/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210215.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, February 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 27
Headlines
ABC PHONES: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to April 8
ABC PHONES: Grant of Bid to Compel Arbitration in Solorio Endorsed
ACCELLION INC: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Status Filing Due November 4
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Can File Under Seal Exhibits 1-6 in Mendell Suit
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 29 Deadline
AVIVA PLC: Faces Suit Over Denied Business Interruption Coverage
AVON PRODUCTS: $4.35M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: Plan of Allocation in Avon Securities Suit Approved
AVON PRODUCTS: Settles Securities Class Action Litigation
BANK OF AMERICA: Mary Alexander & Associates Files Class Action
BAPTIST HEALTH: Appeals Whitley Insurance Suit Ruling to 8th Cir.
BAPTIST HEALTH: Whitley Appeals Insurance Suit Ruling to 8th Cir.
BAYER AG: Settles Roundup Herbicide Claims for $2 Billion
BCG EQUITIES: Class Claims in Buhler Dismissed Without Prejudice
BEST EXPRESS: Faces Gardea Labor Suit Over Systematic Wage Theft
BIT DIGITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid to Revisit Dismissal Order in Hu Denied
CABOT OIL: Delaware County ERS Is Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Proposed CERB Payments
CENTENE MGMT: Partial Grant of Bid to Dismiss Angelo Recommended
CENTURY-NATIONAL: Unmasked Seeks 9th Cir. Review in Insurance Suit
CLEANSPARK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 22 Deadline
COMMUNITY PROBATION: Court Narrows Claims in McNeil Class Suit
CONGRESS COLLECTION: Court Grants Randolph Leave to Amend Complaint
COPPER RIVER: Aparicio FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
CORIZON HEALTH: Question in Abraham Suit Certified to Oregon S.C..
COULTER VENTURES: Collective FLSA Classes Get Conditional Status
COVANTA PLYMOUTH: Partial Bid to Dismiss Lloyd Suit Partly Granted
CREDIT CONTROL: One-Year Extension to File Class Status Bid Nixed
DENVER, CO: April 26 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
DENVER, CO: Bid for Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Tossed
DENVER, CO: BLM 5280 Has Until Apr. 26 to File Class Status Bid
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Silva Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Class Suit Dismissal
DPSP HEALTHCARE: London CEPA Suit Alleges Wrongful Termination
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
DUDE PRODUCTS: Faces Wyant Suit Over DUDE Wipes' Flushable Labels
EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 18
ELECTROLUX HOME: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 16
FGO DELIVERS: Benitez FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Madlinger FDCPA Class Suit in New Jersey
FISHER ISLAND: Faces $11MM Class Action Over Property Assessments
FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Pennington Seeks 4th Cir. Review in WARN Suit
FMK MANAGEMENT: Frank Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
FRENCH PARADOX: Rosado Seeks to Certify Class of Service Employees
GENERAL MOTORS: Anderton's Class Certification Bid Due October 15
GENERAL MOTORS: Heater Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Shepard Suit Says
GOOGLE LLC: Google Antitrust Litigation Transferred to N.D. Cal.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Belin Health Plans Suit Wins Class Certification
I.C. SYSTEM: Miller Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
IC SYSTEM: Faces McCutchen FDCPA Suit in Eastern Dist. of Virginia
INVITATION HOMES: Rivera Has Until Oct. 29 to File Class Status Bid
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Federman Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of April 2 Deadline
JAMGLE JAM: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KALEIDA HEALTH: Class Certification Bids Must be filed by June 18
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Due July 1
LITHIA MOTORS: $4.8K in Costs Awarded in Mendoza TILA UTPA Suit
MACY'S WEST: Hawes Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
MARKET BASKET: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Coffee Cans
MDL 2591: Sygenta's Bid for Summary Judgment in Corn Suit Granted
MDL 2875: Claims in 3 Master Complaints in Liability Suit Narrowed
MID-SOUTH MAINTENANCE: Must File Joint Stipulation by Feb. 15
MIDLAND CREDIT: Coss Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MONTEBELLO HILLS: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Claims
NEWPORT BEACH AUTOMOTIVE: Guerra TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
NISSAN OF NORTH: Sells Automobiles With CVT Defect, Stringer Claims
OPENSIDED MRI: Withdrawal of Class Certification Bid Sought
OREGON: Settles Unemployment Benefits Class Action Lawsuit
ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
PROJECT O.H.R.: Appeals Class Action Notice Form in Kurovskaya Suit
REGIONALCARE: Kurtz Seek to Certify Non-Exempt Employee Colllective
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
RHODE ISLAND: Response to Class Status Bid Extended to March 1
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Debuts Super Bowl Ad Amid Gamestop Class Suit
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Joseph Saveri Law Firm Files Antitrust Suit
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Removes Stocks From Platform, Nordeen Says
ROYAL SEAS: McCurley Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to Ninth Circuit
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due April 1
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Hanna Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Appeals Ruling in Fox's Tax Suit to 6th Cir.
SCIPLAY CORP: Appeals Partial Dismissal Ruling in Securities Suit
SHRYNE GROUP: Faces Nevarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
SMTC CORP: Deceives Stockholders to Approve Merger, Quach Alleges
STANFORD INT'L: Denial of Bid to Intervene in Rotstain Suit Upheld
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Skalubinski Sues Over Coffee Drink's False Labels
STATE FARM: Hearing on Shields Class Certification Set for Nov. 2
STEWARD HEALTH: Class Status Filing Deadline Due August 16
TAWKIFY INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Stanfield Suit Denied
TD WATERHOUSE: Sued in Canada Over Stock Trading Restrictions
TENNESSEE TITLE: Sake RICO Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee
TESLA INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
TKS CARE: Duran Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Under Labor Code
TOWN OF VALLEY BROOK: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hybrid Brake Class Suit
TRANSDEV BUS: Individual Claims in Richards Dismissed W/ Prejudice
TRICIDA INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
TRUSTPILOT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
TWITTER INC: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due September 24
TYSON FOODS: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
U.S. BANK: Partial Bid to Dismiss Amended Maag Suit Denied as Moot
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Wit ERISA Suit
UNITED STATES: Devos Files Motion to Quash in Sweet Suit
UNITED STATES: Lopez Appeals Class Action Dismissal to 8th Cir.
US FERTILITY: Faces Browne Suit Over Patient Info Data Breach
VITALITY MEDICAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOYAGER: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of March 24 Deadline
WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobby's' Reply to Summary Judgment Bid Due May 3
WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
WFS EXPRESS: Bautista Settlement Deal Wins Initial Approval
WHOLE FOODS: Must Face Class Action Over Deceptive Graham Crackers
YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Retirement Plans
YUMCO LLC: Xu Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
[*] Florida Luxury Vacation Rentals Firm Faces Class Action
*********
ABC PHONES: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to April 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS PANDURO, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly
situated, v. ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., dba VICTRA, a
North Carolina Corporation; VERIZON, an unknown entity; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00742-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order regarding joint
stipulation and agreement to continue case management dates.
The Court modifies the schedule as follows:
Description Deadline New Date
Fact Discovery Cut-off: Jan. 8, 2021 April 8, 2021
Last Day to File Motions Jan. 8, 2021 April 8, 2021
for Class Certification:
Last Day to File Motions Jan. 22, 2021 April 22, 2021
(Excluding Daubert Motions
and all other Motions
in Limine):
Last Day to Serve Initial Jan. 22, 2021 April 22, 2021
Expert Reports:
Last Day to File Opposition Feb. 5, 2021 May 5, 2021
to Motion for Class:
Certification
Last Day to File Reply in Feb. 19, 2021 May 19, 2021
Support of Motion for
Class Certification:
Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Feb. 19, 2021 May 19, 2021
Expert Reports
Last Day to Conduct March 12, 2021 June 11, 2021
Settlement Proceedings:
Expert Discovery Cutoff: March 19, 2021 June 18, 2021
Last Day to File Daubert March 26, 2021 June 25, 2021
Motions:
Last Day to File Motions April 16, 2021 July 16, 2021
in Limine (Excluding
Daubert Motions)
Final Pretrial May 14, 2021 August 13, 2021
Conference:
ABC Phones of North Carolina, Inc. was founded in 1996. The
Company's line of business includes providing two-way
radiotelephone communication services such as cellular telephone
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/374DnUr at no extra charge.[CC]
ABC PHONES: Grant of Bid to Compel Arbitration in Solorio Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 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, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01051 NONE JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California recommends that the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration be granted and the action be stayed.
Plaintiffs Solorio and Diaz were employed by ABC at retail
locations in California. The Plaintiffs seek to hold their former
employer liable for wage and hour violations under California law,
on behalf of a class of others similarly situated.
The Plaintiffs allege they are former store managers for ABC Phones
of North Carolina, and were classified as "non-exempt, hourly"
employees. Solorio was hired by ABC in March 2018 and became a
store manager in September 2018. She remained a store manager
until her employment with the Defendant ended in August 2019.
During the course of her employment, Solorio worked at stores
located in Delano and Fresno, California. Diaz worked as a store
manager in Chula Vista, California, from approximately October 2017
to June 2019.
The Plaintiffs filed a complaint on June 22, 2020, in Kern County
Superior Court Case No. BCV-20-101428. They seek to challenge the
applicable policies and practices of their former employer on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to hold ABC liable for the
following: (1) failure to compensate for all hours worked in
violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 200, 204, 1194, and 1198; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code
Sections 200, 510, 1194; (3) failure to provide meal and rest
periods as required under Cal. Labor Code Sections 203, 223, 226.7,
512, and 1998; (4) failure to timely reimburse for necessary
business expenditures under Cal. Labor Code Section 2802; (5)
failure to provide accurate, timely, and itemized wage statements
in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 226; (6) waiting time
penalties under Cal. Labor Code Sections 201-203; and (7) unfair
business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200. On July 30, 2020, ABC filed a Notice of Removal, thereby
initiating the action in the Court.
On Nov. 25, 2020, ABC filed the motion to compel arbitration now
bending before the Court, asserting the Plaintiffs each executed an
arbitration agreement and agreed to arbitrate claims encompassed in
this lawsuit on an individual basis. Thus, ABC seeks to compel the
Plaintiff to arbitrate the claims, dismissal of the class action
allegations, and a stay of the action pending completion of
arbitration. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion
on Jan. 13, 2021, asserting ABC has not established the existence
of an arbitration agreement and any agreement between the parties
was unconscionable. ABC filed a reply on Jan. 20, 2021.
Magistrate Judge Thurston concludes that the Plaintiffs and ABC
entered into valid arbitration agreements, which encompass the
issues in dispute. As a result, "there is a presumption of
arbitrability" and ABC's motion to compel arbitration should not be
denied. Further, the Magistrate Judge finds a stay of the
proceedings while arbitration is pending is appropriate.
Based upon the foregoing, she recommended the following:
1. The clause governing amendment be severed from the
agreement;
2. The Defendant's motion to compel arbitration on an
individual basis be granted;
3. The matter be stayed to allow the completion of the
arbitration;
4. The counsel be directed to file a joint status report
within 120 days and every 120 days thereafter. In addition, the
counsel be directed to file a joint status report within 10 days of
the determination by the arbitrator; and
5. The Court retains jurisdiction to confirm the arbitration
award and enters judgment for the purpose of enforcement.
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the
Local Rules of Practice for the Court. Within 14 days after being
served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file
written objections with the Court. Such a document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal
the District Court's order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/y234mwcr from
Leagle.com.
ACCELLION INC: Faces Class Action Over Massive Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Brunner, writing for Seattle Times, reports that the legal
claims are flying over the massive unemployment-data breach
involving Washington State Auditor Pat McCarthy's office.
A Seattle law firm on Feb. 2 filed a lawsuit against Accellion, the
California company whose file-transfer service was breached in
December, on behalf of Jason Stahl, a Seattle man who filed for
unemployment last year.
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status on behalf of more than
1 million people whose personal information was exposed, was filed
in King County Superior Court by the law firm Tousley Brain
Stephens.
The 19-page civil complaint accuses Accellion of negligence and of
violating Washington's Consumer Protection Act due to the breach of
its file-transfer service, known as FTA, which the auditor's office
had relied on.
"Defendant was aware that FTA was an inadequately secure product,
yet sold this vulnerable product to [the auditor's office] for the
transfer of Personal Information," the lawsuit states.
As a result of the breach, Stahl and other Washington residents
"have suffered actual damages, and are at imminent risk of future
harm, including identity theft and fraud that would result in
monetary loss."
The personal information exposed in the breach included Social
Security numbers, driver's licenses and other personal
identification, as well as banking and employment history. The data
breach affects anyone who filed for unemployment in Washington
between Jan. 1 and Dec. 10, 2020, the auditor's office said.
Such data "is highly coveted and valuable" on the black market,
where criminals sell stolen consumer information, "exposing
consumers to identity theft and fraud for years to come," the
lawsuit alleges.
Accellion did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
the lawsuit on Feb. 3.
The state auditor's office, which paid $17,000 a year for
Accellion's FTA service, was not named as a defendant in the
lawsuit. [GN]
ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Status Filing Due November 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SMITH v. ALLEGHENY
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00147 (W.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge entered an order granting
the joint motion/stipulation to extend case management deadlines as
follows:
-- Class certification discovery shall be completed by July
9, 2021.
-- The Plaintiff's expert report as to class certification is
due by August 6, 2021.
-- The Defendant's expert report as to class certification is
due by September 3, 2021.
-- Discovery of class certification experts shall be
completed by October 5, 2021.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class action certification,
memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence shall
be filed by November 4, 2021.
-- The Defendant's memorandum in opposition to class
certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed
by December 3, 2021.
-- Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification shall
be filed by December 17, 2021.
-- The telephone conference originally scheduled for March
12, 2021 is rescheduled for July 12, 2021 at 9:30.
The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.
Allegheny Technologies Incorporated is a specialty metals company
headquartered at Six PPG Place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[CC]
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Can File Under Seal Exhibits 1-6 in Mendell Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL MENDELL, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MEDICAL
RESPONSE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01227-BAS-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California:
(i) granted the Defendant's motion to file under seal exhibits
1-6 to the declaration of Rebecca A. Girolamo in support
of its motion to strike; and
(ii) denied without prejudice the parties' motions to file
under seal the documents filed in support of, or
opposition to, Mendell's motion to certify class.
On July 1, 2019, Mendell filed the putative class action against
American Medical Response ("AMR") in federal court. The parties
sought a stipulated protective order, which Magistrate Judge Karen
S. Crawford entered on Jan. 10, 2020.
The parties each filed several motions to file documents under
seal. Mendell moved to seal documents for his motion for class
certification and for his reply. AMR moved to seal documents for
its opposition to the motion for class certification and for its
motion to strike.
AMR moves to file under seal exhibits 1-6 to the declaration of
Rebecca A. Girolamo in support of itss motion to strike. AMR must
show good cause to file exhibits 1-6 to the Girolamo Declaration
under seal.
Judge Bashant finds that the documents that AMR seeks to file under
seal all discuss or disclose the terms of the proposed settlement
between the parties. After weighing the public and private
interests at issue, she concludes that it is necessary to seal the
settlement discussions attached as exhibits to the Girolamo
Declaration. Therefore, she will grant AMR's motion to file under
seal exhibits 1-6 to the Girolamo Declaration.
The parties move to file under seal numerous documents relating to
their briefs filed in support of, or opposition to, the class
certification motion.
Judge Bashant cannot determine whether the scope of the sealing
order that the parties seek strikes the right balance of competing
interests. In sum, she holds that the parties have not met their
burden to show compelling reasons that would support their motions
to file under seal the documents filed in support of, or opposition
to, class certification. Therefore, she will deny without
prejudice the parties' motions to seal.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Bashant granted the Defendant's
motion to file under seal exhibits 1-6 to the declaration of
Rebecca A. Girolamo in support of its motion to strike. She
directed the Clerk of the Court to accept and file under seal the
requested document.
Judge Bashant denied without prejudice the parties' motions to file
under seal the documents filed in support of, or opposition to,
Mendell's motion to certify class. The parties may reapply for a
sealing order on or before Feb. 24, 2021. Should the parties elect
to do so, they must meet and confer to coordinate any request to
seal the same material and avoid duplicative filings.
Any motion for a sealing order must fully address the "compelling
reasons" supporting the sealing of the relevant information. A
party may do so by filing a chart identifying document name, sealed
docket number, and page and line/paragraph number of the precise
information that the party seeks to file under seal. That chart
will include citations to a declaration from a corporate
representative or other relevant individual with personal knowledge
attesting as to the reason why the sealing is necessary--for
example, such declaration must identify a specific harm that would
likely flow from public disclosure of that precise information.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/19f2dnvc from Leagle.com.
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ:
AZN) and iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC). Stockholders
have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found
at the link provided.
AstraZeneca PLC (NASDAQ: AZN)
Class Period: May 21, 2020 to November 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021
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.
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.
The complaint, filed on July 26, 2021, 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.
For more information on the AstraZeneca class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AZN
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC)
Class Period: August 4, 2020 to January 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021
iRhythm offers a portfolio of ambulatory cardiac monitoring
services on its platform, called the Zio service. iRhythm receives
revenue for its Zio service primarily from third-party payors,
which include commercial payors and government agencies, such as
the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS").
Reimbursement from the CMS and other third-party payors is
therefore critical to the Company's business.
On January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas
Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS' 2021
Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A Baird analyst commented that
these rates were "way lower than" the former codes, citing one
example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but
was now receiving just $42.68.
On this news, the price of iRhythm common stock closed at $168.42,
down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00.
The 33% drop represents a one-day loss in market capitalization of
approximately $2.4 billion.
The complaint, filed on February 1, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period and in violation of the Exchange Act, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result
of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact
plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee
schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's
business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
For more information on the iRhythm class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/IRTC
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
AVIVA PLC: Faces Suit Over Denied Business Interruption Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Taylor, writing for Kitchener Today, reports that does a
pandemic differ from an outbreak of disease?
That could be the 100-million dollar question facing the courts
right now as hundreds of businesses across the country are suing
insurance giant Aviva.
Bingemans, the largest hospitality business in Waterloo Region, is
one of those companies who turned to their insurer after losing
millions so far to the pandemic.
"Our policy has a business interruption coverage and when we got
into the pandemic and, certainly in the first few weeks and months,
we started looking at that and, in reviewing with our broker we
pulled up that paperwork and said, by reading the definitions and
by reading our documents, we should be able to apply for this for
some assistance," said Mark Bingeman, President of Bingemans.
But despite their understanding of the business interruption
coverage, that application was denied.
"We asked for the reasoning and then we actually resubmitted and
sent it to [Aviva's] ombudsman, and after some review internally
there the ombudsman for Aviva came back and said no, we agree this
is not applicable," said Bingeman.
"That still didn't sit well with us because we felt we can read it
in plain English, this is what it says."
Specifically, Bingemans says Aviva's business interruption policy,
which it pays a premium for, claims to cover loss of income caused
by the interruption of the business when entering and exiting from
the premises is restricted, including when ordered by a civil
authority following an outbreak of a contagious or infectious
disease.
The issue then seems to fall to whether a pandemic differs from an
outbreak, which is the argument that has been made previously by
other insurance companies.
The CEO of Chubb Limited, in an interview with Bloomberg last
spring, warned lawmakers forcing insurers to foot the bill for
these policies during a pandemic, not just an isolated outbreak,
could cause the insurance industry to go bankrupt. [GN]
AVON PRODUCTS: $4.35M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Avon Products Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 19-cv-01420-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
and awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4).
The matter came on for hearing on Jan. 20, 2021, on the Lead
Counsel's motion. There have been no objections to Lead Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and awards.
Having considered all matters submitted to it at the Final Approval
Hearing and otherwise; and having considered and determined the
fairness and reasonableness of the award of attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses requested and awards, Judge Vyckovil granted
the Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses and awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4).
The Lead Counsel is awarded, on behalf of all the Plaintiffs'
Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $4.35 million (i.e., 30%
of the Settlement Fund) and $157,000 in payment of litigation
expenses, which sums Judge Vyskocil finds to be fair and
reasonable. The Lead counsel will allocate the attorneys' fees
awarded amongst the Plaintiffs' Counsel.
Lead Plaintiff Holly Ngo and additional named Plaintiff David
Klungle are awarded $7,500 and $1,220 respectively.
Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval of any
attorneys' fees and expense application or award will in no way
disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment.
Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the Parties and the
Settlement Class members for all matters relating to the Action,
including the administration, interpretation, effectuation, or
enforcement of the Stipulation and the Order. In the event that
the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date of the
Settlement otherwise fails to occur, the Order will be rendered
null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order, and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/1u2b0sdg from Leagle.com.
AVON PRODUCTS: Plan of Allocation in Avon Securities Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Avon Products Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 19-cv-01420-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the
Plan of Allocation.
The matter came on for hearing on Jan. 20, 2021, on Lead Plaintiff
Holly Ngo's motion for final approval of class action settlement
and plan of allocation.
Due and adequate notice was directed to the prospective Settlement
Class members advising them of the Plan of Allocation and their
right to object thereto. There were no objections to the Plan of
Allocation.
Having considered all matters submitted to it at the Final Approval
Hearing and otherwise; and having considered and determined the
fairness and reasonableness of the proposed plan of allocation,
Judge Vyskocil approved the Plan of Allocation.
The Order incorporated by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of Aug. 21,
2020.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jgn5xuts from Leagle.com.
AVON PRODUCTS: Settles Securities Class Action Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Russell Lee, writing for Inner City Press, reports that
Avon Products Inc. was subject to a securities class action filed
in 2017.
On February 3, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil held a proceeding. Inner City Press
covered it.
The case has settled, with attorneys' fees of $4,350,000 and costs
of $157,000.
Judge Vyskocil made the requisite inquiries, and more, and said she
found it fair. The lawyers said they would have handed forward
three orders for Judge Vyskocil to sign, if they were there in
person. But all three were docketed later in the day.
The case is In re Avon Products Inc. Securities Litigation,
19-cv-1420 (Vyskocil) [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Mary Alexander & Associates Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Alexander & Associates filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court in San Francisco on behalf of thousands of Californians
against Bank of America alleging the nation's second largest bank
failed in its duty to properly protect their unemployment
benefits.
Bank of America (BofA) has an exclusive contract with the
California Employment Development Department (EDD) to administer
EDD benefits through the use of BofA issued debit cards. According
to the complaint, BofA was required to provide secure accounts for
unemployment payments. The complaint alleges BofA failed to provide
even the most basic cyber-security measures. As a result, these
Californians lost their EDD income due to fraudulent transactions
and hacked accounts.
According to the complaint, BofA failed to respond and assist many
of the defrauded cardholders, even though it has a "Zero Liability"
policy. BofA's poor response to the fraud included:
-- Freezing cardholder accounts without warning or explanation;
-- Failing to provide proper telephonic response on its customer
service line for EDD cardholders;
-- Immediately closing claims that were opened (without proper
investigation); and
-- Not extending provisional credit to these EDD cardholders.
The lawsuit claims BofA violated the California Consumer Privacy
Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and Regulation E of the
federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act; breached its contract with
EDD cardholders; failed to warn EDD cardholders about the risks
associated with its EDD debit cards; and negligently performed its
contract with EDD, among other violations of law.
"The events of 2020 were hard enough without Bank of America making
life even more difficult for California's unemployed," said
attorney Mary Alexander. "These are hard-working people who were
unable to pay rent, heat their homes or put food on the table due
to Bank of America's negligence."
The lawsuit is Cajas v. Bank of America, N.A, Case No. Case
3:21-cv-00869, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. [GN]
BAPTIST HEALTH: Appeals Whitley Insurance Suit Ruling to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Baptist Health, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitle BRIAN WHITLEY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
BAPTIST HEALTH; BAPTIST HEALTH HOSPITALS; DIAMOND RISK INSURANCE
LLC; ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMP ANY; ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMP ANY;
IRONSHORE INDEMNITY, INC.; and IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00624-DPM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
On November 5, 2020, Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division,
entered an Order revising the class definition. Judge Marshall
found that the current class definition stands with some
clarifications prompted by the recent briefing. None of the
changes compromises all the parties' good work on the class
spreadsheets. First, keeping faith with the provider agreements
requires that acceptance is the criterion, not receipt. Second,
Whitley has helpfully clarified exactly which other sources are in
play: third-party motor vehicle accident liability, uninsured
motorist coverage, and underinsured motorist coverage. Third, the
specification of other sources eliminates the need for the vexed
carve-outs list. Last, the Judge confirms the Court's ruling at the
June 12th hearing that patients in these mixed circumstances remain
in the class.
