/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210203.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 3, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 19 Headlines 9F INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline ABC PHONES: Court Okays Stipulation in Solorio Wage and Hour Suit ADVOCARE INT'L: Ranieri Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Distributors AGAPE HEALTH: Park Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees Under FLSA AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid for Partial Judgment in Oliver Partly Granted ASPEN HOME: Ct. Directs Eder to File Class Status Bid by April 19 ASTRAZENECA PLC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action BANK OF AMERICA: Class Status Bid Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28 BANK OF AMERICA: Deadline for Class Status Briefing Set for Feb. 22 BANK OF AMERICA: McClure Balks at Stolen Money From EDD Cardholders BANK OF AMERICA: Wilson Sues Over Fraudulent Use of Debit Cards BEACH PIZZA: Small Asks Court to Stay Class Certification Deadline BENA REST: Faces Morales Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages BIG HEART: Class Certification Bid Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28 BILL LEE KELLY: Response to Class Status Bid Due by April 22 BIT DIGITAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline BLUE SKY: Law Firms Probe Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline BRENTWOOD CARE: Daughter of COVID-19 Victim Files Class-Action BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Dipuma Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay CANADA: Faces Prison COVID-19 Outbreak Class Action Lawsuit CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Seeks Extension of Class Certification Dates CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Ordered to Pay $39MM in Tax Class-Action CHILDREN'S GROUP: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMMUNITY LOANS: Bid for Conditional Certification Due May 21 CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Faces Class-action Lawsuit on Systemic Racism COVIA HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit CRST INT'L: Cervantes Suit Gets Driver Class Conditional Status DESTIN FIRE: Jensen FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Sexual Abuse Suit in Penn. EQT CORPORATION: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice EXXON MOBIL: Yoshikawa Sues Over Decline in Securities Value FACEBOOK INC: Illinoisans to Get $350 for BIPA Class Settlement FEDERAL PACIFIC: Blair Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations Dismissed FORD MOTOR: Weidman Wins Protective Order in Suit Over Brake Defect FORSTER & GARBUS: Wins Summary Judgment in Chiofalo FDCPA Suit FRESH FARMS: March 26 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought GC SERVICES: Feb. 4 Extension to Class Status Bid Opposition Sought GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS: Kyo Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website GOLDMAN SACHS: Criticizes Halliburton Fraud Class Action Ruling GOODRX HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline GOODRX HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 16 Deadline GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Zhang Investor Reminds of March 15 Deadline HOME DEPOT: Bid to Continue Class Certification Deadlines Nixed HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT: Becerra-South Settlement Has Final Nod ICHIBAN GROUP: Response to Class Status Bid Extended to Feb. 4 KANYE WEST: Faces Class-Action Lawsuits Over Staff's Unpaid Wages KELLER WILLIAMS: Samataro TCPA Suit Moved From Mich. to W.D. Texas LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 1 LIZHI INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Class Action LIZHI INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline LIZHI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline LMS TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Suit Remanded Over Settlement Talks MANDARICH LAW: Quinn Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California MANDARICH LAW: Sorondo Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California MDL 2873: AFFF Products Contaminate Groundwater, Suit Alleges MIDWESTERN PET: Pet Foods Contain Toxic Aflatoxin, Williams Says MINNESOTA: Court Adopts in Part R&R Issued in Roybal v. Schnell MOUNTAIRE CORP: April 12 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Agrees to Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert. of Homeless People in Fisher Suit Denied PHH MORTGAGE: Attorney General Blasts Mortgage Class Settlement POPEYES LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Biometrics Collection PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Suit Moved From California to Michigan REALOGY HOLDINGS: New Jersey Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit RESCARE INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Date Set for Nov. 15 RESTAURANT BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Suit ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon RAF Text Message Suit Gets Class Status ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates GameStop Trades, Wieg Suit Claims ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates GameStop Trades, Zybura Suit Says ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ziegler Sues Over Open-Market Manipulation ROY GRINNELL: Tellez-Vasquez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: PFOA Class Action Remains Pending SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Feb. 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set SOAR COLLECTIVE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action SONA NANOTECH: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline SPLUNK INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 2 Deadline SPLUNK INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline TD AMERITRADE: Schaff Files Civil Rights Suit in M.D. Florida TEXAS: Eaunman Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclasses UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Misclassification Suit Can Proceed UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify RNs Class in Crawley Suit VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 24 Deadline VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Reminds of March 24 Deadline WALMART INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Class Action WORLDPAC INC: FLSA Collective Status of Delivery Drivers Sought [*] Australian Insurers Face COVID-19 Payout Class Actions [*] Blank Rome Issues Pratt's Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report ********* 9F INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against 9F Inc. ("9F" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: JFU) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired 9F securities (i) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with 9F's August 14, 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or (ii) between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jfu. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the materials supporting the Offering, and defendants throughout the Class Period, made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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 the 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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jfu or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in 9F you have until March 22, 2021 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] ABC PHONES: Court Okays Stipulation in Solorio Wage and Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California approved a stipulation entered into by the parties in the lawsuit captioned PRISCILLA SOLORIO and MARIANO DIAZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-CV-01051-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Solorio and Diaz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Defendant ABC Phones, by and through their respective attorneys of record, stipulate as follows: 1. Plaintiff brings a putative class action asserting wage and hour claims with respect to Store Managers at Defendant's retail locations; 2. Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action (the "Motion") on November 25, 2020; 3. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motion on January 13, 2021, and Defendant filed its reply on January 20, 2021; 4. Plaintiffs have prepared the Objections to Reply Evidence and/or Surreply to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action (the "Objection/Surreply") to object to and address issues raised in Defendant's reply and related filings; 5. Plaintiffs provided the Objection/Surreply to Defendant's counsel, and based on the circumstances and without conceding the validity of any of the issues raises therein, Defendant has agreed to stipulate to its filing; and 6. The Local Rules and the Federal Rules do not provide the right to file a surreply or objections to reply evidence, but a district court may allow a surreply to be filed "where a valid reason for such additional briefing exists." Hartline v. Nat'l Univ., No. 2:14-CV-0635 KJM AC PS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8127, at *15-16 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015). Accordingly, the counsel for the Parties agree that good cause exists and leave for the Plaintiffs to file the Objection/Surreply should be granted, and request that the Court issues an order that the Objection/Surreply is deemed filed. Based on the stipulation of the parties and for good cause shown, the Court orders that the Plaintiffs' Objections to Reply Evidence and/or Surreply to Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Dismiss Class Allegations, and Stay Action, filed at ECF 11-1, is deemed filed. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxv4ztjv from Leagle.com. Carolyn H. Cottrell -- ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- David C. Leimbach -- dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -- Scott L. Gordon -- sgordon@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP, in Emeryville, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class. Robert L. Shipley -- rshipley@shipleylaw.com -- Brandon S. Gray -- bgray@shipleylaw.com -- ROBERT L. SHIPLEY, APLC, Attorneys for Defendant. ADVOCARE INT'L: Ranieri Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Distributors ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA RANIERI and MEGAN CORNELIUS, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, L.P., Case No. 3:17-cv-00691-S (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the Class for purposes of settlement: "all Distributors who paid fees, purchased a "distributor kit," and/or purchased products from AdvoCare between March 9, 2013, and May 17, 2016, who lost money from their participation in the AdvoCare alleged scheme, and whose distributorships were suspended without reinstatement or terminated by May 17, 2016. Distributors who made no purchases from AdvoCare after May 17, 2016, and paid no dues after May 17, 2016, will be considered terminated as of May 17, 2016. Distributors will be considered to have lost money if the sum of the fees they paid AdvoCare, the money they paid AdvoCare for sales aids, and the money they paid AdvoCare for product (net of refunded amounts), reduced by 65% of the amount paid for product, is greater than the money they received from AdvoCare (other than for product refunds);" Excluded from the Class are Distributors who were not, at the time they were Distributors, residents of the United States or its territories or U.S. military stationed overseas. The Class definition excludes Distributors who continued as Distributors after May 17, 2016 or made any other indication of consent to AdvoCare's Distributor Agreement amended after that date; 2. appointing their counsel to serve as Class Counsel and appointing themselves to serve as class representative; 3. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement; 4. approving the Notice Plan described in the Settlement Agreement; and 5. scheduling a Fairness Hearing. The Settlement Agreement: -- The Settlement Agreement requires the creation of a Settlement Fund in total amount of $10,500,000 to compensate Class Members who submit claims. -- Class Members' cash awards will be based on the same calculation as the determination for class membership, with three adjustments. -- Any money remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after payment of cash awards to Class Members, any Fee Award to Class Counsel, any Service Award to Plaintiff, and administration expenses will revert to AdvoCare. On March 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs Cornelius and Lisa Ranieri filed this case, bringing claims on their own behalves and seeking to bring claims on behalf of all Distributors who lost money during the class period through their participation in AdvoCare (meaning, all Distributors who paid AdvoCare more money than AdvoCare paid them). The case then proceeded to arbitration for a determination of arbitrability, multiple rounds of motion to dismiss briefing, class certification discovery, and three mediations. From its founding until May 2019, AdvoCare was a multi-level marketer of nutritional supplements and nutritional products. AdvoCare's business model ostensibly allowed its "Distributors" (the persons who participated in AdvoCare's compensation and sales program) to purchase AdvoCare products at wholesale prices and sell them at higher retail prices. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O1whJX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Benjamin King, Esq. REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP 1601 Elm St., Suite 4250 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214-420-8900 E-mail: bking@rctlegal.com - and - R. Adam Swick, Esq. REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP 1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy. Bldg. C, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: 512-647-6100 E-mail: aswick@rctlegal.com AGAPE HEALTH: Park Suit Seeks Overtime Pay for Employees Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Soonkum PARK, Yoon Hee OH, Heesang KIM, Bo Young LEE, AND Yoon Jung YIM v. Agape Health Management Inc., and Sun Ok LEE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00097 (E.D. Va., Jan. 25, 2021) alleges that the Defendants intentionally and willfully violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Defendants, contend that the Defendants failed to pay them for overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendant Agape at all relevant times was in the business of adult day care services, and adult home care services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: (Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq. RYU & RYU, PLC 301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620 Vienna VA 22180 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid for Partial Judgment in Oliver Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ANTHONY OLIVER, TERRY GAYLE QUINTON, SHAWN O'KEEFE, ANDREW AMEND, SUSAN BURDETTE, GIANNA VALDES, DAVID MOSKOWITZ, ZACHARY DRAPER, NATE THAYER and MICHAEL THOMAS REID on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-00566 (NGG) (SJB) (E.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Amex's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings as to certain of the Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The lawsuit is a putative class action brought against Defendants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (together, "Amex"). The Plaintiffs, consumers who made purchases using non-Amex electronic forms of payment, challenge the non-discrimination provisions contained in Amex's contracts with merchants, who accept its credit cards ("Anti-Steering Rules"). On April 30, 2020, the Court granted Amex's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims, and granted in part and denied in part Amex's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' state antitrust and consumer protection claims. The Plaintiffs argue that the Anti-Steering Rules decrease competition in the fees charged to merchants by Amex, Visa, Mastercard, and Discover, and result in higher fees charged to merchants by the non-Amex companies. Those higher fees, in turn, encourage merchants to pass on the costs by charging higher prices to consumers. In its April M&O, the Court first dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. Applying the factors articulated in Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters ("AGC"), 459 U.S. 519, 535 (1983) ("AGC factors"), the Court held that the Plaintiffs were not "efficient enforcers of the antitrust law" and, therefore, lacked standing to pursue their federal antitrust claims. Second, turning to the Plaintiffs' state law antitrust claims, the Court held that California, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York all apply the AGC factors to determine standing under their state antitrust laws; accordingly, the Court granted Amex's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust laws of those states. Third, the Court granted Amex's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims under the laws of California, Florida, and New Mexico. Finally, the Court granted Amex's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim under New York law. Following the April M&O, the Plaintiffs' remaining claims arise under the antitrust laws of 24 states and the consumer protection laws of eight states. Amex now moves for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims under the state antitrust laws of 16 jurisdictions: Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs concede the Motion as to their claims under the antitrust laws of Iowa and Nebraska, but oppose Amex's motion as to their antitrust claims under the laws of the other 14 jurisdictions. Amex also moves for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims under the consumer protection laws of five jurisdictions: Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, Ohio, and the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs concede the motion as to their claims under the consumer protection laws of Ohio and the District of Columbia, but they oppose Amex's motion as to their consumer protection laws of the other three states. Under the Court's prior M&O, the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims under the antitrust laws of any states that apply the AGC factors. The parties dispute whether the laws of the following 10 jurisdictions apply the AGC factors: Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Amex argues that the Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust laws of Illinois, Michigan, and the District of Columbia also fail, even if the Court finds that those jurisdictions do not apply the AGC factors. Finally, Amex argues that the Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust laws of Arizona, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Tennessee likewise fail for independent reasons. Amex also initially moved for judgment as a matter of law as to the Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims under the laws of Montana, Ohio, Illinois, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs concede the Motion as to their consumer protection claims under Ohio and District of Columbia. Amex concedes the Plaintiffs may proceed at this stage with their consumer protection claims under the laws of Montana and Ohio. Accordingly, the parties' only disputes as to whether the Plaintiffs may proceed with their consumer protection claims concern the laws of Illinois and Massachusetts. For reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum & Order, the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically: -- The motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust statutes of Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. The motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' claims under the antitrust statutes of Maine, Utah, and the District of Columbia; and -- The motion is granted as to the Plaintiffs' claims under the consumer protection statutes of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Ohio. The motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' claims under the consumer protection statutes of Illinois, Montana, and Ohio. The Parties are directed to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Bulsara regarding next steps in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yyajd8kt from Leagle.com. ASPEN HOME: Ct. Directs Eder to File Class Status Bid by April 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY EDER v. ASPEN HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01306-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; 2. directing the Plaintiff to complete class certification discovery by March 31, 2021; and 3. directing the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification, if warranted, on or before April 19, 2021. Courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how to best manage the cases before them. In exercising this discretion, a court may extend the time concerning when an act must be done within a specific time if the request is made before the original time or its extension expires. The Court said, "The Plaintiff filed this motion before the time allotted for discovery expired. Further, as the Defendant has defaulted, there is currently no trial date or other applicable deadlines in this matter. As the Court previously noted, "it would be unjust to prevent Plaintiff from attempting to demonstrate the elements for certification of a class without the benefit of discovery, due to [the defendant's] failure to participate in the case." Therefore, the Court finds good cause to permit the Plaintiff additional time to conduct class discovery and file a motion for class certification, if warranted." The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Ac. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant utilizes prerecorded telemarketing calls to market and advertise its business in violation of the TCPA. The Plaintiff seeks damages under the TCPA and declaratory and injunctive relief. Aspen Home Improvements, Inc is a window installation contractor serving the Lancaster, Pennsylvania area since 1990. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36Bk7xL at no extra charge.[CC] ASTRAZENECA PLC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-astrazenecaplc-class-action-lawsuit.html) on Jan. 27 disclosed that it filed a class action on behalf of an institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of AstraZeneca plc (NASDAQ:AZN) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between May 21, 2020 and November 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Monroe County Employees' Retirement System v. AstraZeneca plc, No. 21-cv-00722. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased AstraZeneca ADSs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from January 27, 2021. If you wish to discuss the AstraZeneca class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-astrazenecaplc-class-action-lawsuit.html. The AstraZeneca class action lawsuit charges AstraZeneca and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AstraZeneca is one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world and was one of the early front-runners in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In April 2020, the Company partnered with Oxford University to develop a potential recombinant adenovirus vaccine for the virus, later dubbed AZD1222. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented facts regarding the Company's ongoing AZD1222 clinical trials and concealed problems that had arisen in the trials, including a dosing error which had been discovered early on by the Company but not disclosed to investors. On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release announcing the results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial for AZD1222. The announcement immediately began to raise questions among analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose, while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively, AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy. In the days that followed, additional revelations were made regarding problems with AstraZeneca's AZD1222 clinical trials. For example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55 - despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable to COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient for approval for commercial sale in the United States. As negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed problems and flaws in AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222, the price of AstraZeneca ADSs fell to $52.60 by market close on November 25, 2020, a 5% decline over three trading days in response to adverse news on abnormally high volume. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Brian E. Cochran, 800-449-4900 bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN] BANK OF AMERICA: Class Status Bid Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUE HONG, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., individually and as successor-in-interest, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01667-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered Rule 16(B) and Rule 23(D)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion as follows: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion February 28, 2022 for class certification: (noted on the fourth Friday after filing and service of the motion pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree to different times for filing the response and reply memoranda). Opposition to Motion to April 11, 2022 Certify Class: Reply in Support of Motion May 4, 2022 to Certify Class: Hearing on Motion to Certify To be set by the Class: Court after briefing completed The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiff(s) shall inform the court immediately should Plaintiff(s) at any time decide not to seek class certification. The dates set in this scheduling order are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the court, not by agreement of the parties. The court will alter these dates only upon good cause shown. The failure to complete discovery within the time allowed will not ordinarily constitute good cause, says the Court. Bank of America operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36zDCXz at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Deadline for Class Status Briefing Set for Feb. 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOWA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 17-cv-6221 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting extension of time and page limits for class certification briefing as follows: a. The deadlines for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and supporting expert reports are extended from February 4, 2021, to February 22, 2021; b. The deadline for Defendants to depose Plaintiffs' class certification experts is extended from April 19, 2021, to May 7, 2021; c. The deadline for the Defendants' opposition to class certification and supporting expert reports is extended from May 24, 2021, to June 15, 2021; d. The deadline for Plaintiffs to depose the Defendants' class certification experts is extended from July 29, 2021, to August 20, 2021; e. The deadline for Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of their motion for class certification is extended from August 30, 2021, to September 21, 2021. f. The Plaintiffs' memorandum of law in support of their motion for class certification will not exceed 50 pages. The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, with central hubs in New York City, Dallas, Toronto, London and Hong Kong. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aqOub9 at no extra charge.[CC] The attorneys for the Plaintiffs Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, Orange County Employees Retirement System, Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association, and Torus Capital, LLC, are: Michael B. Eisenkraft, Esq. Christopher Bateman, Esq. David O. Fisher, Esq. Kit A. Pierson, Esq. Julie Goldsmith, Esq. Richard A. Koffman, Esq. Emmy L. Levens, Esq. Daniel McCuaig, Esq. Robert W. Cobbs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com cbateman@cohenmilstein.com dfisher@cohenmilstein.com kpierson@cohenmilstein.com jreiser@cohenmilstein.com rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com elevens@cohenmilstein.com dmmcuaig@cohenmilstein.com rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com The attorneys for the Plaintiffs Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System, Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, Orange County Employees Retirement System, Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association, and Torus Capital, LLC, are: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. Sascha N. Rand, Esq. Steig D. Olson, Esq. Deborah K. Brown, Esq. Daniel P. Mach, Esq. David LeRay, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com sascharand@quinnemnuel.com steigolson@quinnemanuel.com deborahbrown@quinnemanuel.com danielmach@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com - and - Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com The Counsel for Torus Capital, LLC, are: Peter Safirstein, Esq. SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 0118 Telephone: (212) 201-2845 E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com The attorneys for Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Merrill Lynch L.P. Holdings, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., are: Adam S. Hakki, Esq. Richard F. Schwed, Esq. Michael P. Mitchell, Esq. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com rschwed@shearman.com michael.mitchell@shearman.com The attorneys for the Defendants Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Next Fund, Inc., and Credit Suisse Prime Securities Services (USA) LLC, are: David G. Januszewski, Esq. Herbert S. Washer, Esq. Elai Katz, Esq. Jason M. Hall, Esq. Sheila C. Ramesh, Esq. Margaret A. Barone, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 32 Old Slip New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 701-3000 E-mail: djanuszewski@cahill.com hwasher@cahill.com ekatz@cahill.com jhall@cahill.com sramesh@cahill.com mbarone@cahill.com The attorneys for the Defendants EquiLend LLC, EquiLend Europe Limited, and EquiLend Holdings LLC, are: David I. Gelfand, Esq. Alexis Collins, Esq. Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP 2112 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 974-1690 E-mail: dgelfand@cgsh.com alcollins@cgsh.com cboccuzzi@cgsh.com The attorneys for the Defendant Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, are Robert Y. Sperling, Esq. George E. Mastoris, Esq. Staci Yablon, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 558-7941 E-mail: rsperling@winston.com gmastoris@winston.com syablon@winston.com - and - Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4000 E-mail: peppermanr@sullcrom.com BANK OF AMERICA: McClure Balks at Stolen Money From EDD Cardholders ------------------------------------------------------------------- LINDSAY MCCLURE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00572-LB (N.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2021), is a class action lawsuit on behalf of California residents whose unemployment benefits have been stolen, interfered with and diminished due to the Defendant's alleged wrongdoing in administration of California unemployment insurance benefits. