBA Rogue Fitness, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-3052 (S.D. Ohio), with the case Scott Lee Braun v. Coulter Ventures, LLC DBA Rogue Fitness, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-05050-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). On June 15, 2020, Plaintiffs Bishop and Murray filed their Complaint in the action against Defendants Coulter Ventures and its owners and head managers, William Henniger and Caity Matter Henniger, alleging unlawful retaliation related to their opting-in to the Braun lawsuit, in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Ohio Constitution. In the Braun lawsuit, the plaintiffs, including Plaintiffs Bishop and Murray, brought a collective and class action against the Defendants for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief due to an alleged failure to compensate employees for all hours worked and the correct amount of overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, committed by only paying their non-exempt warehouse employees for the scheduled time they worked and not for tasks necessary to their primary job duties performed before and after their schedule. Defendants Coulter Ventures and the Hennigers now move for consolidation of the action with the Braun lawsuit. The Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion. Judge Marbley opines that the instant lawsuit and the Braun case involve some of the same parties: The Plaintiffs in the instant case, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Murray, are also plaintiffs in the Braun lawsuit. The Defendants in the instant case are the same ones as in the Braun lawsuit, i.e., Coulter Ventures, Mr. Henniger, and Ms. Henniger. In addition, the actions arise out of similar, though not identical, underlying series of events. As noted, the Braun lawsuit plaintiffs brought a collective and class action against the Defendants for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief due to an alleged failure to compensate employees for all hours worked and the correct amount of overtime pay in violation of the FLSA, the Ohio Wage Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The instant case emerges out of the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA and the Ohio Constitution, and the Plaintiffs seek economic, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief after the Defendants allegedly demoted or terminated them after opting into the Bruan lawsuit. The Judge finds a significant overlap in law and fact between the instant lawsuit and the Braun lawsuit, which strongly supports consolidation. With these considerations in mind, he turns to the question of whether specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by the savings of litigant and judicial resources achieved by consolidation or the risk of inconsistent adjudications. The Judge finds that the Braun lawsuit is already pending before the Court. Therefore, consolidation of the instant lawsuit with the Braun lawsuit will be the most efficient method of adjudicating these related matters, he says. Conducting discovery in a single case will also facilitate expediency. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Marbey granted the Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Consolidate. Thus, the instant lawsuit is consolidated with the Braun lawsuit. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5zxx9em from Leagle.com. COVIA HOLDINGS: Thornton Law Reminds of February 8 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Covia Holdings Corporation f/k/a Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. (OTC Pink: CVIAQ). Investors who purchased Covia stock or other securities between March 15, 2016 and June 29, 2020 may contact the Thornton Law Firm to obtain a copy of the complaint or to discuss the lead plaintiff process. Interested investors are encouraged to visit: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Covia. Investors may email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. Interested Covia investors have until February 8, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The case alleges that Covia's executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's proprietary 'value-added' proppants were not necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; and (2) the Company's revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary 'value-added' proppants, were based on misrepresentations. It is alleged that when Company insiders raised this issue, the Defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the issue. When the public was made aware of the truth, Covia's share price dropped, thereby damaging investors. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action and can select a law firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. Interested Covia investors have until February 8, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] CVS HEALTH: California Court Enters Protective Order in Mier Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered Protective Order in the case, JOSEPH MIER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH, Rhode Island Corporation and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01979 DOC (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.). Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in the Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of the Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. Any party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's Scheduling Order. After the final disposition of the Action, as defined in Section V, within 60 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, "all Protected Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding the provision, the Counsel is entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to the Protective Order as set forth in Section V. Any violation of the Order may be punished by any and all appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5e4jtgd from Leagle.com. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Carol R. Brophy -- cbrophy@steptoe.com -- Danielle Vallone -- dvallone@steptoe.com -- in San Francisco, California, Melanie Ayerh, in Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant CVS PHARMACY, INC. and Intervenor-Defendant VI-JON, LLC. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Anthony Hopp -- ahopp@steptoe.com -- (admitted pro hac vice), in Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Defendant CVS PHARMACY, INC. and Intervenor-Defendant VI-JON, LLC. FCI DANBURY: Bid to Enforce Whitted Suit Settlement Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JAMES WHITTED, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. DIANE EASTER, Warden of Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury in her official capacity, Respondent, Case No. 3:20-cv-00569 (MPS) (D. Conn.), Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part the class' motion to enforce the settlement agreement. In September 2020, Judge Shea approved a settlement of the class action brought by inmates of FCI Danbury whose medical conditions make them vulnerable to serious illness from COVID-19. Under the settlement, the Warden of FCI Danbury and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") agree to review the class members to determine whether to transfer them to home confinement due to the risks associated with COVID-19 using a process outlined in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Judge retains jurisdiction to resolve disputes that arise between the parties by issuing orders of specific performance. Judge Shea's ruling resolves a series of disputes that have arisen concerning the standards the BOP is using to review inmates for home confinement, the adequacy of the explanations it is providing to support decisions to deny transfers to home confinement, and other matters. In particular, the class has filed a motion for enforcement of the settlement agreement that asks the Judge, among other things, to bar the BOP from relying on certain factors that the class contends are not relevant to the issues of inmate and public safety on which the BOP should be focusing in the home confinement review process mandated by the Settlement Agreement. These factors include things like non-violent disciplinary infractions and the percentage of time an inmate has served. After considering the parties' memoranda and associated exhibits, and the January 8 oral argument, Judge Shea granted in part and denied in part the class' motion. First, the class seeks a series of orders about the factors the BOP may rely on in making home confinement decisions. More generally, the class argues that the "statement of reasons on the BOP's worksheets generated during the home confinement review process often fail to evidence that the BOP has engaged in any balancing between public safety and inmate safety. The class has submitted a large volume of worksheets reflecting recent denials of home confinement and generated in the home confinement review process contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. By contrast, the Warden and BOP assert that the Settlement Agreement does not limit the BOP's discretion as to either its substantive judgment in individual home confinement decisions or its judgment as to which considerations bear on public safety or an inmate's suitability for home confinement. Judge Shea agrees with the class that the BOP's decisions as reflected in the worksheets do not comply with the standards required by the Settlement Agreement. The consistent use of the term "public safety" in the Settlement Agreement, the TRO, and related documents shows that it has a fixed, clear meaning that is not amenable to expansion by the BOP. The parties disagree about whether the BOP is properly considering all CDC risk factors and giving "substantial weight" to these factors as required by the Settlement Agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Judge finds that as long as it is weighing the correct considerations and assigning some level of "substantial weight" to COVID-19 risk factors, the BOP has plenary discretion to read the scale and determine whether a particular public safety consideration outweighs a particular COVID-19 risk factor. It, thus, would not be equitable to require a re-review in cases where the BOP violated the "substantial weight" requirement by invoking the formula quoted above but other facts apparent from the face of the worksheet make it likely the violation was harmless. As a result, the Judge asks the parties to meet and confer to identify specific inmates whose individual cases (1) contain the "does not have risk factors" language, and (2) otherwise are strong candidates for re-review. Then, after the parties have agreed upon a list of inmates whose cases contain the error and who otherwise warrant re-review, the BOP will re-review that list of inmates for home confinement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The parties disagree as to whether the BOP may rely on certain factors, including percentage or amount of time served or an inmate's disciplinary history that is both non-violent and non-sexual, in denying a class member home confinement. Thus, the class seeks an order directing the BOP to "not rely in home confinement decisions on factors that are only tangentially related to public safety, including percentage or amount of time served or recent disciplinary history that is both non-violent and non-sexual." The Judge agrees with the class that these factors bear no clear or necessary relationship to public safety. As a result, he finds that the BOP has violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement when it has relied on percentage or amount of time served or a disciplinary history that is non-violent, non-sexual, and not part of a pattern of misconduct demonstrating an inability to follow the law. Again, although the Settlement Agreement authorizes me to order a comprehensive re-review in these cases, the Judge finds that a more focused remedy would be more efficient and practical, and thus more equitable. Thus, he again orders the parties to meet and confer to identify specific inmates whose individual home confinement cases (1) were denied at least in part because of the percentage or amount of time served or because of a disciplinary history that is non-violent, non-sexual, and does not shown a clear pattern of misconduct suggesting an inability to follow the law, and (2) who are otherwise strong candidates for re-review, i.e., those whose worksheets do not otherwise raise significant concerns about public safety, properly understood. Then, after the parties have agreed upon a list of inmates whose cases contain one or more of these errors and otherwise merit re-review, the BOP will re-review that list of inmates for home confinement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. It is the Judge's hope that the parties will focus the re-review process on the inmates who face the greatest dangers from COVID-19 and are least likely to present a danger to public safety. The parties also disagree as to the relevance to public safety of a "Low" score on the BOP's "PATTERN" risk assessment tool, which is aimed at predicting whether an inmate will reoffend based on several characteristics or "risk factors." The Judge states that there may be individual cases where the Settlement Agreement requires more explanation when a denial rests primarily on a Low PATTERN score. Again, the BOP's task is to determine which weighs more heavily in a particular case--the risk to the inmate or the risk to the public safety. To show that it has performed this task, the BOP needs to make some showing on the worksheet that it has decided that one risk outweighs the other. Second, the parties also disagree about the quality of the explanations the BOP has provided on the worksheets when denying home confinement. The Judge finds that the Settlement Agreement does not, in general, require a lengthy explanation of a home confinement denial as long as the worksheet, taken as a whole, presents a sufficient factual basis to infer that the BOP determined that public safety factors, properly understood and supported by the facts, outweighed the risk of severe illness to the inmate from COVID-19. Neither the "case narrative" nor the "home confinement committee review" at the bottom of the worksheet need list every CDC risk factor or every public safety factor, invoke the words "substantial weight" or "outweighs," or incant other similar formulas. The critical point is that either the facts shown in the table or the narrative explanations below the table, or both, must identify the facts weighed on each side of the scale. Again, rather than order a re-review of all the worksheets that do not satisfy the modest standard, the Judge directs the parties to meet and confer and identify the non-compliant worksheets for the strongest candidates for home confinement, based on the public safety/inmate safety standards discussed in his Opinion, and arrange for a re-review of the cases of those inmates. Lastly, the parties disagree as to whether inmates who qualify as class members but are subsequently transferred to a facility other than FCI Danbury are eligible for home confinement review under the Settlement Agreement. As a result of the disagreement, the class seeks an "order directing the BOP to not refuse to conduct a home confinement review or a re-review for any recognized class member it transfers out of FCI Danbury." The Government opposes the order because, it contends, the intent of the Settlement Agreement was to provide home confinement only to inmates currently at FCI Danbury. The Judge agrees with the class. The Settlement Agreement requires the BOP to consider for home confinement inmates transferred out of FCI Danbury to another prison, as long as such inmates otherwise qualified as class members at some point prior to the transfer. For the reasons and to the extent he stated, Judge Shea granted in part and denied in part the class's motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Within 14 days of the Order, the parties will meet and confer to identify specific class members whose cases warrant re-review under the terms of the Order and the Settlement Agreement. Within 14 days of such identification, the BOP will conduct a re-review of inmates identified for home confinement under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, except that, if for some good reason the BOP cannot meet that deadline, it will inform class counsel of that good reason before expiration of the 14 days. To the extent the parties are unable to agree on the class members whose cases warrant re-review, they will utilize the mechanisms specified in the Settlement Agreement for resolving such disagreements. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy7q7vj9 from Leagle.com. FIDELITONE INC: Locke Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE LOCKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FIDELITONE INC., Case No. 2021L000068 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in collecting, storing and using Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining the requisite prior informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. From approximately July 2020 through August 2020, Ms. Locke was employed by Defendant at its facility in Bensenville, Illinois where her biometric identifiers or biometric information were allegedly collected. Fidelitone Inc. operates a supply chain management firm in Illinois, including at its facility in Bensenville, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 391-5059 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Giannini FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed without prejudice the case, NICOLE GIANNINI, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 C 4212 (N.D. Ill.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Giannini held a Kohl's-branded credit card through Capital One Bank, N.A. She incurred debt on that credit card for personal and household expenses that she did not pay off due to financial difficulties. On June 8, 2020, after defaulting on a consumer debt, Defendant FRS, a debt collector working on behalf of Capital One, sent Giannini a collection letter regarding the overdue balance on her Capital One credit card account. The letter listed Capital One as the original and current creditor, a "total balance due" of $880.23, and a last payment date of Aug. 18, 2019. Under the heading of "Payments are an option," FRS offers her an installment payment plan. The letter allegedly caused Giannini stress, anxiety, and worry because she could not afford the proposed payment plan and the letter did not make clear whether FRS would extend another similar opportunity to her. Giannini then filed the putative class action against FRS under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), alleging that because FRS' form letter failed to include safe harbor language, it contained misleading representations about the time-limited nature of the offer in violation of Section 1692e, e(2), and e(10). FRS has moved to dismiss Giannini's complaint for lack of standing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). FRS argues that Giannini does not have standing because, apart from an alleged technical statutory violation, she has not pleaded that she suffered any concrete harm as a result of FRS' conduct. Giannini responds that the mere deprivation of information about whether FRS would renew the payment offer amounts to a cognizable injury Judge Ellis opines that although Giannini alleges that misrepresentations about a debt may cause consumers to make incorrect decisions about their finances or to make payments to incorrect parties, nowhere in the complaint does she allege that she personally suffered a concrete detriment to her debt-management choices as a result of the omitted information. In other words, the Seventh Circuit's recent FDCPA standing decisions, including Nettles v. Midland Funding LLC, _F.3d_, 2020 WL 7488610 (7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2020), foreclose Giannini's attempt to rely solely on the receipt of alleged misinformation to establish concrete harm. Ms. Giannini's complaint also alleges that FRS' failure to indicate in the letter that it could but was not obligated to renew the payment offer "caused her to suffer stress, anxiety and worry with regard to whether FRS would offer her another opportunity to get her finances in order' by way of a three month, $25 per month payment option." FRS argues that the alleged stress and anxiety Giannini experienced upon receipt of the letter is purely conjectural and cannot support standing, an argument Giannini did not address in her response. More importantly, however, the Judge holds that the Seventh Circuit's recent FDCPA standing decisions, including Gunn v. Thrasher, Buschmann & Voelkel, P.C., 982 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 2020), make clear that, without accompanying detrimental action, a plaintiff's confusion, annoyance, and intimidation do not amount to concrete harm for standing purposes. She similarly concludes that, absent an allegation tying Giannini's stress, anxiety, and worry to some detrimental action she took or risked taking related to her outstanding debt, the stress and worry she allegedly suffered does not alone amount to a cognizable injury. Therefore, because Giannini has not adequately alleged concrete harm to support standing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ellis granted FRS' motion to dismiss. She granted Giannini's motion for leave to file her response instanter. The Judge dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ossnxr from Leagle.com. FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Settlement Just Got Closer to Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Egan at Detroit Free Press reports that a federal judge has given preliminary approval to a proposed $641.25-million partial settlement of civil lawsuits against the state of Michigan and other defendants for the lead poisoning of Flint's drinking water supply - in what would be the largest class-action settlement in state history. Attorney fees and costs have still not been determined but could account for up to one-third of the total settlement amount. They will be subject to the judge's approval at a later date. "The court grants preliminary approval of this settlement," U.S. District Judge Judith Levy said in a 72-page opinion released. The preliminary approval, she said, will trigger a period of time during which the potentially tens of thousands of people included in the various classes can decide whether they want to participate in the settlement and/or object to it. Opting out and suing separately is among the options. A fairness hearing, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be considered, is set for July 12 in front of Levy. "There may be no amount of money that would fully recognize the harm the residents of Flint have experienced, including their anxiety, fear, distrust and anger over the events of (the) last seven years," Levy wrote. "Litigation has its benefits, but also its limitations, and the preliminary approval of this settlement does not affect or preclude other avenues of redress. This litigation - however it concludes - need not be the final chapter of this remarkable story." The proposed settlement with the state of Michigan, McLaren hospitals and Rowe Professional Services Co., which did engineering work related to the 2014 switch to the Flint River as the city's drinking water source, grew to $641.25 million in late December when the Flint City Council voted to join the settlement, using $20 million in city insurance funds, after earlier twice postponing a decision. Flint residents have until March 29 to register to participate in the settlement program. Those who register and are eligible to participate will then have until Aug. 26 to submit the required documents to support their claims. "This is another important day for the residents of Flint, and a further step in the process of receiving justice," said Ted Leopold of Florida, one of the lead attorneys in the case. Most of the settlement money - $600 million - would come from the state. The Legislature recently gave approval for the state to issue bonds to pay its share of the proposed settlement. Litigation continues against other private companies that were involved in Flint's switch from Lake Huron to the Flint River for its source of drinking water, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "With Judge Levy's preliminary approval granted, this historic settlement is one step closer to providing Flint residents with the financial relief that they may have otherwise never received if the legal back-and-forth were to continue in the courts," Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said in a news release. "While final approval remains pending, the settlement can provide people with security that their claims will be heard and not tied up in legal proceedings for an indefinite period of time." A major selling point of the settlement is its major focus on those most impacted by the lead poisoning: those who were children at the time and whose development could be most adversely affected by the toxin. Nearly 80% of the payments would go to those who were under 18 at the time of the crisis. New York City attorney Corey Stern said the amount of money that will flow to young people in Flint "will forever change the trajectory of their lives," as well as the city itself, since most of the money will be spent there. The settlement "is not perfect," but "it's very very good, regardless of what a small number of the Flint community might say," Stern said. But the emphasis on young victims in the proposed settlement is also a source of concern. Todd Weglarz of the Fieger law firm, who represents adult clients who developed Legionnaires' disease as a result of the contaminated water, said clients such as his might receive only $6,500 each, or less, under the proposal. For those who died as a result of contracting Legionnaires' disease tied to the water crisis, the settlement proposes payments of $300,000 and $1.5 million to their survivors, with the exact amount dependent on various factors such as how old they were when they died. Another attorney, Mark Cuker of Philadelphia, said he is concerned by the importance that he believes will be placed on bone scans in determining how much lead poisoning young victims suffered. Such testing is not readily available in the Flint area, and unless that accessibility to testing is improved, "we're going to have a real problem," he told the court in December. Levy said in her opinion the bone scan concern may be moot. She said attorneys have expressed confidence they "have located individuals who can, and appear to be willing to, provide bone scans in Flint to residents who would like such scans for purposes of the settlement." Still pending is a proposal on attorney fees, which will be subject to Levy's approval and are normally capped at one-third of the settlement amount. That motion must be filed no later than Feb. 26. Flint's water crisis began when a state-appointed emergency manager switched the city's drinking water supply from Lake Huron water treated in Detroit to Flint River water treated at the Flint Water Treatment Plant. It was intended as a temporary, cost-saving measure, but turned out to be a disastrous mistake. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has acknowledged it failed to require needed corrosion-control chemicals as part of the water treatment process. Before the 2014 water switch, the Flint City Council had backed a plan to join the Karegnondi Water Authority pipeline to Lake Huron as a new water source, though members have said they thought the city would stay on Detroit water until the new pipeline was completed. After Flint River water began flowing, corrosive water caused lead to leach from joints, pipes and fixtures, causing a spike in toxic lead levels in the blood of Flint children and other residents. Flint switched back to Detroit water in October 2015, but the risk remained because of damage to the city's water distribution infrastructure. Flint, with the help of state and federal funds, has reportedly replaced more than 9,900 lead and galvanized pipes, according to information on the city website. The replacement job is at least 85% complete but has been delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic, officials say.[GN] FORSTER & GARBUS: Lebovits Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH LEBOVITS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS LLP, and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00508 (S.D.N.Y., January 20, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter on or about January 28, 2020 regarding an alleged debt incurred to Discover Bank, who contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. However, the letter confused and misled the Plaintiff by stating that arrangements must be made to pay the "full judgment balance" to avoid judgment enforcement proceedings yet the amount listed on the letter is not the full judgment balance. The Defendant allegedly failed to clearly state in its collection letter the balance owed and the unexplained discrepancy between the full judgment amount, which makes it impossible to the Plaintiff to know how much is owed and if the debt will be considered paid if the lower payment amount is made. The complaint asserts that the Defendant violated section 1692e by omitting material information and stating false information creating false and misleading representation of the status of the debt, and by falsely representing the character, amount of legal status of the debt. Forster & Garbus LLP is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com FURLA USA: Chu Files Suit in N.D. Cal. Over Alleged ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Furla (U.S.A.), Inc., et al. The case is styled as Kyo Hak Chu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Furla (U.S.A.), Inc., a New York corporation, and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00195-LB (N.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2021). The case is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and is assigned to Judge Laurel Beeler. Furla (U.S.A.), Inc. manufactures leather products. The Company offers bags, wallets, jewelry, leather goods, shoes, and accessories. Furla serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jasmine Behroozan,Esq. Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 E-mail: jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com HARBORSIDE INC: Plaintiff's Dismissal of Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Harborside Inc. ("Harborside", or the "Company") (CSE: HBOR), (OTCQX: HBORF), a California-focused, vertically-integrated cannabis enterprise, announced that a complaint filed on October 13, 2020, with the United States District Court, District of Oregon ("the Court"), Case No. 3:20-cv-01551-MO, has been voluntarily dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. The plaintiffs in this action had alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, more specifically alleging that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements during the class period. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, the above-captioned action against all defendants. For the latest news, activities, and media coverage, please visit the Harborside corporate website at http://www.investharborside.com or connect with us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. About Harborside Harborside Inc. is one of the oldest and most respected cannabis retailers in California, operating three of the major dispensaries in the San Francisco Bay Area, a dispensary in the Palm Springs area outfitted with Southern California's only cannabis drive-thru window, a dispensary in Oregon and a cultivation/production facility in Salinas, California. Harborside has played an instrumental role in making cannabis safe and accessible to a broad and diverse community of California consumers. In 2006, Harborside was awarded one of the first six medical cannabis licenses granted in the United States and holds cannabis licenses for retail, distribution, cultivation, nursery and manufacturing. Harborside is currently a publicly listed company on the CSE trading under the ticker symbol "HBOR". Additional information regarding Harborside is available under Harborside's SEDAR profile at www.sedar.com. [GN] IAS LOGISTICS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Parker Wage Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Alexis Parker and Latisha Rhodes, Plaintiffs v. IAS Logistics DFW, LLC, d/b/a Pinnacle Logistics, Defendant, Case No. 20 C 5103 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Parker and Rhodes filed suit against the Defendant, for the following purported wage-and-hour violations: (1) Pinnacle automatically deducted pay for meal breaks that were not taken; and (2) Pinnacle failed to account for shift-differential pay when calculating overtime. The Plaintiffs bring suit both as a nationwide collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and as representatives for putative Rule 23 classes for alleged violations of Illinois and Maryland wage-and-hour laws. Pinnacle moves motion to dismiss. It contends that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Pinnacle with respect to the class-action claims alleged by Rhodes, the Maryland Plaintiff, and the claims against Pinnacle alleged by non-Illinois FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that their arguments in favor of personal jurisdiction carry less force with respect to named Plaintiff Rhodes, who worked entirely in Maryland" and thus, do not oppose the Court dismissing her individual and class claims under Maryland law; accordingly, those claims are dismissed. With respect to the non-Illinois opt-in Plaintiffs, Pinnacle asserts that specific jurisdiction is lacking, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017). In Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court concluded that in a mass-tort action brought in California state court, the state courts lack personal jurisdiction over claims brought by out-of-state plaintiffs against an out-of-state defendant. The Supreme Court left open the question whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court. Pinnacle contends that because opt-in Plaintiffs are considered parties to an FLSA lawsuit, they must be able to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over Pinnacle with respect to their claims. The statute states that no employee will be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought. Because the non-Illinois opt-in plaintiffs in the case cannot do so, Pinnacle argues, their claims must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs assert that even if the opt-in Plaintiffs are required but unable to establish that the Court has personal jurisdiction over them regarding the Defendant, the doctrine of pendent personal jurisdiction allows Pinnacle to answer claims in the Court by individuals who are domiciled and worked out of state. Judge Guzman opines that he need not resolve the parties' arguments on the issue of pendent personal jurisdiction at this time, however, because he concludes that the personal-jurisdiction analysis should take place after a ruling on the motion for conditional certification. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied without prejudice to renewal after a determination on conditional certification. The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief. To survive a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must include enough factual content to give the opposing party notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. After reviewing the allegations, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently apprise the Defendant of the claims against it and state a plausible claim for relief. Because the Plaintiffs' allegations satisfy this standard, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied. For these reasons, Judge Guzman denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2wgsfof from Leagle.com. INFINITY CAPITAL: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Illegal Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TERRY FABRICANT, ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC., KEITH HOBBS, and DIANA HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INFINITY CAPITAL, LLC and CHOICE MERCHANT SOLUTIONS LLC; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00527 (C.D. Cal., January 20, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In an effort to sell or solicit its services, the Defendant allegedly contacted the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone by using an "automatic telephone dialing system." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs did not provide their "prior express consent" to the Defendants to receive calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephones, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged unsolicited telephone calls, the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were harmed by causing them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and invading their privacy. The Plaintiffs brings this complaint as a class action seeking an injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future, statutory damages, and other relief that the Court deems just and proper. Infinity Capital, LLC is a financing company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Faces Suit Over Factory's Chemical Odors --------------------------------------------------------------- News4jax reports that a Jacksonville manufacturer that produces flavors, fragrances, and cosmetic actives is at the center of a new class-action lawsuit. Residents who live near the International Flavors and Fragrances, IFF, say they are fed up with a stinking smell that they say has been coming from the factory for years. Imagine the smell of Pine-Sol, but magnified. That's how some neighbors have described what they're smelling day in, day out in Murray Hill. A woman named Erin spoke to News4Jax but declined to give her last name. She says she first noticed the smell 3 years ago. "It drifts into our house in the middle of the night. It wakes me up," Erin said. Erin has filed multiple complaints with the city's Environmental Quality Division over the last few months. She says when it's especially bad, she'll file multiple in a week. "We have two small children, sometimes we can't go outside in the morning," Erin said. "The past 6 months or so, it's been very strong. To where it's daily." Erin isn't the only one filing complaints. The city of Jacksonville told News4jax, in a public records request, that from October 1, 2020, through December 28, 2020, 567 citywide odor complaints were reported. A city official said most were from the Murray Hill, Avondale, and Riverside areas with 7 of those complaints being verified and validated, with the source being identified as International Flavors and Fragrances on Lane Avenue. In another public records request, the city confirmed 201 complaints were received from December 28th through January 13th, with one additional verified odor complaint still being reviewed for validation. Neighbors say the smell drifts miles away and greets them at their front door. Fed up with the stench, three Murray Hill neighbors filed a class-action lawsuit against IFF earlier this month. It was originally stricken by a judge, but then refiled Friday, January 15th. According to the lawsuit, IFF uses a process that involves distilling "crude sulfate turpentine" which is used to make fragrance. Josh Gellers is a board member for the Murray Hill Preservation Association and says the smell has made its way to his home. "My wife was woken up by it at about 2:00 in the morning," Gellers said. "Which caused her to run to the bathroom because she had nausea, her face felt like it was on fire." Gellers has seen the complaints from neighbors, with some saying their health is being impacted. "Burning sensations, shortness of breath dizziness, nausea, headaches," Gellers said. "All of that seems to be pretty consistent across members of the community who have made complaints." News4jax reached out to IFF for comment. The representative pointed News4jax to a letter addressed to the Environmental Quality Division with the city. The letter says: "IFF's sensor technology and evaluations cannot find a connection between the Murray Hill complaints and the facility." The letter says the facility is roughly 3 miles from Murray Hill, therefore, it is "highly improbable" IFF could be responsible. The letter went on to say: "IFF has engaged environmental experts to conduct an independent review and full evaluation of the odor complaints and IFF's facilities. We have concluded that IFF's operations are in full compliance with the Title V air permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and could not be responsible for the odor complaints in the Murray Hill neighborhood." It also asked the city to "provide the training records for the City's odor investigators." For Gellers, that request was a head-scratcher. "It's very strongly suggested that what they're attempting to get at is that the people who are doing the investigating are not qualified or trained properly to do so," Gellers said. "That's different than saying we're not responsible for the chemical smell." The class-action lawsuit is now making its way through the courts. No matter what comes of it, Gellers says neighbors are just ready to move on. "The sense of the community is that this is something they don't want to live with," Gellers said. "And they shouldn't have to live with it." Erin agrees. "What I would like to see is, I don't know... it to be done," Erin said. "I don't want to smell it anymore. I can't move, but IFF can." In the letter, IFF also neighbors' concerns directly. "IFF is working hard to make this right, not just because of the enforcement action, but because IFF cares deeply about the community. IFF supports members of the community who report complaints so that the origin of the complaints may be accurately identified." The city of Jacksonville also told News4jax people are still encouraged to file odor complaints directly to the Environment Quality Division. [GN] JOSTEN'S INC: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Factory Staff, Reaves Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, BARRY REAVES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOSTEN'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00048 (M.D. Tenn., January 20, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid factory worker at the Defendant's factory in Clarksville, Tennessee from approximately March 2012 to June 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to pay him and other similarly situated hourly paid factory workers for the time they spent performing preparatory work activities before their scheduled shifts which is integral and indispensable to their job duties. Thereby, the Defendant failed to properly 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 suit says. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking the full amount of damages and liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief that the Court deems appropriate. Josten's Inc. manufactures yearbooks and class rings for various high schools and colleges as well as championship rings for sports. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Tel: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: lis@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com KANSAS APPLESEED: Judge Plans to OK Settlement in Foster Care Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Motter at wibw.com reports that the Kansas foster care system will soon see some dramatic changes regarding housing and mental health of children in state care. Kansas Appleseed says on, a federal judge indicated that he plans to approve a settlement agreement between attorneys that represent almost 7,000 children in foster care and Kansas state officials. It said order of approval is expected to be issued in the week of Jan. 25. According to the organization, the settlement will bring transformative structural changes to the state's broken welfare system by ending extreme placement instability and ensuring that children get the mental health care they need. It said for years, children in foster care have been traumatized by the system that was meant to protect them, lacking access to mental health resources and bouncing from home to home, some moving up to as many as 100 times. "The settlement is the first step in ensuring children in foster care do not just survive the trauma they've experienced but thrive," Larry Rute, plaintiff co-counsel, said. "While it won't happen immediately, these changes will help ensure children in foster care are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve and don't become a statistic in the tragic foster care to prison pipeline, become homeless, or suffer from severe persistent mental illness." Kansas Appleseed said the approval hearing was the last step before moving toward implementation of key practice reforms and benchmarks that will begin immediately and are required to be met at intervals over the next three to four years. It said an independent neutral consultant will review, validate and report on Defendants' performance and progress in reaching the settlement obligations. According to Kansas Appleseed, the settlement is the result of the class action suit M.B. v Howard (originally M.B. v Colyer) that was filed in November of 2018. It said the plaintiff co-counsel team includes the Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Kansas attorney and Child Welfare Specialists Lori Burns-Bucklew, the National Center for Youth Law, Children's Rights and the global law firm DLA Piper. Defendants in the settlement are Secretary Laura Howard of the Kansas Department for Children and Families and the Kansas Department of Aging and Disability Services as well as Secretary Dr. Lee A. Norman of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. "All children in foster care have the right to a stable, caring home where their mental health care needs are met, and our settlement agreement finally moves Kansas in that direction," Leecia Welch, plaintiff co-counsel and Senior Director at the National Center for Youth Law, said. "This lawsuit is not only a win for the children in foster care now, but a win for all children who will ever enter state care in Kansas." Kansas Appleseed said the settlement requires structural changes and measurable outcomes that are all directed to improve housing stability and mental health supports for children in DCF care. It said key reforms are as follows: Practice Improvements - The settlement mandates five areas of practice changes that state agencies must reach for a 12-month period and then hold for another 12 month period in order to exit court oversight. It said these include: Ending the practice of housing children in unsuitable places like offices and hotels Ending the practice of night-to-night short term placements Ensuring placements are not overcrowded and do not exceed the licensed capacity Ending housing-related delays in the provision of mental health services Providing crisis intervention services for children Outcomes - The settlement requires five measurable outcome improvements for children, phased in over 3-4 year periods. When state agencies reach the final target outcome after phasing it in, they must then hold it for another 12 months to exit court oversight. It said these include: Achieving a low average rate of placement moves, around 4.4 moves or less per 1,000 days in care Addressing mental health and behavioral health treatment needs for at least 90% of children Ensuring current placements are stable for at least 90% of children Limiting placement changes to one move over 12 months for at least 90% of children Providing an initial mental health and trauma screening within the first 30 days of entering state care for at least 90% of children Federal Court Enforceability - If approved, the settlement is a fully enforceable federal court order that is binding on DCF, the KDHE and KDADS, as well as all current and future officials of these agencies. Contract Oversight - The settlement is binding whether performance is by the state agencies or any providers contracted by agencies or other agreements with the state and the obligations of the settlement will become part of all contracts. Neutral Expert Validating Performance - The settlement appoints Judith Meltzer and the Center for the Study of Social Policy, a highly respected child welfare policy group, to independently validate Kansas' performance. New Community Accountability Structure - The settlement requires a new independent advisory group, heavy on stakeholders outside of state agencies, like providers, parents and youth. It said the group can make public recommendations for change and the state agencies must respond in writing to all recommendations. [GN] KROGER CO: Levi Sues Over Asst. Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER LEVI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER COMPANY and FRED MEYER STORES, INC. d/b/a FRED MEYER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00042-TSB (S.D. Ohio, January 19, 2021) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the Class members overtime compensation for the hours they worked over 40 in one or more workweeks because Defendants classify them as exempt from overtime. Mr. Levi was employed by Defendants as an assistant store manager at several Fred Meyer stores in Portland, Oregon between approximately January 2017 and December 2019. Kroger owns and operates, directly and/or through its wholly owned subsidiary Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., over 130 Fred Meyer stores in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Meizlish, Esq. Deborah Grayson,Esq. MEIZLISH & GRAYSON 119 E. Court Street, Suite 409 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-4700 Facsimile: (513) 345-4703 E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net drgrayson@fuse.net - and - Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700 Market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 278-4782 Facsimile: (215) 278-4807 E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com LBS FINANCIAL: Faces Russell Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, EBONY RUSSEL, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general, Plaintiff v. LBS FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV02472 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 21, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged unlawful systemic employment practice that violated the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in or about July 2001 as a financial services representative until it ended in or about July 2020. Throughout her employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was allegedly paid on an hourly basis as a non-exempt employee and earned non-discretionary incentives. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not include her non-discretionary incentive wages when calculating her regular rate of pay, thereby failing to timely pay her sick pay wages, overtime wages, and double-time wages. Additionally, the Defendants did not provide her with accurate itemized wage statements, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks penalties for the Defendants' Labor Code violations committed against all aggrieved employees since July 27, 2020 pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. LBS Financial Credit Union provides financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Simon L. Yang, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 South Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com sly@diversitylaw.com LEPRINO FOODS: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Howell Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANDREW HOWELL, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01404-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part Leprino's motion for judgment on the pleadings. In the class action lawsuit, Howell is suing two cheese manufacturing companies, Leprino Foods Co. and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Co. Howell filed his lawsuit on April 24, 2018. In his complaint, Howell raised seven causes of action on behalf of himself and a putative class: (1) failure to pay minimum wages, Cal. Labor Code Section 1194 and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 8-2001; (2) failure to pay wages for all hours worked, Cal. Labor Code Section 204; (3) failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, and Wage Order 8; (4) failure to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, Cal. Labor Code Sections 226.7, 512, and Wage Order 8; (5) failure to pay separation wages, Cal. Labor Code Sections 201-203; (6) failure to furnish accurate wage statements, Cal. Labor Code Section 226; and (7) unfair competition law violations, Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code Section 17200, et seq. After answering the complaint, Leprino moved for partial judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing that the first six causes of action were time-barred; that the overtime wages cause of action was also preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act; and that Howell lacked standing to seek injunctive relief for these causes of action given that he was not currently employed by Leprino. The Court granted the Defendants' motion on the challenge to Howell's overtime wages cause of action under Rule 12(c), and ordered the parties to further brief the Defendants' other challenges under the proper legal frameworks: Rule 12(b)(1) for the standing challenge, and Rule 56 for the statute of limitations challenge. Howell then conceded that he was not currently employed by Leprino and that he filed his Labor Code claims more than three years after his employment ended. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Howell's demand for injunctive relief under Rule 12(b)(1), and granted summary judgment in Leprino's favor on Howell's minimum wages, all hours worked, meal and rest period, separation wages, and wage statement causes of action under Rule 56. A month later, Leprino filed the Rule 12(c) motion that is currently before the Court. Before turning to the merits of Leprino's challenge, Judge Ishii first considers Howell's threshold argument that those merits should not be reached because Leprino's motion is procedurally barred. Leprino disagrees with this reading of the law and argues that its motion is procedurally proper in light of Rule 12(h)(2). The Judge agrees with Leprino. He finds that when read together, the Rule 12(g)(2) provisions indicate that Rule 12(c) motions for failure to state a claim--such as Leprino's instant motion--are exempt from the prohibition on successive motions under Rule 12(g)(2). Howell has not cited other authority for his assertion that successive Rule 12(c) motions cannot be made. Moreover, without addressing the threshold issue, California district courts have regularly considered the merits of successive Rule 12(c) motions. The Judge will keep with that practice in the case. Leprino argues that Howell's UCL cause of action cannot stand on allegations of Labor Code violations that are remedied through civil penalties as the relief is not recoverable as restitution under the UCL. It also argues that the cause of action cannot stand on alleged overtime wages violations because of federal law preemption. Howell agrees with Leprino on many points, but argues that his UCL cause of action can proceed on allegations of meal and rest period violations under California Labor Code Section 226.7. The Judge agrees with Howell. In his complaint, Howell alleges that Leprino engaged in "unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and acts" based on violations of the all hours worked requirements of Labor Code Section 204; the overtime wages requirements of Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194; the meal and rest period requirements of Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; and the separation wages requirements of Labor Code Sections 201-203. Because each of these alleged violations supports a unique theory of relief, Howell's UCL cause of action is more properly described as four independent UCL claims. Leprino argues that relief cannot be granted for any of Howell's UCL claims because violation of these Labor Code provisions results in civil penalties that are not recoverable as restitution under the UCL. Under this challenge, Howell concedes that he may not proceed on UCL claims for alleged violations of the all hours worked and separation wages statutes. Howell also agrees that he may not further pursue a UCL claim based on overtime wages allegations given preemption of the underlying claim. The Judge, therefore, will dismiss these claims with prejudice as Howell has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and amendment would be futile under the respective legal standards. This narrows the parties' dispute to whether Howell may pursue a UCL claim based on allegations of meal and rest period violations. Leprino argues that a recent decision of the California Court of Appeal confirms the opposite is true--that Section 226.7(c) payments are penalties, not wages. In Naranjo v. Spectrum Sec. Servs., Inc., 40 Cal. App. 5th 444, 473-74 (2019), review granted, 455 P.3d 704 (Jan. 2, 2020), the court holds that meal and rest period violations cannot sustain separation wages and wage statement claims. The Judge would not adopt Naranjo's rationale and would instead adhere to the Court's previous determination in Finder v. Leprino Foods Co., No. 1:13-cv-2059-AWI-BAM, 2015 WL 1137151, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2015), that Section 226.7(c) payments are wages, not penalties. He will do the same in the case, and also adheres to its determination in Bates v. Leprino Foods Co., No. 20-cv-00700-AWI-BAM, 2020 WL 6392562, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2020), that a UCL claim may be based on violations of Section 226.7. Thus, the Judge will deny Leprino's motion to the extent that Howell may pursue a UCL claim based on meal and rest period allegations. If the California Supreme Court reaches a conclusion in Naranjo that invalidates the conclusions in Bates and Finder, Leprino may file a motion for reconsideration based on that decision. Accordingly, Judge Ishii granted in part and denied in part Leprino's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Howell's UCL claims seeking recovery for Labor Code violations of the all hours worked (Section 204), overtimes wages (Section 510), and separation wages (Section 203) provisions are dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. These claims are adjudicated in Leprino's favor. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxk7yzh5 from Leagle.com. LIVENT CORPORATION: Labaton Sucharow Announces Settlement Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the court of common pleas of philadelphia county, Pennsylvania - civil trial division In re livent corporation Securities litigation Civil action Consolidated case no. 190501229 Summary notice of pendency of class action, proposed Settlement, and motion for attorneys' fees and expenses To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Livent Corporation ("Livent") pursuant and/or traceable to Livent's Offering Materials for its initial public offering of 23,000,000 shares. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, that Lead Plaintiffs Plymouth County Retirement Association and Gary Bizarria, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class,1 and Livent and the other defendants in the Action, have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $7,400,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ramy I. Djerassi, either in person at the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, in a courtroom that will be posted in advance on the Settlement website, or remotely, using information that will be posted on the Settlement website, in the Court's discretion, at 10:00 a.m. EDT on April 15, 2021 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated October 27, 2020; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Settlement, www.LiventSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Livent Securities Settlement c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. P.O. Box 5270 Portland, OR 97208-5270 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 8, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than March 25, 2021. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than March 25, 2021. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: January 22, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA URL// www.LiventSecuritiesSettlement.com [GN] LIVENT CORPORATION: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of May 8 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- In the court of common pleas of philadelphia county, Pennsylvania - civil trial division In re livent corporation Securities litigation Civil action Consolidated case no. 190501229 Summary notice of pendency of class action, proposed Settlement, and motion for attorneys' fees and expenses To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Livent Corporation ("Livent") pursuant and/or traceable to Livent's Offering Materials for its initial public offering of 23,000,000 shares. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, that Lead Plaintiffs Plymouth County Retirement Association and Gary Bizarria, on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class,1 and Livent and the other defendants in the Action, have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $7,400,000 that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ramy I. Djerassi, either in person at the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, in a courtroom that will be posted in advance on the Settlement website, or remotely, using information that will be posted on the Settlement website, in the Court's discretion, at 10:00 a.m. EDT on April 15, 2021 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated October 27, 2020; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the Settlement, www.LiventSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Livent Securities Settlement c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. P.O. Box 5270 Portland, OR 97208-5270 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel: Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 8, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than March 25, 2021. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than March 25, 2021. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: January 22, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA [GN] LIZHI INC: Faces Yutan Suit Over 70% Decline in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Yutan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated V. Lizhi Inc., Jinman (Marco) Lai, Ning Ding, Zelong Li, Xi (Catherine) Chen, Tao Huang, Ye Yuan, Richard Arthur, Colleen A. De Vries, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Haitong International Securities Company Limited, AMTD Global Markets Limited, Needham & Company, LLC, Tiger Brokers (NZ) Limited, China Merchants Securities (HK) Co., Limited, Valuable Capital Limited, Prime Number Capital LLC and Cogency Global Inc., Case No. 650171/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 8, 2021) is a securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who purchased, or otherwise acquired Lizhi American Depositary Shares pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with Lizhi's January 2020 initial public stock offering. In January 2020, Defendants commenced the IPO, issuing approximately 4.1 million ADS to the investing public at $11 per share, all pursuant to the Registration Statement. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement misrepresented and omitted Lizhi's direct and escalating exposure to the devastating coronavirus epidemic, then already raging in China and engulfing its business, customers, and employees at the time of the IPO. It further asserts that the Defendants went forward with the IPO, with the foregoing misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration Statement, raising approximately $45 million in gross proceeds. But when the truth of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions became known, the price of Lizhi shares suffered sharp declines. By the commencement of the action, Lizhi shares had traded below $3 per share, an over 70% decline from the $11 per ADS offering price, the suit added. Lizhi Inc. operates a social audio platform for user-generated content in China. Cogency Global Inc. was Lizhi's authorized U.S. representative for purposes of the IPO. Defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Haitong International Securities Company Limited, AMTD Global Markets Limited, Needham & Company, LLC, Tiger Brokers (NZ) Limited, Prime Number Capital LLC, China Merchants Securities (HK) Co., Limited, and Valuable Capital Limited are financial services companies that acted as underwriters for Lizhi's IPO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq. Jonathan M. Zimmerman, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com jzimmerman@scott-scott.com - and - David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park E, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1604 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (310) 388-0192 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com MAHENDRA AMIN: ICE Frees Potential Witnesses in Medical Abuse Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nomaan Merchant at Washington Post reports that U.S. immigration authorities have released the last of nine detained women who were taken to see a rural Georgia gynecologist accused of performing unnecessary hysterectomies or other medical procedures, a lawyer for the women said. Dozens of women have accused Dr. Mahendra Amin of conducting procedures without their consent that were medically unnecessary and potentially endangered their ability to have children -- allegations that sparked wide outrage. The women were detained at the privately run Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia. Through his lawyer, Amin has denied any wrongdoing. A federal criminal investigation is underway. Under the administration of former President Donald Trump, ICE deported at least six women last year who alleged misconduct by Amin and came within hours of deporting at least three others before their lawyers intervened. "These women have supported each other, organized, and continually fought to bring the truth to light, despite every effort by the Trump administration to silence them," said Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School and one of the lawyers working with the women. Deportations of any potential witnesses are halted under court order, even after ICE tried to withdraw its support in court for an agreement originally reached by the Department of Justice. In a class-action lawsuit filed in December, 41 women submitted statements about what they allege was misconduct by Amin. That lawsuit is pending. Many of the women had been deported or released from immigration custody after the allegations first emerged in September. ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The agency has previously denied deporting women to prevent them from testifying and pledged it would cooperate with all investigations. It has also said it prioritizes providing necessary medical care to all detainees. Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission. [GN] MARS WRIGLEY: BakerHostetler Attorneys Discuss Vanilla Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Goldstein, Esq. -- lgoldstein@bakerlaw.com -- Amy Ralph Mudge, Esq. -- amudge@bakerlaw.com -- and Randal Shaheen, Esq. -- rshaheen@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, report that Mars Wrigley Confectionery -- we'll just call them Mars, the familiar corporate shorthand for the snack food giant that produces M&M's, 3 Musketeers, Milky Way and the eponymous Mars Bar -- thinks that the lawyers representing Mohammed Garadi have an unhealthy obsession with their company. Garadi and his counsel do not stand accused of being chocoholics; oh no -- nothing that benign. Rather, Mars insists that Garadi's counsel are choco-chasers, the scourge of the snack bar. Mars claims that Garadi's lawsuit, launched in May 2019 in New York's Eastern District, is a "strike suit" -- part of a flotilla of about "100 putative class actions" that employ "a raft of recycled complaints" against food manufacturers alleging they "intentionally deceived consumers by failing to flavor their products with flavoring 100% derived from the 'tropical orchid of the genus Vanilla.'" (Garadi alleged misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment under New York law.) As support, the footnotes to Mars' memo in support of dismissal list enough vanilla lawsuits to fill half a page. "The procedural history of these cases underscores their purpose," the memo proclaims -- to "leverage the threat of putative class claims and force early settlements." What Happened to Plain Old Vanilla? But despite their obvious contempt for the plaintiff's motivations, there was a genuine legal tussle going on beneath the surface. Mars moved to dismiss the case a few days before Christmas, claiming that Garadi lacked standing to sue. The company accused Garadi of invoking the more stringent rules for labeling vanilla extract and flavoring in a context that relied on the rules for ice cream labeling. The Mars products in question -- Dove Bars coated in milk chocolate -- simply contain vanilla ice cream, the company argued, which invokes a separate set of definitions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) than vanilla extract and flavoring. Those products, Mars argues, are distinguished from one another by the FDA through specific instructions about the amount of the product derived from vanilla beans (if you're curious, extracts are set apart from flavorings by the amount of alcohol in each product). But those rules don't carry over for vanilla ice cream -- "natural flavors" on the Dove Bar ingredient list is sufficient for consumers. Mars isn't required, the company argues, to prove that those ingredients are derived from vanilla beans in the same manner they would if they were selling vanilla extract or flavoring. The Takeaway In addition, Mars argued that Garadi and his fellow plaintiffs were "not authorized to enforce their view of FDCA regulations" because there is no private right of action under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and "their consumer deception and common law claims are preempted, implausible, insufficiently pleaded, and cannot withstand a motion to dismiss." Garadi filed his own opposition memo defending his right to sue. He argued that the dispute was really about taste. "Defendant's Product may contain some vanilla," he writes, "but its taste is provided by artificial vanilla flavors, including ethyl vanillin, that are not disclosed to consumers." Here's the kicker: "Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged Defendant's 'Vanilla' representation on the front of the Product is likely to deceive reasonable consumers into believing the Product has a vanilla taste, provided predominantly or exclusively from vanilla beans," the memo continues. "As Defendant has failed to rebut the [first amended complaint's] contentions with documentation outside of the pleadings, this is not a rare situation in which dismissal as a matter of law is appropriate." Wow. Strike suit or not, we're really interested in how the court will react to Garadi's argument. Is anyone invoking a subjective judgment regarding taste free to challenge a product that has a generic characterizing flavor? Or is Garadi merely trying to rope together two unrelated FDA rulesets to make an unfair and deceptive practices case? We await the court's decision. War Drums Beat in Energizer Performance Class Action Consumer calls everything into question, from fonts to content Snarketing Campaign Here's a flip: Last year, Energizer, the marketing demiurge behind the world's favorite ubiquitous drum-playing rabbit, took competitor Duracell out to the woodshed over its marketing claims that the company's Optimum batteries "offer both 'extra life' and 'extra power' in all devices - when they do not." We covered the dispute at the time, including the delicious snark that Energizer unloaded in its complaint. (Both parties dropped the suit in December 2019 for reasons unknown.) Font of Trouble But now, a little more than a year later, Energizer is on the receiving end of its own class action brought by Eduard Skylar, a consumer from Brooklyn, New York. The Brooklynite plaintiff is leveling multiple allegations regarding a recent set of Energizer marketing claims. Some of them are rather interesting -- if they're true, that is. The complaint centers around one tag from a 2020 marketing campaign that stated that Energizer's AA MAX batteries were "up to 50% longer lasting than basic alkaline in demanding devices" across several marketing vehicles. Skylar notes that the "up to" and "than basic alkaline in demanding devices" portions of the tag were considerably smaller than the "50%" font. But he maintains that "Energizer AA MAX batteries are not 'up to 50% longer lasting' than other competing batteries, including, for example, Duracell Coppertop batteries." The Takeaway There's more to this action than maladjusted point sizes, however. Skylar asserts that "demanding devices" aren't specifically defined anywhere on the packaging. Likewise, just what "basic alkaline" means is left up to the consumer's imagination. The most interesting dig at Energizer, though, is that "the longevity of Energizer AA MAX batteries varies based on where any particular AA MAX battery is manufactured." Whether this holds true for batteries in general or only for the AA MAX battery is outside the scope of the charges, of course, but nonetheless it's interesting to learn that "AA MAX batteries manufactured outside the United States have a significantly shorter life than those AA MAX batteries that are manufactured inside the United States," allegedly. For now, there's little explicit backup to Skylar's accusations in the complaint -- no specifically named product testing report or study. We'll hear more about the basis of the allegations soon, we expect. In the meantime, beware of tags like this one unless your substantiation is airtight -- and printed somewhere the consumer can easily lay their eyes on it. Sticky Bidness Kwik Fix, Hammer Tite and Krylex -- no, we're not writing about the latest obscure rap crew. We're talking adhesives, baby -- specifically, brands produced by James Cooke and his glue maker posse Chemence Inc. Chemence just got a spanking from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC, or the Commission) to the tune of $1.2 million, the largest-ever monetary judgment for false "made in the U.S.A." advertising. Kwik Fix, etc. are consumer superglues. According to the FTC, the company "provides third parties with marketing materials so third parties can market and sell products under its own brand names," and also "manufactures private-labeled products sold under retailer brand names [providing] those retailers with labeling and promotional materials. . ." The Commission alleges that Chemence printed up these materials with a "made in USA" logo, even though "foreign materials [often] accounted for more than 80% of materials costs and more than 50% of overall manufacturing costs for these products." Back in the Day So, what explains the record-setting amount? Did one of the commissioners get frustrated putting together a model airplane over the weekend and decide to take it out on the first superglue company they ran across? Nope -- there's a back story. Chemence got stuck with its first FTC investigation regarding U.S.