The Defendants seek an appeal from the Court's Order dated January
29, 2021, granting in part and denying in part a motion for
interlocutory appeal. The Court's Orders granting judgment as a
matter of law on liability in Whitley's favor and denying
reconsideration are certified for the Court of Appeals to decide
whether to accept a Section 1292(b) interlocutory appeal.
The appellate case is captioned as Baptist Health, et al. v. Brian
Whitley, Case No. 21-8002, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit, February 8, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent Brian Whitley, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Frank H. Bailey, Esq.
Geoff Hamby, Esq.
Sach D. Oliver, Esq.
Timothy Ryan Scott, Esq.
BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM
3606 W. Southern Hills Boulevard
Rogers, AR 72758
Telephone: (479) 202-5200
E-mail: fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
ghamby@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
soliver@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
- and -
Donald K. Campbell, III, Esq.
Kendel Grooms, Esq.
CAMPBELL & GROOMS
8500 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Telephone: (501) 313-4967
E-mail: don@campbellgrooms.com
kendel@campbellgrooms.com
- and -
Erik S. Heninger, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq.
HENINGER & GARRISON
2224 First Avenue, N.
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
E-mail: erik@hgdlawfirm.com
jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com
Defendants-Petitioners Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals,
and Diamond Risk Insurance, LLC are represented by:
Adam David Franks, Esq.
Robert L. Henry, III, Esq.
James D. Robertson, Esq.
BARBER LAW FIRM
425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
Telephone: (501) 372-6175
E-mail: afranks@barberlawfirm.com
rhenry@barberlawfirm.com
jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com
BAPTIST HEALTH: Whitley Appeals Insurance Suit Ruling to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Brian Whitley filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitle BRIAN WHITLEY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST HEALTH;
BAPTIST HEALTH HOSPITALS; DIAMOND RISK INSURANCE LLC; ADMIRAL
INSURANCE COMP ANY; ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMP ANY; IRONSHORE
INDEMNITY, INC.; and IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00624-DPM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas - Central.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violation of the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
On November 5, 2020, Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, has
entered an Order revising the class definition. Judge Marshall
finds that the current class definition stands with some
clarifications prompted by the recent briefing. None of the
changes compromises all the parties' good work on the class
spreadsheets. First, keeping faith with the provider agreements
requires that acceptance is the criterion, not receipt. Second,
Whitley has helpfully clarified exactly which other sources are in
play: third-party motor vehicle accident liability, uninsured
motorist coverage, and underinsured motorist coverage. Third, the
specification of other sources eliminates the need for the vexed
carve-outs list. Last, the Judge confirms the Court's ruling at the
June 12th hearing that patients in these mixed circumstances remain
in the class.
Mr. Whitley is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated
January 29, 2021, granting in part and denying in part motion for
interlocutory appeal. The Court's Orders granting judgment as a
matter of law on liability in Whitley's favor and denying
reconsideration were certified for the Court of Appeals to decide
whether to accept a Section 1292(b) interlocutory appeal.
The appellate case is captioned as Brian Whitley v. Baptist Health,
et al, Case No. 21-8001, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, February 8, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner Brian Whitley, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Frank H. Bailey, Esq.
Geoff Hamby, Esq.
Sach D. Oliver, Esq.
Timothy Ryan Scott, Esq.
BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM
3606 W. Southern Hills Boulevard
Rogers, AR 72758
Telephone: (479) 202-5200
E-mail: fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
ghamby@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
soliver@baileyoliverlawfirm.com
- and -
Donald K. Campbell, III, Esq.
Kendel Grooms, Esq.
CAMPBELL & GROOMS
8500 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72205
Telephone: (501) 313-4967
E-mail: don@campbellgrooms.com
kendel@campbellgrooms.com
- and -
Erik S. Heninger, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq.
HENINGER & GARRISON
2224 First Avenue, N.
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
E-mail: erik@hgdlawfirm.com
jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com
Defendants-Respondents Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals,
and Diamond Risk Insurance, LLC are represented by:
Adam David Franks, Esq.
Robert L. Henry, III, Esq.
James D. Robertson, Esq.
BARBER LAW FIRM
425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400
Little Rock, AR 72201-3414
Telephone: (501) 372-6175
E-mail: afranks@barberlawfirm.com
rhenry@barberlawfirm.com
jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com
BAYER AG: Settles Roundup Herbicide Claims for $2 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals and Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, report that Bayer AG
struck a $2 billion deal to resolve future legal claims that its
widely used weedkiller Roundup causes cancer, the German company
said on Feb. 3.
Bayer has been struggling to finalize the settlement of claims that
Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides cause non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, a type of cancer. Bayer inherited the business and the
litigation as part of a $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto in
2018.
The company has said that decades of studies have shown Roundup and
glyphosate are safe for human use.
The Feb. 3 settlement would cover future claims brought by
individuals who have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and
were exposed to Roundup before their diagnosis. The settlement also
includes benefits for people who were exposed to Roundup and
develop the cancer in the future.
Roundup, which Monsanto first brought to the market in 1974, is
widely used by farmers across the United States and Brazil,
alongside crops that are genetically engineered to withstand the
its herbicidal effect.
Glyphosate will remain on the market. Bayer agreed to seek
permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide
a reference link on labels so consumers can find scientific studies
on the weedkiller.
Under the proposed plan, Bayer will provide $2 billion for a
four-year period as compensation and to cover outreach and
diagnostic assistance. Future claimants could receive up to
$200,000 under the deal.
The parties can agree to extend the settlement period.
The company said the settlement amount was disclosed last year.
The agreement must be approved by U.S. District Court Judge Vince
Chhabria in San Francisco.
Chhabria in June questioned the legality of a prior settlement plan
that Bayer proposed, which envisioned creating a panel of
scientists who would rule on the viability of claims.
Under the revised deal, anyone who does not make a claim during the
four-year period would then be able to sue in court, according
Elizabeth Cabraser, an attorney for the proposed class. She also
said anyone diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who does not like
their compensation offer under the class plan can go to the court
system and try for a better result.
In June, Bayer reached a wider $9.6 billion settlement that would
resolve the bulk of the more than 100,000 U.S. lawsuits that were
already filed over Roundup.
Bayer's stock has been battered by the litigation, but also by
billions of euros in writedowns, and a bleaker profit outlook, in
large part related to the $63 billion Monsanto takeover.
The group last year announced 9.25 billion euros in impairment
charges on agricultural assets and shocked markets by predicting a
slight decline in core earnings per share in 2021 on weaker demand
by farmers. [GN]
BCG EQUITIES: Class Claims in Buhler Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KARL BUHLER and REGINALD BENOIT, Plaintiffs v. BCG
EQUITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00814-DAK (D. Utah),
Judge Dale A. Kimball of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah denied the Plaintiffs-Intervenors' Motion to Intervene, and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' class claims without prejudice.
The Plaintiff-Intervenors are Kelly Leonard, Kenneth Stanley and
Andrew Smith.
On Sept. 16, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their complaint in Utah
state court. On Oct. 24, 2020, the Defendant removed the case to
the Court. Shortly after removal, the Defendant filed both an
answer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court
partially granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and subsequently denied the Plaintiff's motion to
reconsider. On May 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed its Motion to
Intervene.
The Plaintiff-Intervenors moved to join the case as potential class
representatives under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because the named Plaintiffs (Karl Buhler and Reginald
Benoit) have signed settlement agreements of their individual
claims. On May 29, 2020, the Defendant filed an opposition to
Plaintiff-Intervenors' Motion to Intervene, arguing that the
settlement agreements between the Defendant and Plaintiffs Buhler
and Benoit require dismissal of the class action claims.
On May 6, 2020, the Defendant's attorney provided the Plaintiffs'
attorney with a release form for both Buhler and Benoit. That same
day, the Plaintiffs' attorney reported to the Defendant's attorney
that the release form had been sent to Buhler and Benoit and that
"no edits" had been made.
The relevant portion of the release form states: "Within 10
calendar days of the receipt of the payment described in the
preceding paragraph, the parties, through counsel, will execute and
file a notice or stipulation of dismissal of Buhler and Benoit's
claims in the Federal Court Action, with prejudice, and dismissal
of the alleged class claims without prejudice."
By May 27, 2020, the Plaintiffs' lawyer returned the signed release
forms and signatures for both Benoit and Buhler. That same day,
the Plaintiff-Intervenors--through the same counsel for Buhler and
Benoit--filed the instant motion to intervene.
On May 28, 2020, the Defendant wired the money according to the
terms of the settlement agreement. A few weeks later, and pursuant
to the settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Dismissal stating: "Buhler and Benoit's individual clam and their
individual claims should be dismissed with prejudice. This
settlement has no effect on the class' claims, and the three class
members have sought intervention in the case to continue the class
claim. Should the court deny the motion to intervene, dismissal as
to the class should be without prejudice."
Judge Kimball explains that when a party seeks to intervene after
judgment has been entered in a case, the "proposed intervenor must
make a 'strong showing,'" citing Payne v. Tri-State Careflight,
LLC, 322 F.R.D. 647, 665 (D.N.M. 2017) (collecting cases). The
extra scrutiny is meant to protect the parties and help the courts.
When it comes to post-judgment class action intervention motions,
courts have denied post-judgment intervention when doing so would,
e.g., destroy a settlement. Judge Kimball believes that the
Plaintiffs have not made this strong showing and that granting
intervention would prejudice the Defendant by undermining the
bargained-for terms of the settlement agreement.
In this instance, the language of the settlement agreement is
clear: The Plaintiffs' counsel was required to "file a notice or
stipulation of dismissal of the alleged class claims without
prejudice." The subsequent Rule 41 Notice of Dismissal and the
Motion to Intervene directly contradict this provision in the
settlement agreement, Judge Kimball notes.
In addition, the settlement agreements provisions necessitating the
dismissal of the class claims is dispositive of the issue at hand.
According to the terms of the agreements, the Plaintiffs were
required to stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of the
class action claims. The Court will hold the parties to the terms
of their agreements.
For the forgoing reasons and pursuant to the Plaintiffs' Notice of
Dismissal, the terms of the settlement agreement, and the
discretion granted to the Court under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, Judge Kimball denied the Plaintiff-Intervenors
Motion to Intervene. Additionally, he dismissed the Plaintiffs'
class claims without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3aj5z5do from
Leagle.com.
BEST EXPRESS: Faces Gardea Labor Suit Over Systematic Wage Theft
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALONDRA GARDEA, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly-situated v. BEST EXPRESS FOODS, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. RG21086811 (Cal.
Super., Alameda Cty., Jan. 27, 2021) alleges that the Defendants
have engaged in systematic wage theft, maintaining policies and
practices that violate the rights of the Plaintiff and the Class
pursuant to the California Labor Code, and the California's Unfair
Competition Law.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have failed to
compensate workers for all hours worked, and failed to provide
timely, complete and off-duty meal periods, or otherwise pay
premium wages in lieu thereof.
Plaintiff Gardea was a non-exempt employee of the Defendants within
the Class period who was paid an hourly wage. She was employed from
May 2, 2019 through July 10, 2020. The Defendants failed to pay her
for all hours worked, including donning and doffing performed
before the start of shifts and after the end of shifts, and during
unpaid meal periods, as well as for all hours worked as recorded on
the Defendants' timekeeping system. The Defendants' failure to pay
for all hours worked violates the California Wage Orders, and
California minimum and overtime wage laws, says the complaint.
Best Express is a California corporation that owns, operates, and
manages food production, handling, and packaging warehouses and/or
operations in California, providing wholesale and retail sales and
delivery services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marco A. Palau, Esq.
Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP
212 9th Street, Suite 314
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 269-4200
Facsimile: (408) 657-4684
E-mail: marco@advocatesforworkers.com
jds@advocatesforworkers.com
est@advocatesforworkers.com
BIT DIGITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 3
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT) ("Bit Digital") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Bit Digital common stock
between December 21, 2020 and January 8, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Bit
Digital securities during the Class Period may, no later than March
22, 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/bit-digital-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=bitdigital#overview
According to the complaint, Bit Digital is a holding company that
engages in the bitcoin mining business through its wholly owned
subsidiaries in the United States and Hong Kong.
On January 11, 2021, J Capital Research ("J Capital") issued a
research report alleging, among other things, that Bit Digital
operates "a fake crypto currency business . . . designed to steal
funds from investors." Though Bit Digital 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." Following 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.
Bit Digital investors may, no later than March 22, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Bid to Revisit Dismissal Order in Hu Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA HU, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILAR SITUATED Plaintiffs v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION; BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
(BMW AG), A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF GERMANY, ROBERT
BOSCH GMBH, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF GERMANY; AND
ROBERT BOSCH LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants,
Civ. No. 18-4363 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.
The Plaintiffs want the Court to reconsider its June 25, 2020
Opinion and Order partially granting the motions of Defendants BMW
North America and Robert Bosch to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The named Plaintiffs represent a putative class of car buyers who
each allegedly own a BMW X5 or BMW 335d. They allege that BMW
installed a "defeat device" in these car models which altered the
vehicles' emission control system when tested by regulators in a
specific test environment. They allege that the use of the defeat
device concealed the fact that the X5 and 335d models emitted
levels of nitrous oxide many times higher than their gasoline
counterparts and in excess of what BMW advertised.
On June 27, 2019, Judge McNulty dismissed the Plaintiffs' initial
Complaint on the ground that it lacked any "straightforward
allegation that an identified Plaintiff bought a car which, when
tested or analyzed, turned out to contain a defeat device."
Instead, the Plaintiffs merely relied on: (1) testing of a single
vehicle which revealed discrepancies between laboratory and on-road
emission results, and (2) the unsupported inference that the tested
vehicle was a valid exemplar demonstrating that all class members'
vehicles contained a defeat device. That failure of pleading
convinced Judge McNulty that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing, although I dismissed without prejudice to allow them an
opportunity to cure that defect.
The Plaintiffs then filed a First Amended Complaint. The
Defendants filed a new motion to dismiss, which Judge McNulty
partially granted on June 25, 2020. In that opinion, he concluded
that the Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to establish
Article III standing; the amended complaint alleged testing of five
representative vehicles which were substantially identical to those
owned by the named Plaintiffs and which were exemplary of the
class, giving rise to a plausible inference that BMW X5s and 335ds
contained defeat devices.
Nevertheless, McNulty partially granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to several counts of the amended complaint. Relevant to
the motion for reconsideration is his dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
Federal Civil RICO claim, which alleged that the BMW and Bosch
Defendants coordinated their operations through the design,
manufacture, distribution, testing process, and sale of the
vehicles with defeat devices. He concluded that the Plaintiffs had
not met the specialized standing inquiry applied to RICO claims
known as the "indirect purchaser rule." Plaintiffs alleged no
purchases from the BMW or Bosch defendants, but only from dealers,
private parties, and auctions. Thus, he concluded, on the weight
of Illinois Brick and various Third Circuit decisions applying it,
that the Plaintiffs were indirect purchasers and thus lacked
standing to assert RICO claims.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.
Judge McNulty explains that the Supreme Court announced the
indirect purchaser rule in the context of antitrust law in Illinois
Brick Company v. Illinois. 431 U.S. 720, 737 (1977). Citing Apple
Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S.Ct. 1514, 1520 (2019), he notes that the
decision in Illinois Brick established a bright-line rule that
authorizes suits by direct purchasers but bars suits by indirect
purchasers. The Apple Court was clear: The bright-line rule of
Illinois Brick means that there is no reason to ask whether the
rationales of Illinois Brick 'apply with equal force' in every
individual case.
The Third Circuit affirmed these principles in Warren General
Hospital v. Amgen, Inc., 643 F.3d 77 (3d Cir. 2011). The Warren
General court considered the plaintiff's argument that "Illinois
Brick--and the policies underlying the direct purchaser
rule--confer standing on the first harmed direct purchaser, not
just the direct purchaser."
The analyses in Apple and Warren General Hospital require that
Judge McNulty dismisses the Plaintiffs' civil RICO claims because
they are not direct purchasers. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that
their BMWs were all purchased from dealerships or third parties.
That makes them indirect purchasers. The bright line rule of
Illinois Brick thus bars their claim. And while the Plaintiffs
rely on cases that predate Apple and Warren General in support of
that exception, the Judge can only conclude that those cases are no
longer binding, to the extent they support the Plaintiffs' position
at all.
The Plaintiffs also assert that the indirect purchaser rule applies
only to indirect victims. They allege that they are direct
victims, defrauded by the Defendants' marketing materials, and that
the dealers cannot be considered fraud victims at all. A similar
argument was explicitly rejected in Warren General: There is no
"direct-harm" exception to the indirect purchaser rule.
Finally, the Plaintiffs assert that McNulty's decision in Albers v.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Civ. No. 16-881, 2020 WL 1466359 at *7
(D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2020) requires that the Judge finds an exception
to the indirect purchaser rule in the instant case. That decision,
however, consisted of nothing more than his ruling as to one
defendant, in which he adhered to the law of the case as already
decided by (now-retired) Chief Judge Linares with respect to the
other defendants.
As noted, the indirect purchaser rule is a policy-based,
bright-line limit on standing; the appellate courts have forewarned
lower courts, like the case, that they are not to create
exceptions. For these reasons, then, Judge McNulty denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. An appropriate order
follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/v4vondhb from Leagle.com.
CABOT OIL: Delaware County ERS Is Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION, DAN O. DINGES, and SCOTT
C. SCHROEDER, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-1815 (M.D. Pa.),
Judge Christopher C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's motion for
appointment as the Lead Plaintiff and for appointment of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel for the putative
class.
Defendant Cabot is a publicly traded company that "engages in the
development, exploitation and exploration of oil and gas
properties" in the United States and, as relevant in the case, in
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Delaware County Employees Retirement System
(the "Retirement System") is a former shareholder of Cabot.
According to the complaint, the Retirement System purchased Cabot
shares at prices artificially inflated by Cabot's false or
misleading statements regarding its environmental protocols and
exposure to legal liability. It claims that, in doing so, Cabot
and its corporate officials violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5.
The Retirement System seeks to represent putative class members who
also allegedly purchased stock at inflated prices. It is the
Retirement System's second motion for appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel.
On Nov. 12, 2020, the Court held that the notice provided to
putative shareholders was inadequate and ordered reissuance of
notice. The Retirement System reissued notice the next day. The
notice informed shareholders of this action, its claims, the class
period, and the deadline by which a purported class member could
move to serve as lead plaintiff.
The Retirement System renewed its motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel on Jan. 12, 2021.
The motion is unopposed.
The Retirement System seeks to be named lead plaintiff and asks the
Court to approve its choice of lead counsel pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").
As a threshold matter, Judge Conner notes that the Retirement
System has complied with the Court's Nov. 12, 2020 order mandating
republication of notice. The Retirement System's reissued notice
complies with the PSLRA in that it apprises the putative class
members of "pendency of the action, the claims asserted therein,
and the purported class period," as well as the deadline by which a
putative class member may seek lead-plaintiff status. Judge Conner
is now tasked with deciding whether the Retirement System is an
appropriate Lead Plaintiff and whether its choice of Lead Counsel
is reasonable.
Judge Conner finds that the Retirement System has a substantial
financial interest in the suit. It acquired 89,334 shares of Cabot
stock at a total cost of $2,156,402.95, and realized a total loss
of $158,608.71. No other potential class member has come forth
with a greater financial interest, and the Retirement System states
that, to the best of its knowledge, no other potential class member
has a larger interest. Hence, the Retirement System has also made
a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy.
Judge Conner holds that there is no doubt that the Retirement
System shares the same incentives as other class members to
prosecute the case. There is thus no conflict between its
interests and those of the class. The Retirement System has also
served as lead plaintiff in a securities class action before
(Shankar v. Imperva, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-1680, Doc. 29 (N.D. Cal.
Aug. 7, 2014)), and it has selected competent counsel experienced
in class action securities litigation. Based on the record before
him, Judge Conner has no basis to suspect that the counsel
negotiated an unreasonable fee. He therefore concludes that the
Retirement System meets the adequacy requirement at this stage. He
will treat the Retirement System as the presumptive Lead
Plaintiff.
And since no other class member has opposed the Retirement System's
motion or attempted to prove that it is an inadequate
representative, nor has any other class member moved for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff, Judge Conner finds no basis to rebut
the presumption established by the PSLRA, and he will appoint the
Retirement System as the Lead Plaintiff.
The Retirement System moves to appoint Robbins Geller. Judge
Conner finds that Robbins Geller is a reputable law firm with
demonstrated success as lead counsel securities class actions.
Moreover, Robbins Geller will be assisted by former chief district
judge Lawrence Stengel and the Saxton & Stump law firm, who will
serve as local counsel. Judge Conner has no reason to believe that
the Retirement System's choice of counsel was the result of
anything but good-faith and arms'-length bargaining. He will
therefore approve of its choice and grant its motion for
appointment of lead counsel.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Conner granted the motion to appoint
the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel. An appropriate order will
be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/298uznvk from Leagle.com.
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Proposed CERB Payments
------------------------------------------------------
Erica Alini, writing for Global News, reports that the federal
government's mixed messages around eligibility for the Canada
Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) are the focus of a proposed
class-action lawsuit on behalf of retired Canadians with
self-employment income who may be asked to repay the money they
received through the emergency benefit.
The representative plaintiff Janet Ann Ryan, a Mississauga,
Ont.-based retired Montessori teacher, is among many Canadians who
are worried they'll have to return up to $14,000 worth of CERB
payments. In late 2020 the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) sent out
441,000 letters saying an eligibility condition to have income of
at least $5,000 in 2019 or in the 12 months prior to applying
refers to "net pre-tax income," or gross income minus expenses, for
self-employed individuals. The letters left many of the recipients
dumbfounded as several official CERB guidelines made no mention of
the net-income requirement.
Ryan, who says she carefully reviewed the CERB instructions and
applied based on having earned $5,000 in gross income in 2019 from
tutoring, says she was "shocked" to receive one of the CRA
letters.
"It didn't make sense," she says. "It didn't seem right."
Toronto lawyer Jan Weir, who launched the lawsuit for Ryan, says he
hopes it will help not just pensioners with part-time
self-employment income but all CERB recipients affected by the
government's poor communication over net vs. gross income.
"If the court interprets this the way I expect that they will, it's
for everyone," he told Global News.
Global News has found only one official page on the CERB that
specifies self-employment income should be intended as net income.
And that information did not appear for weeks after the initial
rollout of the federal emergency benefit in April, a search of
internet archives indicates.
The CRA has acknowledged there was "unclear communication" on who
was eligible for the CERB in the first few days after the program
was launched.
The proposed class-action suit doesn't seek financial compensation
other than legal costs but asks that the government stop demanding
repayment from those represented.
Although the proposed lawsuit has yet to be certified, a process
that usually takes several months, Weir says he believes it will
give CRA "a reason to hold off" on pursuing CERB recipients who
don't have at least $5,000 in net self-employment income.
The CRA told Global News it does not comment on matters before the
courts. It added it is "sensitive to cases of hardship for
Canadians still facing the financial impacts of COVID-19."
Green Party MP Paul Manly recently presented a petition to the
House of Commons asking that the government allow self-employed
CERB recipients to use their gross income before expenses when
determining eligibility for the benefit.
Allan Lanthier, a chartered professional accountant who has been an
adviser to the Department of Finance and the CRA, says the proposed
lawsuit may put additional pressure on the government to decide how
it's going to handle the issue.
"Every day that goes by, there are thousands of people that remain
under stress," he says. "And the delay is just unacceptable."