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Bank of America has repeatedly failed to stop criminals from breaching Bank of America's defective and outdated systems and controls, thus allowing the criminals to steal millions of dollars of California Employment Development Department (EDD) from needy and unemployed individuals. While the unemployed persons who are one step away from being homeless are denied the benefits awarded them by the State, Bank of America continues to collect its large profits and revenues from its exclusive contract with California, the Plaintiff added. The Plaintiff further contends that California is one of only three U.S. states that does not offer a direct deposit option for unemployment benefits. Instead, it has awarded an exclusive contract to Defendant Bank of America to administer certain unemployment insurance and other benefits issued by the California EDD. For unemployed Californians struggling to survive, these EDD benefits provide critical resources to buy food and provide shelter. Ms. McClure is a person residing in California. She is a Visual Merchandiser at Nordstrom who found herself out of work during the Covid-19 pandemic. She applied for and received EDD unemployment benefits; soon thereafter, she received a Bank of America EDD Visa debit card with a magnetic stripe (no EMV chip) to access her benefits. The Plaintiff experienced fraudulent charges on or around December 1, 2020, after her card was skimmed at a gas station. The Defendant Bank of America is one of the largest banking associations in the United States. It is incorporated in the state of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Anne B. Beste, Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com abeste@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Wilson Sues Over Fraudulent Use of Debit Cards --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert L. Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and DOES 1–20, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00699-SK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for failure to abide by the terms of its contract with the State of California, by knowingly depriving unemployed Californians of the benefits for which they qualified and which were necessary to make ends meet, and failure to use generally accepted and widely-used security measures related to debit cards. The California Employment Development Department (hereinafter "EDD"), which provides a variety of support services to Californians who lost their jobs, had their hours reduced, or had their businesses negatively impacted by COVID-19, contracted with the Defendant to administer the payment of unemployment insurance benefits through debit cards funded by the EDD. Allegedly, in administering such benefits, the Defendant knowingly failed to use generally accepted and widely-used security measures related to debit cards, and instead used outdated, obsolete and fraud-prone technology, which resulted in the unauthorized access and fraudulent use of the debit cards by third parties. According to the complaint, by electing to issue debit cards with magnetic stripes, a largely discredited and obsolete method of securing personal and financial information, instead of the industry-standard chip technology, the Defendant knew that Class members would be vulnerable to the theft of their personal and financial information and the fraudulent use of the debit cards by third persons. Predictably, such theft and fraud occurred to the financial detriment of the Class members. To make matters worse, after unauthorized third parties illegally accessed the debit cards issued to EDD recipients and withdrew monies from their accounts, the Defendant allegedly failed to act reasonably to promptly address and remedy the situation, abide by the terms of its contract with the State of California, and fulfill promises made to EDD recipients. The Defendant made decisions which it knew would result in further harm to the Class, given that EDD benefits -- by their very nature -- were and are intended to provide monies to meet basic needs of living, the suit added. For the Plaintiff, the Defendant not only failed to abide by the terms of its contract with the State of California, it knowingly deprived unemployed Californians of the benefits for which they qualified and which were necessary to make ends meet. In sum, the Defendant entered into a contract with the State of California to administer the payment of EDD benefits to EDD recipients, negligently chose to use obsolete and non-secure technology for the delivery of the benefits through the use of magnetic stripe debit cards despite knowing that a significant percentage of the cards would be subject to theft and unauthorized use by third parties, failed to properly staff customer service and investigative resources to address claims of theft and unauthorized use, and then callously reacted, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a California citizen and resident of Stockton, California, who worked in construction doing project management and estimating prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Bank of America, N.A., is one of the largest banking associations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Fraysse, Esq. Maisie C. Sokolove, Esq. Amanda M. Plowman, Esq. KNOX RICKSEN LLP 2033 N. Main Street, Suite 340 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 433-2500 Facsimile: (925) 433-2505 BEACH PIZZA: Small Asks Court to Stay Class Certification Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jessica Small, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. Beach Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01306-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. staying the Local Rule 4.04(b) class certification deadline; 2. allowing the Plaintiff to conduct class certification discovery; and 3. permitting the Plaintiff and Defense counsel to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference and propose a discovery plan and timeline to the Court; or 4. extending the class certification deadline until 90 days after the filing of the post-settlement conference Case Management Report. Beach Pizza was founded in 1992. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jcMTJZ at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the putative class are: Nathan Spencer, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Riley Edward Kane, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC www.billerkimble.com 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com rkane@billerkimble.com - and - Gary R. Kessler, Esq. GARY R. KESSLER P.C. 31 Mistflower Lane Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 Telephone: (404) 909-8100 Facsimile: (404) 909-8120 E-mail: gkessler@martensonlaw.com BENA REST: Faces Morales Suit Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ RICARDO MORALES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BENA REST CORP. (D/B/A INDIAN TAJ), JASPAL SINGH (AKA JESSE), and BALVINDER SINGH (AKA BOBBY), Case No. 1:21-cv-00396-RPK-RML (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2021) seeks appropriate minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, the Plaintiff added. Mr. Morales is a former employee of the Defendants. He was employed as a delivery worker and food preparer at the Defendants' restaurant. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Indian Restaurant, located at 3725 74th Street, Jackson Heights, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 BIG HEART: Class Certification Bid Filing Deadline Set for Feb. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENNIE ROPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00406-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe entered an amended preliminary class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: February 7, 2022 2. Class Certification Motion February 28, 2022 Filing Deadline: 3. Class Certification Opposition: May 1, 2022 4. Class Certification Reply: July 18, 2022 5. Class Certification Hearing: September 6, 2022 The dates set in this Order are considered to be firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate, attached exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. The failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, says the Court. Big Heart Pet Brands is a producer, distributor and marketer of branded pet products for the U.S. retail market. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3arlsYR at no extra charge.[CC] BILL LEE KELLY: Response to Class Status Bid Due by April 22 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE S. McFARLAND, v. BILL LEE KELLY, Case No. 2:20-cv-02334 (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered a scheduling order: -- the Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is now due April 22, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] BIT DIGITAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming March 22, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bit Digital Inc. ("Bit Digital" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BTBT) securities between December 21, 2020 and January 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Bit Digital 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/bit-digital-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 to learn more about your rights. On January 11, 2021, J Capital Research issued a research report alleging, among other things, that Bit Digital operates "a fake crypto currency business" "designed to steal funds from investors." Though the Company claims "it was operating 22,869 bitcoin miners in China," J Capital alleged that "is simply not possible" and stated that "[w]e verified with local governments supposedly hosting the BTBT mining operation that there are no bitcoin miners there." On this news, Bit Digital's stock price fell $6.27 per share, or 25%, to close at $18.76 per share on January 11, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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 Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining operation; and (2) 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 Bit Digital securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 22, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] BLUE SKY: Law Firms Probe Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Shapiro and Liam Walsh, writing for Australian Financial Review, report that class action law firms say investors have been devastated by the billion-dollar destruction of Blue Sky that they have alleged was a result of the company providing a misleading picture of its financial health. Lachlan Lamont said law firm Piper Alderman was pushing on with its investigation into Blue Sky, its directors and auditors and had signed up more than 250 interested investors. The firm is one of three class action firms investigating the alternative asset manager that unravelled as forced disclosures largely validated short-seller accusations that it overstated the value of the assets it managed, and overcharged investors for the privilege. "It's been an absolute nightmare for some investors," Mr Lamont told The Australian Financial Review. "They have lost their life savings." Blue Sky at one stage had a market capitalisation of more than $1 billion, a number chainsawed to $14 million by the time shares were placed in a final trading halt in May 2019 as receivers seized the head company. Among the equity dusted was $100 million raised from institutions and professional investors in March 2018, when Blue Sky crowed about hitting a target of assets under management of up to $4.75 billion by June that year. Mr Lamont said some of the investors who tipped money in the raising at more than $11.50 a share had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, including some that had invested their entire self-managed super fund into the company. The raising occurred just weeks before short-selling research firm Glaucus published its explosive report into the company that triggered its rapid decline. 'Incompetent and reluctant' Mr Lamont said mum and dad investors' trust in the financial system had been "depleted by a company that we say has misrepresented its financial health". One Brisbane retiree who was recovering from surgery was incredulous. He had invested about $60,000 in Blue Sky shares through broker Morgans when the company raised $100 million of funds in March 2018. "Brokers have a vested interest to raise funds and they use their own clients to raise funds but we trust them," he said. The man blamed regulators for failing to act when it became apparent the company had inflated its asset values. "People like ASIC and other regulatory entities were just incompetent and reluctant to do anything." Mr Lamont said regulators were risk averse and reluctant to spend their resources if they were not going to effect change. Piper Alderman is one of three law firms investigating class actions, along with Gadens and Shine. Simon Theodore, of Gadens, said his firm was still looking at a class action and hopeful of filing in court in coming months. "We have signed up a fair chunk of institutional investors," Mr Theodore said. Everyday retail investors were also signing up, he said. He said allegations surrounded an alleged lack of transparency in disclosure documents to Blue Sky investors. The action was important because people will keep losing money as a result of companies lacking transparency. Entities needed to be held to account including in cases where the regulator has indicated it is not taking action, he said. Blue Sky was a manager of alternative assets such as property, private equity and venture capital and agricultural assets. It derived revenues from performance and management fees associated with those assets. The rapid growth of its assets made Blue Sky a market darling but the company's disclosures were opaque, as it refused to provide a breakdown of its assets. In late March, a short-seller report by US based Glaucus rocked confidence in the company. Eventually it was forced to reveal that almost a third of its assets consisted of undrawn loans associated with property developments. The company also relied on upfront fees from new fund raisings to cover operating costs. By June 2019, distressed fund Oaktree had called in receivers. In total, Blue Sky had 89 funds that ranged from property to private equity, a figure Mr Lamont called incredible. "It calls into question the level of due diligence they put into these projects," he said. "It's no wonder they failed as they were unable to keep the cash flows in perspective." Unitholders in those Blue Sky funds also lost money, although some had made profits or had their money returned. A 50-year-old Brisbane man said he lost half a million dollars in a management rights fund that owns a claim on rights of newly developed apartment blocks. He said the fund he had invested in was one of the three management rights funds but he lost the entire investment. "What irked me is that it wouldn't provide P&Ls [profit and loss statements]," the investor said. "I will never invest in a fund of any sort ever again. Just throw it in bank shares if the economy is going well. There's so much information out there you can make your own decisions." [GN] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 3 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Jan. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Boston Scientific Corporation ("Boston Scientific" or "the Company") (NYSE:BSX) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 24, 2019 and November 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before February 3, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here -- https://schallfirm.com/cases/boston-scientific-corporation-2/#case-form -- 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. Boston Scientific's LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System suffered from a dysfunctional product delivery system which the viability of the entire product line at risk. The Company overstated the continued profitability of the LOTUS system. 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 Boston Scientific, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] BRENTWOOD CARE: Daughter of COVID-19 Victim Files Class-Action -------------------------------------------------------------- James Keller at theglobeandmail.com reports that the last time Kathy Kaiser saw her mom in person was May 8 last year - just before Mother's Day. Ms. Kaiser visited her at the Brentwood Care Centre in northwest Calgary, where the 87-year-old had moved just months earlier due to lingering health problems after a heart attack. Ms. Kaiser stood outside as her mom, Lore Shymanski, looked down from a second-floor window, speaking on the phone. It was the closest they had been able to get to each other in two months. They were initially cut off by pandemic lockdowns; then, in April, the facility reported an outbreak. Ms. Shymanski died of COVID-19 in hospital 12 days after that final visit. "When my mom went into that facility, yes, she was 87, and yes, she had had a heart attack, but she was a vital, vibrant woman," Ms. Kaiser said in an interview. "She was able to take care of herself. And she went from that to being completely incapacitated. It was very frustrating to watch this really very fast decline." Ms. Kaiser has now filed a class action against the long-term care home and its owner, Intercare Corporate Group Inc., alleging the facility's negligence contributed to an outbreak that eventually infected 87 residents and staff and killed 18. The lawsuit, filed recently in the province's Court of Queen's Bench, is the latest in a series targeting long-term care homes, which account for the overwhelming majority of COVID-19 deaths in Alberta and across the country. Ms. Kaiser's class action is seeking damages of $25-million. The statement of claim contains allegations that have not been tested in court. The company said in a brief statement that it had received the lawsuit but otherwise declined to comment on the case. The statement said the company would be responding as part of the court process. The lawsuit blames low staffing levels, poor training and bad protocols for allowing the outbreak to take hold and spread. The suit alleges the Brentwood Care Centre also failed to provide sufficient personal protective equipment and did not prevent staff and contractors who were already infected or had been to other care homes from entering the facility. The statement of claim also outlines Ms. Kaiser's efforts to stay informed about her mother's case as she tried to get her moved to the hospital. The first she heard that anything was amiss at the facility was when she learned, in early April, that her mother had been swabbed for a COVID-19 test. More than a week later, the care home told her a staff member on another floor had tested positive. "It just scared the hell out of me," she said. "I just felt like they were sitting ducks at that point. . . . My heart sunk." Ms. Shymanski had a severe cough and complained about being very tired while the pair talked on the phone that day, which Ms. Kaiser told the on-duty nurse about, the statement of claim says. She also asked if a doctor had seen her mother and if she had been tested again for COVID-19. A nurse told her Ms. Shymanski was last tested on May 2 or 3, the document says. It was difficult to get information because no one was available for updates on weekends, the document says. As her mother's health deteriorated, Ms. Kaiser asked repeatedly to have her sent to the hospital but was told there was no reason to transfer her, according to the document. Meanwhile, Ms. Shymanski's cough was worsening, she was slurring her words and sounded confused. A nurse called Ms. Kaiser on May 17 and said her mother was not doing well and might need to be hospitalized. She was transferred later that day and died three days later. Ms. Kaiser said she was able to speak to her mother over a video chat while she was in the hospital. "That was beautiful," she said. "She couldn't talk and she was slurring her words, but she was touching our faces on the computer and crying." Ms. Kaiser's lawyer, Clint Docken, said other people connected to the care home have expressed interest in joining the class action. He said he hopes lawsuits like this one will be a wake-up call for the industry. "There are homes, or chains of care homes, that haven't had any cases, so obviously they're doing something right," Mr. Docken said. "There were warning signs. . . . The red flags were all there, and they just weren't heeded." Long-term care residents account for more than 60 per cent of all COVID-19 deaths in Alberta, and there have been outbreaks at almost three-quarters of the province's facilities - by far the highest rate in Canada - according to the National Institute on Ageing, a Ryerson University think tank. Nationally, the institute says, long-term care residents account for 69 per cent of all deaths, with 43 per cent of facilities reporting outbreaks. We have a weekly Western Canada newsletter written by our B.C. and Alberta bureau chiefs, providing a comprehensive package of the news you need to know about the region and its place in the issues facing Canada. [GN] BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS: Dipuma Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Dipuma, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01001, (D. N.J., January 21, 2021), seeks payment of unpaid minimum wages, prejudgement interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and all other appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Dipuma worked for Bridgestone as a Service Manager/Tire Manager from in or about February 2008 through in or about August 2019 at the stores in Brick, West Long Branch, Red Bank, Wall and Toms River, NJ. He was usually being scheduled for 8.5 to 10-hour shifts per day; regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek; and worked through his meal breaks despite punching in and out. He now claims payment of overtime at one-and-one-half times his regular rate of pay for the hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. operates more than 50 tire production facilities throughout the Americas. Bridgestone Retail Operations is a subsidiary of Bridgestone Americas, Inc. operating more than 2,000 stores throughout the United States specializing in consumer replacement tires and complete automotive maintenance and repairs.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LL C First & Market Building, Suite 650 100 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 Facsimile: (412) 774-1994 Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com CANADA: Faces Prison COVID-19 Outbreak Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Karen Pauls, writing for CBC News, reports that during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, Alex Doyle was doing his best to follow public health orders and keep himself and his young family free of infection. But last November, Doyle ended up back in Manitoba's Stony Mountain Institution north of Winnipeg after violating parole conditions for a drug trafficking and break and enter conviction. And that's where he may have inadvertently become a superspreader in Canada's worst outbreak so far in a federal penitentiary. Doyle's story, and the experiences of other Stony Mountain inmates who became infected, is part of the testimony being gathered in a class-action lawsuit against the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) on behalf of federal prisoners across the country. There have been more than 1,500 cases of COVID-19 in the federal prison system and more than 5,000 in the correctional system overall, according to University of Ottawa criminology professor Justin Piché, who has been tracking COVID-19 cases in Canadian prisons since the beginning of the pandemic. "The whole range, everyone was mad at me like it's my fault and it wasn't my fault," Doyle, 33, said of his experience in a series of telephone interviews with CBC News. Doyle arrived at Stony Mountain on Nov. 6. He was segregated in an isolation cell known by inmates as the hole. He was tested for COVID-19 nearly a week later and when it came back negative, he was moved to another area of the prison where he said one of the inmates had already tested positive for COVID-19. The first inmate at Stony Mountain tested positive on Nov. 10. Four days later, public health officials declared an outbreak. Inmates were locked down. They were allowed only 30 minutes out of their cells each day -- just enough time for a quick shower and maybe a call home, if the lineups weren't too long. On Nov. 20, when his 14-day quarantine was up, Doyle said he was moved to yet another medium security unit. Despite having a cough, he wasn't immediately tested for COVID-19, he said. It was a Friday and Doyle said he was told he would have to wait until Monday. During that weekend, Doyle said he socialized with other inmates during the 30 minutes they were allowed outside of their cells. They were all wearing masks, but in close quarters. "I thought I was good because [penitentiary staff] cleared me to come here and, you know, I was talking to my friends and stuff. That's probably how it got passed around," he said. Two days later, Doyle said his test came back positive. But by then, he said, he may have directly infected at least three people, and they, in turn, infected others. Les Bisson is one of the men who claimed to have developed symptoms within days. He started coughing up blood and had problems breathing, he said. His COVID-19 test on Dec. 2 came back positive. "I literally thought I was going to die a month ago. I sat there, looking at pictures, thinking how I'll never be able to be a father to my kids again," Bisson, 40, said with a break in his voice. He is serving eight years for drug trafficking. "We thought that was just on our range. Now, I know that that's happened on at least two of the ranges. . . . If it was once, it would be an accident. But to do something over and over and over again, you can't say that's an accident." 'I feel like they failed miserably' At its worst, nearly half of the 744 inmates at Stony Mountain had COVID-19, making it the largest outbreak at any federally run correctional facility in Canada. Piché found all of the infections reported by CSC at Stony in December were linked to the medium-security section of the institution, with more than 75 per cent of those prisoners infected. In December, an inmate died of COVID-19 complications, one of four deaths so far in prisons across the country. CBC News spoke with eight inmates over the past several weeks who said they believe the outbreak may have been caused by Stony Mountain relaxing the 14-day quarantine rules for new inmates and not testing frequently enough. "I feel like they failed miserably. Our range was green, which means no COVID, and they moved a COVID-positive inmate to our range," said 30-year-old Grayson Wesley, who is serving an eight-year sentence for unlawful confinement. Wesley said he was infected at the end of November and sent to hospital because he couldn't breathe. He still has trouble with his memory and worries about getting sick again, he said. "There's a new COVID variant out there. If that comes into the jail, it's going to spread like wildfire," he said. Mike Bourget also started feeling symptoms shortly after Doyle arrived on his unit, but said he wasn't tested for three days. When the results came back, he was positive. "My symptoms were not that bad, not compared to my fellow inmates here . . . . It is more of the mental aspect right now," said Bourget, who is serving a life sentence for second-degree murder. "My emotions and anxiety is like a roller-coaster." No officials at Stony Mountain were available for an interview, but a spokesperson for the CSC said inmates and staff are tested regularly, even those who are asymptomatic. "All inmates at Stony Mountain Institution were tested as they left isolation cells and before they were moved to a different range," Kelly Dae Dash wrote in an email to CBC News. "All inmates that tested positive for COVID-19 were immediately moved to a separate area of the institution which operated under single cell movement and was specifically designated for COVID-19 cases." Throughout the outbreak, inmates have also had wellness checks by health services staff. Oldest prison in Canada Part of the challenge in containing the virus is the age and layout of the institution. Of the four federal prisons built in the 19th century, Stony Mountain is the only one still operating. The minimum and maximum-security units are the newer areas of the institution. Cells have a door with a tiny window that separates an inmate from the hallway. However, in the original and oldest part of the facility, the medium security units have only bars that open onto a long hallway. It makes physical distancing difficult and there is constant air flow between cells. "These essentially operate as three distinct sites within a shared penitentiary reserve, which is why the outbreak was able to be contained to the original, stand-alone Stony Mountain Institution," Piche said. Saskatchewan Penitentiary in Prince Albert is of the same vintage and layout, and has had similar problems with COVID-19. There have been 247 cases and one death, although there are currently only seven active cases. Inmates in SaskPen's medium security units say they were putting blankets on the bars of their cells, but the correctional officers removed them. "They've ripped down all of our curtains and everything that would protect us from the airborne virus from the guys out there . . . sick on the unit," Bronson Gordon, 36, said in a phone call several weeks ago with prisoner advocate Sherri Maier, who shared a recording of the conversation with CBC News in Saskatchewan. Gordon is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. He said they asked the guard how long they'd have to live under such conditions, without access to mental health services or elders. "But he was just like, 'All you guys are going to be locked down 23½ hours for a . . . long time, because until you guys have no COVID-19 on the unit, this unit is going to be run like this,'" Gordon told Maier. Gordon was recently sent to a maximum security unit after a confrontation with a guard. He said conditions there are significantly better because it's a newer part of the prison and cells have doors with windows instead of bars. The CSC said it is looking into Gordon's allegations. Class-action lawsuit alleges negligence Inmates at federal institutions including Stony Mountain and SaskPen are now preparing written statements for a class-action lawsuit launched initially on behalf of an inmate at Mission Institution east of Vancouver. That lawsuit has since expanded to include the whole country except for Quebec, which operates under a different civil law system. A certification hearing is scheduled in Vancouver for January 2022. "Prisoners who are known to have COVID are put with prisoners who don't have COVID. That's by definition negligent," said Jeffrey Hartman, one of the lawyers involved in the suit. Hartman says there is no question the federal government has failed in its duty to protect inmates despite having adequate time to prepare for the second wave. Those systemic failures resulted in loss of life, widespread illness and unprecedented restrictions of inmates' rights, he said. A similar class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of inmates at Joliette Institution for Women north of Montreal. There are also two lawsuits launched by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society, alleging the federal government violated prisoners' charter rights by locking them down for so long as part of COVID-19 restrictions. None of the allegations in any of the lawsuits has been proven in court. Lockdown lifted Meanwhile, range representatives from Stony Mountain's inmate welfare committee said they were called to a meeting last week with senior prison management. They were told that with no active COVID-19 cases right now, some of the lockdown restrictions are being lifted. "The point of the meeting wasn't to apologize," said Mulata Ibrahim, 35, a unit rep who is serving a seven-year sentence for drug trafficking. "It was that they're trying to move forward and saying, 'What can we do now to make it easier for you guys?'" After the meeting, inmates started receiving food three times a day instead of just two, and many were able to go outside for the first time in months, Ibrahim said. In a statement, the CSC said it has put in place extensive infection prevention and control measures in its 43 institutions. They include: -- Mandatory mask-wearing for inmates and staff. -- Physical distancing measures. -- Active health screening of anyone entering institutions. -- Increased and enhanced cleaning and disinfection at sites. -- Training 250 employees to conduct contact tracing. -- Carrying out significant testing among inmates and staff, including asymptomatic individuals. The CSC has also completed its first phase of 600 COVID-19 vaccinations, which includes an unknown number of older, medically vulnerable inmates at Stony Mountain. The department had no comment on the class-action lawsuits. [GN] CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Seeks Extension of Class Certification Dates ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CRAGO, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for extension of class certification schedule as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' rebuttal report(s) March 12, 2021 concerning class certification (including any backup materials): Expert depositions concerning April 6-15, 2021 class certification: The Plaintiffs' class certification April 30, 2021 motion and Daubert challenges The Defendants' class certification June 30, 2021 opposition, Daubert challenges, and Daubert opposition: The Plaintiffs' reply brief, July 19, 2021, opposition to Daubert challenges, and reply to Daubert challenges of Defendants' expert(s): The Defendants' reply to Daubert August 16, 2021 challenges of Plaintiffs' experts: Class Certification Hearing On or after September 20, 2021 at a date and time convenient to the Court The Defendants produced expert disclosures and a report concerning class certification on December 7, 2020. The Plaintiffs require additional time to review and respond to the complete set of the Defendants' expert disclosures due to a family medical emergency that will prevent the Plaintiffs' expert from completing his rebuttal report on time, says the request. Charles Schwab is an American multinational financial services company founded in San Francisco, California. Headquartered in Westlake, Texas, Charles Schwab is the 13th largest banking institution in the United States with over US$3.3 trillion in client assets. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Mp45jy at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class, are: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Jonathan Rotter, Esq. Garth Spencer, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com jrotter@glancylaw.com gspencer@glancylaw.com - and - Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. David J. Stone, Esq. Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: eagel@bespc.com stone@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com Attorneys for the Plaintiff Scott Posson, are: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com Attorneys for the Defendants, are: Gilbert R. Serota, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: (415) 471-3170 Facsimile: (415) 471-3400 E-mail: gilbert.serota@arnold.porter.com4 - and - Alex J. Kaplan, Esq. Jon W. Muenz, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com jmuenz@sidley CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Ordered to Pay $39MM in Tax Class-Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications Inc. must pay 118 Missouri municipalities and St. Louis County a total of $39 million for underpaying business taxes since 2005, a St. Louis County circuit judge has ruled. The judgment issued by Senior Circuit Judge Michael Jamison found Charter excluded some taxable revenue from surcharges between 2005 and 2020. The case went to trial before a judge in August 2019. Among the findings, the court held that Charter's voice-over-internet protocol service establishes it as a telephone company and thus eligible to pay certain license taxes. A spokesperson for Charter declined comment. The lawsuit was filed in 2010 and later gained class-action status. The judgment says that after attorneys' fees and expenses, St. Louis County is owed $4.1 million in back taxes. Other top payouts include $1.6 million to St. Louis, $1.7 million to the city of St. Charles, $1.2 million to Chesterfield and $2.1 million to O'Fallon, Missouri. The city of Winchester, the original plaintiff in the lawsuit, is to receive about $17,500 after fees and expenses. About $10 million of the total judgment goes to the plaintiffs' attorney and legal fees. John Mulligan, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said, "We're pleased with the court's ruling." He said the judgment also establishes that Charter will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million annually in taxes to the cities in the class. The case likely will be appealed. [GN] CHILDREN'S GROUP: Paguada Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Dilenia Paguada, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Children's Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00568 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Children's Group operates a children's toys and games company that owns and operates the website, www.hearthsong.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which Children's Group ensures the delivery of throughout the United States, including New York State. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com COMMUNITY LOANS: Bid for Conditional Certification Due May 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bynum v. Community Loans of America Inc., et al, Case No. (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Rule 26(a) Disclosures is to be exchanged by Feb. 26, 2021. -- Amended Pleadings is due by May 21, 2021. -- The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is due by May 21, 2021. -- The Plaintiff's Expert Witness List is due by August 27, 2021. -- The Defendants' Expert Witness List is due by September 30, 2021. -- The motions for class certification and/or decertification is due by November 19, 2021. -- The discovery is due by Feb. 18, 2022. -- The dispositive Motions is due by March 18, 2022. -- The parties to file joint status report is due by March 18, 2022 if they choose not to file dispositive motion. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Community Loans of America Inc. provides management consulting services.[CC] CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Faces Class-action Lawsuit on Systemic Racism ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jessie Anton at CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit alleging systemic racism within the Correctional Service Canada (CSC) workplace has been launched on behalf of two Indigenous officers who have worked for the prison agency. In the statement of claim filed on Jan. 11 in Vancouver, plaintiffs Jennifer Sanderson, 44, and Jennifer Constant, 46, allege they and other racialized colleagues were treated as though they were "inmates and not like equals" by both management and staff at CSC, creating an "'us versus them' mentality." The statement goes on to say that Sanderson and Constant "have suffered serious infringement of their constitutional rights to equality, as well as serious physical and psychological damages, out-of-pocket expenses and loss of income." In an emailed statement, CSC spokesperson Kyle Lawlor said the prison agency is aware of the proposed class action lawsuit, but wouldn't comment further as it's before the courts. Lawlor noted measures are in place to help prevent and eliminate racism and discrimination at CSC. He listed the implementation of a "workplace wellness and employee well-being strategy" last fall, which aims to make addressing such complaints easier for CSC workers, as an example. "CSC does not tolerate these behaviours and is committed to providing a workplace that is healthy, supportive and free of harassment and discrimination," he wrote. "Fostering a work environment that is safe and inclusive for everyone is our top priority." 'Standing for many others' Aden Klein, the Vancouver-based lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said this suit comes after years of pain for his clients and many others who have been in their position. "There are countless instances of racism outside the CSC throughout Canada, but it's still looked at skeptically and not always believed," he said. "[Sanderson and Constant's] voices are standing for many others who don't feel comfortable coming forward, as the traumatization of it would be too severe." Sanderson, a mother of six and member of the Wahpeton Dakota Nation in Saskatchewan, claims that in her time working at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary between 2009 and 2017, she faced several "pointed racial remarks" and insensitive questions. Some of those included, "How come you aren't a drunk?" and "Why don't you wear feathers to work?" Constant, a member of the Deh Gah Gotie Dene Band of the Northwest Territories, is currently on leave from her job as an Indigenous liaison officer at the maximum-security Edmonton Institution. Before that, she worked as a corrections officer there from 2011 to 2016. "Her years with the CSC were grueling," the suit alleges. "During her employment with the CSC, Ms. Constant witnessed, experienced and endured from CSC management and staff racism, discrimination, and verbal and abusive behaviours that were malicious, vindictive and willful." The suit goes on to state that Constant was passed up for promotions as "she watched fellow non-racialized colleagues climb the ranks," including one position that was "meant for Indigenous CSC staff members." The next steps Before the suit can continue, the proposed class (all racialized employees who worked for or with CSC) would need to be certified by a judge. Klein said the timeline for the certification is still in the works, but will likely be delayed due to the pandemic. If it goes through the courts, Klein said they're hoping to see the claimants financially compensated and, as a result of the compensation, a "behaviour modification" by CSC and the federal government. "We want to see more adequate representation of racialized individuals in management and leadership positions," he explained, "so that if there are lower-level employees that are enduring racism, they have somebody who they can actually complain to who will take it seriously." [GN] COVIA HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio captioned Baron v. Deckard, et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-0238) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Covia Holdings Corporation ("Covia" or the "Company") f/k/a Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Fairmount Santrol") (OTC: CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA, FMSA) securities between March 15, 2016 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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 February 8, 2021 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Covia 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/covia-holdings-corporation/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On March 22, 2019, after the market closed, the Company revealed that it had "received a subpoena from the SEC seeking information relating to certain value-added proppants marketed and sold by Fairmount Santrol or Covia within the Energy segment since January 1, 2014." On this news, Covia's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or 6.9%, to close at $6.05 per share on March 25, 2019, on unusually heavy trading volume. On November 6, 2019, the Company disclosed that "the SEC has requested additional information and subpoenaed certain current and former employees to testify." On this news, Covia's stock price fell $0.07, or approximately 4.3%, to close at $1.56 per share on November 6, 2019. On June 29, 2020, after the market closed, the Company announced that it had entered into a comprehensive restructuring agreement and voluntarily filed petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On June 30, 2020, the NYSE delisted the Company, stating that "the Company is no longer suitable for listing" after the announcement that it was filing for bankruptcy. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.18, or 37.5%, from a close of $0.48 per share on June 29, 2020 to the open on the OTC on July 1, 2020 at $0.30 per share. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's proprietary ' value-added' proppants were not necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; (2) the Company's revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary 'value added' proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3) when Company insiders raised this issue , the Defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the issue; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Covia securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 8, 2021 ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] CRST INT'L: Cervantes Suit Gets Driver Class Conditional Status --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CERVANTES and MIKE CROSS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. CRST INTERNATIONAL, INC. And CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case No. 20-CV-75-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. C.J. Williams Judge entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to certify the collective, granting in part plaintiffs' motion for issuance of notice, and denying without prejudice to reassertion plaintiffs' motion for equitable estoppel. The Court specifies the following: 1. The class is conditionally certified as amended. The definition of the class must be amended to reflect the statute-of-limitations cut-off date adjusted for equitable tolling from the date of the filing of the instant motion and to exclude persons leasing more than one truck at a time to CRST. The Plaintiffs propose that the class here should be defined as follows: "all drivers who entered into independent contractor operating agreements ("ICOAs") with CRST Expedited, Inc. at any time on [or] after the date the terms set forth in the Plaintiff Cervantes' ICOA were added to CRST Expedited's ICOAs, which was at least October 10, 2014, if not earlier. The Court amended the class definition as as follows: "all drivers who entered into independent contractor operating agreements (ICOAs) with CRST Expedited, Inc. at any time on or after October 23, 2017, who have not leased more than one truck at a time to CRST;" 2. The Court denies plaintiffs' motion for equitable estoppel without prejudice to reassertion but grants plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling as of the date of the filing of the instant motion. 3. The Defendants must provide the plaintiffs with the first name, last name, address, and unique identification number of all potential plaintiffs in a columnized Excel spreadsheet within 10 days of this order. The Defendants must also provide plaintiffs with the phone numbers and partial social security numbers of Drivers whose mail is returned as undeliverable and, if necessary, Drivers who have the same name. 4. The Potential plaintiffs will have 120 days from the date notice issues to opt-in to this action. 5. The Plaintiffs are authorized to send the notice as amended above by mail and email and to send a reminder postcard to Drivers who do not reply within 21 days. The Defendants are ordered to send the proposed message through their Qualcomm system at the outset of the opt-in period and again after 21 days. 6. The court caption at the top of the notice may remain with the additional language instructing potential plaintiffs that they do not need to respond, or the parties may use plaintiffs' counsel's firm's letterhead, whichever the parties prefer. The Plaintiffs are current or former truck drivers for CRST, a motor carrier. CRST classified plaintiffs and other drivers as independent contractors, not as employees. At the start of their working relationship, CRST presented the Drivers with a single packet containing a Finance Lease (the Lease) and ICOA. The Lease gave the Drivers the option to lease a truck from CRST's subsidiary. The mandatory ICOA required Drivers to lease their trucks to CRST for use in hauling CRST's loads. This resulted in many, but not all, Drivers leasing a truck from CRST's subsidiary only to lease it back to CRST. The Plaintiffs allege this framework shifted all operating expenses and risk onto the Drivers and resulted in Drivers often earning less than the minimum wage or receiving no payment at all. CRST International is an American freight company based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Founded in 1955 by Herald and Miriam Smith, it is a privately held company with a current fleet of about 4,500 trucks and annual revenues of $1.5 billion. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ozf86M at no extra charge.[CC] DESTIN FIRE: Jensen FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN JENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DESTIN FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT, Case No. 3:20-cv-05661-RV-HTC (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roger Vinson entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and all similarly situated individuals employed by the defendant within the three year period immediately preceding the filing of this case; 2. approving the Notice of this case to be provided to all past and present employees covered by the CBA and all similarly situated firefighters; 3. directing the Defendant to disclose to the plaintiff the names, mailing addresses, cell-phone numbers and email addresses of all past and present employees covered by the CBA and all similarly situated firefighters employed by the defendant within the three year period immediately preceding the filing of this action so that the Notice may be forwarded to them; 4. directing the defendant to post a copy of the Notice in each of its firehouses in a conspicuous place where notices of wage and hour, workers' compensation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and other similar notices are posted; and 5. any similarly situated employees covered by the CBA and similarly situated firefighters shall have 90 days from the date the notice is mailed to submit their opt-in forms to join this case. The complaint alleges that the defendant failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees for working overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Court's amended order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39E0wPq at no extra charge.[CC] DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Sexual Abuse Suit in Penn. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sauder Schelkopf LLC and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Jan. 26 announced the filing of a federal class action sexual abuse lawsuit in Pennsylvania on behalf of six individuals and a putative class of thousands of other children across the U.S. against Devereux Foundation (a/k/a Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health) and QualityHealth Staffing, LLC. The complaint details multiple alleged violations of state and federal law, including assault; battery; failure to report child abuse; Title IX creation of a sexually hostile culture/heightened risk of sexual harassment; deliberate indifference to prior sexual harassment; negligence and failure to provide safe environment with adequate protection, supervision, and care; negligent hiring of unsuitable personnel; negligent retention of unsuitable personnel; negligent supervision; gross negligence; and negligent misrepresentation. "The appalling, widespread allegations of the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of vulnerable children entrusted to Devereux's care shine a light on this large-scale institutional child abuse," notes Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin, who represents the plaintiffs in the action. "Given its scale, securing immediate relief to stop any ongoing abuses from continuing is as important to our team as getting justice for those who have suffered the abuses at Devereux over the years and even decades." One of the largest behavioral health organizations in the country, Devereux has more than 7,500 staff members across 21 facilities in 13 states. Included among Devereux's facilities and programs are residential treatment centers, psychiatric hospitals, group homes, supported living communities, schools, special education centers, and outpatient programs that focus on troubled youth, including those with autism, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and specialty mental health needs. QualityHealth Staffing, LLC is a subsidiary of Devereux that was formed to assist Devereux with recruiting and retaining individuals to work in the field of behavioral health. Rather than fulfilling its promise and solemn responsibility to protect children among the country's most vulnerable youth, as the complaint alleges Devereux instead "exposed [vulnerable youth] to predators and abusers . . . failed to enact safety measures and other policies to protect the children, failed to adequately screen, hire, train, and supervise staff, and failed to fulfill its duties under state and federal law." As a result of Devereux's alleged misconduct, children in Devereux facilities across the country have been reportedly sexually abused - often by Devereux staff. As reported by the media, some sexual abuse cases against Devereux have already gone to court, including one that led to a jury verdict of $60 million for the plaintiff victim. Widespread media attention has focused on the sexual abuse allegations against Devereux; in August 2020, the Philadelphia Inquirer released a devastating report detailing decades of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse inflicted upon these especially vulnerable children by Devereux staff members. The report revealed that "at least 41 children as young as 12, and with IQs as low as 50, have been raped or sexually assaulted by Devereux staff members in the last 25 years." "Given not just the breadth and severity of the allegations against Devereux, but also the sheer number of children still residing under Devereux's control and supervision," notes Sauder Schelkopf partner Joe Sauder, who also represents the plaintiffs, "we are committed to moving this case forward and getting protection and justice for our clients and the larger class as quickly as possible." The complaint goes on to allege that after the Inquirer's August 2020 report was published, an additional 13 former Devereux students came forward about the sexual abuse they experienced. These children were as young as 8 years old when they were reportedly sexually abused. Twelve of the children were allegedly abused in Pennsylvania Devereux facilities, and one was allegedly abused in a Delaware facility. Seven of those children reportedly complained to Devereux staff or a social worker while the abuse was happening, but their complaints were allegedly ignored, and the abuse continued. The complaint includes allegations of the rape and sexual abuse of inpatient clients as well as abuses committed by fellow inpatients that were ignored and/or suppressed by Devereux staff and management. Some patients who raised such allegations claim they were not only disregarded but punished for initiating complaints, including the withholding of food, physical restraint, isolation, and even physical abuse. The lawsuit seeks damages as well as injunctive relief to enjoin Devereux and QualityHealth Staffing from continuing any alleged conduct that threatens imminent harm to the proposed class -- vulnerable children drawn from more than a dozen U.S. states. "Protecting children from abuse is the highest calling in our society," notes Lieff Cabraser partner Mark P. Chalos, who also represents the plaintiffs. "We intend to hold the wrongdoers accountable and to prevent them from endangering children in the future." Contacts: Joseph G. Sauder SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (888) 711-9975 jgs@sstriallawyers.com Annika K. Martin LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Tel. (212) 355-9500 akmartin@lchb.com [GN] EQT CORPORATION: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASBURY, et al., v. EQT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01005 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiffs' briefing; 2. denying without prejudice the motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Real Property - All Other Real Property. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs' failure to comply with Federal and Local Rules and procedures is problematical, and prejudicial. The Plaintiffs' deadline for moving for class certification is reset for Feb. 5. 2021. The Defendants' response now is due by March 8, 2021. The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, is due by March 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs' Motion to extend the page limit is granted, but only to the extent that both sides may submit an additional 10 pages for their opening briefs. Finally, the Defendants' Motion to strike the Plaintiffs' experts is denied as moot, without prejudice, the Court says. As to the putative experts, in renewing their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs must be prepared to offer good-faith, legally supportable arguments for proceeding in the face of any failures or deficiencies in complying with applicable Federal Rules; and, if there are none, to withdraw their reliance on the experts, the Court added. EQT is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport.[CC] EXXON MOBIL: Yoshikawa Sues Over Decline in Securities Value ------------------------------------------------------------ Mendi Yoshikawa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, DARREN W. WOODS, ANDREW P. SWIGER, and DAVID S. ROSENTHAL, Case No. 3:21-cv-00194-G (N.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2021), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Exxon securities between November 6, 2019 and January 14, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials, with regard to the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Exxon forced its employees to use unrealistic assumptions regarding the timelines for well drilling in the Permian Basin; (ii) the foregoing assumptions served to artificially inflate the value of the Company's well operations in the Permian Basin; (iii) the foregoing conduct, when revealed, subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation and oversight; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The complaint further asserts that on January 15, 2021, pre-market, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Exxon Draws SEC Probe Over Permian Basin Asset Valuation." The article reported that the SEC probe stemmed from a whistleblower complaint that, during a 2019 internal assessment, workers were forced to use unrealistic assumptions about how quickly wells in the Permian Basin could be drilled to reach a higher valuation, and that at least one worker who complained about the assumptions was fired. On this news, Exxon's stock price fell $2.42 per share, or 4.81%, to close at $47.89 per share on January 15, 2021. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Exxon securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Exxon explores for and produces crude oil and natural gas in the U.S. and abroad.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC 12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520 Dallas, TX 75251 Phone: (972) 521-6868 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com FACEBOOK INC: Illinoisans to Get $350 for BIPA Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Cole Lauterbach, writing for Chicago Crusader, reports that about 1.6 million Illinoisans with a Facebook page who joined a class-action lawsuit could get about $350 in the coming months as part of a settlement. The checks are from a $650 million settlement that alleged the social media giant violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. One out of every five eligible Facebook users filed a claim before the Nov. 23 deadline. Christopher Dore, partner at Edelson PC, said the turnout was high for a typical class action lawsuit. "There were 1.6 million claims filed, which is really remarkable for a class-action," he said. "Often in class actions, it's in the single digits." The figures were released during a final approval hearing in California federal. The payouts could still get tangled up further in court. "If there are no appeals, we hope that checks would be distributed in the next two-or-so months after that. If there are appeals, it becomes a little bit more unpredictable and, unfortunately, could extend out many more months after that," Dore said. Those who qualified aren't necessarily Illinoisans but could be former residents. To qualify for the class action, you had to be one of the approximately 7 million Facebook users that had a profile after June of 2011. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Illinoisans have left the state, most commonly heading to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, or neighboring states. They would qualify as long as they lived in the state for at least six months during that near-decade window. Dore said the estimated payout is still in line with their initial estimate of between $200 and $400 but was slightly lowered after a last-minute rush of Facebook users seeking class participation just before the deadline. The suit was initially filed in 2015 by Edelson, claiming Facebook's facial recognition feature was taking biometric data from users without their express permission, a central tenet of BIPA. Illinois' law is unique in that it's the only one of its kind that allows for private action, whereas other states rely on their attorney general to file suit. Fines for breaking BIPA start at $1,000 per instance and can be upgraded to $5,000 if it can be proven that the accused purposefully broke the statute. [GN] FEDERAL PACIFIC: Blair Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled YVETTE N. BLAIR, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL PACIFIC CREDIT COMPANY, LLC, CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., AND JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants, Case No. 20-4100 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. The putative class action arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff, Ms. Blair, received a letter from Convergent regarding a debt owned by Federal Pacific. Ms. Blair is subject to an alleged financial obligation arising from a Verizon account, although she disputes the obligation. The account allegedly went into default, and Federal Pacific purchased the debt from Verizon. Defendant Convergent sent Blair a collection letter. At the time the Letter was sent, a claim based on the debt would have been barred by the statute of limitations. In April 2020, Ms. Blair brought the suit against Federal Pacific, Convergent, and John Does 1 to 10, alleging violations of the FDCPA, which requires certain notifications and prohibits the use of false, deceptive or misleading representations or unfair practices to collect a debt. She alleges that Defendants violated Sections 1692 e, f, and g of the FDCPA. The Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that: (1) the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege a "debt" as defined in the Act; (2) the Letter clearly conveys to the least sophisticated debtor the identity of the original creditor and the amount of the debt; and (3) the Letter clearly conveys to the least sophisticated debtor the legal status of the debt, despite the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Defendants' first proffered basis for dismissal is that the complaint does not sufficiently allege that the obligation at issue is a "debt" under the FDCPA. District Judge Kevin McNulty agrees, and will grant the motion to dismiss on this basis. The Complaint alleges that the debt arose from matters "which were primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." Judge McNulty holds that these are legal conclusions, parroting the statutory language, not factual allegations. The only clue to the nature of the debt is the listing of "Verizon" as "original creditor." The Court might speculate as to the household nature of such a debt, but cannot do so consistent with the standards of Rule 12(b)(6). The Court will, therefore, dismiss the complaint, but without prejudice to an amendment that describes the underlying debt. Ms. Blair's complaint alleges that the Letter was misleading or unfair, relying on Sections e and f of the FDCPA, including 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2), (5) and (10) and Section 1692f(1). She argues that, given the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Letter might mislead the reader as to the status of the debt, in two respects: (1) its offer to "discount" the debt, and (2) its offer to "satisfy" the account. According to the Opinion, the front of the Letter prominently boxes or highlights three "ways to pay" and three "opportunities," which consist of payment plans. The former are in the body of the Letter, and the latter in the detachable payment coupon. These are all options for payment; a fourth option, however, might be doing nothing while suffering no legal repercussions at all. As to the disclosure of that fourth option, a factor favorable to the Defendants is the Letter's notification, on the second page, that because of the age of the debt, neither Federal Pacific nor Convergent can sue on it or report it to a credit reporting agency. That paragraph also vaguely warns that, "in many circumstances," making "certain payments" on the debt or promising to pay it might revive the creditor's right to sue. The issue then becomes whether that disclosure, placed in the legal language on the back of the Letter, is prominent enough or clear enough to negate any misleading effect that might be found. Judge McNulty writes that he does not resolve these issues in advance of any amended complaint. Rather, he states them as issues that should be considered in connection with preparation of any amended complaint, as well as any motion challenging it. These issues may eventually require resolution -- whether legally, via motion to dismiss, or factually, via summary judgment or trial. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted based on the failure to allege factually that this is a household debt. That dismissal is entered without prejudice to the filing of a proposed amended complaint within 30 days. In light of the discussion, a formal motion to amend will not be required. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4xh9o95 from Leagle.com. FORD MOTOR: Weidman Wins Protective Order in Suit Over Brake Defect ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled PAUL WEIDMAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-12719 (E.D. Mich.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan issued an Opinion and Order resolving several motions and requests, including granting of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Protective Order. The Plaintiffs are purchasers and lessees of 2013 through 2018 Ford F-150 trucks. They allege that the Defendant was aware of, and failed to disclose, a dangerous defect in the front brake master cylinder of the Plaintiffs' F-150 trucks. In their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege the brake master cylinder in the Class Vehicles contain a defective sealing mechanism that is inadequate to prevent brake fluid from leaking out and into the brake booster and other components such as the reservoir. The defect results in an extremely hazardous situation in which a Class Vehicle's brakes will fail to properly function. In addition to alleging that the Defendant knew and failed to disclose the master cylinder defect, the Plaintiffs further assert that the Defendant's recall was ineffective, both because it failed to cover all Class Vehicles, as well as because the proposed repair does not resolve the issue. In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The claims that remain are the Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims. In April 2020, the Defendant sought the Plaintiffs' agreement in regard to the entry of a protective order for the production of documents containing Ford's confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. The parties lodge various attacks against each other regarding the delay in reaching an agreement regarding entry of a protective order. The Court's October 27, 2020 Case Management Order set February 26, 2021, as the discovery cutoff and January 4, 2021, as the deadline for expert reports. On September 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production of Documents on Defendant. The Plaintiffs served 61 Requests to Produce, which included 37 subparts, as well as served 8 Interrogatories. On October 26, 2020, the Defendant served its Responses and Objections to the Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have yet to produce any documents responsive to the Plaintiffs' Requests to Produce Nos. 2-6, 8-10, 12-15, 20-39, 42-43,2 46-48, and 56-59, which seek reports, analyses, electronic communications and warranty data. The Plaintiffs further complain that the Defendant has failed to fully respond to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatory Request No. 2. The Defendant counters that it timely responded to each and every discovery request, along with asserting objections as to why the Plaintiffs' requests were otherwise overly broad, unduly burdensome, or sought irrelevant information. The Defendant argues that it has not produced the documents responsive to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests at issue herein because of the failure of the parties to reach an agreement concerning the proposed protective order's language. On December 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to extend the expert deadline cutoff for a period of 90 days due to the Defendant's outstanding discovery production. On January 4, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to extend in part and extended the expert report deadline to January 18, 2021. Because the Defendant has failed to fully respond to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests, the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Court's order granting a short extension to the expert report deadline on January 7, 2021. The parties agree that entry of a protective order is appropriate in order to protect the production of confidential and trade secret information. However, the parties have reached an impasse concerning three issues. Specifically, the parties cannot agree on the categories of individuals, who may access Ford's confidential information, the right of Ford to unilaterally redact information it deems "completely irrelevant Highly Confidential Information unrelated to the claims, defenses, or allegations at issue in this case," and finally, the process by which the parties may file confidential information with the Court. The Plaintiff seeks to include in the definition of qualified persons, who may access confidential discovery material in subparts (g) and (h) of the proposed protective order's paragraph number 7 as: (g) Custodians, authors and recipients of the documents, and (h) When reasonably necessary, a deponent or testifying witness, former employee of a Party, or other potential deponent or witness who is already familiar with or reasonably expected to know the information reflected in the Discovery Material, as demonstrated by the fact that: (i) he or she was identified in the course of discovery as having previously received or having knowledge of (a) the designated material, (b) information contained in it, or, (c) in the case of material concerning a meeting, telephone call, or other communication, as having participated in such meeting, call, or communication; or (ii) the Discovery Material makes specific reference to the conduct or statement of the deponent or testifying witness. The parties' next dispute concerns the redaction of information deemed irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action. The Plaintiffs' proposed language is consistent with the Court's decision in Gamboa v. Ford Motor Company, No. 18-cv-10106, supra. Specifically, the Plaintiffs' proposed paragraph 14 states in relevant part: "Defendant may redact Highly Confidential information if it is irrelevant under these three criteria: (1) the information is not related in any way to Ford's braking systems, (2) the information involves confidential proprietary information of a nonparty that Ford is bound by agreement, order, or law to protect, and (3) it is readily apparent that the information falls within (1) and (2). If it is not readily apparent to Plaintiffs that redacted information is irrelevant under this criteria, the Parties must meet and confer before bringing any dispute under this paragraph before the Court." Upon review of the parties' briefs, the Court rejects the Defendant's proposed language in paragraph 14. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain explains that the Defendant's proposed language for redacting Highly Confidential information will cause further delay of the instant proceedings by requiring multiple meet and confers and Court involvement if the parties are at an impasse concerning Ford's determination that the information is irrelevant. The parties' proposed protective order accounts for "Highly Confidential" designations and restricts the individuals, who are able to view these documents. Because of this protection, relevance redactions are unnecessary and improper, and this district has rejected the propriety of such redactions. Ford's assertion that this authority is inapposite because these decisions involved "extensive redactions" or a non-party's redactions is unavailing, Judge Drain holds. The number of redactions or whether said redactions are made by a party or non-party are irrelevant to the outcome of these cases. The case law demonstrates that relevance redactions are generally inappropriate, particularly here, where the Plaintiffs have agreed to Ford's request for a Highly Confidential designation that severely restricts access to this type of document. Based on these considerations, the Court will adopt the Plaintiffs' proposed paragraph 14 and will reject the Defendant's proposal, which provides the Defendant unfettered discretion to redact purported irrelevant information causing unnecessary burden to the Plaintiffs should they suspect a redaction is improper and continued delay with the production of discovery. Finally, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement concerning the filing of confidential material with the Court. The Plaintiffs' proposal to follow Local Rule 5.3 for filing documents under seal is appropriate. The Defendant seeks to require an onerous process for submission of such documents with unworkable deadlines and the potential for more court involvement and delay. The Court has adopted and approved of a procedure for filing confidential material under seal and Ford fails to persuade this Court that this case warrants a departure from the Court's local rules. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Plaintiffs' proposed paragraph 16 and will reject Ford's burdensome and unworkable process for filing confidential information with the Court. In their Motion to Compel, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant has failed to produce any electronic communications or reports and analyses related to the design, testing, validation and release of all iterations of the master cylinder, the durability, reliability and life cycle, including the projected, expected or anticipated useful life of the Class Vehicles' brake system, specifics concerning quality control measures undertaken during the master cylinder's manufacturing process, and finally, electronic communications related to the master cylinder and its purported defect. The Plaintiffs further complain that Ford indicated it would produce the requested documents within sixty days of the Plaintiffs' requests to produce. However, it has been more than 120 days, and the Defendant has yet to complete its production. Moreover, the Plaintiff highlights that Ford's reliance on the absence of a protective order to support its delay in production is disingenuous considering the Defendant's proposed language was unsupported by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court's local rules and the Gamboa decision. Judge Drain holds, because the Plaintiffs' claims and discovery requests relate to the design, testing, validation, and release of the relevant brake system components, which by their nature predate the release of the first sale of a class vehicle in 2013, their requests are not, as argued by the Defendant, a fishing expedition. The Plaintiffs' claims require that they establish what the Defendant knew about the brake Master Cylinder defect and when it knew it. The Plaintiffs' requests seeking "all documents and communications," related to "the design of the Class Vehicle's Master Cylinder assembly and each component part within the assembly," are targeted to the issues herein and that involve Class Vehicles spanning a six-year period. Thus, the Plaintiffs' discovery requests are not overly broad or disproportionate. For these reasons, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. The Plaintiffs also move for reconsideration of this Court's January 4, 2021 Order granting in part their motion to extend the expert report deadline in this Court's October 27, 2020 Case Management Order. The Plaintiffs argue that at the time the Court issued its January 4, 2021 decision, Ford had yet to produce the outstanding document requests even though the record before the Court suggested that the Defendant would make its document production no later than December 25, 2020. Judge Drain states that the Court was misled when it rendered its decision because the record before the Court at that time suggested that the Defendants had already completed their document production in response to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests. This amounts to an obvious defect. The correction of this defect will result in a different result -- namely, an extension to the case management order's deadlines, including the expert report deadlines. The parties spend much of their briefing lodging accusations against each other as to where the blame should be placed for the outstanding document production, Judge Drain notes. The Defendant claims the Plaintiffs were dilatory in responding to its proposed protective order. However, based on the arguments raised by Ford in regard to the protective order's proposed language, the Court deems Ford's positions untenable. Ford's position with regard to the outstanding issues was unreasonable and, therefore, the delay in production based on the failure to enter a protective order cannot solely be placed on the Plaintiffs. Judge Drain observes that more than 120 days have passed since the Plaintiffs served their requests to produce, and the bulk of the outstanding production concerns discovery relevant to the brake master cylinder system's design, testing, validation, and release of the relevant brake system components, among other relevant issues related to the brake master cylinder, as well as all electronic communications concerning same. An extension to the case management order's dates is, therefore, warranted. The Court will also grant the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated in the Court's Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of a Protective Order is granted, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is granted. Ford will produce discovery responsive to the Plaintiffs' Requests to Produce Nos. 2-6, 8-10, 12-15, 20-39, 42-43, 46-48, and 56-59, as well as the Plaintiff's Interrogatory Request No. 2 no later than February 5, 2021. The Plaintiff's deadline to submit a proposed protective order consistent with the Opinion was on January 27, 2021, at noon. The Court will require an expedited briefing schedule concerning the Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of ESI Protocol, filed on January 15, 2021. It will schedule a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of ESI Protocol for February 3, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. The Court's October 27, 2020 case management order's dates are amended as follows: * Plaintiffs' expert report deadline: March 22, 2021; * Defendant's expert report deadline: April 19, 2021; * Discovery cutoff: May 10, 2021; * Dispositive and Class Certification Motions due: June 1, 2021; * Facilitation with Robert F. Riley of Riley and Hurley, P.C.: May 5, 2021 per stipulated order at ECF No. 95; * Hearing on Dispositive and Class Action motions: July 28, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.; * Settlement Conference with Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford: August of 2021; * Motions in Limine deadline: September 1, 2021; * Final Pretrial Order due: September 1, 2021; * Final Pretrial Conference: September 7, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.; and * Jury Trial (1-2 full weeks): September 21, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. The parties are advised that all the policies and procedures set forth in the Court's October 27, 2020 Case Management Order remain in effect. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y34xfkl5 from Leagle.com. FORSTER & GARBUS: Wins Summary Judgment in Chiofalo FDCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH A. CHIOFALO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, RONALD FORSTER and MARK A. GARBUS, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-487(SJF)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 24, 2019, Plaintiff Chiofalo commenced thw putative class action against Defendants Forster & Garbus ("F&G"), Forster and Garbus, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. F&G sent a letter, dated January 24, 2018, to the Plaintiff seeking to collect a balance of $3,655 in the effort to collect a credit card debt he owed to Barclays Bank Delaware ("BBD"). The upper right corner of the Collection Letter reads, "FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP A NEW YORK LAW FIRM" and lists the names of attorneys associated with F&G. Below that, the letter provides, "BALANCE DUE as of January 24, 2018 203a $3,655.11", below that is a reference number, below that is the last four digits of an account number, and directly below the account number it states, "Re 203a BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE." The main text of the letter reads, in relevant part, "Your account has been placed with this office for collection. If you request this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. Please note that we are required, under federal law, to advise you that we are debt collectors." A detachable section at the bottom of the letter states, "MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FOSTER & GARBUS LLP as attorneys" and again provides the balance due and states, "Re 203a BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE." The letter does not include any language indicating that the debt was transferred, sold or assigned. Initially, since the Plaintiff does not specifically oppose, or otherwise address, so much of the Defendants' motion as seeks summary judgment dismissing his claims seeking to impose personal liability upon Forster and Garber, they seemingly abandoned those claims, District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein notes, citing Jackson v. Federal Express, 766 F.3d 189, 198 (2d Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the branch of the Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the Plaintiff's claims seeking to impose personal liability upon Forster and Garber is granted and the Defendants are granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Plaintiff's claims seeking to impose personal liability upon Forster and Garber in their entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff claims that the Collection Letter violates the provisions of the FDCPA by failing to properly identify the creditor. Judge Feuerstein finds that the debt collection letter at issue clearly identifies the creditor, inter alia, by twice providing, in bold, capital letters, "Re 203a BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE," both near the top of the letter and on the detachable payment slip; by providing the last four (4) digits of the BBD account number directly above the "Re" line at the top of the letter; and by indicating, also in capital letters, the balance due several lines above the "Re" line, at both the top of the letter and on the detachable payment slip. Since the context of the Collection Letter, read as a whole, implicitly makes clear that Barclays Bank Delaware is the current creditor, the Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of the FDCPA, Judge Feuerstein opines. Accordingly, the branch of the Defendants' motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 dismissing the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims alleging that the Collection Letter fails to properly identify the creditor is granted and the Defendants are granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing those claims in their entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff also alleges that the collection notice he received was misleading in violation of the FDCPA because it contained the phrase "Balance Due as of January 24, 2018," which could lead the least sophisticated consumer to falsely believe that his balance might increase. However, the first sentence in the section of the Plaintiff's opposition brief addressing the "as of" language states, "It is undisputed that the debt was static," Judge Feuerstein notes. Thus, the branch of the Defendants' motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 dismissing the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims challenging the "as of" language in the Collection Letter as misleading is granted and the Defendants are granted judgment as a matter of law dismissing those claims in their entirety with prejudice. For the reasons set forth in the Order, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 is granted and the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court will enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y24kr555 from Leagle.com. FRESH FARMS: March 26 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANYALE YARGER, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. FRESH FARMS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02767-JAR-JPO (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending until March 26, 2021 the time to file a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On August 12, 2020, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order stating that "Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this Order to conduct class certification and damages-related discovery and file a renewed motion for class certification." Ninety days from the Court's August 12, 2020 Memorandum and Order was November 10, 2020, at which time Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to extend this deadline by 30 days, until December 10, 2020. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff sought a second extension of 45 days, or until Monday January 25, 2021, for the time period by which Plaintiff is to file a renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Court granted this extension. Following the prior extensions, the parties have continued to communicate about outstanding discovery requests and also about a potential individual settlement. This third extension is sought to facilitate and hopefully conclude these discussions. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NOPFJO at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are: Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. BOULWARE L AW LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Tele/Fax: (816) 492-2826 E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com jeremy@boulware-law.com GC SERVICES: Feb. 4 Extension to Class Status Bid Opposition Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DiDonato, Francis v. GC Services Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 1:20-02154-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants GC Services Limited Partnership and Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. asks the court for a one-week extension of time for them to serve their oppositions to the motion of Plaintiff Francis DiDonato seeking class certification from January 28, 2021 until February 4, 2021. The Defendants say that no previous requests for extension of this deadline have been made. They have communicated with the Plaintiff's counsel and he consented to our request. Moreover, the parties agreed that if the Defendants' request is granted, the Plaintiff's time to serve his reply should also be extended by one week from February 9, 2021 to February 16, 2021, the Defendants added. GC Services provides adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues. A copy of the joint letter motion dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pRTSLb at no extra charge.[CC] GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS: Kyo Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyo Hak Chu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Golden State Warriors, LLC and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00521 (N.D. Cal., January 21, 2020), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action, together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Golden State Warriors operates "Warriors Shop." Its website -- https://shop.warriors.com/ -- provides consumers with access to new styles, featured deals, men's shoes and accessories, women's shoes and accessories, outdoor shoes, golf shoes, and sale items. Brooks is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Criticizes Halliburton Fraud Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that Goldman Sachs informed the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 25 that the court's 2014 ruling in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund has been, well, a flop. But the bank told the justices they can change that! What the Supreme Court needs to do, Goldman's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison argued in the bank's opening brief in Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, is remind lower courts just how much leeway defendants are supposed to have in opposing shareholder fraud class actions. In the 2014 decision, as you surely remember, the Supreme Court left intact the structural premise of securities class actions, in which shareholders are entitled to a presumption of reliance on defendants' alleged misrepresentations as long as they can show the company's shares traded in an efficient market. (That premise, in turn, is based on the idea that in an efficient market, the share price reflects all public information.) But the Halliburton decision emphasized that defendants can rebut that presumption of reliance -- and thus prevent shareholders from being certified as a class. The Supreme Court said in Halliburton that securities class action defendants are entitled to offer evidence that their alleged misrepresentations did not actually affect the price of their companies' shares. If defendants can break the chain between its share price and the alleged fraud, the court said in Halliburton, then shareholders can't litigate as a class. Since that 2014 decision, Goldman said in the January 25 brief, Halliburton has benefited defendants in a grand total of five cases, one at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co, 818 F.3d 775) and four in trial courts. By Goldman Sachs' reckoning, no securities class action defendant has managed to rebut the presumption of reliance since 2018. And they've had plenty of chances: Shareholders have filed more than 2,000 securities class actions since the Supreme Court's Halliburton ruling. The record in cases positing a so-called price maintenance theory is even worse for defendants, Goldman said. These cases, as I've explained, are a twist on classic shareholder class actions in which plaintiffs allege that a company's share price rose in response to a fraudulent statement and then fell when the truth was disclosed. In price maintenance cases, shareholders allege that a company's misrepresentations allowed its share price to remain at an unwarranted height. The extent of the fraud, according to price maintenance theory, is revealed by the drop in the company's share price when the truth emerges. This theory -- which underlies the Goldman class action, as I'll explain -- has become increasingly prevalent in shareholder fraud class actions in the last several years, with endorsements by the 2nd, 7th and 11th Circuits. A 2019 Harvard Law Review study found that 60% of a sample of shareholder class action filings between 2014 and 2017 were based on price maintenance. And Halliburton has proved to be singularly ineffective in defeating class certification in these cases. According to Goldman's brief, defendants in price maintenance cases have never successfully invoked Halliburton to defeat class certification. The problem, according to Goldman, is that lower courts have failed to strike the proper balance between Halliburton and previous Supreme Court decisions. In 2013's Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans, the court held that shareholders are not required to prove the materiality of a defendant's alleged misrepresentations in order to be certified as a class. And in a precursor to the 2014 Halliburton decision, the justices said in a 2011 decision known as Halliburton I that shareholders don't have to prove price impact at the class certification stage. Goldman argued that its case exemplifies the imbalance. Goldman shareholders allege that the company's share price was artificially inflated by statements about its business principles, such as avoiding conflicts of interest and putting customers first. Shareholders posited that when Goldman fell under government investigation for an alleged conflict of interest in the structuring of four collateralized debt offerings, including the Abacus CDO that led the bank to a $550 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the market realized the falsity of the bank's statements of business principle. They attributed declines in Goldman's share price to the allegedly fraudulent statements of business principles. Goldman contends - and has expert testimony to back the contention - that declines in its share price were unrelated to those statements. The bank's experts offered evidence that the market did not react to dozens of news reports on Abacus and other CDOs but was spooked when the government began investigating. The share price drop, according to the bank, wasn't because investors realized Goldman's generic statements were false. Those statements, it argued, were not material to investors and had no impact on the price of its shares. When the 2nd Circuit upheld certification of the shareholder class in Goldman's case, the majority said the bank's emphasis on the generic, anodyne nature of the alleged misstatements was an attempt to "smuggle" materiality into litigation over class certification. That approach, Goldman told the Supreme Court, undermines the intent of the justices' 2014 Halliburton decision, making it virtually impossible for defendants to rebut the presumption that investors relied on alleged misstatements. The bank called on the Supreme Court to make it clear to the lower courts that they must take defendants' evidence on materiality and price impact into account during class certification litigation. Amgen and Halliburton I hold that investors are not required to prove those elements at the class certification stage, but, Goldman argued, those rulings do not preclude trial and appellate courts from looking at defendants' evidence rebutting the presumption of reliance. Defendants' price impact evidence at the class certification stage, Goldman said, may overlap with evidence on the merits of shareholders' claims. It's time, the bank said, for the Supreme Court to clarify that "a court may not refuse to consider evidence relevant to price impact merely because it is also relevant to materiality and loss causation." I asked the Arkansas pension fund's Supreme Court counsel, Thomas Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, for comment on Goldman's brief but didn't hear back. [GN] GOODRX HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GoodRx Holdings, Inc. ("GoodRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GDRX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-00175, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise, acquired GoodRx securities between September 23, 2020 and November 16, 2020, 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 GoodRx securities during the Class Period, you have until February 16, 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. GoodRx purports to provide consumers with free information and tools that allow them to compare prices and save on their prescription drug purchases. The Company purports to provide its users with these services via apps and websites that display prices and discounts at local and mail-order pharmacies for both insured and uninsured Americans. At the time of the Company's September 2020 initial public offering ("IPO"), unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") was developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. 