-origin claims in 2016; the charges then alleged nearly the same behavior as they are accused of today. What was different four years ago was the amount Chemence had to cough up to settle the charges -- $220,000. That probably seemed like a large sum at the time. But compared to the most recent $1.2 million judgment, it wasn't much at all. The Takeaway The only other demands made by the Commission in 2016 were a prohibition against future unqualified claims without evidence "that the product's final assembly or processing -- and all significant processing -- take place in the United States, and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States." Qualified claims were allowed if the company provided clear and conspicuous disclosure regarding the substance of the claims. Chemence provided a mandatory compliance report, duly filed by Cooke in 2017. But as far as the FTC is concerned, they kept right on with the original offending behavior, which earned them the $1 million increase in penalties (the old prohibitions about qualifications and disclosures remain in the new settlement). Ladies and gentlemen, please bone up on the FTC's made in the USA rules. Here's a link. Review your advertising with your counsel if you have any doubt about origin claims that you're making. The Commission isn't playing. FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a statement to that effect after Chemence's most recent settlement agreement was inked. "For decades," he writes, "there was bipartisan consensus at the Federal Trade Commission that Made in USA fraud should not be penalized. . . . [But] the action against Chemence and its top executive marks another turning point for the FTC's enforcement strategy . . . [it] imposes real consequences -- a major difference from the Commission's past Made in USA settlements." [GN] MCGRAW HILL: Textbook Authors Sue Over Slashed Web Royalties ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Burnson at bloomberg.com reports that McGraw Hill LLC was sued by textbook authors who claim the company has slashed their royalties by unilaterally revising the rules for how they get paid for online versions of their work. Three of the authors filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the publisher, saying the new rules violate the terms of their contracts and will reduce their royalties by 25% to 35%. The change involves the way the authors are paid for sales of textbooks and related study materials on McGraw Hill's online site, Connect. Approximately 53% of McGraw Hill's billings come from digital products, according to the complaint, which says the company and its affiliates reported total revenue of more than $1.5 billion in 2019. The company used to pay royalties on the "entirety of revenues" from textbook sales on Connect, but recently announced it would only pay for a portion of the sales, the authors say in the complaint, which was filed in Manhattan federal court. "This maneuver amounts to a bald attempt by McGraw Hill to pass its Connect-related costs to authors." The company said the change in how royalties are calculated is "consistent with the terms of our author agreements." "Our Connect product has evolved in recent years, with a significant portion of the value now associated with its technology and features," spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said in an email. "The calculations accurately account for the relative contributions we and each of our authors have made toward the product's components." The case is Flynn v. McGraw Hill LLC, 21-cv-00614, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). [GN] MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Gross Law Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. shareholders. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:NERV) Investors Affected : May 15, 2017 - November 30, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/minerva-neurosciences-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=12375&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] MORGAN HILL: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Arroyo Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Arroyo v. Morgan Hill Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership, Case No. 5:21-cv-00212-BLF (N.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated alleging violations of the Defendant of the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and 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 information 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. Morgan Hill Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership owns and operates the La Quinta Inn & Suites by Wyndham Morgan Hill-San Jose South in Morgan Hill, 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 MYLAN INC: Pharmacy Benefit Managers' Class Action Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Allergic Living reports that a U.S. district judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit against Mylan Inc., the marketer of the EpiPen auto-injector, and a group of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) can proceed. Mylan, now part of Viatris Inc., and the PBMs lost in a bid to have the Minnesota-based class action dismissed. The suit, brought by drug distributors, alleges that the Mylan and the PBMs conspired to engage in anticompetitive practices that drove up the price of EpiPens for mutual benefit. Mylan has faced pricing controversy since it surfaced that the list price for a set of two branded EpiPens rose rapidly to $600 in 2016, an increase of more than 500 percent from 2008. PBMs usually negotiate favorable prices for their insurer clients, but the lawsuit alleges that instead the defendant PBMs accepted large rebates - described as kickbacks - from Mylan. In return, the suit contends the PBMs gave highly preferential treatment to EpiPen versus new auto-injector competitors (Auvi-Q and the generic version of Adrenaclick), which were either kept off insurer formulary lists or put in less favorable formulary tiers. The PBMs and Mylan each argued separately that they did nothing outside of normal commercial business, and that the plaintiffs failed to make the case that they had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) or, in Mylan's case, also the Sherman Act. (The latter relates to unlawful behavior to maintain a monopoly.) However, U.S. District Judge Eric Tostrud in Minnesota ruled that the "plaintiffs have stated plausible claims under RICO and the Sherman Act." While Mylan and the PBMs contended they were pursuing their own "divergent goals" as businesses, Tostrud found that "the Complaint contains a fairly clear description of why Mylan and the PBM Defendants all had interests in keeping EpiPen prices inflated." Mylan argued as well that the plaintiffs' claims exceeded a four-year statute of limitations, but Tostrud said dismissal on that basis would be "inappropriate" at this stage of legal proceedings. Mylan also faces a number of other class action lawsuits related to EpiPen pricing practices. DBV Buoyed By Skin Patch Feedback In August 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it would not approve DBV Technologies Viaskin Peanut patch therapy, at least not in its present form. The FDA called for a "new human factors study," for the novel allergy desensitization treatment, and raised concern about the daily-use patches adhering properly to patients' skin. DBV, which completed Phase 3 clinical trials for Viaskin Peanut, vowed to move forward to make any necessary changes to achieve biologic license approval. On Jan. 14, the biopharmaceutical company announced that it was encouraged by written feedback from the agency, saying "the FDA provides a well-defined regulatory path forward." Specifically, DBV says: * The FDA agreed that a modified Viaskin Peanut patch would not need to start from square one, and be considered a new product. That's the case as long as the skin patch chamber and the level of exposure -- 250 micrograms of peanut protein -- through the skin remain the same. * The FDA has suggested a six-month clinical trial to confirm consistency of safety and effectiveness data between the existing and modified patches in the target audience of peanut-allergic children (aged 4 to 11). DBV CEO Daniel Tasse said he was "encouraged by the positive feedback" from the FDA, and that his team is working on modified patches. DBV hopes to have a trial protocol ready for FDA review by the second quarter of 2021. To preserve cash flow, the company has initiated a global restructuring and cost-cutting plan. [GN] NINTENDO CO: Lambert Avocat Files Joy-Con Drift Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jenni Lada, writing for siliconera, reports that Lambert Avocat Inc. submitted a Nintendo Switch, Switch Lite, Pro Controller, and Joy-Con drift class action suit application in Quebec, Canada. The law firm is hoping to file a suit for restitution, suggesting that the analog stick drifting during normal use was a "hidden defect" that violated terms in the Consumer Protection Act. The firm is now collecting additional information from other people possibly dealing with the issue and waiting for a Superior Court of Quebec judge to authorize the proceedings. The Lambert Avocat's questionnaire asks fairly typical questions. For example, it asks if people have a Switch, if they had to deal with Joy-Con drift, if Nintendo ended up involved or they had to buy new controllers, and if people had any video footage of the controllers or systems' problems. It also allows people to sign up for an email list to receive additional updates. Joy-Con drift class action motions and lawsuits have been filed for a few years now. For example, one was first filed back in July 2019, with the Switch Lite even added to it. However, we've also seen these sorts of cases dropped and sent to arbitration. Nintendo does perform Joy-Con drift repairs for free and has since about mid-2019. Nintendo President Shuntaro Furukawa even apologized for the issues. Lambert Avocat Inc. is now accepting additional registration forms and said it will offer updates on the potential Joy-Con drift class action suit on its Facebook page. [GN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Dynasty" or the "Company") (NYSE:NAK) from December 21, 2017 through November 25, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Northern Dynasty securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Northern Dynasty Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Army released a statement concerning the Pebble Project, stating that it would result in "significant degradation of the environment and would likely result in significant adverse effects on the aquatic system or human environment." The U.S. Army further found that "the project, as currently proposed, cannot be permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act." The U.S. Army requested that the Company submit a mitigation plan in response to this finding. On this news, Northern Dynasty's stock price fell $0.55 per share, or 37.9%, to close at $0.90 per share on August 24, 2020. On November 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty reported that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had rejected its permit applications related to the Pebble Project. On this news, Northern Dynasty's stock price fell $0.40 per share, or 50%, to close at $0.40 per share on November 25, 2020, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Northern Dynasty securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/northerndynastymineralsltd-nak-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-339/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN] NORTHERN DYNASTY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. shareholders. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. NAK Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=12374&wire=1 Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK) NAK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 2, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=12374&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] OCTAPHARMA PLASMA: Affirmative Defenses in Crumpton Partly Struck ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARY CRUMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCTAPHARMA PLASMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19 C 8402 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part Crumpton's motion to strike Octapharma's First and Second Affirmative Defenses raised in its answer. Plaintiff Crumpton filed the proposed class action against a plasma-donation company, Octapharma. Crumpton alleges Octapharma violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). BIPA prohibits private entities from collecting "biometric identifiers"--including fingerprints--from a person unless the entity obtains informed, written consent and provides certain disclosures. She alleges Octapharma violated BIPA Section 15(b) by using a donor-identification system that relied upon the collection, storage, and use of donors' fingerprints and biometric information without proper written consent and without making required disclosures. Octapharma, a company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in North Carolina, operates a nationwide chain of blood plasma donation centers. Before donating plasma for the first time, Octapharma requires donors to provide a scan of their fingerprint. Using the fingerprint scan, Octapharma creates a biometric template as a method of positively identifying individual donors. A donor's biometric template is associated with a Donor History Record which includes his or her donation history, results of health screening exams and blood testing, and interviews and questionnaires. Octapharma requires donors to scan their fingerprint each time they donate plasma. Crumpton is an Illinois citizen who donated plasma at Octapharma between June 2017 and August 2018 and submitted a scan of her fingerprint to do so. She filed suit against Octapharma on behalf of a putative class in the Circuit Court of Cook County on Dec. 2, 2019 alleging violation of BIPA Sections 15(a) and 15(b). The action was subsequently removed to federal court on Dec. 23, 2019. Presently before the Court is Crumpton's cause of action under BIPA Section 15(b) in which she alleges Octapharma failed to obtain donors' informed consent or make required disclosures prior to obtaining the fingerprint template. In its Answer, Octapharma raised various affirmative defenses, the first two of which are the subject of the instant motion. Octapharma's First Affirmative Defense is that BIPA is preempted by federal law, specifically the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act ("FDCA"), the Public Health Act, and the regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") under those laws. Its Second Affirmative Defense is that it is exempt from BIPA. Crumpton moves to strike both the First and Second Affirmative Defense. Judge Kendall granted Crumpton's motion to strike Octapharma's First Affirmative Defense with prejudice. First, she finds that while the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 ("MDA") regulates medical devices, BIPA regulates private entities in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information, in this instance, Octapharma. BIPA imposes no requirements upon Octapharma's DMS or PCS, only upon Octapharma itself. Moreover, BIPA's requirements are only triggered by the collection of biometric identifiers, which the MDA does not mandate. Express preemption is inapplicable. Second, the Judge opines that Octapharma's decision to use biometric information, or assessment that such a method is superior to the alternatives, does not alter the fact that it is not required by federal law. Octapharma may satisfy both federal law and BIPA by using an alternate method of proving donor identity. Conflict preemption, then, does not apply. Finally, Octapharma has not demonstrated that Congress occupied the entire field of either the plasma donation industry or biometric privacy such that BIPA is preempted. The Judge finds that Octapharma's cursory reference to the FDA's health and safety-based goals and observation that BIPA is "wholly distinct from plasmapheresis regulation" falls short of altering the scope of the FDCA as expressed by the FDA. Hence, field preemption is inapplicable. Octapharma's Second Affirmative Defense is that it is excepted from BIPA because its records are subject to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the biometric identifiers are collected in a "health care setting" and "collected, used, or stored for health care treatment", and are used to "validate scientific testing or screening." First, with respect to Octapharma's argument that it is subject to HIPAA and thus exempt from BIPA, the Judge granted without prejudice Crumpton's motion to strike the Second Affirmative Defense. She finds that it is unclear that the Illinois Laboratory Act is subject to HIPAA. Octapharma also does not explain how the fact that its compliance under CLIA with respect to its records extends to biometric templates collected from donors for identification. Second, with respect to Octapharma's argument the biometric identifiers are "captured from a patient in a health care setting," Crumpton's motion to strike is denied. The Judge opines that Crumpton has not identified any position regarding the scope of the BIPA exception, which Octapharma contends does not track HIPAA's Privacy Rule definitions, which justify judicial estoppel. She has not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Octapharma can prove no set of facts indicating donors are also patients under BIPA. either does BIPA define the term "health care." Finally, with respect to Octapharma's argument that the fingerprint templates are used to validate medical screening and scientific testing and thus exempt from BIPA, Crumpton's motion to strike the Second Affirmative Defense is granted without prejudice. Ultimately, Octapharma's allegations amount to the biometric templates are used to "ensure the positive identification of donors" and associate donors with their medical records. Octapharma does not allege the biometric identifiers themselves are integral to screening or testing the donor or their plasma or blood for any condition or disease. Moreover, validating donor identity is not the same as validating the underlying testing or screening. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kendall granted in part and denied in part Crumpton's Motion to Strike Defendant's First and Second Affirmative Defenses. Octapharma's First Affirmative Defense, as well as its arguments within the Second Affirmative Defense that it is subject to HIPAA and that the biometric templates are used to validate medical screening and scientific testing, are stricken. To the extent Octapharma argues within the Second Affirmative Defense the biometric templates are obtained from patients in a health care setting, Crumpton's Motion to Strike Defendant's First and Second Affirmative Defense is denied. Octapharma is granted leave to amend its Answer consistent with the Opinion, if possible, within 21 days of the filing of the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3jr9r96 from Leagle.com. OSLEEPER MANUFACTURING: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated V. Osleeper Manufacturing Co. and Jerald Channell, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:21-cv-00013-RWS (N.D. Ga., Jan. 19, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay, owed to the Plaintiff and Class members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and supporting regulations. Mr. Ramirez worked for the Defendants' company as a furniture assembler from November 19, 2017 to December 16, 2020. Throughout his employment, he was paid on an hourly basis, and received no overtime premium pay during weeks when he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the suit says. OSleeper Manufacturing Co. is a furniture manufacturing company in Gainesville, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 330-2909 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com PENUMBRA INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of March 16 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or the "Company") (NYSE:PEN) and reminds investors of the March 16, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Penumbra stock or options between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/PEN or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner James Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 877.247.4292 212.983.9330 jwilson@faruqilaw.com There is no cost or obligation to you. 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: (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 the 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. First, on September 14, 2020, the Foundation for Financial Journalism (the "FFJ"), an independent non-profit news outlet, published an article raising serious questions about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety profile. The FFJ noted that since being introduced in mid-2019, there were twelve deaths listed in a Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") database that occurred after a surgeon injected an iodine contrast dye into the Jet 7 Xtra Flex. The FFJ article described how Penumbra's 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 11, 2020 to $193.66 per share on September 14, 2020, a decline of $5.77 per share. Then, 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. Although the journal article was not widely publicized on November 23 aside from a Twitter post just before market close from an account with a small following, over the next two days the article was more widely disseminated, particularly after it was shared by multiple reputed short sellers with hundreds of thousands of followers, including Marc Cohodes and Muddy Waters. 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%. Then, on December 8, 2020, before the market opened, QCM issued another report reiterating its prior assertions and disclosing additional facts about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety issues. Among other things, QCM's second report questioned the validity and independence of the scientific research supporting the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, and accused 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 fell by 9%, 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" 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. On a conference call held the same day, the Company's CEO acknowledged that the product's design "ma[de] the catheter susceptible to failure in certain scenarios" and that the Company's "steps to ensure the safe use of the product . . . were not able to fully address the risks." In response, Penumbra's stock price fell by 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. 