But Jasminka Kalajdzic, a law professor and director of the Class
Action Clinic at the University of Windsor, says a class-action
lawsuit may be a lengthy way to get the courts to weigh in on the
matter.
While it's not unusual for litigation to be brought against the
government over questions of statutory interpretation or how
policies are enacted, it's rare to see a class-action lawsuit that
does not ask for a cash payment, she says.
A speedier way to bring the issue before the court may be for a
single individual to launch a lawsuit, with an understanding that
the government would treat the process as a test case and be bound
by the court's interpretation, Kalajdzic says.
Under this scenario, "if the court decides . . . the government is
wrong as a matter of law, they will change their administrative
process and stop demanding the CERB repayment," she says. "And the
case is over."
This process would also present a lower financial risk for the
government, which wouldn't have to worry about potentially footing
an expensive legal bill for a class-action lawsuit, Kalajdzic
adds.
In Mississauga, Ryan, who normally relies on tutoring to supplement
her modest retirement income, is holding out hope she won't have to
repay the $14,000 she received from CERB. Those funds, which she
described in an online statement as a "godsend," helped her pay for
the first and last month of rent when she had to move to a new
place during the pandemic. It allowed her to pay off some debt and
help friends who were facing financial difficulties.
If she had to return the benefit, she says, "I would have to borrow
the $14,000." [GN]
CENTENE MGMT: Partial Grant of Bid to Dismiss Angelo Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIN ANGELO, et al. v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-0484-RP (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge
Andrew W. Austin of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division, recommended that the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiffs Cynthia Wilson and Erin and Nicholas Angelo are Texas
residents who purchased ACA Ambetter insurance policies from the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engage in "a
classic bait-and-switch, targeting low-income customers with the
promise of certified quality health coverage including networks of
medical providers to provide that care but providing woefully
little coverage after they signed up."
After the Plaintiffs were denied coverage under the policies for
out-of-network healthcare providers, they filed a a purported class
action alleging three causes of action against the Defendants: (1)
breach of contract, (2) breach of express warranty, and (3)
violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer
Protection Act ("DTPA").
In the instant motion, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs'
claims should be dismissed for four reasons: (1) all of the
Plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the filed-rate doctrine; (2)
the Plaintiffs failed to identify any specific insurance policy
provision that was breached; (3) the Plaintiffs have no basis to
make a claim for breach of express warranty on a contract that does
not involve the sale of goods; and (4) the Plaintiffs' DTPA claim
fails to meet the heightened pleading standards applicable to
claims of fraud or misrepresentation.
First, Magistrate Judge Austin finds that while the Defendants are
correct that Tex. Ins. Code Section 1701.057(c) "requires an
insurer to file the rates charged by that insurer for individual
accident and health insurance policies," the rates are not filed
for any purpose having anything remotely to do with ratemaking or
approval of rates. In fact, the Texas Insurance Code makes
explicit that the authority granted to the TDI to require rate
filings "does not grant the commissioner the authority to
determine, fix, prescribe, or promulgate rates to be charged for an
individual accident and health insurance policy." The Defendants
cite to no authority that the filed rate doctrine is applicable
where rates are filed with an agency that lacks authority to
approve or reject them. As such, dismissal based on the filed rate
doctrine is unwarranted.
Second, the Plaintiffs allege express warranties made by the
Defendants in the Ambetter Contract, including a promise to provide
essential benefits under the ACA and a promise that insureds could
access specific health care providers listed on the website as
in-network. However, as the Defendants point out in their Reply,
the Plaintiffs allege nothing more than that the Defendants have
not performed under the contract. As such, the Defendants are
correct that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for breach
of express warranty. Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that the
Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claims be dismissed.
Finally, as to the DTPA claim, the Plaintiffs argue that the Angelo
Plaintiffs' claims were timely filed because the Angelos disputed
the Defendants' denial of payment for two years after the initial
denial of coverage, asserting that because the case was closed
sometime in 2019 the Angelos timely filed within the statute of
limitations. In support of this position, the Plaintiffs rely on
the case United Neurology, P.A. v. Hartford Lloyd's Ins. Co., 101
F.Supp.3d 584, 607 (S.D. Tex. 2015), for the proposition that where
"there is no express denial of a claim by the insurer for an
accrual date, the legal injury to the insured occurs at the latest
when the claim file is closed."
As the Defendants point out, however, there was an express denial
of the Angelos' claim by the insurer in the case, as the
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges. Because the Angelos' claim was
expressly denied by the Defendants in 2017, the claim accrued then,
and expired two years later, in 2019. Because the Angelos did not
file the suit until 2020, their DTPA claims are time-barred. As a
result, all of the Plaintiffs' DTPA claims are untimely and should
be dismissed.
It is not obvious that it would be futile for the Plaintiffs to
attempt to cure the breach of warranty claim with an amended
complaint. But because the Plaintiffs' DTPA claims are time-barred
amendment cannot cure that defect. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge
Austin recommends that the DTPA claim be dismissed with prejudice,
but that the breach of warranty claim be dismissed without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs filing an amended complaint, by a date
certain, restating the breach of warranty claim should they so
choose.
Based upon the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Austin recommended that
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be be granted in part and denied
in part. Specifically, he recommended that the District Court
denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the breach of contract
claims, grants the motion and dismisses without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty, subject to the Plaintiffs
right to replead within a time set by the District Court; and
grants the motion and dismisses with prejudice the DTPA claims.
The Clerk is directed to remove the case from Magistrate Judge
Austin's docket and return it to the docket of the Honorable Robert
Pitman.
The parties may file objections to the Report and Recommendation.
A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings
or recommendations to which objections are being made. A party's
failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations contained in the Report within 14 days after the
party is served with a copy of the Report will bar that party from
de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain
error, will bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to
proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
District Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2021 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/kj94r9p2 from
Leagle.com.
CENTURY-NATIONAL: Unmasked Seeks 9th Cir. Review in Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Unmasked Management, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Unmasked Management,
Inc., Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #1 LP, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco
Shop #2 LP, and Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #3 LP, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTURY-NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01129-H-MDD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for its refusal to pay its insureds
under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Extra Expense, and Sue
and Labor coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19.
The Plaintiffs filed appeal for review of the Court's Order dated
January 22, 2021, granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The appellate case is captioned as Unmasked Management, Inc., et
al. v. Century National Insurance Co., Case No. 21-55090, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 5,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the appellate case states that:
-- Appellants Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #1 LP, Lucha Libre
Gourmet Taco Shop #2 LP, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #3 LP and
Unmasked Management, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on
February 12, 2021;
-- Appellants Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #1 LP, Lucha Libre
Gourmet Taco Shop #2 LP, Lucha Libre Gourmet Taco Shop #3 LP and
Unmasked Management, Inc. opening brief is due on April 5, 2021;
-- Appellee Century National Insurance Company answering brief
is due on May 5, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants UNMASKED MANAGEMENT, INC., LUCHA LIBRE
GOURMET TACO SHOP #1 LP, LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO SHOP #2 LP, and
LUCHA LIBRE GOURMET TACO SHOP #3 LP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Freya Kirsten Bowen, Esq.
Jeff J. Bowen, Esq.
BURNS BOWEN BAIR LLP
1 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 930
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 286-2037
E-mail: fbowen@bbblawllp.com
jbowen@bbblawllp.com
- and -
Douglas A. Daniels, Esq.
DANIELS & TREDENNICK LLP
6363 Woodway, Suite 965
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (713) 917-0024
E-mail: doug.daniels@dtlawyers.com
- and -
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Avenue
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
E-mail: madicello@dlcfirm.com
- and -
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street
Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: dferri@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
alevitt@dlcfirm.com
- and -
Paul Michael Jonna, Esq.
Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRI, APC
P.O. Box 9120
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Telephone: (858) 759-9930
E-mail: pjonna@limandri.com
cslimandri@limandri.com
- and -
Mark Lanier, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
10940 W. Sam Houston Parkway N., Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
E-mail: WML@LanierLawFirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Trissell, Esq.
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE DEFENSE FUND
P.O. Box 9520
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Telephone: (858) 759-9948
E-mail: jtrissell@limandri.com
Defendant-Appellee CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Spencer Allen Schneider, Esq.
BERMAN BERMAN BERMAN SCHNEIDER & LOWARY, LLP
11900 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1151
Telephone: (310) 447-9000
E-mail: saschneider@b3law.com
CLEANSPARK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
CleanSpark, Inc. ("CleanSpark" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CLSK)
from December 31, 2020 through January 14, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased CleanSpark securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit CleanSpark
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had
overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of
the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related
party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of
its business, including purported customers and contracts" and that
it is "rife with undisclosed related party transactions."
Specifically, it alleged that the most recent acquisition of ATL
Data Centers, LLC "is another Gutless Promotion Attempt."
On this news, CleanSpark's shares fell $3.63 per share, or 9%, to
close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby damaging
investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session
by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on
January 15, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased CleanSpark securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cleansparkinc-clsk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-356/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
COMMUNITY PROBATION: Court Narrows Claims in McNeil Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN McNEIL, et al., Plaintiffs v. COMMUNITY
PROBATION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00033
(M.D. Tenn.), Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division,
granted in part and denied in part CPS Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and denied CPS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Certain
Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs McNeil, Lesley Johnson, Tanya Mitchell, Indya Hilfort,
and Lucinda Brandon allege they are indigent individuals who have
been placed on probation for misdemeanor offenses by the Giles
County courts, and that their probation is supervised by one of the
two named private probation companies. Plaintiffs McNeil, Johnson,
and Hilfort allege they have been supervised by the "CPS
Defendants" or "CPS" (Community Probation Services, LLC, Community
Probation Services, L.L.C., Community Probation Services, and
Patricia McNair). Plaintiffs Mitchell and Brandon allege they have
been supervised by "the PSI Defendants" or "PSI" (Progressive
Sentencing, Inc., PSI-Probation II, LLC, PSI-Probation, L.L.C.,
Tennessee Correctional Services, LLC, Timothy Cook, Markeyta
Bledsoe, and Harriet Thompson).
The Plaintiffs assert constitutional claims, claims brought under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"),
and state law claims against the CPS Defendants and the PSI
Defendants. They assert constitutional and state law claims
against Giles County and Sheriff Kyle Helton. The named Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class to obtain damages and injunctive relief
on their claims.
The class action lawsuit challenges systemic constitutional and
statutory violations and an illegal extortion scheme in Giles
County, Tennessee, which has allowed two for-profit
companies--Community Probation Services, LLC and PSI Probation,
LLC--to transform the County's misdemeanor probation system into a
machine for generating their own profit on the backs of Giles
County's most impoverished residents. The named Plaintiffs and the
members of the putative Plaintiff classes in the case live in
poverty and were assigned to supervised probation with one of the
Defendant companies. They are victims of the Defendants'
conspiracy to extract as much money as possible from impoverished
misdemeanor probationers through a pattern of illegal racketeering
activity, including threats of arrest and jailing, physical
confinement, and extended periods of supervised probation due to
nonpayment of debts owed to the court and to the private
companies.
The goal of CPS and PSI is to maximize their own profits by acting
as probation officers for the purpose of collecting fines, costs,
fees, and litigation taxes owed to the court following convictions
for minor misdemeanor offenses. Pursuant to their respective
contracts with the County, the companies add their own fees and
surcharges on top of those court debts and continue to supervise
the collection of even greater amounts of money from probationers
who cannot afford to pay their debts. These fees and surcharges re
the companies' only sources of revenue under their Contracts.
The supervision the companies provide, however, consists almost
exclusively of continuous and repeated threats of jailing,
humiliating abuses of power such as invasive drug screens during
which employees of the companies observe probationers urinating,
and repeated revocations and extensions of probation for not making
payments that the companies and their employees know the
probationers cannot afford. All of this occurs while the companies
continue to impose additional monthly fees and surcharges, and the
probationers' debts mount.
In addition to providing substantial revenue to the County, the
contractual arrangements give Giles County's private probation
officers, who should be neutral officers of the court, a direct
financial stake in every aspect of misdemeanor probation
supervision. This financial conflict of interest, baked into the
companies' contracts with the County and the companies' written and
unwritten policies, causes a cycle of debt; arrest and jailing for
inability to pay that debt; additional fees for those arrests;
repeated revocation and extension of supervised probation for
nonpayment; and crushing, inescapable poverty.
As a result of these extortionate enterprises, individuals who are
supervised by the companies, including the named Plaintiffs, have
lost homes, jobs, and personal belongings; suffered severe medical
problems, sold their blood plasma, and gone without food, clothing,
and medicine for themselves and their children; taken out
high-interest loans and borrowed money from friends and family
members who are themselves struggling to afford the basic
necessities of life; and diverted public benefits to instead pay
the escalating supervision fees that the companies demand under
threat of arrest and jailing. These policies and practices have
trapped the Plaintiffs and hundreds of people like them in Giles
County in a web of fear and panic for years.
The companies' user-funded model of probation violates the
Constitution and has no place in our legal system. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages from the alleged wrongdoers, disgorge
their ill-gotten profits, and to end the practice of for-profit
misdemeanor probation in Giles County administered by private
companies with financial incentives to place and keep persons on
probation.
The Plaintiffs' claims are:
a. Count 1: RICO (Karen McNeil & Lesley Johnson) - CPS
corporate defendants & Patricia McNai
b. Count 2: RICO (anya Mitchel) - PSI corporate defendants &
Markeyta Bledsoe (Damages)
c. Count 3: RICO (Lucinda Brandon) - PSI corporate defendants
& Harriet Thompson (Damages)
d. Count 4: RICO (Tanya Mitchell) - PSI corporate defendants
& Markeyta Bledsoe (Equitable Relief)
e. Count 5: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Karen McNeil, Lesle
Johnson, & Indya Hilfort) - CPS corporate defendants & Giles County
(Damages)
f. Count 6: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Due Process) (Indya
Hilfort) - CPS corporate defendants & Giles County (Equitable
Relief)
g. Count 7: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Due Process) (Lucinda
Brandon & Tanya Mitchell) - PSI corporate defendants & Giles County
(Damages)
h. Count 8: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Due Process) (Tanya
Mitchell) - PSI corporate defendants & Giles County (Damages)
i. Count 9: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Equal Protection) (Karen
McNeil, Lesley Johnson, & Indya Hilfort) - CPS corporate defendant
(Damages)
j. Count 10: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Equal Protection) (Indya
Hilfort) - CPS corporate defendants & Giles County (Equitable
Relief)
k. Count 11: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Equal Protection)
(Lucinda Brandon & Tanya Mitchell) - PSI corporate defendants &
Giles County (Damages)
l. Count 12: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Equal Protection) (Tanya
Mitchell) - PSI corporate defendants & Markeyta Bledsoe (Equitable
Relief)
m. Count 13: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Equal Protection & Due
Process) (Karen McNeil, Lesle Johnson, & Indya Hilfort) - CPS
corporate defendants & Giles County (Damages)
n. Count 14: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Equal Protection & Due
Process) Indya Hilfort) - CPS corporate defendants & Giles County
(Equitable Relief)
o. Count 15: 42 U.S.C Section 1983 (Equal Protection & Due
Process) Indya Hilfort) - Giles County & Sheriff Kyle Helton
(Equitable Relief)
p. Count 16: Unjust Enrichment (Karen McNeil& Lesle Johnson)
- CPS corporate defendants & Giles County (Damages)
q. Count 17: Unjust Enrichment (Lucinda Brandon & Tanya
Mitchell) - PSI corporate defendants (Damages)
r. Count 18: Unjust Enrichment (Tanya Mitchell) - PSI
corporate defendants & Markeyta Bledsoe (Equitable Relief)
s. Count 19: Abuse of Proces (Karen McNeil, Lesley Johnson, &
Indya Hilfort) - Giles County, CPS corporate defendants & Patricia
McNair (Damages)
t. Count 20: Abuse of Proces (Indya Hilfort) - Giles County,
CPS defendants, & Patricia McNair (Equitable Relief)
u. Count 21: Abuse of Proces (Lucinda Brandon & Tanya
Mitchell) - Giles County, PSI corporate defendants, Markeyta
Bledsoe, & Harriet Thompson (Damages)
v. Count 22: Abuse of Proces (Tanya Mitchell) - Giles County,
PSI corporate defendants, & Markeyta Bledsoe (Equitable Relief)
w. Count 23: Civil Conspiracy (Lucinda Brandon & Tanya
Mitchell) - PSI corporate defendants & Timothy Cook (Damages)
x. Count 24: Civil Conspiracy ((Karen McNeil, Lesley
Johnson, & Indya Hilfort) - CPS corporate defendants (Damages)
Pending before the Court are the CPS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
the Plaintiffs' Response, and the CPS Defendants' Reply. Also
pending before the Court are the CPS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Certain Claims for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, the
Plaintiffs' Response, and the CPS Defendants' Reply.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The Defendants argue subject matter jurisdiction is lacking as to
the Plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief because they are moot,
and because they lack standing to pursue the claims. To support
their argument, the CPS Defendants have filed the Declaration of
Giles County Circuit Court Clerk Natalie Oakley, stating that
Plaintiff Hilfort's probation was terminated on Oct. 28, 2019. The
PSI Defendants make the same argument regarding Plaintiff Mitchell,
pointing out that Ms. Mitchell's probation was terminated on
November 27, 2018, and the "money owed" was converted to a civil
judgment.
The CPS Defendants have also filed the Declaration of Joel Colton,
the CEO of Community Probation Services, LLC, stating that he
terminated the company's contract with Giles County on Aug. 6, 2019
(apparently to be effective 90 days later). Mr. Colton also states
that Defendant McNair has left her employment with the company,
though no date is given. Ms. Oakley's Declaration also states that
CPS is not providing probation officers in any active cases in
Giles County.
Judge Campbell denied the Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. He holds that the CPS Defendants
have not provided any supplemental evidence on the standing issue.
Thus, they have failed to establish that Plaintiff Hilfort lacks
standing to pursue her claims for equitable relie. Similarly, the
Judge holds that the PSI Defendants have not provided any
supplemental evidence on the standing issue. Thus, they have
failed to establish that Plaintiff Mitchell lacks standing to
pursue her claims for equitable relief.
Motion to Dismiss (based on Rule 12(b)(6))
Judge Campbell granted in part and denied in part the Motion to
Dismiss. Accordingly, Count 1 (the RICO claim); Count 5 (the due
process claim for damages); Count 9 (the equal protection claim for
damages); Count 10 (the equal protection claim for equitable
relief); and Count 13 (the equal protection and due process claim
for damages) are dismissed. Count 6 (the due process claim); Count
14 (the equal protection and due process claim for equitable
relief); Count 16 (the unjust enrichment claim); Counts 19 and 20
(the abuse of process claims); and Count 24 (the civil conspiracy
claim) remain for trial.
Through Count 6, the Plaintiffs claim the contractual relationship
between Giles County and CPS violates procedural due process
because the arrangement permits "non-neutral actors with direct
pecuniary interests in the outcome of probationers' cases to
dictate the outcomes of those cases."
Judge Campbell concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations are more
than sufficient to state a valid claim that CPS's 100% funding
arrangement with Giles County creates an impermissible conflict of
interest, and that the conflict is not "too remote" to be of
concern under the case law. The Plaintiffs' allegations relating
to the conduct of CPS probation officers goes far beyond merely
reporting instances of nonpayment to the courts. Hence, the CPS
Defendants have not established they are entitled to dismissal of
Plaintiffs' due process claim (Count 6).
Through Count 14, the Plaintiffs allege CPS and Giles County have
violated their equal protection/due process rights under Bearden v.
Georgia, supra. They allege the the Defendants have a policy and
practice of "placing and keeping individuals on supervised
probation with the CPS Defendants solely because they cannot afford
to pay their court debts and probation fees, without an inquiry to
determine whether their failure to pay was willful.
Judge Campbell concludes that the CPS Defendants have not
established they are entitled to dismissal of the Plaintiffs' equal
protection/due process claim (Count 14). He finds that the
Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a valid Bearden
claim. His conclusion is supported, in that regard, by the
analysis of a similar claim in Rodriguez v. Providence Community
Corrections, Inc. In Rodriguez, a former judge of this court
concluded that allegations about the practices of a user-funded
private probation company were sufficient to withstand a motion to
dismiss.
In Count 16, the Plaintiffs allege, the CPS Defendants took and
converted to their own use monetary payments from the Plaintiffs
and the proposed Class Members. The Defendants extracted those
funds in violation of the Plaintiffs' federal and state
constitutional rights to due process of law and equal protection of
the laws. Defendants had no legal right to their money and took
these funds in violation of state law as related. Under the
circumstances presented, the Defendants' retention of the
Plaintiffs' money would result in unjust enrichment.
The CPS Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have not shown their
collection of fees was "unjust" because they collected the fees
based on court orders. Although the the Defendants may have had a
right to collect supervision fees, the Plaintiffs allege the method
of collection resulted in violations of their constitutional rights
and violations of state law. Thus, Judge Campbell holds that the
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged the Defendants' collection of
fees was "unjust" for purposes of Count 16.
In Counts 19 and 20, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
abused the legal process to seek arrest warrants and probation
revocation judgments with an ulterior motive to collect additional
'supervision' and 'drug testing' fees. The CPS Defendants argue
the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to dismissal because the
Defendants "were acting pursuant to their lawful enforcement right,
and the Complaint fails to establish otherwise."
Judge Campbell disagrees. He holds that the Plaintiffs allege the
Defendants used the legal process with an ulterior motive to
maximize profits. The tort of abuse of process contemplates the
use of legal process in a way that is not "proper in the regular
prosecution of the charge." Thus, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged the elements of abuse of process for purposes of Counts 19
and 20.
In Count 24, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Community
Probation Services, LLC, Community Probation Services, L.L.C., and
Community Probation services acted in concert to accomplish the
common and unlawful purposes of, among other things, acting under
color of state law to deprive the Plaintiffs and other probationers
of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United
States Constitution and the laws of the United States without due
process of law.
The CPS Defendants argue this claim is subject to dismissal because
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a viable predicate tort. The
Defendants assume all other claims have been dismissed. Through
Count 24, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendants conspired to violate
their constitutional rights, extort money from them, and to commit
abuse of process and unjust enrichment. As the Plaintiffs' other
state law claims have not been dismissed, Judge Campbell finds that
the Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim remains a viable claim.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ykbany7e from Leagle.com.
CONGRESS COLLECTION: Court Grants Randolph Leave to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TOMEKA RANDOLPH, Plaintiff v. CONGRESS COLLECTION LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-12146 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Mark A.
Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, grants the Plaintiff leave to amend
her complaint to set forth facts that specifically establish
standing.
Plaintiff Randolph has filed a putative class action complaint
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Her claims
arise from a debt collection notice that allegedly contained false
and deceptive information.
Defendant Congress Collection has moved to dismiss Randolph's
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
arguing that Randolph has failed to allege any injuries sufficient
to confer Article III standing.
In her response to the motion to dismiss, Randolph argues that, as
a result of receiving the debt collection letter, she suffered: (i)
an "informational injury"; (ii) an "emotional injury," i.e., fear
and anxiety; (iii) the injury of having "to reprioritize her debts
in a harmful way such that she would have paid off even a
non-interest-bearing debt first, such as this one, to her
detriment"; and (iv) attorney costs and fees.
Judge Goldsmith holds that although Randolph sets forth facts to
demonstrate each of these purported injuries in her response brief,
Randolph failed to allege such facts in her complaint, as required
by Supreme Court precedent. Further, it is well-established that
a pleading may not be amended in a response brief. As a result,
Judge Goldsmith is unable to assess the merits of Randolph's
standing arguments at this time.
Judge Goldsmith, thus, considers whether it is appropriate to grant
Randolph leave to amend her complaint to add factual allegations
establishing standing. He finds that the injury allegations
Randolph makes for the first time in her response to Congress
Collection's motion to dismiss merely provide additional support to
her initial pleading and would not add new causes of action against
Congress Collection. As a result, it is appropriate to allow an
implicit motion for leave to amend at this stage.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Goldsmith grants Randolph leave to
amend her complaint to set forth facts that specifically establish
standing. Randolph must file her amended complaint by Feb. 12,
2021. If she timely files an amended complaint, the pending motion
to dismiss will be dismissed without prejudice. Within 14 days of
Randolph serving her amended complaint, Congress Collection must
file either an answer or a renewed motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/173k5sv3 from Leagle.com.