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) Defendants were aware that Amazon had been in the process of developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service, and timed the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business; (ii) accordingly, Defendants timed the IPO to create artificial demand for the common shares sold therein; (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 17, 2020, just weeks after GoodRx completed its IPO, Amazon announced two new pharmacy offerings, a Prime Rx plan and a discount card program, which, among other things, would compete directly with GoodRx's platform by making it "simple for customers to compare prices and purchase medications for home delivery, all in one place." That same day, CNBC.com reported that Amazon Prime members would now have access to discounts of up to 80% on generic medications and up to 40% on brand-name prescriptions through its relationship with the Inside Rx savings program. This competitive pricing posed a severe threat to GoodRx's business model. On this news, the price of GoodRx common stock fell $10.51 per share, or 23%, to close at $36.21 per share on November 17, erasing more than $4 billion of the Company's market capitalization on extremely heavy trading volume of over 23 million shares traded. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] GOODRX HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Reminds of February 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Jan. 26 disclosed that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=12423&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021 Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020 Allegations against NAK include 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. GoodRx Holdings, Inc (NASDAQ:GDRX) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12423&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 16, 2021 Class Period: September 23, 2020 - November 16, 2020 Allegations against GDRX include that: at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants' knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical business, and their misleading statements about GoodRx's competitive position made contemporaneously with that knowledge, defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements alleged herein were made willfully and caused GoodRx common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:QS) If you suffered a loss, contact us at: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12423&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021 Class Period: November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020 Allegations against QS include that: (1) that the Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Zhang Investor Reminds of March 15 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law on Jan. 26 announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of GTT Communications, Inc. (NYSE: GTT) between May 5, 2016 and November 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=gtt-communications-inc-2&id=2554 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=gtt-communications-inc-2&id=2554 If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court before the March 15, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that- the Company's internal controls suffered from issues related to the recording and reporting of Cost of Telecommunications Services; the Company's previously reported Cost of Telecommunications was inaccurate or accounted for unsupported adjustments; inadequate internal controls would result in delays in the Company's 10-Q quarterly reports; and as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 info@zhanginvestorlaw.com tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] HOME DEPOT: Bid to Continue Class Certification Deadlines Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE MOSHTAGH, an individual on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01205-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered an order denying motion to continue class certification deadlines. The Court said, "Home Depot has failed to demonstrate diligence in obtaining the surveillance videos in question. The Court is well aware of the challenges caused by the current pandemic and the safety measures that must be taken. However, Home Depot's position that it cannot collect video evidence from stores that are currently open to the public strikes the Court as poorly supported and potentially disingenuous. It is not enough for Home Depot to submit a paragraph from an HR director stating that it is impossible to send in "specialized personnel" to some backroom of an open and operating Home Depot. The Court can easily imagine how such would be possible to perform in a safe way. It is also not clear from the record why existing staff at a Home Depot cannot access or handle the security footage of the store they run and send it to the "specialized personnel." Home Depot has had many months to work out a way to do this safely. What Home Depot has submitted in terms of evidence to support this Motion fails to demonstrate diligence. Given all of the above, and after reviewed the briefing, along with the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and orders that Defendant Home Depot's Motion to Continue Class Certification Deadlines, is denied." This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Home Depot's Motion to Continue Class Certification Deadlines. This case was originally filed in 2019 with a class certification deadline in April 2020. Class certification deadlines were continued twice by stipulation of the parties, the second time due to difficulties caused by the pandemic. Home Depot is the largest home improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools, construction products, and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ao69QJ at no extra charge.[CC] HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT: Becerra-South Settlement Has Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issues final approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit entitled APRIL BECERRA-SOUTH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOWROYD-WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC., d/b/a APPLEONE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. CV 18-08348-CJC(FFMx) (C.D. Cal.). On January 25, 2021, the Court conducted a hearing on the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, including Plaintiff's Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs. It approves the Settlement memorialized in the Joint Stipulation of Class and Representative Action Settlement and the Notice of Class Action Settlement. It also certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure: all individuals formerly employed by Defendant Howroyd-Wright Employment Agency, Inc. in California who were paid hourly and who were beneficiaries of The Act 1 Group, Inc.'s VEBA Trust between May 16, 2014 to October 5, 2020. The Court approves Michael Gould of Gould & Associates, PLC, as the Class Counsel, and Plaintiff April Becerra-South as the Class Representative, including enhancement award of $5,000. It appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator. It approves the $10,500 Claims Administration Fee to be paid to CPT Group. The Court approves the Class Counsel's request for Attorney's Fees in the amount of $144,170.45 (25% of the common fund after deducting counsel's and the settlement administrator's fees) and $12,818.21 in Costs. Lastly, it approves the $7,500 LWDA Payment. A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2m93bj2 from Leagle.com. ICHIBAN GROUP: Response to Class Status Bid Extended to Feb. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zhang v. Ichiban Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00148 (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A D'Agostino entered an order granting the Defendant's request for an extension of time to submit a response to plaintiff Motion to Certify Class: -- The Defendant's response deadline is extended to Feb. 4, 2021. -- The Plaintiff's Reply to Response to Motion deadline is extended to Feb. 11, 2021. -- The motion will be decided on the submission of the papers only. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ichiban Group is one of the pioneers in the Active Participation Management.[CC] KANYE WEST: Faces Class-Action Lawsuits Over Staff's Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- dailymail.co.uk reports that Kanye West is facing two class-action lawsuits and could be hit with $30 million in damages over claims he mistreated and failed to pay up to 1,000 performers and backstage staff at his popular Service shows. The lawsuits relate to around 500 performers and 300 backstage staff who worked at the 43-year-old rapper's extravagant, part Christian worship and part live performance shows that he has been taking across the US since 2019. Lawyers for the workers claim that during West's first 'opera', the 'Nebuchadnezzar' at The Hollywood Bowl, in Los Angeles, in November 2019, he violated strict employment laws in California for hundreds of performers and backstage crew including hair stylists, make-up artists and costume designers, as well as actors hired to sit in the audience. Allegations include not paying hundreds of employees on time, or 'at all' in some cases, as well as not granting the overtime wages, meal and rest breaks and business expenses to which they were legally entitled as employees in the state, rather than individual contractors. It is estimated West could face up to $30 million in damages if he contests the lawsuits, a source told The Sun. In August last year, West was also sued by MyChannel Inc. who claimed that West stole some of its technology for his Service show after its employees worked on it, unpaid, for six-months. One lawsuit, filed by LA employment lawyer Frank Kim in August, concentrates on the performers, which totals over 500 people. The other, filed by entertainment attorneys Harris & Ruble, centres on behind-the scenes staff of around 300 people. Hair stylist Raina Leon, representing the backstage employees, claimed in documents filed in July last year at The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, that West, as well as affiliate companies Live Nation Worldwide, Art Partner, and producers, did not pay her the $550 she was owed for 120 days. When she was paid, Leon claims that she and other employees were charged $20 to cash their own pay checks, resulting in a loss. Michael Pearson, representing the class action for the performers, claims in documents seen by Mail US that he and other performers worked two days without meal or rest breaks and were paid $500 'regardless' of the number of hours worked. He also claimed some performers sat on the floor during ten-hour days because there were not enough chairs provided and that although they were collected by shuttle from their cars, a return vehicle was not provided so they had to walk back. The lawsuit is suing for lost wages, over time, meal and rest breaks as well as damages and the cost of the legal action. The entire class action could cost $1,000,000 per law-suit. One lawsuit, filed by LA employment lawyer Frank Kim in August, concentrates on the performers, which totals over 500 people. The other, filed by entertainment attorneys Harris & Ruble, centres on behind-the scenes staff of around 300 people. Yet this is just the 'tip of the iceberg', two sources told The Sun. Lawyers are now tracking down other alleged 'victims' of Kanye's Service shows, and reportedly have dozens of people lined up to join the lawsuit meaning the final tally will be closer to 1,000 people, the source said. A legal source said: 'They've got hundreds of people on board already, but they're talking to many, many others, who want to be a part of it. People are very upset how they were treated, saying it's their worst experience. People in the lawsuit are asking their friends who've worked on previous Services, and they're jumping at the chance, they want to get involved and talk about their horrible time.' They added: 'Now it's about proving that Kanye is the employer and the buck stops with him. Now that there's others coming forward, then the complaint will be amended and be bigger in scope. No one knows how involved Kanye himself was, if he knew what was going on, as it was all so last minute, it was terribly ran. Whether it was mismanagement, accidental, or on purpose, this is a very strong case.' Another source told The Sun: 'When you do things last minute, it's disorganised, mistakes will happen. When Kanye West does a production, he just says to his guys: 'Make it happen,' he has different teams of people to do things, and when you're under that amount of pressure, you cut corners. Anything with film or music production, they do the art first, it's a case of 'let's get the production done and worry if it's legal later'.' They added: 'I'm pretty sure Kanye West hasn't done anything about paying a bill in 20 years, he'd expect people to take care of it. But Kanye can't have this go to trial, as the jury may not be Kanye fans and just see a rich rapper ripping off normal folk, he can settle for much less or be hit with a $30 million legal bill.' [GN] KELLER WILLIAMS: Samataro TCPA Suit Moved From Mich. to W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, transferred the case, THOMAS SAMATARO, et al., Plaintiff v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-12185 (E.D. Mich.), to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs Samataro and William Miskokomon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, have filed complaint against Defendants KWRI; M77, LLC, doing business as Keller Williams Paint Creek & Somerset ("M77"); and Great Day Real Estate, LLC, doing business as Keller Williams Troy Market Center, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA"). The Plaintiffs initiated the instant putative class action on Aug. 13, 2020. The action stems from the Defendants' allegedly unsolicited marketing calls to the Plaintiffs' personal cell phones, without their prior written consent for these calls and despite the fact that their numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The Plaintiffs allege that KWRI trained and directed M77 and Troy Market Center agents to cold call consumers. The Plaintiffs propose the following class definitions: a. Pre-recorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) someone from KW M77 or Keller Williams Troy Market Center called, (2) using a prerecorded message, (3) for substantially the same purpose that they called Plaintiff Samataro, and (4) for whom the Defendants claim (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendants claim they obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiff Samataro, or (b) the Defendants did not obtain prior express written consent. b. Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) someone on behalf of the KW M77 or Keller Williams Troy Market Center called more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the person's phone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same purpose as the calls to Plaintiffs, and (5) for whom the Defendants claim (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as the Defendants claim they supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiffs, or (b) the Defendants did not obtain prior express written consent. c. Michigan Pre-record Class: All persons in Michigan who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the class certification (1) someone from KW M77 or Keller Williams Troy Market Center called, (2) using a prerecorded message, (3) for substantially the same purpose as the calls to Plaintiff Samataro, and (4) for whom the Defendants claim (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendants claim they obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiff Samataro, or (b) the Defendants did not obtain prior express written consent. On Sept. 12, 2018, almost two years before filing the present action, the Plaintiffs' counsel filed a putative class action in the Western District of Texas, Wright v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc., No. 18-00775, asserting claims against KWRI under the TCPA. In their second amended complaint, filed July 16, 2019, the Wright action plaintiffs propose the following class definitions: a. Prerecorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the present (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of Defendant) called (2) on the person's cellular telephone number (3) using a prerecorded voice message, and (4) for whom Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims they supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiffs, or (b) they did not obtain prior express written consent. b. Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the present (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the person's cellular telephone, (3) using an automatic telephone dialing system, and (4) for whom Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims they supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiffs, or (b) they did not obtain prior express written consent. c. Autodialed Stop Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the present: (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the person's cellular telephone, (3) using an automatic telephone dialing system, (4) after the person informed Defendant that s/he no longer wished to receive phone calls from Defendant. d. Prerecorded Stop Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the present: (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the person's cellular telephone, (3) using a prerecorded voice message, (4) after the person informed Defendant that s/he no longer wished to receive phone calls from Defendant. e. Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the present (1) Defendant (or an agency acting on behalf of Defendant) called more than one time; (2) within any 12-month period (3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant's products and services; and (5) for whom Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant claims they supposedly obtained prior express written consent to call Plaintiffs, or (b) they did not obtain prior express written consent. The matter is now before the Court on KWRI's motion to dismiss. KWRI seeks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue, or, alternatively, transfer to the Western District of Texas pursuant to the first-to-file doctrine. Courts evaluate three factors in deciding whether to apply the first-to-file rule: (i) the chronology of events, (ii) the similarity of the parties involved, and (iii) the similarity of the issues or claims at stake. Judge Goldsmith concludes that the class definitions in the instant case and the Wright case are substantially similar, as are the issues in the two cases, counseling application of the first-to-file rule and transfer of the case to the Western District of Texas. Because he has determined that transfer is appropriate under the first-to-file rule, the Judge need not address KWRI's request to dismiss the action for lack of the Court's personal jurisdiction or improper venue in the district. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Goldsmith granted KWRI's motion insofar as KWRI seeks transfer of the instant action to the Western District of Texas. Accordingly, the action is transferred to the Western District of Texas. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5wr4pmh from Leagle.com. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Street, et al., v. O'Toole, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02590 (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Catherine D Perry entered an order extending time to file class certification motion by the Defendants to April 1, 2021. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs include Fudail McCain, Ashley Theis, Ronald Harris, Nicole Warrington and Alicia Street. The Defendants include Jeremiah Koerper, Jeffrey Long, Nick Henderson, Keith Barrett, Steven Fanz, Brian Cheli, James Wooten, Michael Niethe, Richard Edwards, Ryan Buscemi, Nicholas Martorano, Donnell Walters, Robert Stuart, Joann Williams, Lucas Brockmeyer, Tracy Cole, Joshua McBee, Russell Christian, Quincy Silver, Bradley Walworth, James Buckeridge, Steven Mueller, Daniel Schulte, Andrew Wismar, Richard Eaves, Patrick Haug, Joseph Pierce, Paul Kosednar, Patrick Daut, Trenton Lee, Darnell Willis, April Schnetzer, Julius Conner, Megan Rodgers, Amy Laz, Kyle Santa, Anthony Valenza, Stephen Walsh, IV, Steven Landers, Dustin Hoskins, Robert Trim, Sean Martini, Courtney Jordan, Michael Hines, Christopher Seger, Steven Daugherty, Alfred Allmon, Tamarris Bohannon, Kori Simon, John Anderson, Mike Mandle, Cornell Robinson, Marcus Biggins, Laquan Pierce, Reginald Jones, Nicholas Hayden, Jacob Bias, John O'Brien, Donald Re, Andrew Heimberger, Martinous Vashon Walls III, Robert Copper, Cristina Widbin, Timothy Turner, George Henry, Daniel Clauss, Gaston Coleman, Donna Garrett, Nhong Vorachack, Ryan Lindhorst, Damon Maxwell, Jack Randolph, Jarred Thacker, James Wood, Christopher Myers, Charles Wall, Michael Ross, Joseph Marcantano, Steven Strohmeyer, Tracy Hallquist, James Binder, Taylor Hosna, Daniel Osorio, City of St. Louis, Brandon Wyms, James Stagge, Rodney Hickman, Brian Lemons, Anthony Coll, John Moton, Uzoma Onwumere, Matthew Shaw, Jason Brandhorst, Matthew Boester, Stephen Schroeder IV, Marco Christlieb, Joseph Rodriguez, Daniel Chitwood, Kristin Chelucci, Brian Hayes, Andre White, Jacob Stein, James Zwilling, Alan Malone, Nicole Gentilni, Keaton Strong, Gregory Frost, Louis Wilson, Jonathan Haire, Aaron Gaddis, Edward Napier, Richard Hellmeier, Jaimie Pitterle, Erich Vonnida, Tom Halfhill, James Bain, Elijah Simpson, Benjamin Hawkins, Randall Welsch, Dereck Green, Ronald Ludwig, Nathan Strickland, Luis Garibay, Steven Fischer, Daniel Chamblin, Mark Pfieffer, Brandon Clark, Richard Schicker, Jermaine Banks, Gerald Leyshock, Andrew Schmick, Michael Ronzio, Bianca Myers, James Clark, Thomas Strode, Philip VonderHeydt, Edward Gonzales, Stephanie Rogers, Christopher Narez, Brent Fincher, Steven Saito, Kevin Bently, Joslyn Stone, Matthew Shoults, Kevin Bambrick, Bryan Barton, Joe Carretero, Nicholas Holt, Joseph Tate, Kelly Fisher, Michael O'Callaghan, Gary Ruffin, Joseph Morrell, Stephe Ortinau, Ian Csapo, Eric Larson, Robert Lammert, Joshua Hall, Zeme'z Harris, Jeremy Johnson, Carlus Ingram, Duane Wells, Trevor Russell, Mitchel Simpher, Ryan Kotaska, Adam Duke, Matthew McComy, James Murphy, Brian Brewer-Moore, Richard Zurmuehlen, Amber Hawkins, Nadja Curt, Collin McAnany, Tawanna Simms, Patrick Riordan, Austin King, Matthew James, Shaviste Grandberry, Kevin Dang, Brandon Webb, Dustin Boone, Jared Krumm, Ryan Gibbons, Carolyn Wiener, Samuel Stewart, Kevin Mataya, John Sabin, Christina Powderly, Mickey Christ, Nathan Dresch, Perrin Newman, Tom Long, Brian DeMatteis, Lawrence O'Toole, Randy Jemerson, Michael Shaw, Samuel Gilman, Matthew Karnowski, Paul Wactor, Paul Chester, William Triplett, Brian Rossomanno, Matthew Welle, Keith Shelton, Steve Korte, Nicholas Muehlheausler, Joseph Kerth, David Crocker, John Gentilini, Bill Kiphart, Eric Henry, Emily Davis, Anna Biondolillo, William Douglas, Thomas Harger, Michael Calcaterra, Erica Anderson, Joe Lankford, Michael Boll, Jesse Dyson, Anton Treis, Lawrence Lezewski, Lindsey Wethington, Jane McKibben, Brian Strehl, Chad Tullock, Kathleen Gutjahr, Solomon Thurman, Benjamin Cehic, Dennis Neal, Marquise Wren, Keith Paulitsch, Zohaib Khan, Geoffrey Rose, Kanisha Coleman, Zachariah Foltz, Brian Gonzales, Rosa Rojas, Ronald Bergmann, Justin Johnson, Terrence Ruffin, Timothy Hollman, Timothy Bockskopf, Marilyn Johnson, Michael Mayo, Jonathan Vanarsdale, Anthony Wozniak, Francis Koziacki, Abby Krull, Patricia Nijkamp, Ohmed Samih, David Krapf, Michael Missel, Josh Kamper, Scott Weidler, Michael Cheli, Thearn Clements, Joseph Ross, Orlando Morrison, Ryan Murphy, Jodie Eaton, Brian Seppi, Matthew Burle, Deneane Jones, Eric Parrish, William Stevenson, Erin Hein, Roland Degregorio, Jeanine Waters, Gregory Schaffer, Ashley Smith, Kelli Swinton, David Rudolph, Benjamin Bayless, Randy Hays, Daniel Kim, Bradley Roy, Sean Murphy, Christi Marks, Sam Edwards, Scott Valentine, Michael Joyner, Shawn Griggs, Nicola Orlando, Michael Binz, Douglas McClean, Timothy Sachs, Kenneth Kegel, Bruce Edmond, David King, Brandt Flowers, Oliver Poggioli, Jeremy Davis, Quincy Smith, Luke McDonnell, Joshua Martin, Terron Murphy, Scott Boyher, James Harris III, Amon Figgs, Jonathan Selbert, Henry Hayden, Thomas Streckfuss, Darla Gray, Nicholas Lee, Nijauh Woodard, Sean Fortune, Samuel Zouglas, Austin Patton, Ronald Rust, Anthony Caruso, Timothy McNamara, Brian Murphy, Joshua Morrison, Kyle Mack, Nicholas Weite, Sisavath Singharath, Christopher Bramley, Ramelle Wallace, Aaron Muendlein, Ahman Rasoll, Janika Humphrey, Matthew Bedell, Michael Marks, Joseph Schmitt, Christy Allen, Gerald Adams, Jon Amesquita, Jamie Partee, Jazmon Dominique Garrett, Deandre Davis, Kenneth Nizick, Robert Laschober, Jonathan Senf, Matthew Eernisse, Alexander Mesnage, Carianne Noga, Courtney Nash, Adam Garibay, Nicholas Harbaugh, Kimberly Allen, Bailey Colletta, Glennon Frigerio, Joseph Scalzo, City of St. Louis, Missouri and Lawrence Lazewski.[CC] LIZHI INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lizhi Inc. ("Lizhi" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: LIZI) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Lizhi securities pursuant and/or traceable to Lizhi's January 17, 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lizi. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the time of the IPO, the coronavirus was already ravaging China, the home base, principal market, and significant hub for Lizhi, its employees, and its customers; (2) the complications associated with the coronavirus were already negatively affecting Lizhi's business, as employees and customers contracted the virus, lost employment, or otherwise experienced difficulty in generating, publishing, and monetizing the content critical to Lizhi's platform; (3) even prior to the IPO, Lizhi employees and customers complained of, and to, Lizhi, which harmed the Company's reputation and financial condition and prospects; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lizi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Walmart you have until March 22, 2021 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] LIZHI INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI) investors that acquired shares in connection with it's January 17, 2020 IPO. Investors have until March 22, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here -- https://portnoylaw.com/lizhi/ -- to join the case. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement contained misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the coronavirus was already ravaging China, the home base, principal market, and significant hub for Lizhi, its employees, and its customers, at the time of the IPO, ; (2) Lizhi's business was already being negatively affected by the complications associated with the coronavirus, as employees and customers contracted the virus, lost employment, or otherwise experienced difficulty in generating, publishing, and monetizing the content critical to Lizhi's platform; (3) Lizhi employees and customers complained of, and to, Lizhi, even prior to the IPO, which harmed the Lizhi's reputation and financial condition and prospects; and (4) Lizhi's public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times, as a result. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] LIZHI INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 26 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired 9F Inc. ("9F" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JFU) American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's): 1. pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus in connection with the Company's August 14, 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or 2. between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased ADR's of Lizhi, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of Lizhi, Inc., you may, no later than March 22, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of ADR's of Lizhi, Inc. On or about January 17, 2020 the company conducted its IPO, selling 4.1 million Lizhi ADR's at $11.00 per ADR. Defendants generated approximately $45 million in gross offering proceeds from their sale of Lizhi's securities in the IPO. By the commencement of this action, Lizhi shares were trading below $4 per share, a decline of over 63% from the offering price. The filed complaint alleges that the registration statement for the IPO contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: - at the time of the IPO, the coronavirus was already ravaging China, the home base, principal market, and significant hub for Lizhi, its employees, and its customers; - the complications associated with the coronavirus were already negatively affecting Lizhi's business, as employees and customers contracted the virus, lost employment, or otherwise experienced difficulty in generating, publishing, and monetizing the content critical to Lizhi's platform; - even prior to the IPO, Lizhi employees and customers complained of, and to, Lizhi, which harmed the Company's reputation and financial condition and prospects; and - as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago, and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] LMS TRANSPORTATION: Jackson Suit Remanded Over Settlement Talks --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California grants the parties' joint stipulation to remand in the lawsuit titled WORREN JACKSON, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. LMS TRANSPORTATION LLC; GREG SOUTHERN; ANDREA SOUTHERN; and DOES 3-100, Defendants, Case No. CV 20-8939-GW-Ex (C.D. Cal.). Based on the stipulation of the Parties, and good cause appearing for the same, the Court ordered that the action be remanded back to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to pursue approval of the Parties' proposed class action settlement reached, without waiver or limitation of the Defendants' right to remove the action to federal court if such settlement is not approved. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2vhfp55 from Leagle.com. MANDARICH LAW: Quinn Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Terry Quinn, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Resurgent Capital Services LP d/b/a LVNV Funding LLC, DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00812 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mandarich Law Group -- http://mandarichlaw.com/-- is a debt collector law firm based in Chatsworth California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir J. Goldstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN 7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (323) 937-0400 Fax: (866) 288-9194 Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com MANDARICH LAW: Sorondo Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mandarich Law Group, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Matthew Sorondo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, Resurgent Capital Services LP d/b/a CACH, LLC, DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00820 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Mandarich Law Group -- http://mandarichlaw.com/-- is a debt collector law firm based in Chatsworth California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir J. Goldstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN 7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Phone: (323) 937-0400 Fax: (866) 288-9194 Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com MDL 2873: AFFF Products Contaminate Groundwater, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC has filed a class action lawsuit for the contamination of the groundwater relied upon private well owners in Lubbock, Texas. The class action complaint was filed against manufacturers of aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF") containing perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and manufacturers of fluorosurfactants containing PFOS and PFOA. The class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation. Decades of use, storage, and disposal of AFFF at the former Reese Air Force Base caused the widespread PFOA and PFOS contamination of groundwater in the surrounding community, including contaminating private wells serving residents in Lubbock. To date, over 500 private drinking water wells have been sampled for PFAS, and the Air Force has installed 220 whole-house filters. Testing data has revealed elevated levels of PFAS in dozens of private wells exceeding the USEPA health advisory levels for PFOA and/or additional PFAS for which the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") has published protective concentration levels (PCLs). The class action complaint alleges that plaintiffs and others similarly situated with private water wells in Lubbock have been exposed to high levels of PFAS and are now at an increased risk of several health effects, including testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, effects on the liver and the immune system, high cholesterol, changes in thyroid hormone, as well as kidney and other cancers. Studies have also shown an association between increased PFOA blood levels and increased risks for several health effects in children (for example, effects on birth weight, cognitive and behavioral development, immune function, and cholesterol levels). Unfortunately, many of these serious health issues can be long-term, especially in children. The complaint also states that property values in the area have dropped as a result of the contamination. We strongly encourage Lubbock residents with a private water well who may have been exposed to these toxic chemicals and are now suffering from the various diseases and cancers listed above to seek medical help and contact our environmental legal team. Our knowledgeable staff will explain your legal options; the consultation is free and confidential. There is no obligation and we only recover fees if we win your case. There are strict time limitations for filing an action for both property damage and personal injury claims, so do not lose your opportunity to file or receive compensation by not contacting us. We look forward to the opportunity to help you too; contact us for your free, no-obligation case evaluation today. URL: http://www.napolilaw.com Contact Information: www.napolilaw.com [GN] MIDWESTERN PET: Pet Foods Contain Toxic Aflatoxin, Williams Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harvey E. Williams, Owen Woodall, Vollie Griffin, Mel LaFebre, and Christina Kennedy, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00022-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Jan. 28, 2021), is brought on behalf of all consumers nationwide who bought the Defendant's pet food products containing excessive levels of Aflatoxin, a toxin created by the mold Aspergillus flavus which, at high levels, can result in illness and death. Aflatoxin is a toxic mold that can result in illness or death if ingested. On or around the same day, the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") published news about the Defendant's recall and reported that several dogs have fallen ill or died after consuming Defendant's Sportmix products. On or around December 30, 2020, the Defendant announced a recall of three formulas of cat and dog food products; specifically, Sportmix Energy Plus, Sportmix Premium High Energy and Sportmix Original Cat. According to Defendant's news announcement, tests indicated that the recalled products contained "levels of Aflatoxin that exceed acceptable limits." The Defendant has marketed and advertised the Pet Food Products as suitable for animals, has represented that the Pet Food Products provide targeted nutrition, and/or has guaranteed the Pet Food Products for taste and nutrition. According to the complaint, the Defendant's marketing and advertising of the Pet Food Products is false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable consumers because the Pet Food Products contained dangerous or toxic levels of Aflatoxin, and thus were not as advertised, represented, or guaranteed. The Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Pet Food Products had they known the Products contained, or might have contained, dangerous or toxic levels of Aflatoxin and/or that the Defendant did not adequately test or inspect the Pet Food Products before selling them. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserts claims on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment, says the complaint. The Defendant manufactures, warrants, advertises, and sells a variety of pet foods under several brand names, including Sportmix CanineX, Earthborne Holistic, Pro Pac, Venture, Wholesomes, Sportmix, Sportstrail, Splash, Nunn Better and Unrefined.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Young, Esq. YOUNG & YOUNG 128 N. Delaware St., 3rd Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 639-5161 Facsimile: (317) 639-4978 Email: john@youngandyoungin.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. David Stein, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 110 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: rmr@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com MINNESOTA: Court Adopts in Part R&R Issued in Roybal v. Schnell --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled Kristopher Roybal et al., Plaintiffs v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1200 (WMW/LIB) (D. Minn.), the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued an order adopting in part and rejecting in part the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. On May 18, 2020, Plaintiffs Roybal, Dario Bonga, Wesley Tibbetts, Chavez Wind, Warren Skinaway, Brian Bloom, Robert Boettcher, Arthur Vanwert, Joseph Tipton, Barris Guy, Zach Clark, Chris Clark, John Vondal, Jr., and "Native Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault" filed a putative class-action complaint against Defendant Paul Schnell, as well as an application to proceed in forma pauperis without prepaying fees or costs. The Plaintiffs are incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility located in Faribault, Minnesota ("MCF-Faribault"), and it appears that all Plaintiffs are Native Americans. Defendant Schnell is the commissioner of corrections for the State of Minnesota. The complaint alleges that Schnell is violating the Plaintiffs' civil rights, including their rights to religious practice. To date, the Plaintiffs have not served a summons on Schnell. On September 14, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court dismiss sua sponte the putative class of "Native Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault" and all individually named Plaintiffs except the first-named Plaintiff, Roybal. The R&R also recommends denying the Plaintiffs' requests for (1) the Court to aid them in creating a multi-plaintiff litigation fund and (2) for them, in the alternative, to be allowed to collectively pay the filing fee. No objections to the R&R have been filed. In the absence of timely objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error. The R&R recommends dismissing the putative class of "Native Americans confined at M.C.F.-Faribault" and all the named Plaintiffs other than the first-named Plaintiff, Roybal. But a district court's authority to sua sponte dismiss parties or claims from a case is limited to a few narrow categories of circumstances, such as when the court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, that a claim is frivolous, or that a prisoner-plaintiff seeking to proceed in forma pauperis has failed to state a claim, District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright notes, citing Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). But a sua sponte dismissal before the defendant has been served and given an opportunity to respond, as is the case, is disfavored because the district court is cast in the role of a proponent for the defense, rather than an independent entity, Judge Wright opines. Here, the R&R does not analyze or conclude that any of the narrow circumstances authorizing sua sponte dismissal is present. In support of the recommendation to sua sponte dismiss parties from the case, the R&R relies on a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit -- Acevedo v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516, 521 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). In Acevedo, the Fifth Circuit observed that a district court can reject joinder of parties otherwise properly joined under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "in the interest of avoiding prejudice and delay, ensuring judicial economy, or safeguarding principles of fundamental fairness." In Acevedo, approximately 800 former employees from more than 300 stores sought to be joined in one lawsuit. The Acevedo court was particularly concerned that the wide variety of practices at each of the different stores would result in different defenses applying to different plaintiffs. Judge Wright opines that in the instant case, by contrast, there are 13 named Plaintiffs, all are incarcerated at MCF-Faribault, and the alleged harms that they have experienced likely involve identical rules and procedures. As a result, the Acevedo court's concerns about the vast number of named plaintiffs and different defenses applying to each plaintiff's claims are not present here. Moreover, the dismissal of parties in Acevedo was not a sua sponte decision rendered before the defendants had been served. Instead, the Judge explains, the dismissal of the parties occurred after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the misjoinder of parties. Accordingly, Acevedo's reasoning does not persuasively govern the Court's analysis. For these reasons, the R&R's recommendation to dismiss the putative class and all the named Plaintiffs other than the first-named Plaintiff is clearly erroneous and contrary to law, Judge Wright finds. She shares the concerns of the Magistrate Judge as to the "potential problems and procedural complexities that are likely to impede the expedient administration of justice" in the case. However, because the R&R does not provide adequate legal authority to support the method by which the R&R recommends resolving these procedural complexities, she rejects the portions of the R&R recommending sua sponte dismissal. Based on the R&R, the Court's analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court rules that the September 14, 2020 R&R is adopted in part and rejected in part as follows: a. The R&R's recommendation to deny the Plaintiffs' requests for the Court to provide some type of documentation that they may submit to M.C.F.-Faribault's inmate accounts and that they be permitted to collectively pay the filing fee is adopted, and those requests are denied; b. The R&R's recommendation to sua sponte dismiss the Plaintiffs Native Americans Confined at M.C.F.-Faribault and all named Plaintiffs other than Kristopher Roybal is rejected; and c. The R&R's recommendation that Roybal be ordered to file an amended complaint and an individualized application to proceed in forma pauperis is rejected. The matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6zhejsu from Leagle.com. MOUNTAIRE CORP: April 12 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION, and Arkansas corporation, MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., a Delaware corporation. Defendants., C.A. No. S18C-06-009 CAK SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT To: All Persons who, on or after May 1, 2000, owned, leased, resided on, or were employed on a full-time basis at property located in whole or part within a defined geographic area near Millsboro, Delaware, as described more precisely in maps setting forth the Class Definition available at www.MountaireSettlement.com, or available from the Claims Administrator and/or Plaintiffs' Counsel, identified below, subject to certain exclusions. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Superior Court of Civil Procedure 23 and an Order of the Delaware Superior Court, that the Court-appointed Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and all members of the Class, and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., Mountaire Farms Inc., and Mountaire Corporation ("Mountaire" or the "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the amount of $65,000,000.00 (the "Settlement"). This Settlement is intended to provide compensation for personal injury and property damage associated with alleged groundwater and air contamination from the Millsboro, Delaware poultry processing facility owned by Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc. The Court has scheduled a Final Fairness Hearing on April 12, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., at the Sussex County Superior Court Courthouse, located at 1 The Circle, Georgetown, DE 19947. However, in light of the continuing threat COVID-19 poses to public health, the hearing may be held virtually (such as on-line through the internet). The hearing may be moved to a different date, time or location. Please check the Mountaire Settlement website at www.MountaireSettlement.com for updates regarding the date, time, and location of the hearing. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider the requests by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and for any monetary awards to the Class Representatives for their service as such ("Enhancement Awards"). If there are objections, the Court will also consider them at that time. Following the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement, attorney fees and expenses, and any Enhancement Awards. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Registration Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website of the Claims Administrator, www.MountaireSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Cuppels v. Mountaire Class Action Claims Administrator RG/2 Claims Administration LLC P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 Phone: (866) 742-4955 Email: info@rg2claims.com Settlement Website: www.MountaireSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Registration Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Chase Brockstedt, Esq. Re: Mountaire Class Action Baird, Mandalas, Brockstedt, LLC 1413 Savannah Rd, Suite 1 Lewes, DE 19958 (302) 313-5288 If you are a Class Member, you must register to be considered for payment from this Class Action Settlement. You may do so by either (1) visiting the Mountaire Settlement website at www.MountaireSettlement.com, and completing the Registration Form online at that site, or (2) mailing the completed Registration Form to the Claims Administrator identified above. You must complete the Registration Form and submit it by mail postmarked on or before by March 22, 2021 or online through the Mountaire Settlement website on or before March 22, 2021, in order to be considered for payment through the Class Action Settlement. Those who fail to register by this date by mail or through the Mountaire Settlement website will NOT be eligible for compensation. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, and it must be postmarked no later than February 22, 2021. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund. If you wish to participate in the Class Action Settlement, but wish to object in whole or part to the proposed Settlement, you must do so by first class mail in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice on or before February 22, 2021. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: January 11, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT [GN] MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Agrees to Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Mavity at capegazette.com reports that Mountaire Farms has agreed to a $65 million settlement with more than 800 members of a class-action lawsuit against the company for injuries and damages allegedly caused by Mountaire's environmental practices. The settlement will be subject to April 12, fairness hearing where Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz will review the settlement, hear testimony and, eventually, rule on whether to finalize the settlement. As part of the settlement, Mountaire will conduct plant upgrades and remediation valued at $120 million at its Millsboro plant. In return, the litigants, who had intervened in a federal case between Mountaire and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, agreed to let a consent decree between Mountaire and DNREC be approved. Chase Brockstedt, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement, "We are honored and humbled that the Millsboro community trusted our firms to litigate this important environmental case. I cannot be more proud of our entire team and the incredible effort over the last three years which led this case to settlement." Co-counsel Phil Federico said, also in a statement, "We thank Mountaire for choosing environmental responsibility and doing what is right for the Millsboro community. This settlement is a win-win for Mountaire and those we represent. We wish them well with their upgrades and improvement and know they will continue to be a vital part of Sussex County and the Eastern Shore for decades to come." Phillip Pyler, president of Mountaire, said, "Our sole focus now can be on building our new state-of-the art wastewater treatment, which has been our goal all along. We are ready to move forward." The litigation has been ongoing for more than two years, after Millsboro couple Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels filed suit alleging that Mountaire's wastewater treatment practices had contaminated their groundwater, leading to health problems for the couple. Eventually 800 people joined the litigation seeking compensation. While that suit was going on, the plaintiffs sought to have input in a separate action between DNREC and Mountaire over a 2017 wastewater permit violation at the Millsboro plant. DNREC and Mountaire had entered into a consent decree for plant upgrades related to the violations, but the class-action plaintiffs did not think the decree went far enough in addressing environmental problems at Mountaire's plant. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert. of Homeless People in Fisher Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court of New York, New York County, denied the Petitioners' motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned MORLEEN FISHER, TAMARA WILLIAMS, BJ ATHILL, RODAISHA SMITH, GARY CORBIN, COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, Petitioners v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, STEVEN BANKS, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES, JOSLYN CARTER, Respondent, Case No. 452069/2020 (N.Y. Sup.). The New York State Constitution, Article XVII, Section 1 (adopted in 1938, in the wake of the Great Depression) provides as follows: "The aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and will be provided by the state and by such of its subdivisions, and in such manner, and by such means, as the legislature may from time to time determine." A well-established line of cases interprets those words to compel the City of New York to provide safe shelter to homeless persons. In January 2020, the novel coronavirus started spreading throughout the United States, early on reaching New York City. The virus causes Covid-19, a highly contagious disease that can cause serious illness, sometimes with lingering significant side effects, or death. The crux of the case is whether homeless people, or "at-risk" homeless people, or "disabled" homeless people, are entitled to single-occupancy rooms ("SORs") in hotels or other shelters. The Petitioners have moved for a preliminary injunction (1) declaring such entitlement and compelling concomitant action; and (2) for class action certification. However, as there is no competent medical, or unrebutted statistical, evidence that "congregate" (i.e., group) shelter significantly, or even noticeably, raises the risk of contracting Covid-19, and because declaratory judgment actions against governmental entities are disfavored, the motion must be denied, Judge Arthur F. Engoron opines. The proposed class action is on behalf of all single adults in NYC, who are entitled to shelter, who have not received placement in an SOR ("Right-to-Shelter Class"), which includes two sub-classes: (1) members of the Right-to-Shelter Class who are at "heightened risk," as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"), of severe illness or death from Covid-19 due to their ages and/or medical conditions ("Heightened-Risk Sub-Class"); and (2) members of the Right-to-Shelter Class who have a disability within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), the New York State Human Rights Law, and/or the NYC Human Rights Law ("Disability Sub-Class"). The petition pleads 10 causes of action against the Respondents, including that the Respondents' failure to offer SORs to the Right-to-Shelter Class is arbitrary and capricious, that the Respondents' failure to offer SORs to the Heightened-Risk Sub-Class is arbitrary and capricious, and that the Respondents are failing to provide State due process to the Heightened-Risk Sub-Class. The Respondents claim (1) that they have developed a "comprehensive program" to ensure the safety of homeless people living in congregate shelters and double-occupancy rooms; and (2) that they are providing due process galore. DHS formulated the program with input from the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DHMH"), including its then-Deputy Commissioner of the Division of Disease Control, Doctor Demetre Daskalakis (now apparently at the CDC). DHS also has a recently updated "reasonable accommodation policy," titled "DHS PB-2020-012 Interim Reasonable Accommodation Request Process," originally developed pursuant to the settlement in Butler v City of New York, 15-CV-3783 (RWS) (JLC) (SDNY 2017). DHS's Office of the Medical Director has recently formulated Covid-19 Risk Factor Guidelines, with input and review by DHMH, based on, but slightly different from, the following 13 conditions that the CDC has identified as associated with an increased risk of severe illness from Covid-19: cancer; kidney disease; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; heart failure; coronary artery disease; cardiomyopathies; immuno-compromised state; organ transplant; obesity; severe obesity; sickle cell disease; smoking; and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The CDC has identified the following 12 other conditions that may be associated with an increased risk of severe illness from Covid-19: hypertension; cerebrovascular disease; cystic fibrosis; immune deficiencies; neurological conditions; liver disease; pregnancy; overweight; pulmonary fibrosis; thalassemia; type 1 diabetes mellitus; and moderate-to-severe asthma. The Petitioners point out that the DHS Covid-19 Risk Factor Guidelines do not exactly track the CDC; for example, the guidelines fail to include smoking, obesity, and mild-stage COPD; and they specify only certain types of cancer. The Petitioners now move, simply put, pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Article 9, for class certification; and, pursuant to CPLR 6301, for a preliminary injunction requiring the Respondents, during the Covid-19 pandemic, to offer SORs to members of the Right-to-Shelter Class; or, in the alternative, to the Heightened-Risk Sub-Class; or, in the alternative, to the Disability Sub-Class; and to make individualized determinations with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Respondents oppose the Motion. The Court finds that the case is justiciable; that the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits on their Article 78, constitutional (including due process), and disability discrimination claims; and that the class action certification is unwarranted. Thus, the instant motion for class certification and a preliminary injunction are denied; and, as previously arranged, the case-in-chief will be heard on March 19, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. via Microsoft Teams. The Court will be sending a link via NYSCEF or other means well in advance. At that time the Court will address any issues of compliance and enforcement. The Counsel should be prepared with up-to-date health information and statistics and with concrete yet creative ideas to resolve the instant dispute. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision + Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ep55yg from Leagle.com. PHH MORTGAGE: Attorney General Blasts Mortgage Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Shalin at Patch Staff reports that Illinois attorney general Kwame Raoul joined a bipartisan group of 33 attorneys general to denounce a proposed class action settlement they say would punish many homeowners while continuing to benefit the mortgage provider accused of charging illegal fees. According the attorneys general, the proposed settlement in Morris, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, would allow New Jersey-based PHH Mortgage Corporation to profit from illegal processing fees it has been charging to nearly 1 million customers across the country. The initial suit challenged the mortgage company's ability to charge processing fees, ranging from $7.50 to $17.50, each time homeowners made a monthly mortgage payment online or by phone. Those fees, it was argued, were not authorized in the homeowners' mortgage contracts. Additionally, the fees were not charged to customers making their monthly payment by check or automatic debit. But the attorneys general argue that under the terms of a proposed settlement, the mortgage company can continue to charge these fees, and will be able to increase them, up to $19.50 per month, for the remaining life of the loan. The attorneys general also suggest the class action settlement violates most states' laws. "This settlement will prolong the necessary harm that homeowners have experienced by allowing PHH to continue charging homeowners illegal processing fees," Raoul said in a statement. "Any settlement should hold PHH accountable for its conduct, instead of allowing it to continue to profit from unethical and illegal conduct." Raoul and the coalition of attorneys general also object to the proposed settlement's method of compensating the homeowners for the complaint. Homeowners whose loans are still serviced by PHH will not receive direct monetary rewards for prior unlawful payments. Instead, they will get credits that can be applied to only the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage after any late fees are first paid. This, the attorneys general argue, actually costs the homeowners more in the end and ensures a portion of the settlement money will go back to PHH. PHH Mortgage Company is based in Mount Laurel, N.J. It's predecessor company Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC also was named in the original suit. The coalition of attorneys general opposed the settlement by filing a motion for leave to file an amicus brief. [GN] POPEYES LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Biometrics Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a proposed class of workers sued Popeyes and its parent company in Illinois state court on Jan. 25, alleging that the fast food chain collected and stored their fingerprints without obtaining their written permission. [GN] PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Cowley Suit Moved From California to Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California adopts in full the findings and recommendations to grant the motion to transfer venue in the lawsuit styled JOSHUA COWLEY, Plaintiff v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01472-NONE-JLT (E.D. Cal.). Before the Court for decision is the Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on October 16, 2019, bringing claims against the Defendant under both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California wage and hour laws. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay non-exempt, hourly security guards for all hours worked; failed to pay required minimum wages; failed to pay required overtime wages; failed to authorize, permit, and/or make meal and rest periods available; failed to pay for these missed breaks; failed to pay all wages at termination; and failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in California City, California, and seeks to represent other current and former non-exempt, hourly security guards, who worked for the Defendant in California and elsewhere in the United States. On December 11, 2020, findings and recommendations were issued recommending that the Defendant's motion to change venue be granted and this case be transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan. The assigned Magistrate Judge agreed with the Defendants that the gravamen of the case is the FLSA action, with its "center of gravity" in Michigan because the "vast majority" of the relevant current and former employees live and work in Michigan. In addition, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that because the Defendant has settled with all but nine of the 36 known and current former California employees, the import of the California claims is minimal relative to the federal claims. Even if the settlements are not considered, the Magistrate Judge concluded that a class of 36 may not be large enough to warrant certification for lack of numerosity. The Magistrate Judge then found that many of the relevant factors weighed in favor of transfer. Of particular note, the pending Findings and Recommendations highlight that litigating this action in Michigan would be more convenient for the witnesses, most of whom work and reside in Michigan -- a factor that is "recognized as the most important factor to be considered" in a motion to transfer (citing Saleh v. Titan Corp., 361 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1160 (S.D. Cal. 2005)). The Magistrate Judge also highlighted the fact that the Court's extraordinarily congested calendar (with more than four times as many cases per judge than in the Eastern District of Michigan) will make it very difficult to proceed to trial here in a timely manner and that this weighs strongly in favor of transfer. The Findings and Recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that objections were due within 14 days. On December 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The Defendant filed a reply on January 6, 2021. District Judge Dale A. Drozd holds that the Plaintiff's objections do not undermine the ultimate conclusion reached in the Findings and Recommendations that transfer is warranted in the case. For example, the Plaintiff claims in the objections that the Defendant failed to produce any evidence to support its contention that most of the California class members have settled with it. Even assuming it to be true -- which is certainly debatable -- it does nothing to dissuade the Court from agreeing with the Magistrate Judge that the Plaintiff's FLSA claims are the "gravamen" of the case and that consideration of the fact favors transfer to Michigan, Judge Drozd opines. The record supports the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on this point. Even assuming, arguendo, that none of the 36 known California class members have settled their claims and that a class of 36 would be sufficiently numerous to warrant certification--which is also debatable -- the value of the California claims would be vastly overwhelmed by the FLSA claims by virtue of the sheer number of impacted employees, Judge Drozd adds. He likewise agrees with the Magistrate Judge with respect to consideration of the heavily weighted factor of convenience to witnesses. With respect to the weight to be given to a plaintiff's choice of forum, he says the Plaintiff's reliance on the decision in Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987) is misplaced. That case stands not for the proposition that the weight given the choice of forum in a putative class action should be diminished only if the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter, but rather for the quite different proposition that the forum choice of any plaintiff bringing a class action or derivative suit is "given less weight" and is further minimized if the operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the parties or subject matter. Accordingly: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated December 11, 2020, are adopted in full; 2. The Defendant's motion to change venue is granted; and 3. The case is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2f3qfw7 from Leagle.com. REALOGY HOLDINGS: New Jersey Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ On January 21, 2021, Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a real estate services company and certain of its current and former executives. Tanaskovic v. Realogy Holdings Corp., No. 19-cv-15053, slip op. (D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2021). Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations concerning: (1) the effect of increased commissions paid to its agents; (2) technology offerings; (3) the company's acquisition strategy; and (4) allegedly anticompetitive behavior that inflated the company's average commissions. The Court held that the alleged misstatements were either not alleged to be false with the required particularity or were otherwise not actionable. With respect to the increased commissions paid to its agents, plaintiff contended that the company represented that commissions would not increase further than they had, that any negative impact on the company's profitability would be short-term, and that the initiative could be maintained while also leading to sustainable growth and increased profitability. Slip op. at 9-10. The Court determined that statements plaintiff pointed to as supposedly providing assurances that the commission payments would not increase were taken out of context, and that plaintiff's assertions did not establish that the statements were false. Id. at 10-11. Similarly, the Court explained that plaintiff's challenges to statements regarding the short-term impact of the initiative and the path to sustainable growth were based on conclusory and unsupported assertions, id. at 13-15, and amounted to impermissible pleading of "fraud by hindsight," id. at 21. In addition, the Court rejected plaintiff's claims that the company misled investors by touting the company's technology initiative, which was designed to provide new technology and data-driven products for its agents, without disclosing that the technology was outdated. Id. Again, the Court determined that plaintiff's assertions of obsolescence were conclusory and unsupported by any factual allegations that the technology was outdated. Id. at 21-22. Moreover, while plaintiff claimed that statements by company executives showed that the technology was outdated, the Court disagreed, and further noted that to the extent one statement was critical of the technology, when read in context, it was a criticism of the entire real estate industry and not the company in particular. Id. at 23-24. Next, the Court addressed the company's statements that it was shifting to organic growth strategies from a prior acquisition-focused strategy. Plaintiff alleged the statements were misleading because they failed to disclose the inefficiencies that had been caused by the company's previous acquisitions. Id. at 25. Here, too, the Court concluded that plaintiff's allegations of inefficiencies were conclusory and unsupported by any factual allegations, and that assertions based on an executive's statements were taken out of context and did not show that the acquisitions had not been effectively integrated. Id. at 25-27. Finally, the Court also dismissed plaintiff's claims that the company had failed to disclose that the stability of average commissions reported was due to allegedly anticompetitive conduct to keep that rate artificially high. Id. at 27. Specifically, plaintiff asserted that the stability was due to an anticompetitive scheme in the real estate industry whereby, for properties listed in the primary industry database, the seller's broker or agent would make a blanket, non-negotiable offer for how much of the commission would be shared with any buyer's broker or agent, which plaintiff alleged led to inflated buyer's agent commissions by eliminating competition among buyer's agents. Id. at 27-28. In support of this assertion, plaintiff pointed to two class action lawsuits brought against several real estate brokerage firms, including the company, as well as the fact that the DOJ subsequently announced an investigation into anticompetitive practices in the industry generally. Id. at 28. The Court concluded, however, that the existence of these lawsuits and the investigation, standing alone, were insufficient to establish falsity of the alleged misstatement. While noting that plaintiff was not required at the pleading stage to establish that defendants actually engaged in anticompetitive behavior, it nevertheless was required to plead facts supporting that conclusion with particularity. Here, though, plaintiff merely relied on the other lawsuits and the DOJ investigation without pleading with any specificity "the who, what, when, where and how" of the purported anticompetitive behavior. Id. The Court also noted that various of the challenged statements were not actionable for other reasons, including that they were forward-looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary language, statements of opinion, or puffery. Id. at 31, 33, 38. While plaintiff argued that some forward-looking statements were nevertheless actionable because they were based on then-present facts, the Court disagreed, noting that for such statements -- for example, that "we see no reason to think [the guidance for the commissions paid to our agents] [i]s any higher than that" -- any "present-tense aspect" was "too vague to be actionable and cannot be separated from the future projection." Id. at 33. Given that plaintiff had already amended its complaint and there was no indication that further amendment could cure the deficiencies found by the Court, the Court denied leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice. Id. at 41. [GN] RESCARE INC: Class Certification Bid Filing Date Set for Nov. 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Diaz v. Rescare, Inc. et al., Case No. e 4:20-cv-01333-YGR (N.D. Cal ), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez rogers entered a scheduling order as follows Expert Opening Reports: July 29, 2021 Rebuttal Reports: September 15, 2021 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: October 29, 2021 The Plaintiff's Motion for November 15, 2021 Class Certification filed: Opposition filed: December 30, 2021 Reply filed January 28, 2022 Class Certification Motion March 1, 2022 hearing set: ResCare provides support services for people with physical and mental disabilities. A copy of the Court's civil minutes dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jbYMzK at no extra charge.[CC] Attorney for the Plaintiff is: Shaun Setareh, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2446 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com Attorney for the Defendant is: Matthew Boyd, Esq. Phil Montoya Jr., Esq. HAWKINS PARNELL & YOUNG LLP SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree St NE No. 4000 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 614-7691 Facsimile: (404) 614-7500 E-mail:mboyd@hpylaw.com RESTAURANT BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 19, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands International, Inc. ("Restaurant Brands" or the "Company") (NYSE: QSR) common stock between April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Restaurant Brands 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/restaurant-brands-international-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 to learn more about your rights. Restaurant Brands is a Canadian corporation with over 27,000 Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes restaurants in more than 100 countries and U.S. territories. On October 28, 2019, the Company announced disappointing financial results for the third quarter ending September 30, 2019. Specifically, Restaurant Brands and its executives acknowledged that "results at Tim Hortons were not where we want them to be with global comparable sales dipping into negative territory" and admitted that "discounting [associated with Tims Rewards] is slightly more than offsetting the traffic levels," leading to "softness in sales." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.59, or 3.8%, to close at $65.86 per share on October 28, 2019, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Restaurant Brands' "Winning Together Plan" was failing to generate substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; (2) the "Tims Rewards" loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Restaurant Brands common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 19, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Gordon RAF Text Message Suit Gets Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Isaac Gordon, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:19-cv-00390-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order: 1. granting the plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. certifying the following Class in this case: "all persons, as that term is defined in RCW 19.190.010(11) and RCW 19.86.010(a); who are Washington residents; to whom the Defendant initiated or assisted in the transmission or one or more commercial electronic text messages; to a cellular phone or pager service that is equipped with short message capability or any similar capability allowing the transmission of text messages; without obtaining the recipients' clear and affirmative consent to receive such messages in advance; from October 4, 2015 to January 25, 2021"; Excluded from the Class is the Defendant and all officers, members, partners, managers, directors, and employees of the Defendant and their respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to this action and all members of their immediate families. 3. certifying the following claim, Pursuit to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B), including all damages related thereto: The claim that Defendant initiated or assisted in the transmission of one or more commercial electronic text messages to class members without first obtaining those recipients' clear and affirmative consent to receive such messages. 4. appointing the Plaintiff Isaac Gordon as the Class Representative; 5. appointing Kirk D. Miller of Kirk D. Miller, P.S. as Class Counsel, and appointing Brian G. Cameron and Shayne J. Sutherland of Cameron Sutherland, PLLC as Co-Class Counsel. 6. directing class counsel, within 14 days from the date of this Order, to serve and file a proposed "Notice" to members of the certified classes and suggest a method by which this should be accomplished and at whose expense; 7. directing the Defendant, within 14 days from service of the proposed "Notice", to serve and file any objections to the same; and 8. directing Class counsel to have seven days from service of any objection to serve and file a reply to the same. The Court said, "The Court finds no reason to doubt the competency or commitment of the class representative and class counsel, nor does the Court identify any conflicts at present. Therefore, adequacy of representation has been established. Moreover, the identity of class members will answer questions as to receipt of an "Refer a Friend" (RAF) text message, Washington residency, and consent. Therefore, the predominance requirement is satisfied. Any future management concerns may be addressed with a "variety of procedural tools" to ease administrative burdens. Therefore, the superiority element is satisfied. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for class certification." This case concerns the RAF marketing feature from the Defendant's online investment brokerage application, which the Plaintiff alleges violates the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by way of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"). The Plaintiff initially filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendants Robinhood Financial LLC and Robinhood Markets Inc. in Spokane County Superior Court. The Defendants removed the action to federal court on the basis of class action diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Following removal, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The Defendants then filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant Robinhood Markets and a Motion to Dismiss for failure to adequately allege a CEMA violation. The Court granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. On June 3, 2020, the Court found the Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC substantiated that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $5 million by potentially involving over 1,000 RAF recipients with Washington addresses. On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present Motion to Certify Class. The Defendant is an online investment brokerage service that enables customers to invest commission-free in stocks, exchange-traded funds, and options. The Defendant created a referral program, RAF, where customers can refer someone to sign up for the Defendant's services whereby both the customer and referee receive one share of free stock after the referee signs up. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cwNNjp at no extra charge.[CC] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates GameStop Trades, Wieg Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ David Wieg, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00693 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removing the stock GameStop Corp. ("GME") from its trading platform in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the open-market. On January 11, 2021, stocks in GME began to rise. At that time, Robinhood allowed retail investors to trade GME on the open market. Allegedly, On January 27, 2021, Robinhood, in order to slow the growth of GME and deprived their customers of the ability to use their service, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and knowingly pulled GME from their app. Meaning, retail investors could no longer buy or even search for GME on Robinhood's app. According to the complaint, Robinhood's actions were done purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's customers. Since pulling the stock from their app, GME prices have gone up, depriving investors of potential gains. Additionally, in the event GME goes down, Robinhood has deprived investors of "shorting" GME in the hopes the price drops. In sum, Robinhood has completely blocked retailer investors from purchasing GME for no legitimate reason, thereby depriving retailer investors from the benefits of Robinhood's services, the suit says. On the morning on January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff used his Robinhood app, searched for GME and other stocks on Robinhood's app, and found it was unavailable. The stock did not even appear, although GME is a publicly traded company available on all other platforms. The Plaintiff intended to purchase GME stocks and other stocks from Robinhood's app and was deprived of that ability due to Robinhood's actions. Thus, the Plaintiff, like so many others, lost out on all earning opportunities, says the complaint. Plaintiff David Wieg was and is a citizen of the State of California. Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ishan Dave, Esq. Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq. Abraham Z. Melamed, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (310) 602-6050 Facsimile: (310) 602-6350 Email: Ishan@dereksmithlaw.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates GameStop Trades, Zybura Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bartosz Zybura, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01348 (D.N.J., Jan. 28, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removing the stock GameStop Corp. ("GME") from its trading platform in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the open-market. On January 11, 2021, stocks in GME began to rise and at that time, Robinhood allowed retail investors to trade GME on the open market. Allegedly, On January 27, 2021, Robinhood, in order to slow the growth of GME and deprived their customers of the ability to use their service, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and knowingly pulled GME from their app. Meaning, retail investors could no longer buy or even search for GME on Robinhood's app. According to the complaint, Robinhood's actions were done purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's customers. Since pulling the stock from their app, GME prices have gone up, depriving investors of potential gains. Additionally, in the event GME goes down, Robinhood has deprived investors of "shorting" GME in the hopes the price drops. In sum, Robinhood has completely blocked retailer investors from purchasing GME for no legitimate reason, thereby depriving retailer investors from the benefits of Robinhood's services. Robinhood continues to randomly pull other securities from its app for no legitimate reason, the suit says. On the morning on January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff used his Robinhood app, searched for GME and other stocks on Robinhood's app, and found GME and others was unavailable. The stocks did not even appear, although GME and others are publicly traded companies available on all other platforms. The Plaintiff intended to purchase GME and other stocks from Robinhood's app and was deprived of the ability due to Robinhood's actions. Thus, the Plaintiff, like so many others, lost out on all earning opportunities, says the complaint. Plaintiff Bartosz Zybura was and is a citizen of the State of New Jersey. Robinhood Financial is an online brokerage firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 587-0760 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ziegler Sues Over Open-Market Manipulation --------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Ziegler, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00123 (D. Conn., Jan. 28, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removing the stock GameStop Corp. ("GME") from its trading platform in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the open-market. On January 11, 2021, stocks in GME began to rise and at that time, Robinhood allowed retail investors to trade GME on the open market. Allegedly, On January 27, 2021, Robinhood, in order to slow the growth of GME and deprived their customers of the ability to use their service, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and knowingly pulled GME from their app. Meaning, retail investors could no longer buy or even search for GME on Robinhood's app. According to the complaint, Robinhood's actions were done purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial intuitions who were not Robinhood's customers. Since pulling the stock from their app, GME prices have gone up, depriving investors of potential gains. Additionally, in the event GME goes down, Robinhood has deprived investors of "shorting" GME in the hopes the price drops. In sum, Robinhood has completely blocked retailer investors from purchasing GME for no legitimate reason, thereby depriving retailer investors from the benefits of Robinhood's services. Robinhood continues to randomly pull other securities from its app for no legitimate reason, the suit says. On the morning on January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff used his Robinhood app, searched for GME and other stocks on Robinhood's app, and found GME and others was unavailable. The stocks did not even appear, although GME and others are publicly traded companies available on all other platforms. The Plaintiff intended to purchase GME and other stocks from Robinhood's app and was deprived of the ability due to Robinhood's actions. Thus, the Plaintiff, like so many others, lost out on all earning opportunities, says the complaint. Plaintiff Zachary Ziegler was and is a citizen of the State of Connecticut. Robinhood Financial is an online brokerage firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 587-0760 ROY GRINNELL: Tellez-Vasquez Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roy Grinnell LLC. The case is styled as Cheryl Tellez-Vasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roy Grinnell LLC doing business as: Muv Dispensary, Case No. 2:21-cv-00152-SPL (D. Ariz., Jan. 28, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. MUV AZ -- https://muv-az.com/ -- is a medical cannabis dispensary located in the North Phoenix area near the corner of Cactus and Cave Creek.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariam Grigorian, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: mgrigorian@shamisgentile.com SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: PFOA Class Action Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Jim Therrien, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that the pace of a class-action suit over PFOA contamination of groundwater in sections of Bennington has been slowed by the COVID-19 pandemic, attorneys for the hundreds of plaintiffs said this week, but it remains on track for a trial in U.S. District Court or a possible settlement with Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics. The three law firms involved have released a video and media statement to update those affected in terms of their health and through diminution of their property values, because of the long-lasting industrial contamination embedded in soils and groundwater. "After nearly five years of litigation, lead plaintiffs in Bennington's class action PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) contamination case are still waiting for a trial date," the release stated. "Attorneys had expected the case to be adjudicated by now, but it has been delayed due to COVID-19 risks. With public health strategies progressing, attorneys are optimistic that a court date or settlement may be approaching." In a phone interview, two of the attorneys, David Silver of BarrSternberg Moss, Silver & Munson, of Bennington, and Emily Joselson, of Langrock Wool & Sperry, of Middlebury, stressed that they are ready to provide updates and to answer the questions of current or former residents who believe they might have been affected. The firms have established benningtonclassaction.com, where people can learn how to contact the attorneys or find other information about the contamination or the progress of the suit. Also representing the class-action plaintiffs are attorneys Gary Davis and Jamie Whitlock of Davis & Whitlock, of Ashville, N.C. Since nearly five years has passed, some residents might not realize the suit is still pending, the attorneys said, or that they might still be able to join the suit and/or qualify for blood testing to determine their level of PFOA. "We also want them to know we are still fighting for them," Silver said. HUNDREDS INVOLVED The attorneys said some 2,300 Bennington and North Bennington property owners have real estate within an area that was adversely affect, based on a state-identified contamination zone. And a subgroup of between 500 to 1,000 residents who consumed contaminated well water and have elevated levels of PFOA in their blood make up the exposure class. PFOA has been associated with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, high cholesterol and pregnancy-induced hypertension, and one aspect of the suit has sought continued medical monitoring for the exposure class, as the chemical is known to diminish slowly in the blood over many years. The lawsuit was certified as a class-action in 2019, and an appeal by the company of that decision by Judge Geoffrey Crawford in U.S. District Court in Rutland was later rejected at the appellate level, the attorneys said. They said they now expect a trial in the fall, unless there are further COVID-19-related delays, or a settlement agreement is reached with Saint-Gobain. DISOVERED IN 2016 The suit was filed over PFOA contamination of soil, groundwater and hundreds of private wells around two former ChemFab Corp. plants here, which Saint-Gobain acquired shortly before closing the last Bennington plant in 2002 and moving the operations to New Hampshire. Filed in May 2016, the lawsuit followed discovery of the chemical - associated with the liquid Teflon that ChemFab used to coat fiberglass and other fabric and dry them at high temperature - in numerous local wells. State environmental officials concluded that the contaminant was dispersed through factory stack emissions over parts of Bennington and over time worked into soil and then the groundwater. ChemFab began in 1968 at 108 Northside Drive and later moved to a newer 46,300-square-foot factory and warehouse on Water Street in North Bennington, where it operated through 2002. It is only since the early 2000s that PFOA and related industrial chemicals, which were used for decades in consumer and industrial products, emerged as a long-lasting contamination threat in water supplies around industrial sites worldwide. "The outcome of this class action suit is likely to inform future cases, and points to the scope of the chemical industry's potential future financial liability," according to the release. "Industry advisors and attorneys representing multinational corporations that manufacture or process PFOA and related chemicals PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are expected to continue to monitor the case." Joselson and Silver said that, while Saint-Gobain has reached two consent agreements with the state that required the company to provide some $50 million for new municipal water lines to contaminated properties and to cover other costs of addressing the pollution, the company has not admitted liability for harm caused to the health of residents or to their property. The contaminated wells have been replaced by a municipal source, they said, but the groundwater is expected to be reclassified by the state as Class IV, or unsuitable as a source of potable water because of PFOA, thereby affecting property values going forward for many years. The ongoing lawsuit "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 exposure class," the attorneys said in a release. For the property class members in the suit, the attorneys said they are seeking recovery for lowered property values as a result of the contamination, dubbed "property diminution." They said that, according to the suit's lead plaintiffs and an independent real estate expert, claimed losses can range from approximately 35 percent to 11 percent of each class member's overall property value. "If a jury agrees, the potential payout could be significant across the class," the attorneys stated. Joselson discussed the importance of the case in a video interview that was shared with suit class members. "Under federal law, we currently leave it up to chemical manufacturers like DuPont to report to the EPA if they are producing and selling a chemical that's unsafe," she said. "Some companies don't report their unsafe chemicals, and that was the case with the manufacturers of PFOA." Joselson said she and her co-counsel are confident about the status of the case, and are committed to presenting the evidence to a Vermont jury. "We have litigated virtually every possible legal issue for more than four years now," she said. "We're ready to try this case in court, if we're not able to settle it first." [GN] SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING: Feb. 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (OTCQX: SMICY) investors that acquired shares between April 23, 2020 and September 26, 2020. Investors have until February 8, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here https://portnoylaw.com/semiconductor/ to join the case. After market hours on September 7, 2020, it was reported in Reuters that "The Trump administration is considering whether to add China's top chipmaker SMIC to a trade blacklist, a Defense Department official said[.]" SMIC's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell $3.08 per share, or over 20%, on this news, to close at $12.02 per share on September 8, 2020, the next trading day. Reuters reported on September 26, 2020 that "The United States has imposed restrictions on exports to China's biggest chip maker SMIC after concluding there is an ‘unacceptable risk' equipment supplied to it could be used for military purposes." SMIC's ADR price fell sharply on this news, during intraday trading on the next trading day, September 28, 2020. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 8, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] SOAR COLLECTIVE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses TCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that another day, two more TCPA class actions targeting the Cannabis industry. This time both cases are in California (my backyard.) First, in Ronny McConn v. Soar Collective, Inc. d/b/a Orange County Cannabis Club the Plaintiff asserts that a dispensary hammered him with text messages promoting their product, without consent. These texts are pretty bad– full color images of tantalizing (for some) bud and everything. Ronny seeks to represent: "All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing of this action, (1) were sent a text message by or on behalf of Defendant, (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system, (3) for the purpose of soliciting Defendant's goods and services, (4) without prior express consent of the recipient, or with the same manner of purported consent Defendant claims to have obtained from Plaintiff, if any." Second, in Aram Sargsyan v. Empire Twin Palms, LLC and A1, A CA Commercial Cannabis Association, Inc. the Defendants are likewise accused of peppering a young surgical technologist with unwanted ads pushing pot. Aram seeks to represent: "All persons in the United States who (1) received a text message to their cellular phone number from Defendants, (2) within four years prior to the filing of this action, (3) which text message was sent without the recipient's prior express consent, and (4) which text message(s) (a) advertised Defendants or (b) encouraged the recipient to make a purchase from Defendants." Both of these cases were just filed on Friday and continue a trend the cannabis industry must make a note of. As we've been reporting, the cannabis industry is under a full on assault by the TCPA plaintiff's bar as the industry seems to be under the influence of mind-altering substances when it comes to TCPA compliance. And it hasn't gone well for either the dispensaries or the CRM and platforms that support them to date. We'll continue to keep an eye on these developments but, in the meantime, let's hope cannabis industry participants are reading this and looking to clean up their act. As the CEOs of Jornaya and Active Prospect explained in our big Unprecedented podcast interview -- the TCPA represents an existential threat to the well-funded cannabis industry as the Plaintiff's bar is looking to wake and rake -- in the money, that is. Will cannabis dispensaries (and their PE backers) be the new GREEN goose that print millions in settlement dollars for ravenous plaintiff's lawyers? Only time (and tcpaworld.com) will tell. But to my (really the Archduke's) cannabis dispensary friends -- is "pot dealers" too informal a term? -- there ARE resources to help. Let's chat. [GN] SONA NANOTECH: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Sona Nanotech, Inc. (OTC: SNANF) investors that acquired shares between July 2, 2020 and November 25, 2020. Investors have until February 16, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email to join the case. The investigation focuses on whether Sona issued misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors. On October 29, 2020 it was announced by Sona that its request for an emergency use authorization to market its rapid COVID-19 antigen test in the United States was denied by the FDA. On the same day, Sona's shares fell 48%. On November 25, 2020, the withdrawal of "an Interim Order authorization from Health Canada for the marketing of its rapid, COVID-19 antigen test in order to obtain more clinical data to augment its submission" was announced by Sona. Shares of Sona fell by more than 67% on the same day based on this news. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 16, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] SPLUNK INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of February 2 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK) ("Splunk") investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Splunk common stock between October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). REMINDER: Investors who purchased or acquired Splunk common stock during the Class Period may, no later than February 2, 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/splunk-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=splunk According to its filings with the SEC, Splunk "provides innovative software solutions that ingest data from different sources including systems, devices and interactions, and turn[s] that data into meaningful business insights across the organization." Splunk states that its "Data-to-Everything platform enables users to investigate, monitor, analyze and act on data regardless of format or source." The Class Period commences on October 21, 2020, when Splunk held a call with several analysts at the Virtual Analyst & Investor Session at .conf.20. On this call, Splunk assured investors that everything was on track for the close of the third quarter, which was just ten days after the call. However, the truth regarding its third quarter was revealed after the market closed on December 2, 2020, when Splunk announced its financial results for its third fiscal quarter for 2021. In its announcement, Splunk reported total revenues of $559 million, down 11% year-over-year and which missed estimates by nearly $60 million. Furthermore, Splunk announced quarterly non-GAAP earnings per share of -$0.07, missing estimates by $0.15, as well as GAAP earnings per share of -$1.26, missing by $0.24 per share. Following this news, shares of Splunk common stock fell, closing at $158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, down over 23% from the December 2, 2020 closing price of $205.91 per share. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors 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, the defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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. Splunk investors may, no later than February 2, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] SPLUNK INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of Feb. 2 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds shareholders of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Splunk Inc. ("Splunk" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SPLK) between October 21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Splunk common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than February 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Splunk investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Splunk Securities Class Litigation Splunk, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in San Francisco, California, is a software company specializing in web-based products for searching, monitoring, and analyzing machine-generated data at an organizational level. The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Splunk was failing to close deals with most of its biggest customers in the fiscal third quarter 2021; (2) Splunk was not achieving the financial targets it had previously announced; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were at all relevant times materially false and misleading. On December 2, 2020, after markets closed, Splunk announced disappointing results for the fiscal third quarter 2021, including a decrease of approximately 11% in total revenues, missing analyst estimates by almost $60 million. On the subsequent earnings call, Company executives disclosed for the first time that Splunk had failed to close most of its largest deals during the quarter. On this news, the price of Splunk stock dropped $47.88 per share, or 23.25%, from its closing price of $205.91 on December 2, 2020, to close at $158.03 per share on December 3, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility [GN] TD AMERITRADE: Schaff Files Civil Rights Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc. The case is styled as Austin Schaff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:21-cv-00222-WFJ-JSS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2021). The case arises from alleged civil rights violation pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. TD Ameritrade -- https://www.tdameritrade.com/ -- is a broker that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, and fixed income investments, margin lending, and cash management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Justice, Esq. JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC 1205 N Franklin Street, Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 566-0550 Fax: (813) 566-0770 Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com - and - Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Phone: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com TEXAS: Eaunman Suit Seeks to Certify Inmates Class & Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stevai Kurt Eaunman v. Jimmy Bowman, et. al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00560-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all inmates who are, or will be, incarcerated at the Powledge Unit, and who are subjected to Texas Dept of Criminal Justice's (TDCJ's) policy and practice of failing to regulate high apparent indoor temperatures in the housing areas;" 2. certifying the following sub-classes of people who are 1) incarcerated at the Powledge Unit, or will be in the future, 2) are subjected to TDCJ's policy and practice of failing to regulate high apparent temperatures in the housing areas, and either: a. Heat-Sensative Subclass: (i) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heat- related illness, injury, or death (including, but not limited to, suffering from obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, cirrhosis of the liver, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or, (ii) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotics, antihistamines, antidepressants, beta blockers, or diuretic; or, (iii) are ever the age of 60. b. Disability Subclass: suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heat related illness, injury, or death due o their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat heir disability. TDCJ manages the overall operation of the state's prison system, parole, and state jail systems. It also provides funding, training, and certain oversight of parole. TDCJ is the largest state agency in Texas. The Plaintiff appears pro se. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pEbUjQ at no extra charge.[CC] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Misclassification Suit Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that more than 4,800 Uber drivers may proceed as a class on their claim that they were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees under California law but not on their related minimum wage, overtime, and sick-pay claims, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Jan. 26. Whether Uber misclassified these drivers under California's ABC test can be mostly resolved on a classwide basis, Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said. He partially granted the class certification motion on that threshold issue, as well as the expense reimbursement and wage-statement claims. Parts A and B of that test ask if the drivers are free from Uber's control when performing their work and if their work is outside the course of Uber's normal business. Those questions don't require any individualized inquiries, the court said. Determining whether the drivers have "sufficient flexibility" under part A can be resolved by examining the terms of Uber's standard contract, which apply to all drivers, and courts have consistently ruled that Uber and the drivers are "both in the business of transportation" under part B. Part C, which asks if the drivers are engaged in independently established businesses, presents some individualized issues, but it doesn't matter because Uber has to satisfy all three parts of the ABC test to prove it properly classified the drivers as contractors, the court said. But it's impossible to determine the wage- and sick-pay claims without delving into individualized inquiries because the drivers insist they should be paid for the time they spent waiting to accept rides and should be counted toward their leave, instead of limiting their claims to their driving time, the court said. Determining if this "on call" time is compensable would require the court to assess if each driver engaged in any personal activities while waiting for a ride request. The drivers filed a consolidated class action complaint in April, alleging that Uber's misclassification resulted in multiple wage-and-hour violations of California law. Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC represents the proposed class. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents Uber Technologies Inc. The case is James v. Uber Techs. Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:19-cv-06462, 1/26/21 [GN] UNITED STATES: Court Refuses to Certify RNs Class in Crawley Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Federal Claims denies the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled LINDA CRAWLEY, LIP CHEN, MARTA ELIZABETH LOPEZ, EVELYN SHERMAN, HEATHER GUTENSOHN, MELANIE CHRISTIAN, JOSEPH HICKS, JENNY B. REDMOND, and SAJITHA NATHAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 18-1804C (Fed. Cl.). The Plaintiffs seek to recover back pay and interest for night-premium pay allegedly not paid by the United States, acting through the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"). The named Plaintiffs are registered nurses ("RNs") from the VA Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia, and hybrid health-care workers from the VA Medical Center in Hines, Illinois. They seek to represent other VA employees similarly situated. The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification under Rule 23 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"), approval of a postcard providing notice to putative class members, approval of the official class notice, appointment of Ira M. Lechner as class counsel, and appointment of Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions, Inc., as class-action administrator. They have also moved for an order compelling the Defendant to produce under seal identifying information of potential putative class members in various categories. Discussion In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the VA did not pay them the differential night-premium pay to which they were entitled. They seek back pay and interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 5596 (the Back Pay Act); 5 U.S.C. Section 6303, et seq. (the leave-with-pay statutes); and 38 U.S.C. Sections 7453(b), 7454(b)(1). The Richmond Plaintiffs -- Heather Gutensohn, Melanie Christian, Joseph Hicks, Jenny B. Redmond, and Sajitha Nathan -- are employed as RNs at the VA Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia. The Hines Plaintiffs -- Linda Crawley, Lip Chen, Marta Elizabeth Lopez, and Evelyn Sherman -- are employed as hybrid employees at the VA Medical Center in Hines, Illinois. The Plaintiffs from both the Richmond and Hines facilities seek to represent putative classes of similarly situated VA employees at both their own facilities and other VA medical facilities. The Plaintiffs have moved to certify subclasses based on two categories of affected employees: (1) hybrid employees similarly situated to the Hines Plaintiffs, and (2) RNs and Licensed Practical Nurses ("LPNs") similarly situated to the Richmond Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have also moved to certify another subclass consisting of general schedule employees at the VA, who were allegedly not paid the proper night-premium pay. The Defendant has opposed the Plaintiffs' Motion, arguing that the named Hines Plaintiffs were in fact paid the premium pay to which they were entitled under Title 5, so they cannot be representative of a putative class, and class status is inappropriate and unnecessary for the Richmond Plaintiffs because the VA has identified all potential claimants at the Richmond facility, among other arguments. RCFC 23 establishes the requirements for the Court to certify an opt-in class. The Court has summarized RCFC 23's provisions as imposing five requirements: (i) numerosity; (ii) commonality; (iii) typicality; (iv) adequacy; and (v) superiority. Judge Richard A. Hertling finds that despite having the burden of establishing all five of RCFC 23's requirements for class certification, much of the Plaintiffs' argument amounts to assertions that the requirements have been met. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that class status is appropriate by asserting that the requirements of RCFC 23 are satisfied without providing the necessary factual support and legal analysis to enable the Court to determine that the requirements are indeed satisfied. According to the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs make no effort to apply the facts derived through class discovery to the legal standards for each prong of RCFC 23. The "submission" that the requirements of RCFC 23 are met does not satisfy the Plaintiffs' burden. The Defendant's opposition, however, enables the Court to determine that portions of the Plaintiffs' motion must be denied with prejudice. The named Hines Plaintiffs are hybrid employees and they seek to represent other hybrid employees who, when they used authorized and accrued leave during nighttime hours, were not paid an amount equal to the additional pay they would have received while working scheduled tours of duty between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (and contiguous hours). The Plaintiffs argue that the 8-hour rule in 5 U.S.C. Section 5545(a)(2) does not apply to the hybrid employees at the Hines VA facility, and that the Hines facility applied the limitation in error. The Court cannot know how many of the 237 individuals identified in the interrogatory response were not paid properly under Title 5. Regardless of the precise number, however, the Court determines that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the requisite numerosity. In addition, the named Hines Plaintiffs cannot meet RCFC 23's commonality requirement. Because the named Hines Plaintiffs properly received the night-premium pay to which they were entitled under Title 5, they do not have a common question of law or fact with potential Plaintiffs, who were improperly paid. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification regarding the Hines Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs propose to certify two subclasses, based separately on the Hines and Richmond plaintiffs' claims, covering all similarly situated VA employees nationally. The Plaintiffs, however, have failed to establish RCFC 23's commonality requirement because they have not shown that "there are questions of law or fact common to the class" or that "the United States acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class." Because the named Hines Plaintiffs themselves were not improperly paid, they cannot represent a national putative class, Judge Hertling holds. Given the confusion caused by the Plaintiffs' interrogatory, there is no indication that there are pay discrepancies at the Hines facility, much less national or systemic discrepancies. The VA confirmed that 795 RNs and LPNs were not paid the approved 14 percent pay at the Richmond facility. A current VA Management Analyst, Robert Jackson, explained that the discrepancy at the Richmond facility was caused by "personnel actions that changed employee records due to promotion, job change, and[/]or general adjustments." Despite indication of errors at the Richmond facility, it does not follow that the same systemic error exists throughout the VA system, Judge Hertling notes. According to the Defendant's witness, Mr. Jackson, the pay discrepancy found in Richmond is individualized to certain personnel actions. It is possible that there are pay errors at other VA facilities, but the Court needs more than speculation to conclude that there is a national problem. It is the Plaintiffs' burden to meet, and they have failed to do so, Judge Hertling points out. The Plaintiffs also have not identified any other VA facilities where an increase in night-premium pay was approved, even though they noted that they have served the Defendant with an interrogatory seeking specific information as to pay practices at other VA facilities. Because the Plaintiffs merely speculate about underpayment at other VA facilities without identifying a systemic error or even identifying other VA facilities that have authorized increased night-premium pay, they cannot show that there is a common question of law or fact in a national class, Judge Hertling holds. On the same reasoning, they cannot show that the United States acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to a national class. The Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot establish a national putative class based on the Richmond Plaintiffs' claims. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to establish RCFC 23's commonality requirement for a national class based on the Hines and Richmond Plaintiffs' claims, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a national putative class. The Plaintiffs also seek to certify a subclass consisting of general schedule employees at VA facilities. They refer to these employees as "GS-Title 5." The VA allegedly "failed to pay night premium pay and/or Saturday premium pay when those employees used authorized annual leave, sick leave, or military training leave, instead of performing scheduled work during night and/or Saturday hours since November 23, 2012." To the extent that the "GS-Title 5" employees may be subject to the same Title 5 provisions as the Hines Plaintiffs, the named Hines Plaintiffs were not improperly paid and cannot represent them, Judge Hertling holds. The Court, therefore, must deny the Plaintiffs' attempt to certify a subclass of general schedule employees at VA facilities. The Court considers class certification at the Richmond facility alone. The named Richmond Plaintiffs are RNs at the VA Medical Center in Richmond, Virginia. They seek to represent other RNs and LPNs who were not paid the approved increase in the night-premium pay from 10 percent to 14 percent at the Richmond VA Medical Center and other VA facilities that have approved increased night-premium pay. The VA has identified 795 RNs and LPNs, who were not paid the increased pay at the Richmond facility. Conclusion The Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden under RCFC 23 for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification is denied. Limited to potential plaintiffs at the Richmond facility, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class based on the Richmond Plaintiffs' claim is denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may move again for class certification of potential Richmond facility Plaintiffs by no later than February 8, 2021. If the Plaintiffs choose to do so, they must analyze each of RCFC 23's requirements with particularity, considering the facts and circumstances of this case. The Plaintiffs' motion for (1) approval of a postcard providing notice to putative class members; (2) approval of the official class notice; (3) appointment of Ira M. Lechner as the class counsel; and (4) appointment of Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions, Inc. as the class-action administrator, limited to the Richmond Plaintiffs, is denied without prejudice. Regarding potential classes consisting of (1) hybrid employees at the Hines facility, (2) hybrid employees, RNs, and LPNs nationally, and (3) general schedule employees, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. With respect to these classes, the Plaintiffs' motion for (1) approval of a postcard providing notice to putative class members; (2) approval of the official class notice; (3) appointment of Ira M. Lechner as the class counsel; and (4) appointment of Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions, Inc. as the class-action administrator is denied. The Plaintiffs' motion for oral argument is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Jan. 25, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxswh56c from Leagle.com. Ira M. Lechner, in Washington, D.C., for the Plaintiffs. Joseph A. Pixley -- Joe.Pixley@usdoj.gov -- Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C., Kendall Rocio, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, of counsel, for the Defendant. VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:VYGR) between June 1, 2017 and November 9, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 24, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased Voyager Therapeutics securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Voyager class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2026.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 24, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT: According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's VY-HTT01 IND submission to the FDA lacked key information regarding certain chemistry, manufacturing and controls matters, including, inter alia, drug-device compatibility and drug substance and product characterization; (2) the Company's IND submission for VY-HTT01 was therefore deficient; (3) the Company had thus materially overstated the likelihood of FDA approval for VY-HTT01 based on the IND submission; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To join the Voyager class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2026.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Reminds of March 24 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Jan. 26 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. ("Voyager" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VYGR) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 1, 2017 and November 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 24, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here -- https://schallfirm.com/cases/voyager-therapeutics-inc/#case-form -- 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. Voyager's IND submission to the FDA for VY-HTT01 failed to include key information on chemistry, manufacturing and controls ("CMC") matters including drug-device compatibility and product characterization. The Company's IND submission for VY-HTT01 was deficient based on this failure. The Company overstated the likelihood of the IND submission achieving FDA approval. 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 Voyager, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] WALMART INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart Inc. ("Walmart" or "the Company") (NYSE: WMT) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Walmart securities between March 30, 2016 and December 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/wmt. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company knowingly filled prescriptions that were issued by so-called "pill-mill" prescribers; (2) the Company filled thousands of prescriptions that showed obvious red flags, including highly-dangerous cocktails of drugs, (3) the Company's managers made it difficult for Walmart pharmacists to comply with their legal obligations by pressuring them to fulfill as many orders as possible; (4) hence, the Company's pharmacy revenues were inflated because the Company filled thousands of invalid prescriptions in violation of the Controlled Substance Act dispensing requirements; (5) the aforementioned conduct would subject the Company to regulatory scrutiny; and 6) as a result, Defendants' statements about Walmart's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/wmt or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Walmart you have until March 22, 2021 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. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] WORLDPAC INC: FLSA Collective Status of Delivery Drivers Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HONEYCUTT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. WORLDPAC, INC., a Michigan Corporation and NATIONAL DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, A Missouri Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-10148-MAG-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 1. conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective; 2. approving his proposed "Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms, and authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the Proposed Notice via first-class mail and e-mail to the proposed FLSA collective, defined as: "all current and former Delivery Drivers who worked for Worldpac, Inc. or National Delivery Solutions, LLC., and were not paid overtime, in the United States at any time from three years prior to the date the Court grants conditional certification through a date specified by the Court"; 3. granting the Plaintiff's to send each member of the proposed FLSA collective a text message notifying them of their right to opt in to the case; 4. requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the order; and 5. allowing putative FLSA collective members 60 days from circulation of the notice to file written consent forms. This case arises from the Defendants' willful misclassification of John Honeycutt and all other similarly situated Delivery Drivers as independent contractors. The Plaintiff and the putative collective, deliver automotive parts to the customers of WorldPac and Defendant NDS. The Delivery Drivers are critical to operation of both the Defendants' businesses. The business model is simple. NDS finds the Delivery Drivers, has them sign a standardized "Independent Contractor & Equipment Lease Agreement," then assigns the Delivery Driver to perform package delivery services for WorldPac. The Plaintiff (and the Opt-in Plaintiff) spent 50-60 hours a week delivering packages exclusively for the Defendants, but never received any overtime wages. This lawsuit is brought by Plaintiff, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 207, to recover unpaid overtime wages. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cHTawj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, Michigan 48076 Telephone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com [*] Australian Insurers Face COVID-19 Payout Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- insurancebusinessmag.com reports that Australian insurers can't catch a break as they continue to face COVID-19 pandemic-related business interruption (BI) class action lawsuits revolving around an "absolute stuff up" in their contractual fine print. At least five legal firms are investigating potential class-action lawsuits against insurers over their denial of BI insurance payouts amid the pandemic. Michael Herrmann, who owns a bicycle tour company in Sydney, said the class action is "going to be a fight to the end." He had seen his business's revenue drop by 95% since the beginning of the pandemic due to lockdowns and loss of international tourists as the country's borders remain closed. When COVID-19 hit Australia, Herrmann's Bonza Bike Tour had a BI policy with CGU, a subsidiary of IAG. Despite making a claim and involving the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), Herrmann still has not yet received a payout. "Every time I've made a claim, they've waited to the last possible day to respond," Herrmann said, as reported by ABC. IAG argued: "Our policies weren't written or designed to provide cover for a pandemic, so we need clarification on how they should be interpreted in light of the impact of COVID-19." Many BI policies state they do not cover revenue losses due to "diseases declared to be quarantinable under the Quarantine Act 1908 (Cth) and subsequent amendments." However, the Commonwealth replaced the Quarantine Act with the Biosecurity Act 2015, which judges have pointed out in recent rulings. Investor Claim Partner (ICP) litigation funder John Walker describes the Quarantine Act debacle as an "absolute stuff up" by the insurance industry. "If they did not intend to cover pandemics, then to a certain extent I feel sorry for them, but that does not alleviate their legal obligations to the insured," Walker said, as reported by ABC. "It's been 12 months since this pandemic started. There's been negligible claims paid. It ought to change." [GN] [*] Blank Rome Issues Pratt's Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Oberly, Esq., and Jeffrey Rosenthal, Esq., of Blank Rome LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that for some time now, employers have been the main target of a relentless wave of class action lawsuits by employees alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the use fingerprint scans for timekeeping purposes. Recently, however, employees and the plaintiff's bar have added a new primary target for such suits: third-party biometric timekeeping technology vendors. To date, vendors' ability to avoid or limit liability under BIPA has been mixed. But there are several defenses that - while still being developed and refined by the courts - may prove useful for vendors to extricate themselves from bet-the-company BIPA suits or, at a minimum, trim the scope of potential liability. Originally published in the February/March 2021 edition of Pratt's Privacy & Cybersecurity Law Report (Vol. 7, No. 2. Please see full article below for more information. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/designing-a-bipa-defense-strategies-for-8256902/ [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 ***