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 Penumbra's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. [GN] PENUMBRA INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, alerts investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN) ("Penumbra") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Penumbra common stock between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Penumbra common stock during the Class Period may, no later than March 16, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484-270-1453) or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484-270-1435); toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/penumbra-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=penumbra 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 Penumbra'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. The Jet 7 Xtra Flex was introduced to the U.S. market in July 2019 and quickly became a "growth driver" for Penumbra, a key source of new revenues. In mid-2020, however, concerns about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety began to emerge. On July 27, 2020, Penumbra issued a notice to its U.S. customers and practitioners acknowledging reported instances in which the distal tip of the catheter broke or expanded, carrying a risk of injury or death. The notice warned physicians to exercise caution with Penumbra's Jet 7 Xtra Flex, and maintained that Penumbra was "committed to product safety and performance" and was "continuing to monitor and investigate these adverse event reports." Despite the foregoing, the defendants repeatedly assured investors during the Class Period that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was "absolutely safe" and "not a product that has any possibility of needing to be recalled," as Penumbra was taking all necessary steps to protect patients. The Class Period commences on August 3, 2020, when Penumbra announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2020. On a conference call with analysts conducted the same day, Adam Elsesser, Penumbra's Chief Executive Officer, was asked about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex MAX, a delivery device that utilizes the Jet 7 Xtra Flex catheter, and responded that Penumbra was "doing some of the work we do with every new product that is cleared to evaluate and make sure it's all good" and boasted that the device "is exactly what we hoped it would be." The truth regarding Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety was revealed to the market through a series of disclosures. First, on September 14, 2020, the Foundation for Financial Journalism ("FFJ"), an independent non-profit news outlet, published an article raising serious questions about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety profile. The FFJ noted that since being introduced in mid-2019, there were twelve deaths listed in an FDA database that occurred after a surgeon injected an iodine contrast dye into the Jet 7 Xtra Flex. Following this news, 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. Then, 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%. Finally on December 15, 2020, after the market closed, Penumbra issued a press release announcing that it was issuing an "urgent" 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. Following this news, Penumbra's stock price fell by 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. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use; (2) Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact already occurred; (3) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Penumbra investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or at info@ktmc.com. [GN] PENUMBRA INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in PEN: https://bit.ly/3t5nOFB The filed complaint alleges that Penumbra, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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 the 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. Shareholders have until March 16, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the PEN lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. 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] PHILIP MORRIS: Ruling on $20.7MM Punitive Award to Berger Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BERNARD COTE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Judith Berger, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 19-14074 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying Philip Morris' motion for a new trial or to reduce the punitive damages award in favor of Judith Berger. Mrs. Berger sued Philip Morris based on her smoking-related injuries. A jury awarded her $6.25 million in compensatory damages and approximately $20.7 million in punitive damages. Philip Morris appeals arguing that the punitive damages award is excessive in violation of constitutional due process. In 1994, Florida smokers and their survivors brought a class action lawsuit in Florida state court against the major cigarette companies, including Philip Morris. The plaintiffs brought a variety of claims based on their smoking-related injuries. In Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006), the Florida Supreme Court decertified the class action to allow individual actions to proceed on the issue of damages. In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual cases were filed. The case is one of the last Engle-progeny cases remaining in federal court. Mrs. Berger was born in 1944 and raised in Brooklyn, New York. She tried her first cigarette at the age of 13 because "all of the kids smoked," including her twin sister. By the age of 16, she smoked a pack of cigarettes a day, and by age 20, a pack and a half a day. In the 1980s, she "realized that she had become a slave to cigarettes." Mrs. Berger tried to quit smoking for years, but it was not until 1998, when she was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), that she finally stopped smoking. Mrs. Berger brought suit against Philip Morris as an Engle class member under theories of strict liability, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal. Mrs. Berger's case proceeded to trial. At trial, testimony and evidence were presented about Mrs. Berger's condition as well as Philip Morris's misconduct. With regard to Mrs. Berger, the evidence established that her addiction to cigarettes caused her COPD. The jury found in favor of Mrs. Berger on all her claims and awarded her $6.25 million in compensatory damages. The jury also found that Mrs. Berger was entitled to punitive damages for her intentional tort claims. The trial thus proceeded to a second phase, in which the jury awarded Mrs. Berger $20,760,000.14 in punitive damages. After the jury returned the verdict in favor of Mrs. Berger, Philip Morris moved for a new trial or a reduction in damages based on, among other things, the excessiveness of the punitive damages award. It also moved for judgment as a matter of law on Mrs. Berger's two intentional tort claims--fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal. The District Court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Philip Morris on the two intentional tort claims and vacated the punitive damages award that was based on those claims. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's order granting Philip Morris' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the two intentional tort claims. It remanded the case to the district court for the entry of judgment in the Plaintiff's favor on claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to fraudulently conceal and for reinstatement of the jury's corresponding punitive damages award. On remand, the District Court entered an amended judgment in the amount of $6.25 million in compensatory damages and approximately $20.7 million in punitive damages. In response, Philip Morris filed three motions, one of which argued that the punitive damages award should either be vacated or reduced because it is unconstitutionally excessive in violation of due process. The District Court considered the three guideposts established by the Supreme Court for analyzing whether a punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive. This resulted in its finding that the punitive damages award to Mrs. Berger is not unconstitutionally excessive. The District Court therefore denied Philip Morris' motion, and Philip Morris brought the appeal. An enormous amount of time and resources have been spent by the parties and the courts on the single case. Due to several post-trial motions, it's been over six years since Mrs. Berger's case went to trial, and her case has already come to the Court once on appeal--Cote v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 909 F.3d 1094 (11th Cir. 2018) ("Cote I"). Sadly Mrs. Berger died before her legal case was resolved, and Bernard Cote, as the personal representative of her estate, carries on here to seek belated justice on her behalf. The case presents the question of whether the $20.7 million in punitive damages awarded to Mrs. Berger is unconstitutionally excessive. Before the Eleventh Circuit gets to that, however, the parties raise a preliminary question about whether the Court's decision in Cote I bars Philip Morris from arguing that the punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive. It begins by disposing of that preliminary matter and then turns to the substance of the appeal. The Eleventh Circuit finds that Philip Morris' argument that the punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive is not barred by its decision in Cote I. Nothing in its decision in Cote I addressed whether the punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive. It simply remanded the case to the District Court for reinstatement of the jury's corresponding punitive damages award. Indeed, the panel in Cote I couldn't have addressed that issue because the District Court took the punitive damages award out of the case before it came to the Circuit Court on appeal. Therefore, the District Court was free to address the constitutionality of the punitive damages award on remand, and the Court's decision in Cote I does not bar Philip Morris from raising the issue. The Court then finds that the punitive damages award in the case is not unconstitutionally excessive. First, it considers the degree of reprehensibility of the Defendant's misconduct. Second, it looks at the ratio of the punitive damages award to the actual or potential harm suffered by the Plaintiff. Third, it looks at the difference between the punitive damages award and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. Because all three guideposts indicate that the punitive damages award in favor of Mrs. Berger is not unconstitutionally excessive, the Court holds that the award does not violate due process. Based on the foregoing, the Eleventh Circuit concludes that the punitive damages award made to Mrs. Berger is not unconstitutionally excessive and does not violate due process. All the three guideposts used for determining whether a punitive damages award is unconstitutionally excessive indicate that the award in the case is not excessive. The Court therefore affirmed the District Court's ruling. It hoped, with its resolution of the latest post-trial motion, the winding litigation will come to a close. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxvd3nhd from Leagle.com. PLURALSIGHT INC: Pullan Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Pullan V. Aaron Skonnard, Arne Duncan, Bonita C. Stewart, Brad Rencher, Fritz Onion, Gary Crittenden, Karenann Terrell, Leah Johnson, Ryan Hinkle, Scott Dorsey, Tim Maudlin, Vista Equity Partners Fund VII, L.P., Lake Holdings, LP, Lake Guarantor, LLC, Lake Merger Sub I, Inc., Lake Merger Sub II, LLC, and Pluralsight, Inc., Case No. 2021-0043 (Del. Ch., Jan. 19, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated public stockholders of Pluralsight, Inc. against the Defendants for violating 8 Del. C. Section 203 and for breaching their fiduciary duties. The action concerns an alleged agreement between Skonnard -- Pluralsight's controlling stockholder, co-Founder, Chairman, and CEO -- and Vista to take the Company private at an unfair price without complying with Section 203 or disclosing all material facts to stockholders. It further asserts that the buyout serves the self-interested agenda of Skonnard and largely benefit insiders. For Pluralsight minority stockholders, the buyout fails to maximize stockholder value and is not entirely fair to minority stockholders, the suit says. Pluralsight is an online education company founded and controlled by Defendant Aaron Skonnard.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. Jessica Zeldin, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 - and - Ned Weinberger, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 - and - John Vielandi, Esq. David MacIsaac, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 QIWI PLC: Gross Law Firm Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of Qiwi plc shareholders. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI) Investors Affected : March 28, 2019 - December 9, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Qiwi plc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/qiwi-plc-loss-submission-form/?id=12375&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] QUANTUMSCAPE: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts QuantumScape investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased QuantumScape stock or other securities (NYSE:QS) between November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020. QS investors may visit www.tenlaw.com/cases/QuantumScape to learn about the case and the lead plaintiff process. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/QuantumScape QuantumScape investors have until March 8, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be eligible to recover as class members. The case alleges that QuantumScape and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) QuantumScape's purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were significantly overstated; and (2) QuantumScape is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action and can select a law firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. Interested QuantumScape investors have until March 8, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys represent individual and institutional investors in lawsuits to recover damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 www.tenlaw.com/cases/QuantumScape [GN] RICE UNIVERSITY: Students' Class Action Seeks $5MM Damages ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt Dougherty, writing for KHOU-11, reports that a federal lawsuit claims students attending Rice University are owed compensation because they did not get the college experience they paid for after the COVID-19 pandemic hit Houston last year. The lawyers filed the lawsuit on Jan. 11 and are seeking class-action status and claim damages exceed $5 million. Neither the lawyers nor the university wanted to discuss the lawsuit, which claims Rice University student Anna Seballos and her peers paid more than $24,000 in tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. The lawyers said on March 9, life on campus changed because of the pandemic. They said the university transitioned to online-instruction only and closed facilities and canceled student services. Lawyers said this continued for the duration of the semester and because students paid up-front for things they were promised, but never received, it's a breach of contract. Students on campus on Jan. 19 saw both sides of the argument. "I feel like students should get their money's worth," one student told KHOU. "And if they're not being allowed to use the facilities because of safety concerns, which is perfectly valid, yeah, reimburse them." Another student said charging full price is necessary. "Even if you think your quality of education is lower, the professors are still doing the best they can, and the university can't pay them if you don't pay tuition," the student said. Rice isn't the only Houston school where students say they're not getting what they pay for because of the pandemic restrictions. An online petition requesting the University of Houston to drop its mandatory fees for remote learning has more than 5,000 signatures. The fees include charges for the Health and Wellness Center and University Center, which the petition claims can't be used because of social distancing. [GN] ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sued Over Issues Tied to 'Dark Pool' of Payments ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Berman at thinkadvisor.com reports that Robinhood's legal woes continue. The most recent allegations, filed by a disgruntled client on behalf of himself and others who use the mobile app and online trading platform, allege that the firm breached its fiduciary duty to clients. In a class action complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Jan. 15, Robinhood is accused of "material omissions, misrepresentations, and concealment" of its "dark pool" of payments for order flow arrangements. The "inferior execution prices they caused was a breach of Robinhood's fiduciary duty" to the plaintiff, Edward Luparello of Santa Barbara, California, and others who use its platform, the complaint alleges. Through its actions, Robinhood violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as California's Corporations Code, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code and Unfair Competition Law, the complaint alleges. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and restitution on behalf of himself and the class. Robinhood declined to comment on the complaint. Similar allegations have been made against Robinhood in recent months. Earlier Legal Matters In December, the Securities and Exchange Commission said Robinhood agreed to pay a $65 million civil penalty to settle allegations that it repeatedly failed to disclose its receipt of payments from trading firms for routing client orders to them, and also failing to satisfy its duty to seek the best reasonably available terms to execute customer orders. This settlement came one day after William F. Galvin, Massachusetts' top securities regulator, accused Robinhood of violating state law by using overly "aggressive tactics to attract new, often inexperienced, investors" and "gamification to encourage and entice continuous and repetitive use" of its mobile application. Earlier this month, another complaint seeking class action status was filed against Robinhood by Siddharth Mehta, a client of the company who allegedly "lost tens of thousands of dollars" after the company's platform was breached by a hacker as a result of what the plaintiff said was Robinhood's negligence [GN] SAINT GOBAIN: Decision in PFOA Class-Action Delayed by COVID-19 --------------------------------------------------------------- news10.com reports that plaintiffs in the PFOA class-action lawsuit against Saint Gobain/ChemFab have been waiting five years for a trial date. Attorneys were hoping a decision would be made by now but has been furthered delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit was filed in 2016 on behalf of 2,300 Bennington and North Bennington properties and a smaller subgroup of between 500 to 1,000 residents who consumed PFOA-contaminated well-water and have elevated levels of PFOA in their blood. It will be the first such case in Vermont, and the first in the state to request that a PFOA polluter pay for the cost of medical monitoring for members of the residents exposed. The suit also calls for compensation due to lowered property values due to the contamination. Attorneys say property values dropped between 11% and 35% after the contamination was discovered, according to lead plaintiffs and an independent real estate expert. Similar issues were reported in Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh, both are located in Rensselaer County. [GN] SAN DIEGO, CA: Bid for Leave to File 3rd Amended Montoya Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEX MONTOYA; REX SHIRLEY; PHILIP PRESSEL; and AARON GRESSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19cv0054 JM (BGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. On Jan. 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint asserting claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, California Civil Code section 51, et seq., ("Unruh Act"), California Civil Code section 54, et seq. ("Disabled Persons Act"); California Government Code section 4450, et seq., and California Government Code section 11135, et seq. The Plaintiffs brought claims against the City and the owners/operators of the dockless electrical vehicles, ("Scooter Defendants".) On March 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC alleges that the Plaintiffs, who are individuals with disabilities, have found their access to San Diego's sidewalks diminished by the proliferation of dockless electric vehicles currently in use in the City. Further, it alleges that as usage and abandonment of these vehicles and the speed at which they travel increases, the Plaintiffs are denied safe, equal and full access to the sidewalks. All the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the FAC. On Jan. 21, 2020, the Court granted all of the motions brought by the individual Scooter Defendants but denied the City's motion to dismiss. On Feb. 1, 2020, City filed its answer to the FAC. The Plaintiffs chose not to amend their claims against the Scooter Defendants. On April 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs and the City filed a Joint Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. The Court duly granted the request. On April 15, 2020, the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed. The City filed its answer to the SAC on May 8, 2020. The SAC contains allegations like its earlier iterations and includes claims against City for violations of Title II of the ADA, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Unruh Act, the Disabled Persons Act, California Government Code section 4450, et seq., and California Government Code section 11135, et seq. On May 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge Skomal issued a scheduling order directing that any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings will be filed by May 22, 2020. Neither party filed any motions responsive to the directive. On Oct. 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs now seek to amend their complaint to add a single cause of action for state law pre-emption, based on the City's dockless vehicle ordinance standing in conflict with provisions of the California Vehicle Code. The City objects to the addition of the new claim. Judge Miller finds that although there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Plaintiffs have not been "reasonably diligent" in investigating and pursuing their original claims, the same cannot be said for the new claim. The Plaintiffs contend they only "recently became aware" of the San Diego Municipal Code Ordinance ("SDM Ordinance") regulating dockless vehicles and it's purported direct conflict with two provisions of the California Vehicle Code. But, the ordinance the Plaintiffs wish to challenge became effective on June 16, 2019. Furthermore, during the motions to dismiss briefings, the provisions of the California Vehicle Code were discussed by all the Defendants and the very same SDM Ordinance1 was the subject of a Request to Strike City's Purported Supplemental Authority filed by the Plaintiffs on July 8, 2019. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have not established there was excusable neglect surrounding the non-compliance with the scheduled deadline. At first blush, an order permitting them to file a motion to amend will not cause any significant prejudice to the Defendant as the Plaintiffs' anticipated amendment relates to the same set of facts that were at issue in the original complaint and will therefore not require voluminous discovery, but the Preemption Cause of Action would be subject to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and would further delay the litigation. In addition, the Judge says the authorized delay would also have an impact on the length of the judicial proceedings, as a trial date has been set, fact discovery is set to close in a matter of weeks and class certification briefs are due soon. He is also not persuaded that the Plaintiffs could not have complied with the earlier deadline of May 22, 2020, by including the new claim in the Second Amended Complaint because the information was known to them then. There is, however, no evidence of bad faith by the Plaintiffs that would weigh against allowing an amendment to the SAC. Accordingly, Judge Miller finds that the Plaintiffs have neither demonstrated the good cause nor the excusable neglect necessary to modify the scheduling order. Because they have failed to meet the standard set forth in Rule 16, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y468eley from Leagle.com. SAN DIEGO, CA: Verdun Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Andre Verdun, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Andre Verdun, et al. v. City of San Diego, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00839-AJB-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. The lawsuit centers on law enforcement's practice of marking the tires of parked vehicles with chalk to determine whether the vehicle has overstayed the time limit of city-owned parking spaces. Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' practice of tire chalking as an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs claim the placement of chalk marks on the tires of privately-owned vehicles for surveillance purposes physically violates the owners' property rights and caused constitutional and monetary harm. The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated January 4, 2021, granting the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissing with prejudice their complaint. The appellate case is captioned as Andre Verdun, et al. v. City of San Diego, et al., Case No. 21-55046, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, January 20, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Ian Anoush Golkar and Andre Verdun Mediation Questionnaire is due on January 27, 2021; -- Appellants Ian Anoush Golkar and Andre Verdun opening brief is due March 22, 2021; -- Appellees City of San Diego and San Diego Police Department answering brief is due on April 21, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANDRE VERDUN, and IAN ANOUSH GOLKAR, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq. KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP 12636 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 509-1550 E-mail: daryooshlaw@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees CITY OF SAN DIEGO and SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT are represented by: Meghan Ashley Wharton, Esq. SAN DIEGO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 235-5232 E-mail: mwharton@sandiego.gov SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Brant FLSA-TILA Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC R. BRANT, Plaintiff v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL, INC., SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., SCHNEIDER FINANCE, INC., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 20-C-1049 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff Brant brought the action against the Defendants, seeking redress for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Truth in Leasing Act ("TILA"), and Wisconsin state law. Brant alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him statutorily required minimum wages and unlawfully deducted amounts from the wages he was paid in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin state law. Brant also alleges that the Defendants violated TILA by requiring him and putative class members to enter into leases that violated provisions of TILA. Mr. Brant agreed to transport freight for Schneider National Carriers, Inc. ("SNC"), as a truck driver from December 2018 to August 2019. He signed an Owner-Operator Operating Agreement ("OOOA") with SNC on Dec. 4, 2018, in which he agreed to use equipment owned or leased by him to transport freight made available by SNC. Brant also signed a separate contract with Schneider Finance, Inc., on Dec. 3, 2018, under which he agreed to lease from SFI a 2018 Freightliner tractor. According to Brant, the OOOA improperly and purposefully misclassifies the drivers who sign it as independent contractors, materially benefiting the Defendants. He alleges that the terms of the contract provide the Defendants with the ability to "exert all necessary control" over the drivers' work, so that the drivers are economically dependent upon the Defendants, and are not truly independent contractors. Thus, Brant alleges that he was in fact an employee of the Defendants, not an independent contractor. He further asserts that the Defendants have failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA and Wisconsin law. Next, Brant claims that the OOOA and Lease are unconscionable because they (a) call for the employment of Drivers but claim them to be independent contractors; (b) allow Schneider to terminate the OOOA and Lease at will but nevertheless require Drivers to continue to make lease payments; (c) shift the Defendants' risk of business downturn to Drivers; (d) make Drivers responsible for the costs of carrying and maintaining Defendants' fleet; and (e) exact profits and reimbursements from Drivers who are, in fact, employees. This, Brant claims, gives rise to an unjust enrichment claim against the Defendants, because they have been unjustly enriched by deducting wages from Brant and by extracting fees that shift the costs of maintaining the Defendants' fleet operations to the drivers. Finally, Brant alleges that the Defendants have violated TILA by failing to (1) specify the compensation that the drivers were to receive for their work, (2) specify various charge-backs that the Defendants deducted from the drivers' pay, (3) provide drivers with copies of freight bills, and (4) specify the amount of any escrow fund or performance bond required to be paid by lease drivers who seek to terminate their OOOA and drive for another company. As a result, Brant claims drivers have lost wages and other compensation due to them. He seeks to bring these claims on behalf of himself and the putative collective and class members. Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. As a preliminary matter, the Defendants request that the Court strikes four declarations, one from Brant himself and three others from opt-in Plaintiffs, that Brant filed along with Brant's response to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. These declarations should be stricken and given no consideration, the Defendants contend, because the Court's determination of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is based entirely upon the allegations of the complaint and documents incorporated therein. Citing Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2012), Brant contends that consideration of the declarations is proper because the declarations elaborate on the factual allegations contained in the complaint and illustrate the facts that Brant expects to be able to prove. While a Rule 12(b)(6) motion must generally be based only on the complaint itself, documents attached to the complaint, documents that are critical to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial notice, the Seventh Circuit has made clear that a party opposing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion may submit materials outside the pleadings to illustrate the facts the party expects to be able to prove. Thus, Judge Griesbach will not strike the declarations, as they are, at least to some extent, illustrative of what Brant expects to be able to prove. However, to the extent that the declarations are inconsistent with the allegations contained in the complaint and the documents incorporated therein, he will defer to the complaint and incorporated documents. First, the Defendants have moved to dismiss Brant's FLSA and state law claims on the ground that Brant was properly classified as an independent contractor and, thus, those laws do not apply. Judge Griesbach concludes that Brant was properly classified as an independent contractor. Brant had a considerable amount of control over his business and operations, had ample opportunity to control his profit and loss, was required to invest considerable sums into his equipment and materials, and possessed a special skill requisite for performing the work. All of this is plain from the language of the OOOA. While Brant may regret the arrangement and may also regret not exercising his rights under the OOOA, that does not change the analysis of the issue. Thus, Brant's FLSA and Wisconsin state law claims will be dismissed. Second, the Defendants assert that Brant's unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed. Brant maintains that a claim for unjust enrichment is available because the OOOA and Lease are void or voidable for unconscionability. Other than asserting that misclassifying the drivers as independent contractors rendered the agreements unconscionable, the Judge finds that Brant has not alleged facts from which it could be inferred that the OOOA and Lease are void or unenforceable. Because Brant's unjust enrichment claim only challenges the subject matter within the scope of the OOOA and lease agreement, it must be dismissed. Third, the Defendants assert that Brant's TILA claim must also be dismissed. Brant alleges that the Defendants violated TILA by failing to comply with the requirements set forth in its regulations. In sum, the Judge holds that the OOOA and Lease provided Brant with the information required by TILA and its regulations. The OOOA sets forth the amount to be deposited and maintained in an escrow account with respect to equipment leased by Brant to the Defendants. The agreement also provides that the Escrow Funds will be paid and disbursed to Brant within 45 days of termination along with an accounting of all final settlements and disbursements. While Brant asserts that the OOOA and Lease did not specify the amount of the additional security deposit required, Appendix A to the Lease states the amounts of applicable security deposits. For these reasons, Brant's TILA claim must be dismissed. Based on the foregoing, Judge Griesbach granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The dismissal is without prejudice, however. Brant will be allowed thirty days from the date of the Order in which to file an amended complaint curing the defects noted. If no amended complaint is filed within the time allowed, the case will be dismissed and final judgment entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2odhl2l from Leagle.com. SERVICE 247: Court Dismisses Schroeder's Claims on Behalf of SCG ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOE SCHROEDER LEGACY, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. SERVICE 247 of ILLINOIS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 20 C 3201 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Defend Trade Secrets Act. Plaintiffs Joe Schroeder Legacy, LLC, formerly known as DRYCO, LLC, Joseph Schroeder, Paul Matthews, and John Schroeder have brought claims against Defendants Hanson Law Group, LLP, Thomas Keffer, Elizabeth Nelson, Nelson Group, Inc., Service247 alleging harm to the Plaintiffs' business. The Plaintiff brings federal claims under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) of the RICO and the DTSA 18 U.S.C. Section 1836 et seq., as well as state law claims for conversion, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of a fiduciary duty, tortious interference with a contract, and professional negligence. The individual Plaintiffs, through their entity DRYCO, founded Specialty Contents Group, LLC ("SCG") in 2015, which helps consumers and businesses restore personal property damaged by fires, floods, or similar calamities. Defendants Nelson and Keffer are the CEO and President, respectively, of Claimplus Corp., a competitor of SCG. Defendant, David Foreman, is an employee of SCG and was purportedly Nelson and Keffer's "inside man" at SCG. Nelson and Keffer tried unsuccessfully to purchase SCG from DRYCO, and when that failed, they took over management of SCG with the help of Foreman and another individual, James Ko, who is co-owner of SCG. From there, the Defendants began the process of looting SCG of all its value and saddling SCG with unsustainable debts. In furtherance of their scheme, Nelson and Keffer set up a series of companies to compete with SCG under the name "Service247," including Defendants Service247 of Illinois, Inc. and Service247 of Wisconsin, Inc. Defendants Hanson Law and Kyle Hanson, and Keith Hanson, are SCG's attorneys, but allegedly actively and knowingly assisted the Defendants in their raid of SCG, to the detriment of SCG and the Plaintiff. With regards to their RICO claims, the Plaintiffs allege four predicate acts. They first allege Wire and Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. Section 1343 due to the conversion of property and business opportunities and used email and the U.S. Postal Service to carry out its alleged scheme. They next allege predicate violations of the National Stolen Property Act 18 U.S.C.A. Section 2314 and 2315 ("NSPA") when Keffer, Nelson, and Foreman caused SCG to wire funds across state lines to an account in Irving, Texas, belonging to the Defendant. The third set of predicate violations also arose under the NSPA when SCG also wired transfers to "lawyer," allegedly the Hansons, on October 22; November 2, 8, 16, 23, 30; December 7, 14, 21, 28; and January 4, each of $5,000, and one on Aug. 20, 2019 for $10.140. These predicate acts allegedly violate the NSPA because the Defendants knew the funds were procured by fraud. The fourth set of predicate act also allege Wire and Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. Section 1343 by Nelson, Keffler and Claimplus by conspiring, including through the use of email, to deliberately cause SCG to avoid its federal income tax obligations in 2018 and 2019. The Plaintiffs have brought previous cases arising from similar allegations in state court. They filed Case No. 2018 CH 9807 on Aug. 1, 2018 and Case No. 2018 CH 10315 on Aug. 15, 2018 in Cook County court. The Cook County court dismissed DRYCO's case and stayed Schroeder's case against Ko pursuant to an arbitration provision in SCG's operating agreement. Schroeder then filed nearly identical claims against Ko in DuPage County on Dec. 5, 2018. DuPage County court transferred the case to Cook County, and the court promptly "entered sanctions against Schroeder, finding that Schroeder engaged in contumacious disregard of this court's authority in staying the matter and *** a blatant attempt to forum shop." After finding state courts unavailing of their claims, the Plaintiffs now attempt to bring their claims in federal court. The Plaintiffs bring claims for alleged violations of RICO, the DTSA, and various state law claims. They bring their RICO and DTSA claims derivatively on behalf of SCG and their RICO claim directly on behalf of DRYCO. Before the Court are the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. As to the derivative standing on behalf of SCG, the Defendants have moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1, which sets out rules for when a derivative action may be maintained. Judge Kendall opines that none of the Plaintiffs' cited cases support the proposition that they can serve as adequate representation when they have sued SCG directly, as well as the other shareholder, multiple times, for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The fact that they have repeatedly sued SCG and the other shareholders for claims arising out of the same events indicates there is no feasible means that they could adequately represent SCG due to the inherent economic conflict as well as the antagonism they have demonstrated for SCG. Hence, the Plaintiffs' derivative claims on behalf of SCG are dismissed with prejudice. As to the Plaintiffs' RICO claim on behalf of DRYCO, the Judge explains that a RICO claim may only be brought by "person injured in his business of property by reason of a violation of section 1962" has standing to sue under RICO. The Plaintiffs' allegations make clear that the only harm alleged was to SCG. These allegations illustrate that the only harm alleged is to SCG, whom the Plaintiffs do not have standing to represent. For example, the Plaintiffs cite, LaFlamboy v. Landek, 587 F.Supp.2d 914, 936 (N.D. Ill. 2008), where the court held that a 50% owner of a corporation had standing to bring a RICO claim where he was "individually singled out and swindled." But that type of injury not alleged in the case. There is no RICO injury alleged to DRYCO, aside from conclusory statements that they have been harmed. Therefore, DRYCO's RICO allegations are dismissed without prejudice. This leaves only state law claims. Having dismissed the only federal claims in the action, the Judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Because the Plaintiffs cannot bring a lawsuit on behalf of SCG and they have failed to plead standing for DRYCO's RICO claim, Judge Kendall granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The claims on behalf of SCG are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the remainder of their Complaint consistent with the Opinion, if possible, within 21 days of its filing. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y23yy6bc from Leagle.com. SOAR COLLECTIVE: McCon Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------- RONNY MCCON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOAR COLLECTIVE, INC., d/b/a ORANGE COUNTY CANNABIS CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00123 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent numerous telemarketing messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 9171 over the past year without obtaining the Plaintiff's "prior express consent". In an attempt to promote its product, the Defendant allegedly used a standard 10-digit code that enables the Defendant to send SMS text messages en masse, which is a form of an "automatic telephone dialing system." The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff and those similarly situated have suffered actual harm as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging activity by using an ATDS as well as actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems necessary, the suit says. Soar Collective, Inc. d/b/a Orange County Cannabis Club The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Moyer, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 401 W A Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com - and – Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com SPLUNK INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of Splunk Inc. shareholders. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. SPLK Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/splunk-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12374&wire=1 Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ:SPLK) SPLK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 21, 2020 - December 2, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : February 2, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/splunk-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12374&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Splunk Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Splunk was not closing deals with its largest customers in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2) Splunk was not hitting the financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] STANWELL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Electricity Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Rendall, writing for ABC News, reports that all Queensland residents who paid for electricity between January 2015 and January this year are being encouraged to register for reimbursement as part of the "largest energy class action in Australian history". The lawsuit, involving more than 47,000 people, has been filed against two of Queensland's largest electricity generators on behalf of all businesses and residents in the state. Law firm Piper Alderman is leading the class action against Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy limited, alleging the companies artificially created a lack of supply to drive up electricity prices. The firm is encouraging all Queensland residents who paid for electricity between January 2015 and January 2021 to register to be reimbursed. According to Piper Alderman's website, "unlawful conduct occurred at the generation stage and your retailer simply passed that cost through to you". The law firm is alleging the electricity giants control about 70 per cent of the state energy market and that they abused that dominance. "Stanwell and CS Energy have used their position to unlawfully manipulate the wholesale cost of electricity and that has driven up the prices paid by all Queensland businesses and consumers," Piper Alderman litigator Greg Whyte said. "We are trying to stop that behaviour and recoup the losses that illegal conduct has caused." Mr Whyte said the class action was a result of "many years of investigation and hard work". "The evidence of the price spikes is incontrovertible, the data speaks for itself," he said. "For average households, we think the loss is around $1000 -- for businesses it would be many, many multiples of that." Energy boss rejects claims CS Energy CEO Andrew Bills said the law firm's claims were "false". Mr Bills said the company followed strict industry rules. "We're one of the most highly regulated and competitive electricity markets in the world with prices set every five minutes, and the AER [Australian Energy Regulator] investigates and publicly reports on the causes of all high price events in the electricity market," Mr Bills said. He said the prices were justified by investigations. "Previous investigations have found that high wholesale prices are due to a wide range of influencing factors from fuel prices and hot weather through to water shortages," he said. "What's interesting is that Queensland has had the lowest average wholesale price in the national electricity market over the last three years." 'An awful amount of money' Alexander Ivanov is a treasurer of the body corporate in his Brisbane apartment block and believes power bills are higher than they should be. "I'm an efficiency nerd when it comes to energy and we had very high electricity bills and despite going to market we saw the bills remaining exceptionally high," Mr Ivanov said. He estimated the complex had been paying 10 per cent more than they should have. "When you consider that the quantum of the bills through the period was about $650-700,000 -- that's $65-70,000 more than we should have been paying over that time period," he said. "I had noticed that the charges on one particular round of the tender that we went through were all the same. "We wondered what the hell was going on in the background." Mr Ivanov said he signed up almost immediately when he found out about the class action. "I phoned them up and we talked about it and we certainly fit into it," he said. "Sometimes I'm stuck for words, even expletives. You just have to say, how the hell is that happening?" Thousands more sign up The court action is being funded by LCM, an international litigation finance company that helps finance big cases. About 40,000 people had initially signed on to the class action, but another 7,000 people have registered since the firm filed the lawsuit on Jan. 20. Registrations to join the class action closed at midnight on Jan. 20. The firm said it was the largest energy class action in Australian history. [GN] SURGICAL CARE: Faces Suit in Illinois Over Antitrust Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- RHONDA ROE (a pseudonym), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, LLC, SCAI HOLDINGS, LLC, UNITED HEALTHGROUP, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-00305 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 19, 2021) arises from the Defendants' anti-competitive conduct that violates the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. According to the complaint, the lawsuit addresses a conspiracy among the U.S. leading operators of outpatient medical care facilities to restrain competition and reduce compensation for their senior-level employees. The Defendants allegedly entered into express agreements to avoid competing for senior-level employees, by refraining from soliciting or hiring each other's senior-level employees absent the knowledge and consent of their existing employers. The Defendants' conspiracy was strictly a tool to suppress their senior-level employees' compensation, and hence their own expenses, the suit added. Rhonda Roe was employed by Defendant Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC from 2011 through 2014. She performed her duties as a senior group administrator for Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC. The Defendants are outpatient medical care companies in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq. Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9102 E-mail: csanchez@nussbaumpc.com lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com gmason@masonllp.com dlietz@masonllp.