COPPER RIVER: Aparicio FLSA Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EVELIN APARICIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COPPER RIVER SALON, LLC; BARBARA
WEIGAND; ROBERT CUMMING; VANYA BURKE TYRRELL; JOHN DOES ## 1-5; AND
JOHN DOES ## 6-10, Case No. MER-L-51-00020, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on February 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-01998 to the proceedings.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Copper River Salon, LLC is a hair salon business in Princeton, New
Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ola A. Nunez, Esq.
SCHOEMAN UPDIKE KAUFMAN & GERBER LLP
155 Willowbrook Blvd., Ste. 300
Wayne, NJ 07470
Telephone: (973) 256-9000
Facsimile: (973) 256-9001
CORIZON HEALTH: Question in Abraham Suit Certified to Oregon S.C..
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an
Order Certifying Question to the Oregon Supreme Court in the case
captioned ANDREW ABRAHAM, on behalf of himself, and for all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC.,
FKA Prison Health Services, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
19-36077.
The Court of Appeals panel certified the following question to the
Oregon Supreme Court: Is a private contractor providing healthcare
services at a county jail a "place of public accommodation" within
the meaning of Oregon Revised Statutes Section 659A.400 and subject
to liability under Section 659A.142?
On October 23, 2015, Andrew Abraham was arrested and taken to the
Clackamas County Jail. Abraham is deaf and communicates through
American Sign Language (ASL). He is also diabetic. While in jail,
Abraham was deemed a suicide risk and placed for several days
"under the care and supervision" of Corizon Health, Inc., a private
healthcare company that contracts to provide medical services to
the inmates of the Clackamas County Jail. According to Abraham,
these medical services were provided at the jail.
Corizon did not provide Abraham an ASL interpreter. Instead, it
used "paper sheets to communicat[e]" with Abraham. Abraham alleges
that Corizon's failure to provide an ASL interpreter resulted in a
series of miscommunications that caused him to be incorrectly
placed on suicide watch and denied meals and insulin. Abraham sued
Corizon on behalf of a putative class of deaf inmates under the
Oregon Public Accommodation Act, which makes it unlawful "for any
place of public accommodation" to discriminate against "a customer
or patron" because he or she "is an individual with a disability."
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed
Abraham's claim under section 659A.142 because the complaint sought
only equitable relief, and as Abraham was no longer incarcerated,
he lacked standing to seek such relief.
The Court asks the Oregon Supreme Court to exercise its discretion
to accept and decide the certified question.
Abraham's motion to certify a question to the Oregon Supreme Court
is therefore GRANTED. The clerk of this court shall file a
certified copy of this order with the Oregon Supreme Court under
Oregon Revised Statutes Section 28.215. This appeal is withdrawn
from submission and will be submitted following receipt of the
Oregon Supreme Court's opinion on the certified question or
notification that it declines to answer the certified question. The
clerk is directed to administratively close this docket pending
further order. The panel shall retain jurisdiction over further
proceedings in this court. The parties shall notify the clerk of
this court within one week after the Oregon Supreme Court accepts
or rejects certification. In the event the Oregon Supreme Court
grants certification, the parties shall notify the clerk within one
week after the court renders its opinion.[BN]
COULTER VENTURES: Collective FLSA Classes Get Conditional Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT LEE BRAUN, et al.,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff(s), v. COULTER VENTURES, LLC, d/b/a ROGUE FITNESS, et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03052-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Oho), the Hon. Judge
Algenon L. Marbley entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) classes;
2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
the Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-
mail) to:
"all current or former non-exempt employees in Defendants'
warehouse, customer service, and/or manufacturing
divisions and employed during the past three years who
were paid from the beginning of their shift until the end
of their shift despite being clocked in more than seven
minutes prior to their shift and/or remaining clocked in
more than seven minutes after their scheduled shift end
time;" and
3. requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this
Court's order, identify all potential opt-in Plaintiffs by
providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
potential opt-in Plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at
any location at any time within the past three years.
Coulter Ventures retails athletics equipment. The Company offers
bars and plates, strength equipment, rigs and racks, gears, straps,
wraps, and gymnastics products.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3qepCu8at no
extra charge.[CC]
COVANTA PLYMOUTH: Partial Bid to Dismiss Lloyd Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOLLY LLOYD v. COVANTA PLYMOUTH RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC,
Case No. 20-4330 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III, of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff Lloyd has sued Defendant Covanta in the putative class
action brought under the Class Action Fairness Act. She alleges
claims for private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence.
These counts arise from the Defendant's operation of a
waste-to-energy processing facility which the Plaintiff alleges
emits noxious odors that invade her and other nearby residents'
properties in and around Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
The Defendant, a citizen of New Jersey and Delaware, owns and
operates a facility in Conshohocken which converts municipal solid
waste into energy. The facility processes approximately 1,200 tons
of waste per day into fuel. The facility includes a municipal
waste storage pit, an auxiliary fuel storage tank, two municipal
waste incinerators and emission stacks, and two auxiliary burners.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant does not properly
maintain its incinerators and systems so as to prevent the release
of noxious odors into the air. As a result, the offensive odors
from the Defendant's facility have caused property damage,
specially the loss of the use and enjoyment of her property as well
as the diminution in its value. The Plaintiff also references the
statements of over 30 residents living near the Defendant's
facility regarding the adverse impact of its facility on their
lives and properties.
The Plaintiff brings the action seeking certification of the
proposed class of "all owners/occupants and renters of residential
property within a 1.5 mile radius of the Covanta Plymouth Renewable
Energy Facility" pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. She also seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, an order holding that the noxious odors
constitute a nuisance, and injunctive relief consistent with state
and federal regulatory obligations. The Plaintiff does not seek
any damages for personal injury.
Before the Court is the partial motion of the Defendant to dismiss
the Plaintiff's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Specifically, it moves to dismiss Count III
for negligence, as well as claims for punitive damages. As part of
the same motion, the Defendant also seeks to strike the injunctive
relief that the Plaintiff requests.
The Defendant argues in its partial motion to dismiss that the
Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim for
negligence separate from the private and public nuisance claims and
that the Defendant does not have a recognized duty to protect its
neighbors from odors. The Plaintiff counters that the Defendant
has a duty to operate its facility with due care to prevent the
emission of noxious odors.
Judge Bartle notes that the Defendant has voluntarily undertaken
the operation of an industrial site that turns waste into fuel.
Therefore, a duty attaches to operate its facility in a way that
does not cause unreasonable risk of harm to others. The Plaintiff,
however, fails to plead sufficient facts alleging physical injury
or property damage to support her claim for negligence. She has
not pleaded physical damage to her property such as allegations
that the odors "infiltrate physical structures," contaminate
groundwater, or cause any personal injuries. Absent any
allegations of physical damage to her property, the Plaintiff has
not sufficiently pleaded a claim for negligence.
As part of the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff seeks an award to
her and the Class Members of injunctive relief not inconsistent
with the Defendant's state and federal regulatory obligations. The
Defendant seeks dismissal of the requested injunctive relief on the
ground that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction favors deferring
to the Pennsylvania DEP and the Environmental Hearing Board to
regulate waste management. The Plaintiff counters that the
Defendant's permit from the DEP should not prevent her from seeking
injunctive relief when the regulatory scheme thus far has failed to
prevent the noxious odors despite numerous complaints to the DEP.
Judge Bartle holds that the Court is well-suited for determining
issues of private and public nuisance. Although the DEP has
various powers to investigate and enforce its permits and
regulations, the Defendant has not pointed the Court to any law or
regulation that the DEP is capable of providing a remedy for a
private citizen bringing a cause of action against one of its
permitted facilities for recovery of damages. Thus, there is not a
danger of inconsistent rulings in the matter. Accordingly, there
is nothing before the Court to support abstention in favor of
granting primary jurisdiction to the DEP or the Environmental
Hearing Board.
Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's request for
punitive damages should be dismissed because she has failed to
plead sufficiently outrageous or extreme conduct on the part of
defendant. The Plaintiff has pleaded that the Defendant recklessly
and intentionally failed to maintain its facility thereby causing
noxious odors to invade her property.
These allegations, if proven, Judge Bartle says, may support a
claim for punitive damages. Discovery is necessary to help make
this determination. After review of the complaint, the Judge finds
that there are sufficient allegations at this point to allow the
Plaintiff to seek punitive damages. Whether she can prove conduct
on the part of the Defendant arising to the level sufficient to
award punitive damages will await another day.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/rp0prllr from Leagle.com.
CREDIT CONTROL: One-Year Extension to File Class Status Bid Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD FUENTES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES
d/b/a CCS USA d/b/a THE CCS COMPANIES et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-01138-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered
an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to extend time to file
motion for class certification, in which the plaintiff seeks a
one-year extension of his deadline to file a motion for class
certification.
Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that offers
debt collections, and accounts receivables management.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a6DyAs at no extra charge.[CC]
DENVER, CO: April 26 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER 5280,
et al., v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01878-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs Sara Fitouri, Jackie
Parkins, Jonathen De La Vaca Duran, Kelsey Taylor, Joe Deras,
Youssef Amghar, and Andrea Sannier move the Court for an unopposed
30-day extension of time to file their motion for class
certification to April 26, 2021.
Correspondingly, the Defendants' response brief would be due May
26, 2021, and Fitouri Plaintiffs' reply brief would be due on June
9, 2021, the Plaintiffs say. Their current deadline to file the
motion for class certification is March 26, 2021, the Plaintiffs
add.
In September 2020, the parties began exchanging written discovery
and the City has been producing documents and videos responsive to
Plaintiffs' requests on a rolling basis. The parties have also had
numerous telephonic meet-and-confers to discuss discovery issues,
including parameters of email searches for high-ranking or
supervisory/command-level personnel in the Denver Police Department
(DPD). The City has agreed to complete their production of
agreed-upon video and audio communications by February 3, 2020
(including body-worn camera videos and radio communications
relating to the protests and Plaintiffs' claims of excessive use of
force and violation of their First Amendment rights). The parties
have had productive discussions regarding procedures and time frame
for production of email responsive to the Plaintiffs' requests,
which would result in the first set of email to be produced from
the DPD Incident Commander by February 17, 2021. In addition, the
parties are set to begin taking depositions in mid-February. The
parties will work on scheduling additional depositions --
particularly of supervisory/command-level members of the DPD with
knowledge of the protests -- as the relevant email of these
individuals is produced, says the complaint.
Denver, the capital of Colorado, is an American metropolis dating
to the Old West era.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b8E6FB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth Wang, Esq.
Tara Thompson, Esq.
Makeba Rutahindurwa, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
2060 Broadway, Ste. 460
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (720) 328-5642
E-mail: elizabethw@loevy.com
tara@loevy.com
makeba@loevy.com
DENVER, CO: Bid for Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cruz, et al., v. City and
County of Denver, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01922 (D. Colo.), the
Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order denying the unopposed
motion for extension of time to file for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Denver, the capital of Colorado, is an American metropolis dating
to the Old West era.[CC]
DENVER, CO: BLM 5280 Has Until Apr. 26 to File Class Status Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Black Lives Matter 5280,
et al., v. City and County of Denver, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01878 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge R Brooke Jackson entered
an order granting the unopposed motion for extension of time to
file motion for class certification.
The Court requests that the plaintiffs give considerable attention
to whether class treatment is either necessary or feasible in this
case. The deadline to file a motion for class certification is now
April 26, 2021, says Judge Jackson.
The nature of suit states civil rights -- other civil rights.
Denver, the capital of Colorado, is an American metropolis dating
to the Old West era.[CC]
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Silva Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Class Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Eddie Silva filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in his lawsuit entitled Eddie Silva, On behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Does 1-10 and Dominos Pizza
LLC, a Michigan Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-02145-JVS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit
alleges employment discrimination violation.
Mr. Silva is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Judgment dated
January 28, 2021, entered in favor of Domino's and against him on
his first amended complaint. Under the said order, the Court held
that Mr. Silva shall take nothing by way of his first amended
complaint, and the action is dismissed with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Eddie Silva v. Domino's Pizza,
LLC, et al., Case No. 21-55093, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, dated February 5, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Eddie Silva Mediation Questionnaire is due on
February 12, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 3, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on April 2, 2021;
-- Appellant Eddie Silva opening brief is due on May 12, 2021;
-- Appellees Does and Domino's Pizza, LLC answering brief is due
on June 11, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant EDDIE SILVA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esq.
DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
3200 Bristol Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (949) 614-5830
E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
Defendant-Appellee DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, a Michigan Corporation, is
represented by:
Margaret A. Keane, Esq.
DEWEY & LEBOEUF
1950 University Ave.
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: (650) 845-7000
- and -
Norman M. Leon, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 368-2192
E-mail: norman.leon@dlapiper.com
- and -
Nancy Nguyen Sims, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 400 North Tower
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
Telephone: (310) 595-3000
E-mail: nancy.sims@dlapiper.com
DPSP HEALTHCARE: London CEPA Suit Alleges Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUANITA LONDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DPSP HEALTHCARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY;
SUSAN MACDONALD; JOHN DOES 1-5 and JOHN DOES 6-10, Defendants, Case
No. CAM-L-000347-21 (N.J. Super., Camden Cty., February 5, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for unlawful retaliation in
violation of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a licensed practical nurse and
administrator from June 2014 until her unlawful termination on or
about December 2, 2020.
DPSP Healthcare Limited Liability Company is a healthcare services
company based in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel T. Silverman, Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 727-9700
DRIVELINE RETAIL: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Esq., and Maya Atrakchi, Esq., of Jackson
Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that
in recent years, there has been an uptick of W-2 phishing scams,
and their consequences for an employer extend well beyond leaked
data, including potential employee class action litigation. Just
recently, a federal court in Illinois rejected a motion for class
certification in a data breach case alleging disclosure of
employees' sensitive tax information and additional personal
information, in McGlenn v. Driveline Retail Merch.
A W-2 phishing scam, is a simple cyberattack, but can be highly
successful. It consists of a phishing e-mail sent to an employee,
generally in the Human Resources or Accounting department, and
designed to appear to come from an executive within the
organization. The e-mail requests that the recipient forward the
company's W-2 forms, or related data, to the sender. This request
aligns with the job responsibilities of both parties to the email.
Despite appearances, the e-mail is a fraud. The scammer is
"spoofing" the executive's identity. The recipient relies on the
accuracy of the sender's e-mail address, coupled with the sender's
job title and responsibilities, and forwards the confidential W-2
information.
In McGlenn v. Driveline Retail Merch., an unknown person sent a
phishing email to a Driveline employee in the payroll department.
The email falsely identified the sender as the company's Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), and requested the employee send a copy of
W-2 information for all Driveline employees. According to the
allegations, the employee provided the unknown person with W-2
information for nearly 16,000 employees including names, addresses,
Social Security Numbers, and other personal identifying information
(PII).
The plaintiff filed a putative class action against her employer,
on behalf of other employees of the company, asserting several
torts and state consumer protection violations. The plaintiff
claimed as a result of the data breach the class suffered damages
due to: unauthorized use and misuse of their PII; the loss of
opportunity to control how their PII is used; the diminution in
value of their PII, the compromise/publication/theft of their PII;
out of pocket costs associated with prevention, detection, recovery
and remediation from identity theft or fraud; lost opportunity
costs and wages associated with efforts expended and loss of
productivity attempting to mitigate consequence of the breach; the
"imminent and certain" impending injury flowing from potential
fraud/theft; continued risk to their PII and more.
Standing in data breach class action litigation is a highly
contested issue, as courts differ on whether a data breach victim
must suffer actual financial harm to recover damages, or the mere
threat of future harm is enough. Federal circuit courts over the
past few years have struggled with this issue, in large part due to
lack of clarity following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins which held that even if a statute has been
violated, plaintiffs must demonstrate that an "injury-in-fact" has
occurred that is both concrete and particularized, but which failed
to clarify whether a "risk of future harm" qualifies as such an
injury. For example, the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th and D.C. circuits have
generally found standing, while the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th circuits
have generally found no standing where a plaintiff only alleges a
heightened "risk of future harm".
Here, in McGlenn, the court denied class certification for several
independent reasons, among which, the court emphasized doubts of
whether the class suffered an injury that was compensable.
Moreover, the court was unsure whether the employer (Driveline)
even owed the potential class members a duty to protect their PII,
as Illinois does not have a common law duty for employers to
safeguard employee PI.
While such a holding is considered a win for employers, it still is
an indication of how far the consequences of a phishing scam can
extend. Even a case dismissed at an early stage will result in
significant time and legal fees for the employer, not to mention
damaging employee relations. Also, the result might have been
different in another state, such as California. Under the
California Consumer Privacy Act, California residents have a
private right of action when their personal information is involved
in a data breach due to the business's failure to maintain
reasonable safeguards. If successful, plaintiffs could each recover
between $100 and $750, or actual damages whichever is greater.
An organization can use firewalls, web filters, malware scans or
other security software to hinder phishing scams, however experts
agree the best defense is employee awareness. This includes ongoing
security awareness training for all levels of employees, simulated
phishing exercises, internal procedures for verifying transfers of
sensitive information, and reduced posting of personal information
on-line. [GN]
DUDE PRODUCTS: Faces Wyant Suit Over DUDE Wipes' Flushable Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARLENE WYANT and DEXTER COBB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DUDE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00682 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violations of the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, and the
New York's General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading
labeling, advertising, and marketing of DUDE Wipes. The Defendant
markets and sells DUDE Wipes as flushable wipe products. However,
in reality, the wipes are not flushable. They do not break apart or
disperse in a reasonable period of time after flushing, resulting
in clogs or other sewage damage. The Plaintiffs and Class members
would not have paid to purchase the Defendant's DUDE Wipes or would
not have paid as much as they did to purchase them had they known
that they are not flushable, the suit says.
DUDE Products, Inc. is a personal care manufacturing company with
its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
888 Seventh Ave.
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
- and –
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, PA
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
- and –
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and –
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT MANSOUR SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd. Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyer.com
EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DiStasio v. Edible
Arrangements, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00538 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Vanessa L. Bryant entered a scheduling order in light of the
Court's order granting in part the parties' joint motion for
extension of time, as follows:
-- All discovery, including but not limited to depositions of
expert witnesses, shall be completed by 4/4/2021.
-- Class Certification motions shall be filed by April 18,
2021 and objections to class certification motions shall
be filed by May 15, 2021 .
-- Dispositive motions are due by July 3, 2021 .
a. If no dispositive motions are filed, the joint trial
memorandum ("JTM") is due by July 3, 2021 , and jury
selection will take place on August 17, 2021 at 09:30
AM in Courtroom One, 450 Main St., Hartford,
Connecticut before Judge Vanessa L. Bryant.
b. If dispositive motions are filed, the JTM is due by
January 3, 2022, and jury selection will take place on
Feb. 15, 2022 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom One, 450 Main
St., Hartford, Connecticut before Judge Vanessa L.
Bryant.
c. Counsel shall be prepared to present evidence on any
day during the month after jury selection is scheduled
to take place.
-- The Parties are directed to closely follow Chambers'
Practices -- including the deadlines and format of filings
-- when completing and filing the JTM, which shall be
accompanied by the voir dire questions, jury instructions,
and motions in limine. All evidentiary objections raised
in the JTM must be the subject of a motion in limine and
supported by applicable Second Circuit precedent. The
Parties' exhibit binders and electronic exhibits, as well
as any courtroom technology requests, must be submitted no
later than 2 weeks before jury selection.
-- The Court also requests that any courtesy copies sent to
Chambers be printed from the docket and contain the header
of the Court's electronic filing system. If and/or when
the Parties feel that a settlement conference before a
Magistrate Judge would be productive, the parties may
jointly request such on the docket.
The suit alleges violation of the Telecommunications Act.
Edible Arrangements is a U.S.-based franchising business that
specializes in fresh fruit arrangements, combining the concept of a
fruit basket with designs inspired by flower arrangement.[CC]
ELECTROLUX HOME: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to April 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FELIX OBERTMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. e 2:19-cv-02487-KJM-AC
(E.D. Cal. ), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the parties'
stipulation as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
certification shall be extended from February 18, 2021 to
April 16, 2021;
2. The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition to the
motion for class certification shall be extended from
April 4, 2021 to June 8, 2021;
3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of his
motion for class certification shall be extended from May
7, 2021 to July 8, 2021;
4. The deadline to complete all fact discovery shall be
extended from June 25, 2021 to August 25, 2021;
5. The deadline to make initial expert disclosures shall be
extended from July 23, 2021 to September 23, 2021;
6. The deadline to make rebuttal expert disclosures shall be
extended from August 20, 2021 to October 20, 2021;
7. The deadline to complete all expert discovery shall be
extended from September 10, 2021 to November 10, 2021; and
8. The deadline for hearing dispositive motions shall be
extended from October 15, 2021 to December 17, 2021.
Plaintiff Obertman filed his complaint on December 12, 2019. He
filed his First Amended Complaint on March 25, 2020. The Defendant
Electrolux a motion to dismiss on April 8, 2020. The Court issued
its ruling on the motion to dismiss on August 31, 2020. The
Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
on October 12, 2020.
Electrolux manufactures and distributes electrical appliances. The
Company offers refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum
cleaners, cookers, air-conditioners, and microwave ovens.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p9ej4Q at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James Nally, Esq.
Gregg Minkin, Esq.
GORDON & REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI LLP
One Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 269-5500
Facsimile: (212) 269-5505
E-mail: gminkin@grsm.com
jnally@grsm.com
- and -
Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq.
Alexandrea H. Young, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
Telephone: (213) 532-2000
Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
E-mail: peskenazi@HuntonAK.com
ayoung@HuntonAK.com
FGO DELIVERS: Benitez FCRA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Benitez v. FGO Delivers, LLC,
Case No. 20-CA-9922 (Filed Jan. 22, 2021), was removed from the
13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on Jan.
28, 2021.
The Disrict Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00221-KKM-TGW to
the proceedings.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Kathryn K. Mizelle
FGO Delivers is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Elmwood Park, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
Tampa, FL 33602-3343
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Cathy M. Stutin, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
450 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 800
Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301-2600
Telephone: (954) 525-4800
Facsimile: (954) 525-8739
E-mail: cstutin@fisherphillips.com
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Madlinger FDCPA Class Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as MADLINGER v. FINANCIAL
RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01288-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.,
Jan. 27, 2021).
Financial Recovery provides debt collection services. The Company
offers comprehensive coverage, auditing, monitoring, electronic
file transfer, legal collections, skiptracing, bilingual
capability, and comprehensive data security services.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Tonianne J.
Bongiovanni.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone: (201) 507-6300
E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com
FISHER ISLAND: Faces $11MM Class Action Over Property Assessments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Pagones, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that one of the
main homeowners associations on Florida's prestigious Fisher Island
-- said to be the wealthiest ZIP code in the country -- was slapped
with an $11 million class-action lawsuit for allegedly allowing
homeowners of combined units to pay the same property assessments
as those with uncombined lots, recent court papers allege.
The lawsuit accuses the Fisher Island Community Association (FICA)
of unfairly asking residents who have not combined units to pay the
same amount in property assessments as those who have chosen to
"exponentially" increase their home sizes by combining. The 75-page
document, filed on Jan. 29 in circuit court in Miami-Dade County,
seeks class-action status and damages that exceed $11 million in
overpayments from 2016 to 2021.
"While Fisher Island is often cited as having the highest per
capita income of anywhere in the United States, FICA has
systematically taken advantage of its residents, and forced the
overwhelming majority of the owners to pay millions of dollars in
improper assessments over at least the last five years," the
lawsuit alleges.
Mauri Peyton, the attorney who represents FICA, said the
association "does not comment on pending litigation."
Fisher Island -- a "barrier island community" in Miami-Dade County
-- boasts the exclusive Fisher Island Club, a world-renowned luxury
resort that reportedly charges $250,000 per equity membership.
The lawsuit further describes how Fisher Island should be comprised
of 892 assessment-paying properties, but actually only technically
has 840 because dozens others are combined units.
"[T]here are 52 residential properties that are combined units
and/or lots, which receive improper and preferential treatment by
not having to pay any amount of assessments - unlawfully shifting
the burden to their neighbors," the complaint states. "More
specifically, FICA permits owners of combined units to pay the same
FICA assessments as owners of uncombined units."
Doing so "unlawfully requires owners of uncombined units to
subsidize the cost of living on Fisher Island for the owners of
combined units," it adds.
In 2021, each FICA unit -- whether combined or uncombined -- was
required to pay $30,376.28 in dues, court papers show. [GN]
FLUOR ENTERPRISES: Pennington Seeks 4th Cir. Review in WARN Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Harry Pennington, III, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Harry Pennington III
and Timothy Lorentz, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fluor Corporation, Fluor
Enterprises, Inc., Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc., SCANA
Corporation, and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Defendants,
Case No. 0:17-cv-02094-JMC, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina at Rock Hill.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
filed this putative class action against the Defendants alleging
that the termination of their employment, was in violation of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).
The Plaintiffs seek an appeal to review the Court's Summary
Judgment in favor of the Defendants against them and for dismissing
the case with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Harry Pennington, III v. Fluor
Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 21-1141, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, dated February 5, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants HARRY PENNINGTON, III, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated; and TIMOTHY LORENTZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Nancy B. Bloodgood, Esq.
Lucy Clark Sanders, Esq.
BLOODGOOD & SANDERS, LLC
242 Mathis Ferry Road
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 972-0313
E-mail: nbloodgood@bloodgoodsanders.com
lsanders@bloodgoodsanders.com
- and -
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
rsr@outtengolden.com
Defendants-Appellees FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., FLUOR CORPORATION,
SCANA CORPORATION, FLUOR DANIEL MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., and
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY are represented by:
Kathleen McLeod Caminiti, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
430 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
Telephone: (908) 516-1050
E-mail: kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Matthew R. Korn, Esq.
John Hagood Tighe, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
P. O. Box 11612
Columbia, SC 29211-1612
Telephone: (803) 255-0000
E-mail: mkorn@fisherphillips.com
htighe@fisherphillips.com
- and -
David Richard Kresser, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
1075 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 231-1400
E-mail: dkresser@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Piper Reiff Byzet, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
211 King Street, P. O. Box 1808
Charleston, SC 29401-0000
Telephone: (843) 720-0863
E-mail: piper.byzet@ogletreedeakins.com
- and -
Danny Michael Henthorne, Esq.
Charles Theodore Speth, II, Esq.
Christopher Ray Thomas, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
2142 Boyce Street
Columbia, SC 29201-0000
Telephone: (803) 252-1300
E-mail: michael.henthorne@ogletreedeakins.com
ted.speth@ogletreedeakins.com
christopher.r.thomas@ogletreedeakins.com
- and -
James Roy Silvers, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC
P. O. Box 2757
Greenville, SC 29602-0000
Telephone: (864) 271-1300
E-mail: james.silvers@ogletree.com
FMK MANAGEMENT: Frank Seeks to Certify Class of Servers
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TESSA FRANK, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, v. FMK MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a
BLUEFIN BAR & GRILL, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, Case
No. Case 5:20-cv-00372-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the class under Rule 23 for minimum wage
claims:
"all servers who worked for Defendants within Florida
during the five years preceding this lawsuit who were not
paid full and proper minimum wage as a result of the
Defendants' illegal tip pooling practices;"
2. directing the Parties to confer about the form and content
of the notice that will be sent to class members (should
the motion be granted);
3. directing the Defendants to produce the names, address,
and personal email addresses of all class members; and
4. appointing the Plaintiff and The Leach Firm, P.A. as the
class representatives of the class.
This class action lawsuit involves simple facts that show a
violation of the minimum wage protections in the Florida
Constitution and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in the amount to which the
Plaintiff and the class members are entitled because of the
Defendants' improper taking of the tip credit and underpayment
and/or refusal to pay minimum wages under Federal and Florida law.
The lawsuit also seeks liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.
The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant known as BlueFin Bar &
Grill. The Defendant employs numerous servers, bartenders, hosts,
bussers. The Plaintiff estimates approximately 250 class members
who were employed by the Defendant in the applicable statute of
limitations time period. Each of these class members were paid by
the tipped credit, worked similar hours, and performed similar job
duties, the Plaintiff adds.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/372owKl
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce A. Mount, Esq.
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 813-7512
E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
bmount@theleachfirm.com
yhernandez@theleachfirm.com
FRENCH PARADOX: Rosado Seeks to Certify Class of Service Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA M. ROSADO,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
v. THE FRENCH PARADOX INC. d/b/a OCabanon, ARMEL JOLY and ALEXANDRE
MUR, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:20-cv-07788-MKV (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of:
"all persons whom Defendants employ or have employed who
were service employees and other comparable tipped
positions, including "servers," "bussers," "runners," and
"bartenders," at any time since February 1, 2018 to the
entry of judgment in this case, who were non-exempt
employees under the FLSA;"
2. approving the proposed collective action notice and the
consent form;
3. authorizing the notice and consent form to be distributed
to the Collective Action Members;
4. directing the Defendants to produce, within 10 business
days of the Order, the names, last known mailing
addresses, job titles, telephone numbers, email addresses,
and employment dates of all Collective Action Members;
5. directing the Defendants to post the notice and consent
form at their place of business; and
6. equitably tolling the Collective Action Members' FLSA
claims between the date of this motion and when the Court
issues its order on it.
On September 22, 2020, the Plaintiff Rosado filed a putative
class and collective action complaint under federal and state wage
and hour laws on behalf of herself and similarly situated
individuals.
The French Paradox Inc is located in New York, and is part of the
bars and nightclubs industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tICWJh
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Action,
are:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
milana@lipskylowe.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Anderton's Class Certification Bid Due October 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: DURAMAX DIESEL LITIGATION,
captioned as ANDERTON, et al., v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-11661-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L.
Ludington entered an order an amended case management and
scheduling order as follows:
Deadline for Plaintiffs to Substitute February 22, 2021
up to 2 GM-Affiliated Witnesses and 2
Bosch LLC or Bosch GmbH-affiliated
Witnesses, except as provided below:
Deadline for Depositions Completing April 1, 2021
Witness:
The Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures: April 30, 2021
Depositions of Plaintiffs' Experts: May 3, 2021 – June
25, 2021
The Defendants' Expert Disclosures: July 16, 2021
Depositions of the Defendants' July 19, 2021 –
Experts: September 10, 2021
The Defendants' Summary Judgment October 15, 2021
Motions:
The Plaintiffs' Class Certification October 15, 2021
Motion
Parties' Daubert Motions:
Plaintiffs' Oppositions to December 17, 2021
Judgment Motions
Defendants' Oppositions to Class December 17, 2021
Certification Motion
Oppositions to Daubert Motions December 17, 2021
The Defendants' Summary Judgment January 28, 2022
Reply Briefs:
The Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Reply Brief:
Daubert Reply Briefs:
General Motors Company is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OmW3Ix at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Heater Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC.
The case is styled as Roger Heater, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Motors LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00024-IMK (N.D.W. Va., Feb. 10, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
General Motors Company -- https://www.gm.com/ -- is an American
multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs,
manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts,
and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's
Renaissance Center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street
Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
dferri@dicellolevitt.com
jtangren@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
Tyner D. Helms, Esq.
W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
BEASLER, ALLEN, CROW, MERHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Email: Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com
Mitch.Williams@Beasleyallen.com
Tyner.Helms@BeasleyAllen.com
dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Larry Lee Javins, II, Esq.
Taylor M. Norman, Esq.
BAILRT, JAVINS & CARTER, LC
P.O. Box 3712
Charleston, WV 25337
Phone: (304) 345-0346
Fax: (304) 345-0375
Email: ljavins@bjc4u.com
tnorman@bjc4u.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Shepard Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE SHEPARD, CIARA VARGAS, TISHA VALDEZ, and GWYNDALINE
QUARLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY (d/b/a Nestle
Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, or Nestle Nutrition North
America, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01977 (D.N.J., February 5,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment
and violations of the Connecticut Trade Practices Act, the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act, the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and the
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading labeling, advertising, and marketing of baby foods.
Contrary to the Defendant's representations on its products' label,
the products contain heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, and
lead at levels above what is considered safe for babies. The
Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased the products
had they known that they contain heavy metals, the suit says.
Gerber Products Company, doing business as Nestle Nutrition, Nestle
Infant Nutrition, or Nestle Nutrition North America, is a baby food
manufacturer headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E., 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle Perry, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 640-1168
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 640-1168
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and –
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 191060
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Google Antitrust Litigation Transferred to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The cases captioned as EPIC GAMES, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case
No. 3:20-05671; IN RE GOOGLE PLAY CONSUMER ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:20-05761; IN RE GOOGLE PLAY DEVELOPER ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:20-05792; PEEKYA SERVICES, INC. v. GOOGLE
LLC, ET AL., Case No. 3:20-06772; BENTLEY, ET AL. v. GOOGLE LLC, ET
AL., Case No. 3:20-07079; MCNAMARA v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL., Case No.
3:20-07361; HERRERA v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-07365; CARROLL v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:20-07379; and PAIGE v. GOOGLE LLC, ET AL.,
Case No. 1:20-03158, were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on February 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-md-02981-JD to the proceedings.
The class actions alleged that Google has engaged in a course of
anticompetitive conduct, including monopolization, in violation of
federal and state antitrust laws.
Epic Games, Inc. is an American video game and software developer
and publisher based in Cary, North Carolina.
Peekya Services, Inc. is an application developer located in
Sarasota, Florida.
Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products,
headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN]
HEALTH INSURANCE: Belin Health Plans Suit Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELIN,
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, KEVIN FURMAN, MITCHELL KIRBY, GABRIELLE
WATSON, and KATHRYN SVENSON, JESSE MANLEY, RANDALL SPITZMESSER, and
MICHAEL ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., HEALTH PLAN
INTERMEDIARIES HOLDINGS, LLC, and MICHAEL KOSLOSKE, Case No.
0:19-cv-61430-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Raag Singhal entered
an order grating the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
-- Simple Health Class
"all individuals who purchased the HII Defendants' limited
benefit indemnity plans and/or ancillary products such as
medical discount plans through Simple Health within the
applicable statute(s) of limitation, and paid fee(s)
and/or a premium(s) that were not completely recovered
through a refund or chargeback;"
-- Nationwide Health Class
"all individuals who purchased the HII Defendants' limited
benefit indemnity plans and/or ancillary products such as
medical discount plans through Nationwide Health within
the applicable statute(s) of limitation, and paid fee(s)
and/or a premium(s) that were not completely recovered
through a refund or chargeback.
-- Medical Expense Subclass
"all individuals within the Simple Health Class or
Nationwide Health Class who incurred uncovered medical
expense(s);" and
-- Tax Penalty Subclass
"all individuals within the Simple Health Class or
Nationwide Health Class who incurred a penalty under the
ACA's individual mandate provisions."
The Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for class
certification, says Judge Singhal.
Nine lead plaintiffs, individual consumers not covered by employer
health plans, bring this putative class action against the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' fraudulent scheme
misled them and others into believing they were purchasing major
medical insurance when, in reality, they were purchasing "limited
benefit indemnity plans" and "medical discount plans" that, at
best, defrayed a fraction of the out-of-pocket costs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jBQHVB at no extra charge.[CC]
I.C. SYSTEM: Miller Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Hannah Miller, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., John Does
1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00727 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is an Accounts Receivable
Management provider and one of the largest collection companies in
North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
IC SYSTEM: Faces McCutchen FDCPA Suit in Eastern Dist. of Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC System, Inc. The
case is captioned as McCutchen v. IC System, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00050-JAG (E.D. Va., Jan. 28, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the District
Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.
IC System is an accounts receivable management provider and one of
the largest collection companies in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aryeh Eliezer Stein, Esq.
MERIDIAN LAW, LLC
600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
Baltimore, MD 21208
Telephone: (443) 326-6011
Facsimile: (410) 653-1061
E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com
INVITATION HOMES: Rivera Has Until Oct. 29 to File Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RIVERA, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INVITATION HOMES,
INC. A Maryland corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-03158-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered a scheduling order
relating to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant
to the parties' stipulation, as follows:
1. The Plaintiff shall file his motion for class
certification on or before October 29, 2021;
2. The Defendant's opposition shall be filed no later than
four weeks after Plaintiff files his motion for class
certification, in any event no later than November 26, 7
2021; and
3. The Plaintiff shall file his reply in support of his
motion for class certification, if any, no later than
three weeks after the Defendant files its opposition, in
any event no later than December 17, 2021.
Invitation Homes provides real estate services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/372r7E9 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
elitney@nicholaslaw.org
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Federman Reminds of April 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Feb. 3 disclosed that on February 1, 2021, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against iRhythm
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC). The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is August 4, 2020 through January 28, 2021.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-irhythm-technologies-inc/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all iRhythm
Technologies, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during
the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Friday, April
2, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Feb. 3 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm Technologies, Inc.
("iRhythm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC) common stock between
August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). iRhythm investors have until April 2, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
On December 1, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
("CMS") issued its final rule, which finalized reimbursement codes
but did not provide national pricing for certain products and
services offered by iRhythm.
On this news, the Company's stock price opened at $183.00 on
December 2, 2020, down from the December 1, 2020 close of $240.64,
thereby injuring investors.
On January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas
Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS's 2021
Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A research analyst from Baird
indicated that these are "way lower" than former codes, citing one
example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but
was now receiving just $42.68.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $82.58, or 32.90%, to
close at $168.42 per share on January 29, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm's
business would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2)
reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national
pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty
and weakness in the Company's business; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased iRhythm securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than April 2, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased iRhythm securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of April 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Feb. 3 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
IRTC) common stock between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). iRhythm investors have until April
2, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their iRhythm investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On December 1, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
("CMS") issued its final rule, which finalized reimbursement codes
but did not provide national pricing for certain products and
services offered by iRhythm.
On this news, the Company's stock price opened at $183.00 on
December 2, 2020, down from the December 1, 2020 close of $240.64,
thereby injuring investors.
On January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas
Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS' 2021
Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A research analyst from Baird
indicated that these are "way lower" than former codes, citing one
example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but
was now receiving just $42.68.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $82.58, or 32.90%, to
close at $168.42 per share on January 29, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm's
business would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2)
reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national
pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty
and weakness in the Company's business; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased iRhythm common stock, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
JAMGLE JAM: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jamgle Jam USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Jamgle Jam USA, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01213 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jamgle Jam Usa, Inc. is located in Newport Beach, California and is
part of the Clothing Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
KALEIDA HEALTH: Class Certification Bids Must be filed by June 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY ELLEN LUTZ, LEA
SHURMATZ, KRISTIN SCHWARTZ, LINDA SPRING, AND ALEXIA
CHRISTODOULIDES, individually and as representatives of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the Plans, v. KALEIDA HEALTH, et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01112-EAW-HBS (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hugh
B. Scott entered an order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and
Local Civil Rule 16 that:
1. All fact discovery in this case shall conclude on March
26, 2021. All motions to compel shall be due by March 19,
2021.
2. Fact discovery concerning individual putative class
members shall be stayed until resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The deadline
for fact discovery on information concerning individual
putative class members shall be set in a separate Order
upon resolution of class certification. Any expert
disclosures and discovery based on information related to
individual putative class members, including those related
to allocating any damages to putative class members, shall
also be set in a separate Order upon resolution of class
certification.
3. The plaintiffs shall identify experts and provide written
reports, excluding experts and written reports based on
information concerning individual putative class members,
in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2) no later than April 2,
2021; the defendant shall identify any experts and provide
written reports, excluding experts and written reports on
information concerning individual putative class members,
in compliance with Rule 26(a)(2) by May 7, 2021. All
expert discovery, excluding expert discovery concerning
individual putative class members, shall be completed on
or before June 4, 2021.
4. Class certification motions shall be filed no later than
June 18, 2021. The deadline for dispositive motions, if
any, shall be set in a separate Order upon the resolution
of class certification. Such motions (class certification
or dispositive motions) shall not be made returnable
before the Magistrate Judge. If no dispositive motions are
filed, and no other motions are pending as of that date,
the parties are directed to contact the Chambers of Hon.
Elizabeth A. Wolford within 10 days to request a trial
date status conference.
5. No extension of the above cutoff dates will be granted
except upon written application, filed prior to the cutoff
date, showing good cause for the extension.
6. A final pretrial conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(e) and Local Civil Rule 16(e) will be scheduled by
Judge Wolford. Counsel's attention is directed to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(f) calling for sanctions in the event of
failure to comply with any direction of this Court.
Kaleida Health, founded in 1998, is a not-for-profit healthcare
network that manages five hospitals in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls
metropolitan area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tWHJHc at no extra charge.[CC]
KANSAS CITY LIFE: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Due July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER Y. MEEK,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-00472-BP (W.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order granting the
joint motion to modify the scheduling and jury trial order as
follows:
-- Trial Setting
This case is scheduled for a jury trial, commencing at
8:30 a.m., on May 31, 2022 (Tuesday), at the United States
District Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri.
-- Teleconference
A teleconference is set at 1:30 p.m., on May 6, 2022 to
discuss the progress of the case and possible court
ordered mediation.
-- Pretrial Conference
A final pretrial conference in this case will be held
at 10:00 a.m., May 20, 2022, at the United States District
Courthouse in Kansas City, Missouri.
-- Class Expert Disclosures
The Plaintiffs shall disclose class experts by July 1,
2021. The Defendant shall disclose class experts by
September 1, 2021. The Plaintiffs shall disclose rebuttal
experts b November 1, 2021. This paragraph applies to all
witnesses retained or non-retained from whom expert
opinions will be elicited at trial.
-- Class Certification Discovery Deadline
The deadline for class certification discovery to be
completed shall be June 24, 2021.
-- Class Certification Motion
The deadline to file the motion for class certification is
July 1, 2021. The deadline to file opposition to the
motion for class certification is September 1, 2021. The
deadline to file reply suggestions to the motion for class
certification is November 1, 2021.
-- Discovery Deadline
All pretrial discovery authorized by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure shall be completed on or before December
31, 2021. This means that all discovery shall be
completed, not simply submitted, on the date specified by
this paragraph.
-- Dispositive Motion Deadline
All dispositive motions, except those under Rule 12(h)(2)
or (3), shall be filed on or before January 7, 2022.
-- Daubert Motion Deadline
All motions to strike expert designations or preclude
expert testimony premised on Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) shall be filed
on or before February 28, 2022. The deadline for filing
motions in limine does not apply to these motions. Failure
to file a Daubert motion prior to this deadline will
constitute a waiver of any arguments based on Daubert.
Kansas City Life Insurance Company is a public insurance company
established in 1895 and located in Kansas City, Missouri. The
company's 1,400 agents market individual life, annuity and group
products through agencies located in 48 US states and the District
of Columbia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MLDbTn at no extra charge.[CC]
LITHIA MOTORS: $4.8K in Costs Awarded in Mendoza TILA UTPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH FRANK MENDOZA, CAROL JOCKS, DAWN CAVEYE and
GINA and DANA DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LITHIA MOTORS, INC., LITHIA
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, SALEM-V, LLC d/b/a VOLKSWAGEN OF SALEM,
LITHIA KLAMATH, INC. d/b/a LITHIA KLAMATH FALLS AUTO CENTER, and
LITHIA MEDFORD HON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 6:16-CV-01264-AA (D.
Or.), Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon, Eugene Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Bill of Costs, and awarded the Defendants costs in the
amount of $4,839.75.
The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action suit against the
Defendants asserting various claims, including common law fraud,
violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), Oregon's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), and Oregon's financial elder
abuse statute. The Court previously granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' first Motion to Dismiss regarding certain
claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs
were granted to leave to amend their complaint.
The Court next granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
second Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims
relating to federal TILA claims and certain claims brought under
the UPTA. It finally dismissed all remaining claims in the case
when it granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The
Plaintiffs then filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the rulings of the Court.
The Defendants have now submitted a timely bill of costs in the
matter for a total of $15,673.73. This includes $8,692.50 in fees
for printed and electronically recorded transcripts related to the
video recording and stenographic transcription of several
depositions. The total request also includes $6,981.23 in fees for
exemplification and the costs of making copies of necessary
materials. This request breaks down further into $3,555.73 for
costs associated with Stoel Rives' inhouse hosting of discovery
materials on its databases and $3,425.50 for document
reproduction.
The parties do no contest that Defendants were the prevailing party
in the action. The Plaintiff argues that certain costs included in
the Defendants' bill are not taxable and that they have failed to
show that other costs were reasonable or necessary.
As to the fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
necessarily obtained for use in the case, the Plaintiffs object to
many of the fees related to deposition transcripts in the
defendants' Bill of Costs. They further object to costs associated
with video depositions in the case arguing that they were
unnecessary, given that written transcripts of these depositions
were also prepared. Next, the Plaintiffs object to costs
associated with court reporter fees as being nontaxable. Finally,
they object to the costs associated with the depositions of Martin
and Carol Jocks as being insufficiently itemized.
Judge Aiken is not persuaded that a video deposition was required
"in addition to a stenographically transcribed deposition in the
case and for the witnesses." Accordingly, she does not tax any
costs associated with the video depositions in the matter.
However, she finds that the costs associated with obtaining the
stenographic transcripts were necessary and taxable. Finally,
Judge Aiken notes that the invoice submitted for both depositions
billed $1,643 for the original, indexed, and condensed depositions
transcripts. However, it does not detail if nontaxable fees for
archiving, tabbing, shipping, or travel are included in the amount.
The Judge finds it reasonable to reduce the amount awarded for the
Jocks deposition transcript by $48.30.
In sum, Judge Aiken is satisfied that the depositions were
reasonably necessary and grants the Defendants costs related to
Section 1920(4) in the amount of $4,839.75.
As to the fees for exemplifications and the costs of making copies
of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use
in the case, the Defendants' claim for $3,425.50 in fees associated
with printing a reproduction of copies. The Plaintiffs object to
the costs submitted for document copying arguing that it is
impossible to determine the reasonableness of the fees based on the
invoices submitted.
Judge Aiken finds that the Defendants make only a conclusory
allegation that these fees are correct and were reasonably and
necessarily incurred in the defense of the case. She cannot make a
determination regarding the true nature of these photocopying
charges and what costs, if any are awardable. Accordingly, she
disallows this cost.
Finally, turning to the Defendants' claim of fees for data base
hosting in the amount of $3,555.73, the Plaintiffs object to the
costs associated with data hosting as nontaxable. Judge Aiken
holds that third-party consulting services limited to technical
issues related to the physical production of information -- and
unrelated to review of documents or strategic decision-making --
are taxable.
The Defendants submit fees related to hosting services for
discovery materials on Relativity and Casepoint databases.
However, based on the invoices submitted, Judge Aiken cannot
discern whether these costs involved some intellectual efforts or
were part of normal discovery retention performed by attorneys,
both of which are not taxable. Accordingly, she disallows these
costs as well.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Aiken granted the Defendants'
Bill of Costs. She awarded the Defendants costs in the amount of
$4,839.75.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 2, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1cy6ghng from Leagle.com.
MACY'S WEST: Hawes Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA HAWES, etc., v.
MACY'S WEST STORES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00754-TSB (S.D. Ohio),
Plaintiff Hawes asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action on behalf of:
"each person in California who purchased from Macy's a
"Chief Value Cotton" (CVC) cotton-polyester blend sheet
supplied by AQ Textiles between November 8, 2013, and the
date the class is certified;" and
2. directing the parties to confer about a proposed notice
and plan for its distribution to class members.
The products at issue are all "Chief Value Cotton" (CVC)6 bedsheets
sold by Macy's in its retail stores and online. All of the sheets
are supplied to Macy's by AQ, which buys them from textile mile in
India.
A copy of Plaintiff Hawe's motion to certify class dated Feb. 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3tJjzj3at
no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff Hawes is represented by:
Drew Legando, Esq.
Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC
1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 522-9000
Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com
edjerse@merrimanlegal.com
- and -
Charles Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelpha, PA 19106
Telephone: (877) 882-1011
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
David L. Black, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone (202) 789-3960
E-mail: brendant@cuneolaw.com
dblack@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
E-mail: stuart@stecklerlaw.com
- and -
Michael McShane, Esq.
Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS
711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (715) 568-2555
E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
kkessler@audetlaw.com
MARKET BASKET: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Coffee Cans
-------------------------------------------------------------
WCVB reports that Market Basket is accused in a class-action
lawsuit of overstating the amount of coffee that could be made from
store-brand coffee cans.
The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 2 in United States District Court. It
specifically targets the labels on the Tewksbury-based supermarket
chain's house blend and decaffeinated coffee cans.
According to the lawsuit, the cans are labeled as containing enough
coffee to brew produce 79 and 76 cups, respectively. However, when
following the directions on the can, the plaintiff said only 39 and
37 cups can be brewed.
"This means that consumers of the Products, including Plaintiff,
were cheated out of 51% of the servings they paid for, in both
cases, based on the advertising, marketing, and labeling of the
Products," the lawsuit states.
Weymouth resident David Cohen is identified as the lead plaintiff,
represented by attorney Boston attorney John T. Longo.
The lawsuit states that "tens of thousands" of customers are
members of the class covered in the lawsuit and that each is
entitled to damages of $25 each.
In response to the lawsuit, a Market Basket spokesperson said the
label in question under this lawsuit is no longer being used.
"The label referenced in the lawsuit is no longer in our stores,"
they said. "We believe the lawsuit has no merit." [GN]
MDL 2591: Sygenta's Bid for Summary Judgment in Corn Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To: The DeLong Co., Inc. v. Syngenta AG, et al.,
No. 17-2614-JWL, MDL No. 2591, Case No. 14-md-2591-JWL (D. Kan.),
Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas granted Sygenta's for summary judgment.
The single case within the MDL presently comes before the Court on
the motion by Syngenta for summary judgment.
Plaintiff The DeLong Co., Inc. is an exporter of Dried Distillers
Grains with Solubles ("DDGS"), a corn by-product. DeLong's sole
remaining claim is one of negligence against Syngenta.
Specifically, DeLong alleges that Syngenta was negligent in its
commercialization of Vitpera and Duracade, genetically-modified
corn seed products, before those products' traits were approved for
import by China.
The parties agree that DeLong's negligence claim is governed by the
substantive law of Wisconsin, where DeLong resides. They further
agree that DeLong's negligence claim is governed by Wisconsin's
six-year statute of limitations.
DeLong filed the instant suit against Syngenta on Oct. 11, 2017.
Thus, the issue is whether DeLong's negligence claim accrued before
Oct. 11, 2011.
Syngenta argues that DeLong's claim is time-barred because before
October 2011 DeLong already knew that Syngenta had commercialized
Viptera without Chinese approval and already believed that Syngenta
should be responsible for its costs incurred because of that
commercialization. In response, DeLong does not dispute that by
October 2011 it already knew of the allegedly negligent
commercialization and the risk and possibility of harm therefrom,
but it argues that it had not actually suffered harm by that date
(or at least that a question of fact exists).
Judge Lungstrum concludes that Syngenta has shown as a matter of
law, based on uncontroverted evidence, that DeLong had suffered
harm by that date and that DeLong's claim therefore accrued more
than six years before it filed the suit.
Syngenta first points to evidence that by October 2011 DeLong was
already preparing and taking steps to deal with the presence of MIR
162, the unapproved trait, in the corn supply. Syngenta has also
submitted evidence that before October 2011 DeLong had begun
insisting in its contracts for the sale of DDGS that the buyer
assume all financial risk from any rejection of DDGS by China.
Finally, Drew McClymont, a DeLong employee, conceded in his
deposition that by mid-September 2011 DeLong's business had been
impacted by Syngenta's commercialization of a product containing
MIR 162.
Thus, Syngenta has presented evidence that DeLong suffered harm
from the allegedly negligent act by Syngenta prior to October 2011.
DeLong has responded that it could not quantify those costs, but
it has not explained why that fact would have precluded it from
bringing a claim against Syngenta before October 2011. DeLong has
not submitted any evidence, in the form of testimony or a
declaration, that before October 2011 it did not actually incur any
costs or suffer any impact to its business from Syngenta's
commercialization of Viptera. Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum holds
that DeLong has not controverted Syngenta's evidence that DeLong
did incur such harm. He therefore concludes as a matter of law
that DeLong's claim accrued more than six years before it filed
suit against Syngenta.
DeLong also argues that even if it filed suit more than six years
after its claim accrued, the statute of limitation was tolled
during the period when Trans Coastal asserted class claims in the
MDL on behalf of a putative class of exporters. No such class was
ever certified, and Trans Coastal's class claims were dropped in an
amended complaint.
Syngenta notes that DeLong is essentially seeking to apply the
federal American Pipe tolling rule in a cross-jurisdictional
context. In American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.
538 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court held that when class
certification has been denied, the filing of the class action is
deemed to have tolled the statute of limitations for those putative
members of the class who then make timely motions to intervene as
named parties. In a subsequent case, the Supreme Court extended
that tolling rule to apply to members of the putative class who
wished to file individual suits instead of intervening in a failed
class action.
In the case, DeLong seeks to apply such a tolling rule based on the
unsuccessful class action brought by Trans Coastal. It argues that
its claim was asserted in Trans Coastal's suit because that class
action included the same negligence claim asserted under the laws
of all states in which the putative class members resided.
Judge Lungstrum finds that DeLong has not shown that American Pipe
tolling, based on a prior federal class action in which the
Plaintiff was only a putative class member, is authorized under
Wisconsin law. As the Court has previously ruled, in the absence
of authority specifically recognizing cross-jurisdictional American
Pipe tolling under a state's law, the Court will not import a new
tolling rule into that state's limitations law. Accordingly,
because no Wisconsin authority directly supports
cross-jurisdictional American Pipe tolling under that state's
limitations law, Judge Lungstrum will not permit such tolling in
the case.
Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum concludes as a matter of law that
DeLong's claim accrued more than six years before it filed the
instant action, and DeLong has not established a basis for tolling
the applicable six-year statute of limitation. Therefore, the
present action is time-barred, and summary judgment is warranted in
favor of Syngenta.
The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and the
Defendants are awarded judgment on the Plaintiff's claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1p74hwne from Leagle.com.
MDL 2875: Claims in 3 Master Complaints in Liability Suit Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates to All Actions, MDL No.
2875 (RBK/KW) (D.N.J.), Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, issues
Opinion 5.
Opinion 5 resolves the Defendants' arguments relating to
subsumption of claims by various states' Products Liability Acts,
and Rule 12(b)(6) pleading deficiencies for common law claims of
negligence, negligence per se against all three categories of the
Defendants, as well as common law claims of strict liability claims
against the Pharmacy Defendants.
The MDL involves the generic active pharmaceutical ingredient,
Valsartan, and the finished drugs produced with it, collectively
termed here valsartan-containing drugs or VCDs. VCDs are
universally prescribed drugs to lower blood pressure and/or treat
heart failure.
In the summer of 2018, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration ["FDA"]
and several of its counterparts in Europe and Canada discovered
that certain batches of generic Valsartan1 contained nitrosamines,
known carcinogens, in amounts above what the FDA considered
allowable, that is above 96 nanograms (ng) per day. The first
nitrosamine contaminant found was N-nitrosodimethylamine ["NDMA"].
Within a few months, other nitrosamines, which included
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ["NDEA"], were also found in batches of
VCDs.
In August 2018, these governmental health administrations began
recalling VCDs made with the active pharmaceutical ingredient
produced by certain API Manufacturers located in China or India.
These include Zhejiang Huahei Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Aurobindo
Pharmaceuticals. The contaminated API had gone into a finished
pill made by Finished Manufacturers located in India and Israel,
which include Teva Pharmaceuticals, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, and
Torrent. Many of these Manufacturers also began issuing their own
recalls of contaminated VCDs already in the drug supply chain. To
be clear, almost all generic Valsartan sold in the U.S. had come
from these API Manufacturers and Finished Manufacturers.
After the recalls began, FDA testing revealed the valsartan API
manufactured by and for the Defendants had levels of NDMA of
between 15,180 and 16,300 ng, much in excess of the FDA daily
limit. Further, FDA testing revealed levels of NDEA was similarly
well in excess of FDA limits.
VCDs were (and remain) a drug of choice in lowering high blood
pressure. Since they were widely prescribed worldwide and in the
United States, the recalls caused consternation during much of 2019
in the global medical community. Several months after the recalls,
the FDA (and non-U.S. health administrations) posited the
contaminants in the VCDs to be the result of changes the API
Manufacturers had adopted in their manufacturing processes,
particularly in the solvents used. Some API Manufacturers had
adopted manufacturing changes as early as 2012, which means
potentially contaminated API may have been present in much of the
Valsartan drug supply sold in the U.S. for about 6 years.
By late August 2018, plaintiffs had begun filing personal injury
individual complaints. By October 2018, individual Plaintiffs and
third-party payors who had paid for individual Pplaintiffs'
prescriptions of the contaminated Valsartan, filed several class
actions alleging economic losses. Consumers also filed a medical
monitoring class action alleging "cellular damage, genetic harm,
and/or an increased risk of developing cancer" as a result of
exposure to the human carcinogens in the VCDs. Lastly, personal
injury claims were filed on behalf of consumers who alleged they
had developed cancer as a result of taking the contaminated VCDs.
On Feb. 14, 2019, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
["JPML"] consolidated all of the individual filings into the MDL,
No. 2875. On 17 June 2019, three Master Complaints were filed with
the Court: the Economic Loss Master Complaint ["ELMC"], the
Personal Injury Master Complaint ["PIMC"]; and the Medical
Monitoring Master Complaint ["MMMC"]. Since then, the MDL has
advanced significantly, both in terms of filings and in the
management of the litigation through various discovery phases.
Currently, with over 700 pending filings, the MDL is well into the
discovery phase of intensive document production; and, depositions
of individuals and under Rule 30(b)(6) are proceeding.
The Plaintiffs in ELMC include individual consumers who purchased
the VCDs at issue as well as third party payors ["TPPs"] that paid
or co-paid for the VCDs at issue that consumers ingested. TPPs are
health care benefit providers, such as an employer's insurance
company providing health care benefit to employees. Many of the
TPPs providing such health care benefits have assigned their rights
to recovery in the MDL to a select few entities, termed assignors,
who now stand as Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs' claims include:
a. Common Law Breach of express warranties by all defendants
because inclusion of defendants' VCDs in the U.S. Orange Book
serves as a warranty that the VCDs at issue constituted a generic
drug that is bio-equivalent in every way to the patented drug.
b. State Law Breach of implied warranties and of warranty for
fitness of purpose by all, or all but the Pharmacy, defendants
under the law of each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.
c. Breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act under 15 U.S.C.
Section2301 et seq. by all, or all but the Pharmacy, defendants.
d. Fraud, intentional misrepresentation and/or negligent
misrepresentation by all, or all but the Pharmacy, defendants by
omitting to inform the public the VCDs at issue were not
bio-equivalent to the branded, FDA-approved drug.
e. Breach of State Consumer Statues for Unfair Competition or
False Advertising in all fifty states and in the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico.
f. Unjust Enrichment against all, or all but Pharmacy,
defendants.
g. Common law negligence against all, or all but Pharmacy,
defendants for breaching their duty to exercise reasonable care to
oversee the safety of the VCDs at issue and prevent injury to
plaintiffs and for failing to comply with current Good
Manufacturing Practice ["cGMP"] federal regulations.
h. Common law negligence per se against all, or all but
Pharmacy, defendants for failing to ensure that VCDs sold in the
U.S. were therapeutically equivalent to the Orange Book entry and
failing to act as reasonably prudent actors throughout the U.S.
drug supply chain.
The plaintiffs in the PIMC include all those who pleaded in their
individual actions that they had suffered personal injuries as a
result of the use of the VCDs at issue as well as, where
applicable, the Plaintiffs' spouses, children, parents, decedents,
wards, and heirs as represented by the Plaintiffs' counsel. The
Plaintiffs plead many of the same claims as in the ELMC, but do not
exclude the Pharmacy Defendants.
The claims specific to the PIMC include but not limited to:
a. Strict liability/product liability-manufacturing defects
for making a drug that was not bio-equivalent to the Orange Book
entry or to the patented drug because of flawed, faulty, and
non-compliant cGMPs, which created a foreseeable and unreasonable
danger to those ingesting the VCDs at issue.
b. Strict liability/product liability-failure to warn, to
physicians that the VCDs at issue would cause harm.
c. Strict liability/product liability-design defect, that the
VCDs at issue failed to perform in a safe manner expected by an
ordinary consumer and increased the risk of causing cancer.
The Plaintiffs in the MMMC include those consumers who ingested the
VCDs at issue, thereby suffering cellular damage and genetic harm,
and consequently are at an increased risk of developing cancer but
have not yet been so diagnosed. The Plaintiffs plead many of the
same claims as in the PIMC and some of the same claims as in the
ELMC, but do not exclude the Pharmacy Defendants.
The claims specific to the MMMC include:
a. Medical Monitoring,
b. Statutory Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability,
that defendants placed the VCDs at issue in the stream of commerce,
implying that they were safe and fit for their purpose in violation
of laws in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.
c. Statutory Breach of Express Warranty of Merchantability,
that defendants, through the drug labels and the packaging of the
VCDs at issue, made express representations to health care
professionals about their quality and to consumers that ingestion
of these was safe, which representations constituted an express
warranty of drug safety and purity that was false and which was a
violation of laws in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
The claim similar to that in the ELMC includes Breach of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act under 15 U.S.C. Section 2301 et seq. by
all the Defendants.
The claims similar to those in the ELMC and PIMC include, but not
limited to:
a. Common Law Negligence, that defendants breached a duty to
plaintiffs and physicians to exercise ordinary care in making the
VCDs at issue and that such breach caused injury.
b. Common Law Negligence per se, defendants' actions of making
and selling a contaminated drug, while also violating federal and
state law, also breached a common law duty by failing to act as
reasonably prudent actors throughout the U.S. drug supply chain.
c. Strict liability/product liability-manufacturing defects
for making a drug that was not bio-equivalent to the Orange Book
entry or to the patented drug because of flawed, faulty, and
non-compliant cGMPs, which created a foreseeable and unreasonable
danger to those ingesting the VCDs at issue.
Currently, there are about 40 Defendants in the MDL, divided into 3
categories as described: Manufacturers, which include the
Manufacturers of the Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient ["API
Manufacturers"], such as Zhejiang Huahei Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
Hetero Laboratories, Aurobindo Pharma and Mylan Laboratories;2 and
the Finished Dose Manufacturers, such as Teva Pharmaceuticals and
Torrent ["Finished Manufacturers"]; Wholesalers, such as
Amerisource Bergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson; and Pharmacies,
such as Walgreens, Walmart, Kroger, CVS and others. Each category
of defendant has filed its own motion to dismiss.
The Court recognizes that the Manufacturers MTD has set forth the
four arguments of Standing, Preemption and Primary Jurisdiction,
Subsumption, and Deficiencies of Specific Claims, which the
Wholesalers and the Pharmacies have incorporated by reference into
their MTDs. In addition, the Wholesalers and the Pharmacies have
each argued the facial deficiency of specific claims that are
particularly pertinent to their status in the drug supply chain.
Before the Court are the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the three
Master Complaints filed in the MDL that involves the sale of a
generic blood pressure medication found to be contaminated with
probable human carcinogens. Since the MTDs seek dismissal of
several claims for each set of Plaintiffs, the Court is issuing a
series of opinions to resolve the motions. Each opinion will be
numbered with the instant Opinion being the fifth in the series.
The Opinion 5 resolves the Defendants' arguments relating to
subsumption of claims by various states' Products Liability Acts,
and Rule 12(b)(6) pleading deficiencies for common law claims of
negligence, negligence per se against all three categories of
defendants as well as common law claims of strict liability claims
against the Pharmacy Defendants. An Order 5 of same date
accompanies the Opinion 5.
Having reviewed the parties' submissions (without a hearing in
accordance with Rule 78.1(b)) relating to these arguments, Judge
Kugler rules as follows to resolve the Defendants' arguments
relating to the subsumption of common law claims by various states'
Products Liability Acts and to the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading
deficiencies for common law claims of negligence, negligence per se
against all three categories of the Defendants as well as common
law claims of strict liability claims against the Pharmacy
Defendants.
As for Subsumption:
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of New Jersey: The Court finds that all
claims--except breach of express warranty--are subsumed by the New
Jersey Products Liability Act; therefore, it grants all the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses these
claims with prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of New Jersey: The Court finds that all
claims--except breach of express warranty and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act--are subsumed by the New Jersey Products
Liability Act; therefore, it grants all the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss these claims and dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of New Jersey: The Court finds none of these claims are
subsumed by the New Jersey Products Liability Act; therefore, it
denies the Motion to Dismiss these claims.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Connecticut: the Court finds that all claims are
subsumed by the Connecticut Products Liability Act; therefore, it
grants all the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss these claims and
dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Connecticut: The Court finds that all claims are
subsumed by the Connecticut Products Liability Act; therefore, it
grants all the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss these claims and
dismisses these claims Wwith prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of Connecticut: The Court finds that none of the claims
are subsumed by the Connecticut Products Liability Act; therefore,
it denies the Motion to Dismiss these claims.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Indiana: The Court finds that all claims --
except for violation of state consumer protection statutes, breach
of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty -- are subsumed
by the Indiana Products Liability Act; therefore, it grants all the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses these
claims with prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Indiana: The Court finds that all claims--except
the claims for breach of implied warranty, breach of express
warranty, and violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act--are subsumed
by the Indiana Products Liability Act; therefore, it grants all the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses these
claims with prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of Indiana: The Court finds that none of the claims are
subsumed by the Indiana Products Liability Act; therefore, it
denies the Motion to Dismiss these claims.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Kansas: The Court finds that all claims--except
the claim for violation of state consumer protection statutes--are
subsumed by the Kansas Products Liability Act; therefore, it grants
all the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses
these claims with prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Kansas: The Court finds that all claims are
subsumed by the Kansas Products Liability Act; therefore, it grants
all the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses
these claims with prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of Kansas: The Court finds that none of the claims are
subsumed by the Kansas Products Liability Act; therefore, it denies
the Motion to Dismiss these claims.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Louisiana: The Court finds that all claims are
subsumed by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; therefore, it
grants all the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and
dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Louisiana: The Court finds that all claims are
subsumed by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; therefore, it
grants all the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and
dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of Louisiana: The Court finds that all claims are subsumed
by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; therefore, it grants all
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses these
claims with prejudice.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Mississippi: The Court finds that all
claims--except the claims for fraud and violation of state consumer
protection statutes--are subsumed by the Mississippi Products
Liability Act; therefore, it grants all the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss these claims and dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Mississippi: The Court finds that all
claims--except the fraud claim--are subsumed by the Mississippi
Products Liability Act; therefore, it grants all the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses these claims with
prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of Mississippi: Rhe Court finds that none of the claims
are subsumed by the Mississippi Products Liability Act; therefore,
the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss these claims.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of North Carolina: The Court finds that the strict
liability claims are subsumed by the North Carolina Products
Liability Act; therefore, it grants all the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss these claims and dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Ohio: The Court finds that all claims--except the
claim for fraud--are subsumed by the Ohio Products Liability Act;
therefore, it grants all the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these
claims and dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Ohio: The Court finds that all claims—except
the claim for fraud—are subsumed by the Ohio Products Liability
Act; therefore, it grants all the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
these claims and dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of Ohio: The Court finds that none of the claims are
subsumed by the Ohio Products Liability Act; therefore, it denies
the Motion to Dismiss these claims.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Tennessee: The Court finds that all claims --
except the claim for violation of state consumer protection
statutes -- are subsumed by the Tennessee Products Liability Act;
therefore, it grants all the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these
claims and dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Tennessee: The Court finds that all claims are
subsumed by the Tennessee Products Liability Act; therefore, it
grants all the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss these claims and
dismisses these claims with prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of Tennessee: The Court finds that none of the claims are
subsumed by the Tennessee Products Liability Act; therefore, it
denies the Motion to Dismiss these claims.
As to the Personal Injury Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Washington: the Court finds that all
claims--except the claims for violation of state consumer
protection statutes and fraud--are subsumed by the Washington
Products Liability Act; therefore, it grants all the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses these claims with
prejudice.
As to the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint claims arising
under the laws of Washington: The Court finds that all
claims--except the claim for fraud--are subsumed by the Washington
Products Liability Act; therefore, ti grants all the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss these claims and dismisses these claims with
prejudice.
As to the Economic Loss Master Complaint claims arising under
the laws of Washington: The Court finds that none of the claims are
subsumed by the Washington Products Liability Act; therefore, it
denies the Motion to Dismiss these claims.
As for negligence per se:
The Court finds that the Complaints sufficiently plead a
cause of action against Manufacturer Defendants; however, the Court
finds that the following jurisdictions do not recognize an
independent cause of action for negligence per se: Arkansas;
Arizona; California; Massachusetts; Maine; Nebraska; Rhode Island;
and Texas. Therefore, it grants the Motion to Dismiss the claims
arising under the laws of these jurisdictions with prejudice.
As for negligence:
Against Manufacturer Defendants: The Court DENIES the Motion
to Dismiss the negligence claims. Against Wholesaler and Pharmacy
Defendants: the Court GRANTS the Wholesaler and Pharmacy
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismisses these claims without
prejudice. Thee Plaintiffs may make a motion for leave to amend
all three Master Complaints as to the negligence claims according
to the deadlines set in the accompanying Order.
As for medical monitoring:
Against all Defendants: The Court grants the Motion to
Dismiss to the extent the claims arise under the law of the
following jurisdictions: Alabama; Arkansas; Connecticut; Georgia;
Kentucky; Louisiana; Michigan; Mississippi; Nebraska; New Jersey;
North Carolina; Oklahoma; South Carolina; Tennessee; Texas;
Virginia; and Wisconsin. The Plaintiffs may make a motion for
leave to amend the MMMC as to the medical monitoring claim
according to the deadline set in the accompanying Order.
As for strict liability:
Against Pharmacy Defendants: The Court grants the Pharmacy
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, to the extent the claims arise under
the law of the following jurisdictions: Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas;
California; Connecticut; District of Columbia; Florida; Georgia;
Hawaii; Illinois; Iowa; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts;
Michigan; Mississippi; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; New
York; North Carolina; Oklahoma; Pennsylvania; Tennessee; Utah;
Virginia; Washington; and West Virginia. The Plaintiffs may make a
motion for leave to amend as to the strict liability claim,
according to the deadlines set in the accompanying Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ytpp8qzu from Leagle.com.
MID-SOUTH MAINTENANCE: Must File Joint Stipulation by Feb. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURIE MARLOW,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
current and former employees, v. MID-SOUTH MAINTENANCE OF
TENNESSEE, LLC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00711 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order that:
1. By February 15, 2021, the parties shall file a joint
notice advising the Court whether they have entered into a
stipulation and, if so, shall provide a copy of the
stipulation for the Court's review;
2. The Defendants' time to respond to the motion is stayed
pending the stipulation or notice to the
Court. In the event the parties are unable to reach
agreement on conditional certification, the defendants'
opposition shall be due March 1, 2021, and plaintiffs'
reply shall be due March 8, 2021; and
3. The Court will consider extensions to the dates upon an
appropriate motion.
The Court said, In the Court's experience, the parties in similar
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) cases routinely enter into an
agreement regarding conditional certification and notice so as to
avoid unnecessary and time-consuming motion practice. The Court
strongly encourages the parties to enter into an appropriate
stipulation in this case, and the parties are directed to negotiate
in good faith toward that end. The Court understands that a
defendant's stipulation of conditional certification is not in any
way a concession that decertification in the future would be
inappropriate or a waiver of any right to pursue decertification."