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Kelly Rinehart, Esq. Karen Halbert, Esq. Will Olson, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC 1920 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us williamolson@robertslawfirm.us SWEET SPECIALTY: Flores Sues Over Illegal Biometric Info Storage ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO FLORES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SWEET SPECIALTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2021L000067 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in collecting, storing and using Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric information without obtaining the requisite prior informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. From approximately May 2015 through October 2020, Mr. Flores was employed by the Defendant at its facility in Lemont, Illinois where his biometric identifiers or biometric information were allegedly collected. Sweet Specialty Solutions, LLC operates a contract manufacturing facility in Illinois, including at its facility in Lemont, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 391-5059 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com TEKSYSTEMS INC: Underpays Systems Trainers, Brown Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ERICA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00052-JM (E.D. Ark., January 21, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid systems trainer from August 2020 to the present. The Plaintiff asserts that although she and other systems trainers were regularly required by the Defendant to work hours over 40 each week, the Defendant instructed them not to submit overtime hours because the Defendant would not pay for any overtime hours. As a result, they were deprived by the Defendant of regular wages and overtime compensation for all hours they worked, including those additional hours that they were required to work off-the-clock, the suit says. Teksystems, Inc provides IT staffing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Court Dismisses Wynn's First Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GLYNNIS WYNN and KATELYNN EDGERLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-11104 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Plaintiffs Wynn and Edgerlye brought the putative class action suit against the Defendant, asserting that the Defendant's "Vanilla Almondmilk" product is labeled in a way that is misleading to consumers, in violation of the New York General Business Law as well as several other common law and statutory protections. The gravamen of the complaint is that the word "Vanilla" on the product's label falsely communicates to a reasonable consumer that the beverage's flavor derives entirely from real vanilla, when in fact the Defendant's product includes non-vanilla flavors. The Defendant manufactures and distributes a vanilla-flavored non-dairy almond drink under the Full Circle Market brand, which is available to consumers at Price Chopper supermarkets. The product is labeled on the front of the carton as "Vanilla Almondmilk." The Plaintiffs purchased the product at Price Chopper stores near to their homes in 2019 and 2020, expecting its vanilla flavor to not be enhanced by artificial flavors. As the complaint alleges, the use of the word "vanilla" without qualification communicates to consumers that all of the product's flavor and vanilla taste derives from real vanilla. Had the Plaintiffs known that the source of the vanilla flavor in the Defendant's beverage was not exclusively genuine vanilla extract, they assert that they would not have purchased it or paid as much money for it. And they allege that they are not alone in this regard. They suggest that many an unwitting customer has bought the Defendants' product in reliance on the representations and omissions on its front label and ingredient list, which together imply that the almond milk's flavor contains only vanilla flavoring from vanilla beans and does not contain artificial flavors. The Plaintiffs filed the operative class-action complaint on June 30, 2020, asserting claims against Topco for (1) violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), which prohibit deceptive business practices and false advertising, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) breaches of express warranty, the implied warranty of merchantability, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, (4) fraud, and (5) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs seek both monetary damages and injunctive relief that would require the Defendant to correct its allegedly misleading labeling. Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It argues principally that the "Vanilla Almondmilk" label is not materially misleading to a reasonable consumer. First, Judge Abrams opines that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the Defendant's use of the word "vanilla," without more, represents a claim about the constituent elements of the vanilla flavor. He, accordingly, finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that the front label of the Defendant's beverage is misleading. Second, as the Plaintiffs appeared to acknowledge at oral argument that the complaint does not include specific allegations that the added non-vanilla flavors in the Defendant's product are artificially derived. The complaint notes that maltol and piperonal appear on the list of substances at 21 C.F.R. Section 172.515(b). But as the Judge notes, the substances on that list are deemed "artificial flavor" only where they are not "derived from natural sources." Absent any factually substantiated allegations that the vanillin, maltol, and piperonal in the Defendants' product are not derived from natural sources, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege the presence of artificial flavors, and their claim that the ingredient list makes a materially misleading omission thus fails. Third, Judge Abrams opines, the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of express warranty fails for similar reasons. Because he finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that the Defendant's product does not comport with the statements contained on the label, the Judge holds that the claim fails. The Plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied warranty fails for the additional reason that there is no allegation that the almond milk was unfit for human consumption. Fourth, the Plaintiffs' claim of fraud under New York law similarly fails. Putting aside the question as to whether the Plaintiffs have alleged fraud with the requisite level of specificity under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Judge opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a material misrepresentation of fact or omission since a reasonable consumer would not conclude that the word "vanilla" on the product's label communicates that the flavor derives exclusively from real vanilla. Finally, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim also fails because the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged any misleading or incorrect statements by the Defendants, Judge Abrams opines. Although the Judge grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss, he also grants the Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. To be viable, he states that any amended complaint would have to plead non-conclusory, substantiated allegations to the effect that (a) a reasonable consumer would actually believe that the word "vanilla" on the product's front label implies that all of the product's flavoring is from genuine vanilla extract; and/or that (b) the vanillin, maltol, and piperonal used in the Defendant's product are not derived from natural sources, such that they must be deemed artificial flavors. Although he is skeptical that the Plaintiffs can make such a showing, in light of Rule 15(a)(2)'s "permissive standard," he nonetheless permits the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint--if and only if they have a good faith basis to do so. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Abrams granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. He respectfully directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 25. Any amended complaint, should the Plaintiffs choose to file one, will be due no later than Feb. 19, 2021. Failure to file an amended complaint by that date will result in dismissal of the case with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyqq499p from Leagle.com. ULTRA MUSIC: Cancels Music Festival Over COVID-19 Concerns ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard Cohen at Miami Herald reports that can electronic music fans go another year without an Ultra Music Festival fix? Apparently, they are going to have to. For the second year in a row, citing COVID-19 concerns, organizers for the popular DJ techno fest have pulled the plug on the Bayfront Park event that would have happened in March in downtown Miami. Billboard first reported the pending Ultra Fest cancellation, night. In a letter obtained by the Miami Herald, Ultra's general counsel attorney Sandy York tells Miami city manager Arthur Noriega that the novel coranavirus conditions -- a "natural calamity" -- that led city officials to cancel the festival in 2020, "remain in place." The letter, dated Jan. 21, asks that the city reschedule Ultra for a single weekend on March 25, 26 and 27, 2022. Noriega told the Herald in a text that the city has not yet responded. Last year, Ultra faced a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of ticket holders who paid hundreds of dollars to attend the event but did not receive refunds after the COVID-19 pandemic killed Ultra. In 2019, Ultra was staged one time at Virginia Key. South Florida, and the rest of the world, canceled countless performances due to the public health threat. Ultra was among the first events to go locally in 2020. And, it appears, again in 2021. [GN] UNITED MAINTENANCE: Court Trims Claims in Binns Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILL BINNS, MICHAEL SEIDLER, and CARLOS BARDNEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNITED MAINTENANCE CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 C 4283 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and denied its alternative Motion to Sever. The named Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for alleged discrimination they faced while employed at Defendant United Maintenance Co. ("UM"). The Plaintiffs bring their claims against UM under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. alleging that they experienced unlawful discrimination on the basis of race while employed at UM. UM provides janitorial cleaning services for office buildings, theaters, sports facilities, hospitals, hotels, airports, and commercial kitchens. It has a predominantly Hispanic workforce and many members of its workforce speak little or no English relying on the Spanish language to communicate at work. Due to this, the Defendant has developed a general practice of treating Hispanic and non-Black persons preferably over Black persons or persons that associate with Black persons, including currently employed Black persons seeking promotion or another position with the Defendant. Plaintiffs Binns, Seidler, and Bardney are or were employed by the Defendant as janitors and are or were receiving pay or other beneficial conditions of employment lower than similarly or less-qualified non-Black persons or persons not known to associate with Black persons. Binns is a Black man who is currently employed by UM and has worked in positions lower than non-Black employees and received less beneficial conditions of employment compared to non-Black employees due to his race. He has been harassed and subjected to a hostile environment because he is a Black person. Seidler is a Caucasian man who has had a long-term relationship with a Black woman and is currently employed by UM. He also alleges that he has worked in positions lower than non-Black employees and received less beneficial conditions of employment than non-Black employees because of his association with Black people. He claims he has been harassed and subjected to a hostile environment because of his associations with Black persons and because he has advocated for the rights of Black people. Bardney is a Black man who was employed by UM and was terminated from his employment with UM supposedly because he had violated UM's rule against wearing earphone devices, but in fact was not wearing an earphone device at the time so accused. He was treated differently and unfairly and his employment was terminated because he is a Black person. The Defendant's employment and termination of employment practices discriminates on the basis of race. It treats the Plaintiffs differently than Hispanic and other non-Black persons, because of their race or association with Black persons. The Defendant denies Black persons the opportunity accorded to equally or less qualified non-Black persons to handle supervisory assignments, thus limiting Black persons' acquisitions of professional contacts and recognition necessary for promotion prospects, outside job offers, and freelance and independent job potential. Its workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the Plaintiffs' employment and creates an abusive working environment. All the Plaintiffs filed timely Charges of Discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights, which are cross-filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and which charge unlawful race discrimination by UM. The Defendant moves to dismiss on several grounds. First, it argues that the allegations in the Complaint are not within the scope of the underlying charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC. Second, it argues the claims should be dismissed for failing to provide proper notice. Third, the Defendant argues that the Complaint should be dismissed for pleading improper "pattern or practice claims." In the alternative, it argues the Plaintiffs' claims should be severed. As to the Defendant's first argument, the Judge Kendall opines that such an argument is unavailing because the allegations are of the same type even if they contain slightly different language than that used in the charges. Merely because the charges are more detailed than the Amended Complaint is an insufficient reason for dismissing the Amended Complaint. The EEOC charges describe the same conduct, race-based discrimination, and implicate the same individuals, the Plaintiffs and their supervisors. All of the disparities that the Defendants cite merely affirm that they were on notice of the alleged conduct and claims of discrimination. Hence, the Amended Complaint survives. As to the Defendant's second argument, the Judge Kendall that the Plaintiff's complaint identifies the type of discrimination that she thinks occurs (racial), by whom (Citibank, through Skertich, the manager, and the outside appraisers it used), and when (in connection with her effort in early 2009 to obtain a home-equity loan). This is all that she needed to put in the complaint. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is likewise sufficient, the Judge says. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges the type of discrimination they think occurs (racial), by whom (UM and their managers), and when (during their employment). Even if this were insufficient, the Plaintiffs have incorporated and attached their EEOC Charges, which provide more specific details on the type of discrimination, by whom, and when. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss based on improper notice is denied. As to the Defendant's third argument, to the extent that the Plaintiffs pattern and practice claims differ from the claims brought in their EEOC charges, they are dismissed. The Judge holds that the pattern and practice claims are not "like or reasonably related to" the allegations in their EEOC charges and so are impermissible. The Plaintiffs may bring their individual claims that align with the EEOC charges, but not general allegations pertaining to a non-present class. The Defendant finally argues that the Plaintiffs' claims should be severed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 because their claims do not meet the requirements of Rule 20(a)(1). The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs claims need not be severed. The Plaintiffs work the same jobs, allege the same type of discrimination, work in Chicago, allege the same adverse employment actions (although Bardney alleges termination as well), worked during the same general time period, and allege there was a broader policy of race-based discrimination. The Defendant, who earlier argues it did not receive sufficient notice, is able to parse the Amended Complaint and EEOC Charges for details which it claims give rise to such differences between the Plaintiffs that it believes the claims should be severed. Despite the general differences, however, it is not a case where the Plaintiffs attempted to bring a class action but worked during different time periods, at different store locations, with different salaries and with different supervisors. Where the plaintiffs' claims derive from the same type of alleged action by the same employee in the same facility, courts have found severance inappropriate. For these reasons, the Defendant's Motion for Severance is denied. Based on the foregoing, Judge Kendall concludes that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim of race discrimination under Title VII. For this reason, she denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Any remaining general pattern and practice allegations are dismissed. Because the Plaintiffs' claims meet the requirements of Rule 20(a), the Defendant's alternative Motion to Sever is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy6ms326 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: Missouri River Flooding Class Action Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Judge Nancy Firestone of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, first nominated by former U.S. president Bill Clinton and re-nominated by President Barack Obama, ruled in mid-December 2020, after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers revised its management of the Missouri River Basin to comply with environmental laws, the agency violated the Fifth Amendment rights of three landowners. Now, the government must pay these individuals for flooding their property in order to protect endangered species. The judge wrote in her decision, "The government encouraged development along the river, and the property owners were given reasonable assurances that their land would be protected from flooding." She has been overseeing a total of 400 tort claims along the river since 2014, with the three plaintiffs serving as bellwether claimants. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs, Dan Boulware -- dboulware@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli and Benjamin Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, had held off on filing new claims until Judge Firestone clarified the direction the case would take. The judge's ruling effectively set a claims deadline of December 31, with which they complied. Moving forward, they plan to pursue a Fifth Amendment class action in the Court of Federal Claims with more than 60 plaintiffs who own land in multiple states along the river. "This is a big deal," said Anthony Schutz, an associate professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law. "The potential liability could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars depending upon how many people are included. This throws a wrench into the adaptability of management of the (river) to changing needs." Boulware said he expects the government to appeal, adding, they have "always been willing to work out a reasonable settlement with the government, but without success. The government needs to step up and do what's right . . . If the class is certified, hundreds of other class members will also have an opportunity to assert claims. Those claims should be worth at least $2,000 per acre, based on the judge's assessment of reports from plaintiffs' experts in the mass action." Brown added they suspect the three bellwether plaintiffs will receive at least $10,000 each. Senators from Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Kansas would like to see the flooding litigation settled as quickly as possible, and they wrote a letter to the secretary of the Army stating, "The corps continues to ignore clear liability for its actions and instead expresses its intent to exhaust all appeals for years to come. We once again strongly urge that the corps cease further delay and make our constituents whole…It is unacceptable that some of our constituents have waited over 13 years to be compensated." Boulware said the Department of Justice has long defended the actions taken by the government, saying that they were in the best interest of the law, and he suspects that the agency will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. [GN] UNITED STATES: Settlement in Saravia Class Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Ilsa Saravia, as next friend for A.H., a minor, and on behalf of herself individually and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. William Barr, Attorney General, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03615-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class. The named Plaintiff alleges that she on behalf of minor A.H. and members of the Settlement Class were injured as a result of the Defendants' actions. The Settlement Class is comprised of Unaccompanied minors who were detailed by the Government, released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") to a parent or sponsor ("Sponsored UCs"), and subsequently rearrested and detained by the Government on allegations of gang affiliation The Court issued a class-wide preliminary injunction for a provisionally certified class of Sponsored UCs requiring that the Government establish changed circumstances or dangerousness at a Saravia Hearing to justify the Sponsored UC's rearrest and to support continued detention, Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1197-98 (N.D. Cal. 2017), affirmed 905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018). The parties executed a finalized settlement agreement between the parties on Sept. 15, 2020. On Oct. 16, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, approved the proposed notice plan, and provisionally certified the Settlement Class. Judge Chhabria has considered the Agreement, arguments presented at the fairness hearing held on Jan. 14, 2021, and all other submissions in connection with the parties' request for final approval of the Agreement and certification of the Settlement Class set forth in the Settlement. Because he finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), the Judge holds that final approval is appropriate. Therefore, he granted final approval of the Settlement. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), and (e), the Judge certified, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class comprised of Unaccompanied minors who were detailed by the Government, released by the Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") to a parent or sponsor, and subsequently rearrested and detained by the Government on allegations of gang affiliation: "All noncitizen minors meeting the following criteria: (1) the noncitizen minor came to the United States as an unaccompanied minor; (2) the noncitizen minor was previously detained in ORR custody and then released by ORR to a sponsor; and (3) the noncitizen minor has been or will be rearrested by the Department of Homeland Security on the basis of a removability warrant based in whole or in part on allegations of gang affiliation." The Settlement then includes a sub-class specific to Claim 4, which is defined as follows: "The class includes all Settlement Class Members who also applied for asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status, T or U nonimmigrant status, or a waiver of inadmissibility or application for adjustment of status that is related to such an application for asylum, SIJ status or T or U nonimmigrant status, before the age of 21, and had or will have an application for asylum, SIJ status, T or U nonimmigrant status, or a waiver of inadmissibility or adjustment of status that is related to such an application denied by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services when any information that the noncitizen is or may have been affiliated with a gang is a basis for the denial." The Judge appointed (i) Plaintiff Saravia as the class representative, (ii) the law firm of Cooley LLP as the Class Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxnswjdh from Leagle.com. VITA-MIX MANUFACTURING: Etheridge Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- AQUALINA ETHERIDGE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VITA-MIX MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00179 (N.D. Ohio, January 21, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a manufacturing employee at its Strongsville, Ohio manufacturing facility between September 2019 and December 2020. The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated manufacturing employees frequently worked over 40 hours per week, but they were only paid for worked performed between their scheduled start and stop times. The Defendant purportedly failed to compensate them for the time they spent performing pre-shift duties, that amounted to approximately 20 to 30 minutes per day, which are integral and indispensable part of their principal activities. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees were not compensated for all of the time they worked, including all of the overtime hours they worked over 40 each workweek at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the FLSA, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA. Vita-Mix Manufacturing Corporation manufactures blenders for homes and businesses. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 24 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. ("Voyager" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VYGR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-00381, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Voyager securities between June 1, 2017 and November 9, 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 Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Voyager securities during the Class Period, you have until March 24, 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. [Click https://bit.ly/2M7ayzw for information about joining the class action] Voyager, a clinical-stage gene therapy company, focuses on the development of treatments for patients suffering from severe neurological diseases. Included in the Company's preclinical programs is VY-HTT01 for Huntington's Disease. Voyager represent that VY-HTT01 is intended to work by knocking down HTT expression in neurons and astrocytes in the striatum and cortex (discrete regions in the brain that can be targeted with adeno-associated virus ("AAV") gene therapy delivered directly into the brain), thereby reducing the level of toxicity associated with mutated protein in these brain regions, and slowing the progression of cognitive and motor symptoms. On June 1, 2017, Voyager issued a press release announcing that it had selected VY-HTT01 as a lead clinical candidate for the treatment of Huntington's disease. The press release also indicated that, "[p]reclinical pharmacology and toxicology studies [were] underway with VY-HTT01 to support filing of an investigational new drug (IND) application in 2018." In September 2020, Voyager submitted an investigational new drug ("IND") application for VY-HTT01 for the treatment of Huntington's disease to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). 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: (i) the Company's VY-HTT01 IND submission to the FDA lacked key information regarding certain chemistry, manufacturing and controls ("CMC") matters, including, inter alia, drug-device compatibility and drug substance and product characterization; (ii) the Company's IND submission for VY-HTT01 was therefore deficient; (iii) the Company had thus materially overstated the likelihood of FDA approval for VY-HTT01 based on the IND submission; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 12, 2020, Voyager issued a press release disclosing that it "has received feedback from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the Investigational New Drug (IND) submission for VY-HTT01 for the treatment of Huntington's disease." Specifically, Voyager advised investors that it "has been notified that the IND was placed on clinical hold pending the resolution of certain chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) matters." Then, on November 9, 2020, Voyager issued a press release announcing the Company's third quarter 2020 financial results and corporate updates. In the press release, the Company disclosed that, with respect to its IND application for VY-HTT01, "Voyager recently received written feedback from the FDA requesting additional information on specific CMC topics, including drug-device compatibility and drug substance and product characterization." On this news, Voyager's stock price fell $2.60 per share, or 23.21%, to close at $8.60 per share on November 10, 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. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] WALMART INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Walmart Inc. ("Walmart" or "the Company") (NYSE:WMT) 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 30, 2016 and December 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 22, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/36ml90u 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. Walmart knowingly filled improper prescriptions written by "pill-mill" prescribers. Thousands of prescriptions filled by the Company demonstrated obvious red flags such as dangerous mixtures of medications. The Company's management pressured its pharmacists to fill as many prescriptions as possible, making it difficult for them to comply with the law. The Company's pharmacy revenues were artificially inflated due to filling invalid prescriptions in violation of the Controlled Substance Act dispensing requirements. 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 Walmart, 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. [G] WALMART INC: Shareholders Face Hurdle in New Opioid Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that two plaintiffs' firms filed a shareholder class action against Walmart in federal court in Wilmington, accusing the company of misleading investors about its opioid prescription practices in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission between 2016 and 2020. The complaint, filed by the Rosen Law Firm and Farnan, alleged Walmart failed to inform shareholders that its pharmacies filled thousands of suspicious opioids prescriptions under a company policy that, according to the suit, kept pharmacists under pressure to fulfill orders instead of asking questions about prescribing doctors. The plaintiffs' firms claimed that the truth emerged on Dec. 22, when the Justice Department brought a sweeping enforcement action against the company, claiming Walmart committed thousands of violations of the Controlled Substances Act. The stock market reacted to the revelation of the alleged fraud, according to the complaint, by pushing Walmart's share price down by $2.75 per share after DOJ filed its suit. The shareholder firms described the $2.75 decline, from $146.23 high on Dec. 22, as "precipitous," although the drop was less than 2% of Walmart's share price. I have questions. I should say first that Walmart denies the Justice Department's allegations, arguing that the government's flawed legal theory "unlawfully forces pharmacists to come between patients and their doctors," and the DOJ's suit is "riddled with factual inaccuracies and cherry-picked documents taken out of context." A Walmart spokesman said the company also disagrees with the allegations in the new shareholder fraud class action. "We take these matters seriously," he said by email. We will defend this matter vigorously." My big doubt about the class action is its assertion that the Justice Department's suit on Dec. 22 was a revelation to the market. Walmart itself revealed two months before the DOJ suit that it was under government scrutiny for its opioid prescription practices. The company filed an unusual declaratory judgment suit, in federal court in Sherman, Texas, seeking a judicial ruling that the government's interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act was wrong. Walmart's complaint disclosed that DOJ had previously contemplated a criminal case against the company - Walmart said the indictment threat was entirely unwarranted and was intended to extract a big payout to the government - and that even after ditching the prospect of criminal charges, the Justice Department was planning a civil enforcement action against the company. Walmart filed that suit on Oct. 22. That day, its opening share price of $144.11 declined to a closing price of $143.03, although it was back up to nearly $144 by the opening of trading on Oct. 23. The market, in other words, did not react with particular alarm to Walmart's disclosure that it was in DOJ's crosshairs. That could be because the market already knew, even by the time of Walmart's declaratory judgment suit in October, that DOJ was scrutinizing Walmart's opioid prescription practices. Pro Publica reported in March 2020 that Texas prosecutors had been investigating Walmart's opioid dispensing protocols for two years and had tried to convince high-ups in Washington to bring a criminal case. Pro Publica's story was published on March 25. Walmart's share price declined more than $3 that day, from nearly $113 to an opening price on March 26 of $109.40. After the Pro Publica story, three institutional investors demanded to see Walmart corporate records documenting the board's knowledge of the company's opioid dispensing practices as well as the board's response to private and government investigations of those practices. The pension funds ended up suing in Delaware Chancery Court to obtain access to Walmart books and records. In October, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster ordered the company to turn over a broad swath of corporate documents to plaintiffs' lawyers from Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, Labaton Sucharow and Berman Tabacco. Walmart argued in the Delaware books-and-records case that it had disclosed its exposure to liability for its opioid prescription policies all the way back in 2018. In an SEC filing in June 2018, the company said it had "been responding to subpoenas, information requests and investigations from government entities related to nationwide controlled substance dispensing practices involving the sale of opioids." When I reported in October on the Walmart books-and-records case, I predicted that plaintiffs' lawyers were gearing up for a breach-of-duty case against the company's board. The prospects for a fraud class action, I said at the time, seemed less attractive because the company's share price didn't respond dramatically to revelations of its potential liability for filling allegedly suspicious opioid prescriptions. So far, there's been no breach-of-duty suit against Walmart board members. Lawyers from Bernstein Litowitz and Labaton didn't respond to my emails asking about their plans. I still think shareholders will have an uphill fight in a fraud class action in which they will ultimately have to show that Walmart's alleged failure to disclose problematic opioid dispensing practices impacted the company's share price. Between the March Pro Publica story that first revealed DOJ's contemplation of criminal charges and the DOJ enforcement action in December, Walmart's share price actually rose by $30. And since the DOJ suit, Walmart shares have generally traded within a narrow range of prices between $144 and $149 - slightly higher, if anything, than the share price before DOJ filed its enforcement action. Laurence Rosen and Phillip Kim of The Rosen Firm didn't respond to my email asking about when the alleged Walmart fraud was actually disclosed. And I know, initial shareholder fraud class actions are often a skeletal version of the amended complaint filed by lead counsel after the lead plaintiff selection process. It will be up to whomever is picked to head the case to develop a cogent theory of the alleged fraud's impact on the market for Walmart shares. I'm just saying that's not going to be easy. Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. [GN] WALMART INC: Thornton Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The Thornton Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Walmart Inc. (NYSE:WMT). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased Walmart stock or other securities between March 30, 2016 and December 22, 2020 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Walmart to submit their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Walmart The case alleges that Walmart and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) Walmart knowingly filled prescriptions that were issued by so-called "pill-mill" prescribers; (2) Walmart filled thousands of prescriptions that showed obvious red flags, including highly-dangerous cocktails of drugs; (3) Walmart's managers made it difficult for its pharmacists to comply with their legal obligations by pressuring them to fulfill as many orders as possible; (4) hence, Walmart's pharmacy revenues were inflated because Walmart filled thousands of invalid prescriptions in violation of the Controlled Substance Act dispensing requirements; and (5) the aforementioned conduct would subject Walmart to regulatory scrutiny. Interested Walmart investors have until March 22, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 www.tenlaw.com/cases/Walmart [GN] WALT DISNEY: Seeks Dismissal Over TV Series' Sexual Harassment Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Cullins, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that Disney is asking an L.A. judge to dismiss a sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation complaint from California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing for being "hopelessly vague" about which Criminal Minds workers it's suing on behalf of. In May 2020, DFEH sued Disney, ABC and other companies and individuals connected to the procedural. The agency alleges that director of photography Greg St. Johns "engaged in sexual harassment, discrimination and harassment" against on-set workers, and it filed a complaint on behalf of "a group of persons who worked on set for the production of the television series Criminal Minds -- including Anthony Matulic and Dauv McNeely." On Jan. 12, Disney and the individual defendants (except for St. Johns, who is separately represented) filed a demurrer to the complaint, asking L.A. County Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Buckley to examine whether the agency has to meet the requisite standards for commonality among members of the class and whether the "hopelessly vague class definition" dooms the litigation. With regard to the class definition, the defendants argue the lack of detail deprives them of due process and unduly prejudices their ability to investigate the claims and defend themselves. "The DFEH's Section 12961 class action seeks to involve every person who worked on the television production, Criminal Minds, at any time, with zero way of knowing who the witnesses are, what documents are relevant, and what events are at issue," writes attorney Jennifer Baldocchi in the filing. "Simply stated, this is trial by ambush, depriving Defendants of basic, fundamental, and required due process under the California Fair Notice Standard." By leaving the case open to "potentially every single person, whether employee, contractor, or otherwise, who ever set foot on the Criminal Minds production set over twelve years" the defendants say DFEH fails to meet the commonality standard required for it to bring a class action on behalf of itself in the public interest. "Without a description of an identifiable group sharing common issues of fact or law, it is impossible to know who to interview or depose, what documents to review, and how to craft or respond to discovery, and which witnesses to call at trial," writes Baldocchi, adding that more than 10,000 people worked on the series over 14 seasons. "The FAC alleges that Matulic resisted a butt slap, McNeely was threatened with physical violence, an unnamed crew member was pantsed, and that some other alleged unidentified men were subject to unwanted touching, kisses, or caresses by St. John," writes Baldocchi. "However, the FAC fails to explain how a single butt slap shares commonality with alleged physical violence or being pantsed." A hearing on the demurrer, which is posted below, is currently set for Feb. 17. [GN] WESTBORO STATION: Court Rejects Proposed Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Joanne Laucius at ottawacitizen.com reports that the Ontario Superior Court has rejected the certification of a proposed class action lawsuit arising from the January 2019 Westboro Station bus crash. A notice of action was filed less than a week after the Jan. 11, 2019, crash that killed three OC Transpo passengers and injured 23 others, asking the court to award $60 million in damages to crash victims and the families of those injured and killed. At the time, Evatt Merchant, a partner with the Merchant Law Group partner based in Ottawa, said the law firm had been approached by a passenger on the Route 269 bus that crashed into the platform at Westboro station. The passenger, a Kanata resident, was the representative plaintiff in the case. In a memo to councillors, city solicitor David White said the lawsuit was one of 22 formal statements of claim that had been issued in connection with the bus crash. In determining that the proposed lawsuit was not suitable for a class action, the court took note of the fact that, in its handling of individual court actions, the city had admitted liability for the losses arising out of the collision, White said in his memo. "As a result of the city's considered approach to the other claims, and noting the class action plaintiff's desire to advance broad allegations of systemic negligence, the court determined that there were, in effect, no advantages to having the lawsuit proceed as a class action," White wrote. "The court noted, in this regard, that '(C)lass proceedings are not to be used to needlessly inflate tragic accidents into public spectacles.'" The plaintiff has until April 23 to either convert the lawsuit into an individual action or to amend the claim and renew the effort for certification as a class action, White wrote. A class-action lawsuit can be brought by one person on behalf of others (known as a class) who have suffered similar harm. A judge must decide whether to certify a case and allow it to proceed as a class action. After the 2013 OC Transpo-VIA Rail crash that killed six bus passengers and injured dozens more, the city faced 39 individual lawsuits seeking more than $26 million in damages. By the time of the Westboro crash, 35 of those lawsuits had been settled for $9.7 million. [GN] WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Ragsdale Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ LASABRA RAGSDALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL L.L.C., a California limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00549 (C.D. Cal., January 20, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant to secure redress for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed approximately 200 calls to her cellular telephone number ending in 7709 using prerecorded messages and/or ATDS beginning in February 2020. Despite the Plaintiff's request to stop contacting her in her cellular telephone number, the Defendant allegedly continued placing pre-recorded or artificial voice messages which have caused the Plaintiff additional harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Wilshire Commercial Capital L.L.C. is a debt servicing and collections company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Litvak, Esq. DAPEER ROSENBLIT LITVAK, LLP 11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (310) 477-5575 E-mail: wlitvak@drllaw.com [*] Gov. Evers Seeks Suit Against Firms Releasing Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Schulte at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that Gov. Tony Evers announced he is seeking legal action against companies that have released "forever chemicals" into the Wisconsin environment. Evers announced that he and Attorney General Josh Kaul have asked the Department of Administration to begin the selection process for an outside law firm to help the state evaluate and pursue litigation against companies that have caused PFAS contamination. "PFAS can have devastating effects not only on our state's ecosystem and vital natural resources, but on the health of our families and communities across the state," Evers said in the release. "It is unacceptable and those companies responsible for the contamination of our land and water should be held accountable so we can move forward in cleaning up this pollution for the health and safety of our communities." The DOA will solicit bids from law firms and Evers will make the final determination on appropriate counsel, the release said. Wisconsin's action comes after several other states -- including Michigan, Ohio, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have already pursued litigation against corporations responsible for PFAS contamination. The funds leveraged from the litigation can then be used to support affected communities. The announcement follows on the heels of the PFAS action plan assembled by the PFAS Action Council, established in 2019 to tackle the growing problem of PFAS contamination in water across the state. The council's plan, released late last year, recommended setting standards for levels of the chemicals in water, state-wide sampling and pollution prevention, among others. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a family of man-made chemicals used for their water- and stain-resistant qualities in products such as clothing and carpet, nonstick cookware, packaging and firefighting foam. The family includes 5,000 compounds, which are persistent, remaining both in the environment and human body over time. PFAS have been linked to types of kidney and testicular cancers, lower birth weights, harm to immune and reproductive systems, and altered hormone regulation and thyroid hormones. DNR monitoring 52 contamination sites The DNR is currently monitoring 52 contamination sites throughout the state. The worst PFAS contamination in the state is in Marinette and Peshtigo, where Tyco Fire Products tested firefighting foam for years outdoors before the practice was ended in 2017. The contamination in Marinette requires remediation and that drinking water be delivered to homeowners who can no longer safely consume the water from their wells. In 2017, Johnson Controls, Tyco's parent company, said it was setting aside $140 million in its fiscal third quarter on the cleanup. This year, the company said a portion of that money will go toward a drinking water system that would allow residents to once again drink and cook with water from their wells. In 2019, Johnson Controls argued with the DNR over whether it should be solely responsible for the assessment of the extent of the chemicals when the state agency has agreed that there are other potential sources of pollution. The Glendale-based company was supposed to have reported to the DNR by Sept. 3 but failed to do so. That dispute followed another in which the DNR referred Johnson Controls to the state Department of Justice, alleging it waited four years to report the release of hazardous chemicals at its plant in Marinette. That release resulted in some residents unknowingly drinking water for years that was contaminated. Doug Oitzinger, an alderman and former mayor of Marinette said many residents of the Marinette area have been waiting for an action like this one. "Tyco/JCI discovered massive PFAS contamination on their property in the fall of 2013 and never reported it to the DNR until three years later in 2016," he said. "This alone is reason enough for the State to pursue compensation for the damages done to our environment and our citizens' property and health." Earlier this month, Johnson Controls announced a class-action settlement with more than 270 households in Peshtigo over the contamination for $17.5 million. Of the settlement, $15 million will be allocated for class-wide claims, such as property damage, and $2.5 will be allocated for individuals who have been diagnosed with testicular cancer, kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease and preeclampsia, the release said. Homeowners who lived in the class-action area between 1965 and December 2020 could receive from $60,000 to $70,000 depending on the level of contamination, said Paul Napoli of Napoli Shkolnik Law Firm, who is representing the class. Wisconsin Manufacturer's & Commerce, the state's largest business lobby group, said actions like Tyco's plan for remediation were sincere attempts to work with governmental entities to address PFAS issues, and that a lawsuit is unwarranted as PFAS are not regulated under state or federal law. Kurt Bauer, the organization's president and CEO, called the announcement an "unfortunate political stunt." "If the governor was truly looking to protect the environment, he would have continued to work closely with the business community on this topic," he said. "History has shown time and again that more lawsuits only add to the delay associated with environmental cleanups. Today's announcement will actually slow progress toward addressing contaminated areas in our state." Tony Wilkin Gibart, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates said the announcement of litigation is a critical first step in addressing contamination. "More and more communities are facing serious public health threats as PFAS is detected in drinking water and at sites of contamination," he said in an email. "The costs of restoring safe drinking water supplies and of cleanup should be borne by the responsible parties, not taxpayers. Funds from any future settlements or judgments should be dedicated to addressing these public health issues." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***