The Plaintiff filed the motion for collective action certification
and expedited court-facilitated notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b). The Plaintiff moves for conditional class
certification under the FLSA.
Mid-South Maintenance was founded in 1992. The company's line of
business includes building cleaning and maintenance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q4LmbD at no extra charge.[CC]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Coss Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Adrian Coss, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00764 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) --
https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
MONTEBELLO HILLS: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Garcia v. Montebello Hills Travelodge, a California Limited
Partnership; and Does 1-10, Case No. 21GDCV00139 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 28, 2021) is a class action suit brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all other similarly
challenging the reservation policies and practices of a place of
lodging.
The Plaintiff does not know if any physical or architectural
barriers exist at the hotel and, therefore, is not claiming that
that the hotel has violated any construction-related accessibility
standard. Instead, this is about the lack of information provided
on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit him to
determine if there are rooms that would work for him, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities.
He is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He suffers from
cerebral palsy. He has the use of only one arm. He uses a
wheelchair, walker, or cane for mobility.
The Defendant Montebello Hills Travelodge, a California Limited
Partnership owns and operates the Fairfield Inn & Suites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
Mail: 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
NEWPORT BEACH AUTOMOTIVE: Guerra TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mario Guerra, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NEWPORT BEACH AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
LLC, Case No. 21-001193-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Florida on Feb. 10, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-20568-RNS to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Newport Beach Automotive Group --
https://www.newportbeachautomotivegroup.com/ -- is a source for new
and used cars in Irvine, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
Thomas John Patti, III, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 907-1136
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Heather Lena Ries, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 700
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 835-9600
Fax: (561) 835-9602
Email: hries@foxrothschild.com
NISSAN OF NORTH: Sells Automobiles With CVT Defect, Stringer Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA STRINGER, KAREN BROOKS and WILLIAM PAPANIA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN OF
NORTH AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00099 (M.D. Tenn., February 5, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of implied warranties, fraudulent
omission, and violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants designed, manufactured,
distributed, marketed, sold or leased 2014 through 2016 Nissan
Rogue vehicles in the United States with continuously variable
transmission (CVT) defect. The Defendants knew the Class vehicles
were defective and not fit for their intended purpose of providing
consumers with safe and reliable transportation at the time of the
sale and thereafter. The Defendants have actively concealed the
true nature and extent of the CVT defect from Plaintiffs and the
other Class members, and failed to disclose it to them, at the time
of purchase or lease and thereafter. Had they known about the CVT
defect, they would not have purchased the Class vehicles or would
have paid less for them, the suit says.
Nissan of North America, Inc. is an automobile company based in
Franklin, Tennessee.
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. is a multinational automotive manufacturer
headquartered in Nishi-ku, Yokohama, Japan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
beng@bsjfirm.com
- and –
Mark Greenstone, Esq.
GREENSTONE LAW APC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9156
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com
- and –
Marc L. Godino, Esq.
Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
OPENSIDED MRI: Withdrawal of Class Certification Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS PHILLIP BRUST,
D.C., P.C. and ALAN PRESSWOOD, D.C., P.C., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. OPENSIDED MRI OF ST.
LOUIS L.L.C., OPENSIDED MRI OF ST. LOUIS II LLC, PAUL EUGENE
SCHWETZ, MATTHEW RUYLE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
4:21-cv-00089-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order withdrawing the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
without prejudice.
Recognizing that the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and memorandum in support of in State Court on
December 16, 2020, in an attempt to prevent the putative class
action from potentially being mooted pursuant to Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) and other similar
authorities, the parties wish to take the motion for class
certification off the Court's docket to permit them time to do
discovery.
Therefore, the Defendants agree it will not pursue the "pick-off"
defense as more fully described in the Damasco case and Prater v.
Medicredit, Inc., 301 F.R.D. 398, 2014 WL 3973863, at 3 (E.D. Mo.
Aug. 2014) and Johnson v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 276 F.R.D. 330,
334 (D. Minn. 2011) while the Plaintiffs do not have a class
certification motion on file. In turn, the Plaintiffs agree to
withdraw their class certification motion without prejudice to
being refiled after class discovery has been completed or in
accordance with any deadline set by the Court.
A copy of Parties motion dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2NgE1adat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Max G. Margulis, Esq.
MARGULIS LAW GROUP
28 Old Belle Monte Road
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Telephone: (636) 536-7022
Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
E-mail: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com
- and -
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Tina N. Babel, Esq.
Candace E. Johnson, Esq.
CARMODY MacDONALD P.C.
120 South Central Avenue, Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 854-8600
Facsimile: (314) 854-8660
E-mail: tnb@carmodymacdonald.com
cej@carmodymacdonald.com
OREGON: Settles Unemployment Benefits Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kate Davidson, writing for OPB, reports that the agency was sued
over "unreasonable" delays paying unemployment benefits during the
pandemic. Now, it has reached a settlement agreement with the
Oregon Law Center.
A class action lawsuit against the Oregon Employment Department
over long delays paying unemployment benefits is headed towards
settlement.
The Oregon Law Center and the Employment Department announced they
had reached a settlement agreement and asked for preliminary court
approval.
In the original case, more than a dozen people sued the agency and
acting Director David Gerstenfeld over payment delays that
stretched for months, as well as over barriers to applying for
benefits in languages other than English. At the time, there wasn't
even a Spanish language application for regular benefits available
online and phone lines with access to interpreters were jammed.
After the agency largely paid the original petitioners' benefits,
the Oregon Law Center succeeded in turning the case into a class
action lawsuit, representing tens of thousands of Oregonians who
had waited more than four weeks for benefits.
In the proposed settlement agreement, the Employment Department
commits to:
-- Meet federal timeliness standards for paying unemployment
benefits by March 1, 2021
-- Meet federal timeliness standards for adjudicating claims
(resolving eligibility issues) by April 1, 2021
-- Work through the adjudication backlog (as of mid-January) by
March 1, 2021
-- Make its regular unemployment application available online in
Spanish, with a May target date
-- Eventually provide online applications for regular
unemployment benefits and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance in a
minimum of ten languages
-- Provide outreach to people with limited English proficiency
who were unable to access benefits because of language barriers,
while allowing them to backdate claims to the extent allowed by
law
Over the course of the lawsuit, the Employment Department described
being overwhelmed by an historic flood of unemployment claims. It
detailed the steps it took to process and pay them, including
hiring hundreds of new staff.
But court documents filed in the case also revealed that the
state's adjudication backlog was larger than publicly described.
That backlog contributed to the state's immense wait times. Court
documents also showed one of the steps the agency took to
streamline the claims process: it decided to treat many gig workers
as employees, paying them regular benefits from a state trust fund
rather than federal benefits for independent contractors.
The Employment Department is not admitting liability as part of the
proposed settlement and, in the settlement agreement, the agency
denies being in violation of any laws. [GN]
ORTHOPEDIATRICS CORP: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of OrthoPediatrics Corp. (NASDAQ: KIDS) resulting from
allegations that OrthoPediatrics may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased OrthoPediatrics securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2015.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.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 2, 2020, Culper Research published
a report entitled "OrthoPediatrics Corp. (KIDS): Even Channel
Stuffing Can't Save This Company[.]" The report alleged that
OrthoPediatrics has "engaged in a channel stuffing scheme that has
systematically and significantly overstated revenues." On this
news, the Company's stock price fell $5.40 per share, or 12%, to
close at $39.35 per share on December 3, 2020. Then on December 14,
2020, Culper Research published a second report entitled
"OrthoPediatrics Corp. (KIDS): Pleading the Fifth" in which it
concluded that the Company "is a structurally broken business which
has relied on nefarious tactics to inflate its reported revenues."
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.
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]
PROJECT O.H.R.: Appeals Class Action Notice Form in Kurovskaya Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Project O.H.R. (Office for Homecare Referral), Inc. filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
NATALYSA KUROVSKAYA and RUSLAN DOMNICH, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. PROJECT O.H.R. (OFFICE
FOR HOMECARE REFERRAL), INC., Case No. 150480/2016, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
The Plaintiffs commenced this action on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of home health aides and/or personal care assistants
in the State of New York employed by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs
allege that they were uniformly deprived of minimum wages, overtime
compensation, spread of hours compensation, and prevailing wages
and benefits while performing similar work for which they should
have been compensated. They further contend that Defendant failed
to maintain adequate records of the hours they actually worked, the
breaks they were entitled to receive, and the sleeping facilities
provided to them.
The Defendant appeals the Court's Decision and Order dated January
14, 2021, which approved the form of the Notice of Class Action
that held that the publication of such Notice substantially in the
manner and form set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4 constitutes the
best notice under the circumstances to members of the Class.
The appellate case is captioned as NATALYSA KUROVSKAYA and RUSLAN
DOMNICH, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. PROJECT O.H.R. (OFFICE FOR HOMECARE REFERRAL), INC.,
Case No. 2021-00285, in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, First Judicial Department, Dec. 18,
2020.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees NATALYSA KUROVSKAYA and RUSLAN DOMNICH,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
are represented by:
LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
VIRGINIA AND AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
Defendant-Appellant PROJECT O.H.R. (OFFICE FOR HOMECARE REFERRAL),
INC. is represented by:
Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq.
PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.
1325 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 382-0909
Facsimile: (212) 382-3456
E-mail: koconnor@pecklaw.com
REGIONALCARE: Kurtz Seek to Certify Non-Exempt Employee Colllective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYLA KURTZ, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. REGIONALCARE
HOSPITAL PARTNERS, INC. D/B/A RCC HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, RCCH TRIOS
HEALTH, LLC, RCCH TRIOS PHYSICIANS, LLC, AND RCCH LLC, Case No.
4:19-cv-05049-RMP (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order conditionally certifying the following collective:
"all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees
including, but not limited to, nursing staff, nursing aides,
nursing assistants or other employees with similar job duties
employed by Defendants nationwide during the time period
April 3, 2016 until final resolution of this action."
The Plaintiff brings the collective action because RCCH denies its
similarly situated non-exempt, hourly workers overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). RCCH violates the FLSA by
failing to record all time worked, and therefore failing to pay
patient care employees overtime wages for work performed during
on-duty unpaid meal breaks, prior to clocking in, and after
clocking out for their shifts, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff Kurtz, opt-in Plaintiffs, and the proposed Collective
members are current and former non-exempt patient care employees of
the Defendants RCCH who worked in one of RCCH's network of
hospitals operating throughout Washington and the United States.
RegionalCare provides healthcare services. The Company offers
oncology, pulmonary, cardiology, endoscopy, laboratory, cancer, and
sleep disorder treatment.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2OphOrjat
no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiff, Class, and Collective Members, are:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
William M. Hogg, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
whogg@schneiderwallace.com
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Pawar Law Group Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Feb. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE: QSR) from April 29,
2019 through October 28, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Restaurant Brands
International Inc. investors under the federal securities laws. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 19, 2021.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: Restaurant Brands'
"Winning Together Plan" was failing to generate substantial,
sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand; the "Tims
Rewards" loyalty program was not generating sustainable revenue
growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting promotional
discounting; and as a result, defendants' statements about
Restaurant Brands' business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]
RHODE ISLAND: Response to Class Status Bid Extended to March 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HANSON and RANDALL
PELLETIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SCOTT R. JENSEN, in his official capacity as Director
of the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, Case No.
1:20-cv-00232 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge William E. Smith entered an
order granting in part the motion for extension of time to file
response to motion for class certification.
The Defendant's response is due March 1, 2021. The topic of the
pending motions will be addressed at the upcoming conference;
Responses due is by March 1, 2021, says Judge Smith.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
The RI Department of Labor and Training provides workforce
development, workforce security and workforce protection to the
state's workers, employers and citizens.[CC]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Debuts Super Bowl Ad Amid Gamestop Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kris Holt, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that days after angry
users slapped it with lawsuits amid the GameStop trading chaos,
Robinhood has debuted its first Super Bowl ad. The upbeat,
30-second spot focuses on the idea that everyone is an investor.
According to CNBC, the ad will kick off the stock trading app's
biggest brand campaign to date, but it comes at a time when
Robinhood is in crisis mode.
The company restricted trading on a number of stocks with high
volatility, including GameStop, AMC and BlackBerry. Day traders
from the WallStreetBets subreddit fueled the rise of those stocks.
The share price of GameStop, in particular, went through the roof.
A user filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, claiming
that it limited trading on GameStop shares "purposefully and
knowingly to manipulate the market." Thousands of other traders had
joined the suit. Since that filing, users from across the US have
brought more than 30 class-action suits against Robinhood.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have called on Congress to
investigate the app's decision to limit trading.
Robinhood, which has since rolled back some of the restrictions,
has denied the claims from the first suit. It cited an increase in
capital deposit requirements from clearinghouses as the reason for
limiting trading on those stocks. The company has raised over $3.4
billion in investment over the last couple of weeks to help it
avoid placing restrictions on trades amid a large uptick in user
numbers.
The ad, unsurprisingly, doesn't reference the controversy of the or
so -- it's likely that it was completed before any of the upheaval.
The company has said that the app shines a spotlight on people
investing "time in themselves and in the people and things that
they love." Robinhood chief marketing officer Christina Smedley
told CNBC that the ad helps explain the app to newcomers. "It felt
like this was a great stage for us to remind people about what we
stand for and remind people about why the company was put into
existence in the first place," she said. [GN]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Joseph Saveri Law Firm Files Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm filed an antitrust class action lawsuit
on behalf of a class of retail investors in federal court against
35 defendants, including Robinhood, E*TRADE, TD Ameritrade, Melvin
Capital, Citadel, Sequoia Capital, and others. The plaintiffs
allege that they and other retail investors continue to be injured
due to a large, overarching conspiracy among the defendants to stop
them from buying stocks in open and fair public securities
markets.
Plaintiffs contend that the purpose and effect of the scheme was to
shield hedge funds, venture capitalists, and institutional
investors from massive losses they had exposed themselves to due to
their highly speculative short selling strategies. Plaintiffs bring
claims under the federal and state antitrust laws as well as other
state laws and common law.
The retail investors held shares in twelve companies: GameStop
(GME), AMC Theaters (AMC), American Airlines (AAL), Bed, Bath and
Beyond (BBBY), Blackberry (BB), Express (EXPR), Koss (KOSS), Naked
Brand Group (NAKD), Nokia (NOK), Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL),
Tootsie Roll Industries (TR), and Trivago N.V. (TRVG).
Several large hedge funds and investment firms, including
defendants Citadel and Melvin Capital, possessed massive "short"
positions in these relevant securities. "Short" sellers borrow
shares or other interests in corporate stock, securities, or other
assets. In so doing, they bet that prices of the securities will
decrease. If the stock prices in fact drop, a short seller buys the
stock back at a lower price and returns it to the lender. The
difference between the sell price and the buy price is the profit.
Short sellers essentially bet on a stock's failure or decline
rather than its success or increase.
Retail investors correctly identified that the relevant securities
were undervalued. In fact, as the plaintiffs allege, the short
positions were over-leveraged as much as 140%, such that
institutional investors could not close their positions. These
retail investors then began purchasing "long" positions in these
companies, driving stock prices upward, resulting in great losses
to those invested in short positions.
Short sellers were caught in a classic "short squeeze." When the
price of an asset rises, short sellers normally face pressure to
buy back stock to exit their short positions and mitigate their
losses. Instead, as part of the scheme, hedge funds and others
holding short positions publicized the relevant securities as being
less valuable than retail investors believed. When retail investors
continued to acquire shares and drive prices even higher, hedge
funds and others faced potentially disastrous exposure when
required to cover their short positions.
On January 28, many brokerages abruptly and unilaterally restricted
retail investors' ability to buy long positions-in some cases
removing the option to buy shares of the relevant securities while
openly permitting them to sell their existing shares or prohibiting
users from viewing the tickers for some or all of the relevant
securities. Even those retail investors who had queued orders
overnight to purchase stock when the markets opened on January 28
discovered that their purchase orders had been cancelled without
their consent.
The coordinated prohibition on buying any new shares of the
relevant securities eventually led to a massive sell-off and a
steep decline in share prices. While retail investors continued to
be prohibited from purchasing securities at the reduced price,
institutional investors were permitted to buy securities at the
artificially reduced price, closing their short positions.
"Rather than use their financial acumen to compete and invest in
good opportunities in the market to recoup the losses in their
short positions, or paying the price for their highly speculative
bad bets, these defendants instead hatched an anticompetitive
scheme to limit trading in the relevant securities," says Joseph
Saveri, counsel for the plaintiff retail investors. "It is unlikely
that such a widespread ban among brokerages would have been
achievable without a concerted effort in violation of antitrust
laws."
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages, as well as injunctive relief,
on behalf of themselves and the proposed class, from the
defendants. The case is Cheng, et al. v. Ally Financial Inc. et.
al., case number 21-cv-00781, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. [GN]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Removes Stocks From Platform, Nordeen Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY A. NORDEEN, and AARON KOLYSKO v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC,
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00167-H-BLM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2021) is a class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated users alleging that Robinhood purposefully, willfully, and
knowingly removing the stocks including "GME", "BB", "AMC", "NOK"
and "NAKD" 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.
Robinhood has experienced significant growth as a relatively new
online brokerage firm. 2019, Robinhood raised $323 million in
funding at a $7.6 billion valuation. The firm markets itself
primarily to younger investors and claims over 10 million users of
its trading app.
On March 23, 2016, Robinhood's official Twitter account stated:
"Let the people trade." They have since disregarded their mantra
and have blocked access for millions of its customers to trade
particular securities, the suit says.
On January 11, 2021, stocks in "GME", "BB", "AMC", "NOK" and "NAKD"
began to rise. At that time, Robinhood allowed retail investors to
trade NAKD on the open market.
On January 27, 2021, Robinhood, in order to slow the growth of the
stocks 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 the stocks on Robinhood's app, the Plaintiffs
allege.
Robinhood is an online brokerage firm. Its customers place
securities trades through the firm's website by using a web-based
application (or "app"). Robinhood permits customers to purchase and
sell securities, including futures contracts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
LAW OFC OF GARY R. CARLIN, APC
301 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1550
Long Beach, CA 90802-4815
Telephone: (562) 432-8933
Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
ROYAL SEAS: McCurley Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John McCurley, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JOHN MCCURLEY and DAN
DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ROYAL SEA CRUISES, INC., Case No.
3:17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
stems from telemarketing calls for Defendant Royal's cruise
vacation packages and services allegedly made to cellular telephone
numbers. The Named Plaintiffs are California residents who allege
that Royal and its agents allegedly made such calls to the
Plaintiffs with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system
and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice and without the
Plaintiffs' prior express consent. On behalf of a putative
nationwide class, McCurley and DeForest bring the consolidated
action against Royal for alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
On January 29, 2021, the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an
order granting the Defendant's amended motion for summary judgment
and denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Judge
Bashant says that because the calls at issue were placed by a
third-party caller at the behest of Prospect, not Royal Seas, and
because Royal Seas has no evidence that would support its theory
that Royal Seas is vicariously liable for the calls placed by
Prospect, thus the Court grants the Defendant's motion and denies
the Plaintiff's motion. She adds that in light of this decision,
the Court finds the remaining motions are all moot. The clerk was
directed to enter a judgment in favor of the Defendant and against
the Plaintiffs and to close the case.
Thus, the Plaintiffs are now seeking an appeal to review the said
order by Judge Bashant.
The appellate case is captioned as John McCurley, et al. v. Royal
Seas Cruises, Inc., Case No. 21-55099, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 8, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the appellate case states that:
-- Appellants Dan Deforest and John McCurley Mediation
Questionnaire is due on February 16, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by March 8, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on April 6, 2021;
-- Appellants Dan Deforest and John McCurley opening brief is
due on May 17, 2021;
-- Appellee Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. answering brief is due on
June 16, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN MCCURLEY and DAN DEFOREST, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Adrian Bacon, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Matthew Michael Loker, Esq.
LOKER LAW, APC
1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Telephone: (805) 465-9434
E-mail: matt@loker.law
Defendant-Appellee ROYAL SEAS CRUISES, INC. is represented by:
Richard Wayne Epstein, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER PA
200 East Broward Blvd.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 491-1120
E-mail: richard.epstein@gmlaw.com
- and -
Anton N. Handal, Esq.
MURCHISON & CUMMING
750 B Street
San Diego, CA 92101-8122
Telephone: (619) 544-6383
E-mail: tony.handal@gmlaw.com
- and -
Blake Osborn, Esq.
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (323) 880-4520
E-mail: blake.osborn@gmlaw.com
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due April 1
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
FIREMEN'S AND POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SYSTEM, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RYANAIR HOLDINGS
PLC and MICHAEL O'LEARY, Case No. 1:18-cv-10330-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order regarding the following
preliminary deadlines:
Action Date
Deadline for Substantial Completion of April 1, 2021
Production of Documents (including
privilege logs):
Deadline for Defendants to Oppose Lead April 1, 2021
Plaintiff's Class Certification
Motion:
Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to File Dec. 22, 2021
Reply in Support of Class Certification
Motion:
Deadline for Completion of Fact Jan. 19, 2022
Discovery (including third-party
discovery, fact depositions, and fact
discovery motions):
Deadline to Seek Leave of Court to Jan. 19, 2022
Join Parties and Amend Pleadings:
Deadline for Identification and March 2, 2021
Production of Expert Witness
Reports:
Deadline for Identification and May 4, 2022
Production of Rebuttal Expert
Witness Reports:
Deadline for Completion of July 6, 2021
Expert Depositions:
Deadline for Dispositive Motions
and Daubert Motions:
Deadline for Oppositions to Aug. 22, 2022
Dispositive Motions and Daubert
Motions:
Deadline for Replies to Sept. 20, 2022
Dispositive Motions and Daubert
Motions:
Ryanair is an Irish low-cost airline founded in 1984. It is
headquartered in Swords, Dublin, with its primary operational bases
at Dublin and London Stansted airports. It forms
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jEhpfZ at no extra charge.[CC]
Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the Class, are:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Robert R. Henssler Jr., Esq.
Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
Francisco J. Mejia, Esq.
Ting H. Liu, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com
hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
fmejia@rgrdlaw.com
tliu@rgrdlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Roger A. Cooper, Esq.
Jared Gerber, Esq.
Thomas S. Kessler, Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN
& HAMILTON LLP
One Liberty Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2000
E-mail: racooper@cgsh.com
jgerber@cgsh.com
tkessler@cgsh.com
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Hanna Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Monika Hanna filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Carol Michelsen, et al v. S-L Distribution
Company LLC, Case No. 1-19-cv-02143, in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendant is a
wholesale distributor of various snack food products where
Michelsen distributed its products outside of Illinois to retail
stores and other customers within specific geographic areas. The
complaint asserts that Defendant takes out deductions from
Plaintiffs' earnings that include route loan repayments, truck loan
repayments, truck rental payments and electronic equipment.
Plaintiff claims to regularly incur work-related expenses for gas,
vehicle maintenance/repair and insurance which are not reimbursed.
Ms. Hanna seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated
January 6, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Carol Michelsen, et al. v. S-L
Distribution Company LLC, Case No. 21-1196, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, dated February 3,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MONIKA HANNA is represented by:
J. Keith Coates, Esq.
Chad Hatmaker, Esq.
WOOLF MCCLANE BRIGHT ALLEN & CARPENTER
900 South Gay Street
900 Riverview Tower P.O. Box 900
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 215-1000
E-mail: kcoates@wmbac.com
chatmaker@wmbac.com
- and -
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO
715 Twinning Road
Suite 211, Twinning Office Center
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
- and -
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
Matthew Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LLC is represented by:
Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
77 West Wacker Drive Suite 500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 324-1158
E-mail: sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com
- and -
Benjamin K. Jacobs, Esq.
Emily C. Reineberg, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5651
E-mail: benjamin.jacobs@morganlewis.com
emily.reineberg@morganlewis.com
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Appeals Ruling in Fox's Tax Suit to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Saginaw County, MI, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled THOMAS A. FOX, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF
SAGINAW, by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11887, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan at Bay City.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 25, 2021, Judge
Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Northern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint
filed in the case.
On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff Fox filed this complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated against Defendants
Gratiot County, Gratiot County Treasurer Michelle Thomas, and other
Michigan counties ("County Defendants") and county officials
("Individual Defendants"). The Plaintiff seeks damages based on the
Defendants' retention of surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure
sales pursuant to Michigan's General Property Tax Act.
The Defendants are seeking a review of the Order entered by Judge
Ludington.
The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Fox v. Saginaw County,
MI, et al., Case No. 21-1108, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, dated February 2, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee THOMAS A. FOX, and all those similarly situated,
is represented by:
Philip Lee Ellison, Esq.
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
P.O. Box 107
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com
Defendants-Appellants SAGINAW COUNTY, MI, by its Board of
Commissioners; BAY COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners;
GRATIOT COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; MIDLAND COUNTY,
MI, by its Board of Commissioners; ISABELLA COUNTY, MI, by its
Board of Commissioners; TUSCOLA COUNTY, MI; MONTMORENCY COUNTY, MI,
by its Board of Commissioners; ALPENA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of
Commissioners; OSCODA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners;
ALCONA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; ARENAC COUNTY,
MI, by its Board of Commissioners; OGEMAW COUNTY, MI, by its Board
of Commissioners; CLARE COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners;
GLADWIN COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; CRAWFORD COUNTY,
MI; GENESEE COUNTY, MI; HURON COUNTY, MI; JACKSON COUNTY, MI;
LAPEER COUNTY, MI; LENAWEE COUNTY, MI; MACOMB COUNTY, MI; OTSEGO
COUNTY, MI; PRESQUE ISLE COUNTY, MI; ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MI; SANILAC
COUNTY, MI; ST. CLAIR COUNTY, MI; and WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI, are
represented by:
Allan Craig Vander Laan, Esq.
CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO
2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 327
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
Telephone: (616) 975-7470
E-mail: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com
SCIPLAY CORP: Appeals Partial Dismissal Ruling in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants SciPlay Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled POLICE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM OF ST. LOUIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SCIPLAY CORPORATION; JOSHUA J.
WILSON; MICHAEL D. CODY; MICHAEL F. WINTERSCHEIDT; BARRY L. COTTLE;
GERALD D. COHEN; JAY PENSKE; M. MENDEL PINSON; WILLIAM C. THOMPSON,
JR.; FRANCES F. TOWNSEND; BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH; J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; GOLDMAN SACHS
& CO. LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.;
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED;
and WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC., Defendants, Case No. 655984/2019, in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of
the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating
to a misleading registration statement filed in connection with
their initial public offering.
The Defendants are now seeking an appeal to review the Court's
Decision and Order dated August 28, 2020, entered in the office of
the Clerk of New York County on September 17, 2020 and from the
August 28, 2020 oral decision recorded in the transcript so-ordered
on January 20, 2021, entered in the office of the Clerk of New York
County on January 26, 2021, denying in part their motion to dismiss
the case.
The appellate case is captioned as In re SciPlay Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2021-00398, in the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the
First Judicial Department, dated February 3, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants SCIPLAY CORPORATION; JOSHUA J. WILSON;
MICHAEL D. CODY; MICHAEL F. WINTERSCHEIDT; BARRY L. COTTLE; GERALD
D. COHEN; JAY PENSKE; M. MENDEL PINSON; WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, JR.;
FRANCES F. TOWNSEND; BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.; RBC
CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; and
WEDBUSH SECURITIES INC. are represented by:
Kevin J. Orsini, Esq.
Damaris Hernandez, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eight Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
E-mail: korsini@cravath.com
dhernandez@cravath.com
- and -
Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
Caroline H. Bullerjahn, Esq.
Charles A. Brown, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
The New York Times Building
620 Eight Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 813-8800
E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinlaw.com
cbullerjahn@goodwinlaw.com
cbrown@goodwinlaw.com
SHRYNE GROUP: Faces Nevarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NEVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHRYNE GROUP, INC.; IGS SOLUTIONS LLC; III
TECH LLC; BLAZE DELIVERY LLC; KUSHAGRAM; SAGI SHAMAM; TONY HUANG;
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV04672 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 5, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment
ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to
maintain accurate records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to
give meal breaks, and failure to reimburse for business expenses.
Mr. Nevarez was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
until October 2020.
Shryne Group, Inc. is a cannabis holding company based in Los
Angeles, California.
IGS Solutions LLC is a technology company based in California.
III TECH LLC is an information technology services company based in
New York, New York.
Blaze Delivery LLC is a cannabis delivery company based in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
SMTC CORP: Deceives Stockholders to Approve Merger, Quach Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS QUACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLARKE H. BAILEY, DAVID SANDBERG, J. RANDALL
WATERFIELD, FREDERICK WASSERMAN, EDWARD SMITH, and SMTC
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0104 (Del. Ch., February 5,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duties and breach of fiduciary duty of care.
According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the filing of
a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Preliminary
Proxy Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) on January 21, 2021 to convince stockholders to vote in favor
of SMTC's merger agreement. Allegedly, the Proxy Statement contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning (i) the
company's financial projections used by Lincoln International LLC
in support of its fairness opinion, and (ii) the financial analyses
performed by Lincoln in connection with its fairness opinion. In
facilitating the proposed merger and disseminating the incomplete
and misleading proxy, each of the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties, the suit says.
SMTC Corporation is a provider of end-to-end electronics
manufacturing services based in Markham, Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
Dean R. Roland, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3889
- and –
Michael Palestina, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
- and –
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (646) 300-8921
Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
STANFORD INT'L: Denial of Bid to Intervene in Rotstain Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Peggy Roif Rotstain, Plaintiff, Official Stanford
Investors Committee, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee v. Annalisa
Mendez; Jana L. Amyx; Carlos Barbieri; Dorris Burchett; Giancarlo
Delon, et al., Movants-Appellants v. Trustmark National Bank; The
Toronto-Dominion Bank; SG Private Banking (Suisse) S.A.; HSBC Bank,
P.L.C.; Blaise Friedli; Independent Bank, formerly known as Bank of
Houston; Societe Generale Private Banking, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 19-11131 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the
Appellants' motion to intervene.
The case arises from the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen
Stanford, his co-conspirators, and the entities Stanford owned or
controlled. The Plaintiffs, who are Stanford investors, brought
suit against the Defendants, who provided banking services to
Stanford. The Appellants, who moved to intervene, are also
Stanford investors and investment funds that purchased assignments
of claims from Stanford investors.
The Stanford Ponzi scheme operated until February 2009, when the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") brought suit in the U.S.
District Court in Dallas. Almost immediately, the district court
appointed Ralph S. Janvey as receiver over the assets and records
of Stanford, his co-conspirators, and the Stanford entities. Two
months later, the district court appointed an examiner to advise
the court "in considering the interests of the investors."
Then, in August 2010, the district court created the Official
Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent Stanford
investors, SEC v. Stanford Int'l Bank, Ltd., No. 3:09-CV-298-N
(N.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2010) (order creating OSIC). The order likens
OSIC to a "committee appointed to serve in a bankruptcy case." The
Examiner chairs OSIC.
The action began in 2009 in Texas state court as a putative class
action. The Plaintiffs brought claims for fraudulent transfer and
fraud on the theory that the Defendants knew or should have known
that Stanford was operating a Ponzi scheme. The Defendants removed
the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. The action was subsequently transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas by order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
OSIC intervened in the litigation, bringing claims for fraudulent
transfer, fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, violations of the
Texas Securities Act, and breach of fiduciary duty. It brings its
claims "on behalf of the Committee, the investors, and on behalf of
the Receivership Estate." Any money recovered from the Defendants
would be distributed to Stanford investors.
The Defendants moved to dismiss OSIC's complaint on the basis that,
among other things, OSIC lacks standing to pursue claims on behalf
of the receivership estate and the Stanford investors. The
district court held that OSIC has standing to assert claims on
behalf of both the receivership estate and the Stanford investors.
The district court entered a scheduling order staying all discovery
except for that relevant to class certification. The named
Plaintiffs subsequently moved to certify a class of "all persons
who invested in Stanford International Bank Limited ("SIBL") CD(s)
from Aug. 23, 2004 to Feb. 16, 2009, inclusive, and whose claims
for losses related to SIBL CDs are recognized, authorized, and
calculated by the United States Receiver for the Stanford Entities,
Ralph S. Janvey." In November 2017, the district court denied the
motion for class certification and lifted the discovery stay. The
Fifth Circuit denied a motion for leave to appeal the class
certification order.
After denial of class certification, the parties engaged in
significant fact discovery, including exchanging over one million
pages of documents. In April 2019, the Appellants allege that OSIC
and the Examiner sent confusing signals about OSIC's representation
of investor claims. A few days later, the Examiner posted a
"Statement Concerning Investor Claims Against Bank Defendants."
Less than two weeks later, the Appellants moved to intervene as of
right and, alternatively, as permitted by the court. Their
complaint asserted claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
conversion, and civil conspiracy as well as claims under the Texas
Securities Act and the Texas Theft Liability Act. In August 2019,
the Appellants filed a supplemental motion for leave to intervene
to add additional intervenors. The district court denied
Appellants' motions to intervene on the basis that they were
untimely and that OSIC adequately represents their interests. The
appeal followed.
A would-be intervenor bears the burden to prove an entitlement to
intervene; failure to prove a required element is fatal.
The Fifth Circuit begins by analyzing timeliness. It has
identified four factors, sometimes referred to as the Stallworth
factors (Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 264-66 (5th Cir.
1977)), to determine whether a motion to intervene is timely: the
length of time the movant waited to file, the prejudice to the
existing parties from any delay, the prejudice to the movant if
intervention is denied, and any unusual circumstances.
First, the Fifth Circuit concludes that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in determining that a delay of 18 months
weighed against timeliness. Using the denial of class
certification as the relevant starting point, the Appellants waited
18 months before moving to intervene. The district court found
that delay to be "significant." In many of the cases where the
Fifth Circuit has found intervention motions to be timely, the
delay was much shorter.
Second, given the prejudice to the existing parties in the form of
costly and inefficient discovery and delay of final distribution,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the
second factor weighs against timeliness. The Fifth Circuit holds
that the existing parties would experience prejudice in at least
two ways if the Appellants were granted leave to intervene after a
delay of 18 months. First, the existing parties would face a
second round of fact discovery, significantly increasing litigation
costs. Second, the Appellants' tardiness will delay final
distribution of any recovery. Since such prejudice is inherent to
intervention generally, and not specific to delay, the Circuit
Court does not consider it in its timeliness analysis.
Third, although it does not identify any prejudice to the
Appellants, the Fifth Circuit notes that even if there were some
prejudice it would be mitigated by OSIC's role in the litigation.
OSIC was created for the purpose of representing the interests of
Stanford investors. OSIC owes fiduciary duties to the Stanford
investors. Any recovery OSIC obtains will be distributed to the
Stanford investors, including Appellants. The denial of
intervention will not exclude Appellants from recovery even if it
were to prejudice them in some way.
Finally, since there are no unusual circumstances militating for or
against timeliness, the fourth factor is neutral.
Balancing the timeliness factors, the district court concluded that
the Appellants' motion was untimely. The analysis the Fifth
Circuit just made supports that conclusion. Since timeliness is a
requirement for mandatory intervention, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying the motions to intervene on that
basis, and the Appellate Court need not address the other factors
for intervention.
Because it concludes that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by determining that the request for mandatory
intervention was untimely, the Fifth Circuit also concludes that
the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that
the request for permissive intervention was untimely. Accordingly,
it does not have jurisdiction over the appeal of the denial of
permissive intervention.
In their brief, S.G. Suisse and Friedli argue that the district
court lacks personal jurisdiction over them and that the order
denying intervention can be affirmed on that alternative basis.
OSIC filed a motion to strike the personal jurisdiction argument
because S.G. Suisse and Friedli failed to file a cross-appeal as to
that issue. The argument about personal jurisdiction is presented
merely as an additional, though unsuccessful, reason to deny
intervention. The motion has no merit.
The motion to strike is denied. The appeal of the denial of
permissive intervention is dismissed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed
the denial of intervention as of right.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/1a54z5dj from Leagle.com.
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Skalubinski Sues Over Coffee Drink's False Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GLEN SKALUBINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10197 (D. Mass., February 5, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy the Defendant's deceptive labeling,
marketing, and sale of its Vanilla With Other Natural Flavors
Starbucks Frappuccino Chilled Coffee Drink. The Defendant has
allegedly misled the Plaintiff and reasonable consumers to believe
that the product contains vanilla as the ingredient that provides
for the product's characterizing vanilla flavor. In reality, the
product contains natural flavor, not vanilla, as its characterizing
ingredient, the suit says.
Starbucks Coffee Company is an American multinational chain of
coffeehouses and roastery reserves, with its principal place of
business in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Longo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. LONGO
177 Huntington Avenue, 17th Fl, Suite 5
Boston, MA 02115
Telephone: (617) 863-7550
E-mail: jtlongo@jtlongolaw.com
- and –
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
STATE FARM: Hearing on Shields Class Certification Set for Nov. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shields, et al., v. State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Case No. 6:19-cv-01359 (W.D.
La.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Hanna entered an order
setting class certification hearing for Nov. 2, 2021 10:00 AM in
Lafayette, Courtroom 4 before Judge James D Cain Jr, with two days
set aside on Judge Cain's calendar for the hearing.
State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.
The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Property - Other
Personal Property Damage.[CC]
STEWARD HEALTH: Class Status Filing Deadline Due August 16
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY WILLIAMS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LLC; AND MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENTS OF
AMERICA Case No. 5:20-cv-00123-RWS-CMC (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Caroline M. Craven entered an order that the following schedule of
deadlines is in effect until further order of the Court:
-- December 18, 2020 Deadline for the Parties to submit
initial disclosures.
-- January 18, 2021 Deadline for the Parties to submit
any additional disclosures.
-- March 1, 2021 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to join
additional parties. It is not
necessary to file a motion to join
additional parties prior to this
date. Thereafter, it is necessary to
obtain leave of Court to join
additional parties.
-- March 15, 2021 Deadline for Defendants to join
additional parties. It is not
necessary to file a motion to join
additional parties prior to this
date. Thereafter, it is necessary to
obtain leave of Court to join
additional parties. Deadline for
Defendants to assert any
counterclaims. After this deadline,
leave of Court must be obtained to
assert any counterclaims.
-- August 16, 2021 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file
Motion for Class Certification and
designate expert witnesses on which
Lead Plaintiff relies in support of
class certification.
-- September 6, 2021 Deadline to complete depositions of
Lead Plaintiff’s class certification
experts.
-- September 13, 2021 Deadline for Defendants to file
their opposition to Lead Plaintiff’s
Motion for Class Certification and
designate expert witnesses on which
Defendants rely in opposing class
certification.
-- October 4, 2021 Deadline to complete depositions of
Defendants’ class certification
experts.
-- October 11, 2021 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file
reply in support of Motion for Class
Certification.
-- October 21, 2021 Deadline for Defendants to file
surreply in opposition to Lead
Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification.
-- October 25, 2021 Hearing on Lead Plaintiff's Motion
at 10:00 a.m. for Class Certification
The Court will address the need for further deadlines at a later
time says Judge Craven.
Steward Health is the largest physician-owned, private, for-profit
health care network in the U.S. -- attending to 2.2 million people
during more than twelve million physician and hospital visits
annually. Medical Reimbursements of America, LLC provides
reimbursement solutions. The Company offers payment recovery,
attorneys, revenue cycle experts, and account resolution
specialists.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qmXbdz at no extra charge.[CC]
TAWKIFY INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Stanfield Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY STANFIELD, Plaintiff v. TAWKIFY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C-20-07000-WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
Mr. Stanfield paid $3,700 to Tawkify to arrange six dates, two of
which occurred but not to his satisfaction. He sought to cancel
the contract and demanded a full refund. After obtaining only a
partial refund, Stanfield filed the present suit, anchoring his
claims in California's Dating Services Contract Act. Then, he
received a full refund.
Tawkify now seeks to compel arbitration of the matter. In signing
up for the dating service, Stanfield clicked on a box that said he
had read Tawkify's terms of use ("TOS"). The TOS is 10 pages long
with substantive terms covering nine pages. In a section on the
last page entitled "Governing Law," the second sentence provided:
"As a condition of using Tawkify's services, each user agrees that
any and all disputes and causes of action arising out of or
connected with Tawkify, will be resolved through arbitration, with
such arbitration to be held in San Francisco, California." The TOS
provided no further details about arbitration, such as who the
arbitrator would be, who would pay, and so on.
Mr. Stanfield replies that the provision is unconscionable and
should not be enforced.
Both sides advance many arguments and counterarguments, but the way
forward is plain enough. Tawkify contends that the motion is
controlled by the court of appeals decision in Tompkins v. 23andMe,
Inc., 840 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2016). Taking Tawkify at its word,
the instant order considers both District Judge Lucy Koh and
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta's panel analysis on unconscionability.
After comparing the fact pattern in 23andMe to the fact pattern in
the case, Judge Alsup holds that, unlike 23andMe, the agreement in
the case is in fact unconscionable, both procedurally and
substantively. He distinguishes his finding of substantive
unconscionability from 23andMe for three reasons.
First, Tawkify placed no reasonable parameters on its exemption
from a mutual obligation to arbitrate, while in 23andMe the
arbitration agreement limited the scope of the exemption to only
intellectual property disputes. For all other disputes, 23andMe's
arbitration agreement established a mutual obligation between
23andMe and its customers, as explained by Judge Koh's analysis of
the agreement.
Second, Judge Alsup finds that unlike the clear language in
23andMe's arbitration agreement that alerted consumers to the
exclusion of intellectual property disputes from arbitration,
Tawkify's arbitration provision did nothing to warn users of
Tawkify's exemption from the duty to arbitrate (nor of any other
specifics of the arbitration process for that matter). To have any
hope of discovering this lack of mutuality, Tawkify users would
have to piece together the arbitration agreement's silence with
other provisions of the TOS.
Third, Tawkify has presented no reasons why its one-sided
arbitration agreement satisfied any legitimate business needs.
Indeed, Judge Alsup can find none. He says the arbitration
agreement at issue left more than a mere margin of safety for
Tawkify.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup denied the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yjt68gan from Leagle.com.
TD WATERHOUSE: Sued in Canada Over Stock Trading Restrictions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that two Montreal lawyers have filed a
request in Quebec Superior Court for authorization of a
class-action suit against TD Waterhouse Inc., alleging the
financial services company acted "without any legal reason" on Jan.
28 when it restricted trading on certain stocks, including the
volatile shares of GameStop.
The request, filed Jan. 29 by lawyers Michael E. Vathilakis and
Joey Zukran, cites a CBC report posted Jan. 28 that quoted a TD
Bank spokesperson as saying the financial institution had "put into
place precautionary measures to restrict short selling and options
trading for some securities, like several brokerages and trading
platforms across North America have done."
The lawyers contend the "reason people invest in the stock market
is to make money and if they knew that TD Waterhouse would restrict
their ability to sell securities, they would have never contracted
with TD Waterhouse."
While it lists one TD Waterhouse customer as petitioner, the
request is seeking damages for all "persons who had a TD Waterhouse
brokerage account and who were restricted by TD Waterhouse from
purchasing or selling securities."
The request asks that Quebec Superior Court determine whether TD
Waterhouse did indeed restrict the purchase or sale of securities
on its platform, whether such a restriction constituted a civil
fault, whether TD Waterhouse acted in bad faith and whether those
identified as being part of the class action are entitled to claim
damages and, if so, in what amount. [GN]
TENNESSEE TITLE: Sake RICO Suit Removed to M.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sake, LLC, Seanache Homes, Inc., for
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Trey Cain, Kali
Cain, Tennessee Title & Escrow Affiliates, LLC, Knox Valley
Partners, LLC, Morris Family Holdings, LLC, Patrick Moss, IRA
Innovations, LLC, Mary M. Wester individually and as Trustee of the
Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust, Mike Todd, Case No. 20-01058-IV was
removed from the Davidson County Chancery Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Feb. 10,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Trey Cain -- http://www.tennesseetitlellc.com/-- is the founder
and president of Tennessee Title & Escrow Affiliates LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory H. Oakley, Esq.
OAKLEY LAW PLLC
104 Woodmont Boulevard, Suite 201
Nashville, TN 37205
Phone: (615) 209-9814
Fax: (615) 866-3675
Email: goakley@oakley-law.com
- and -
J. Brad Scarbrough, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BRAD SCARBTOUGH, PLC
5595 Franklin Road
Brentwood, TN 37027
Phone: (615) 369-9996
Fax: (615) 515-4491
Email: brad@scarbroughlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christina R. Lopez, Esq.
Michael G. Abelow, Esq.
SHERRARD ROW VOIGHT & HARBISON, PLC
150 Third Avenue South, Suite 1100
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: (615) 742-4200
Fax: (615) 742-4539
Email: clopez@srvhlaw.com
mabelow@srvhlaw.com
- and -
William S. Walton, Esq.
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
719 Andy Holt Tower
Knoxville, TN 37996
Phone: (615) 651-6717
Email: bill.walton@butlersnow.com
- and -
Robert M. Burns, Esq.
HOWELL & FISHER, PLLC
3310 West End Avenue, Suite 550
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 921-5211
Fax: (615) 244-3518
Email: rburns@howell-fisher.com
- and -
John Roy Tarpley, Esq.
LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C. (Nashville)
424 Church Street, Suite 2500
P.O. Box 198615
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 259-1366
Fax: (615) 259-1389
Email: jtarpley@lewisthomason.com
- and -
Phillip G. Young, Jr., Esq.
THOMPSON BURTON PLLC
1801 West End Avenue, Suite 1550
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 465-6008
Fax: (615) 807-3048
Email: phillip@thompsonburton.com
TESLA INC: 9th Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on January 26, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities class
action against an electric car manufacturer (the "Company") and
certain of its officers for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Wochos v.
Tesla, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-05828 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2021). Plaintiffs
alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements and
omissions about its progress in building production capacity for
the Company's first mass market electric vehicle. The Court
affirmed the dismissal of these claims because certain of the
alleged misstatements were forward-looking and protected by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's ("PSLRA") and because
plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead falsity as to the
remaining alleged misstatements. Our prior analysis of the district
court's dismissal of a previous complaint can be found here.
In 2016, the Company, a "niche" carmaker at the time producing
76,000 luxury electric vehicles a year, announced plans to sell its
first mass market electric vehicle. In May 2017, the Company
announced that it would produce 5,000 of the new cars a week by the
end of 2017. It did so even though two employees responsible for
overseeing production allegedly warned the Company's CEO that the
target could not be met. In subsequent securities filings and on
earnings calls through August 2017, the Company said the new car
was "easy to make," that there were "no issues" that "would
prevent" the Company from meeting the target, and that it was "on
track" to meet the target. The Company made these statements
despite allegedly facing significant challenges in automating its
production lines. In November 2017, the Company disclosed that it
would not be able to meet the target. Plaintiffs alleged that the
Company's announced 5,000 car target and its repeated affirmations
that it was on track were misleading because of the employee
warnings and the challenges and delays it faced in automating its
production facilities.
The Court first considered whether certain alleged misstatements
were forward-looking, holding that the announced target was
"unquestionably a 'forward-looking statement' because it is a
'plan' or 'objective of management for future operations,' and this
plan or objective 'relate[es] to [the Company's] products." In
reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected arguments that the
statements contained embedded statements about the current
production status. According to the Court, the statements simply
articulated goals and did not include any information about the
assumptions underlying those goals.
The alleged forward-looking misstatements also were accompanied by
cautionary language that was "detailed and specific," which was not
challenged. Instead, plaintiffs argued that the warnings were
insufficient because the Company allegedly "knew that 'it was
impossible' to meet the . . . forward-looking projections, and 'not
merely highly unlikely.'" In considering this issue, the Court
noted that plaintiffs' allegation -- that two employees warned the
CEO that producing 5,000 cars a week was impossible -- fell short
because it did not show the CEO ever accepted those views or that
the Company adopted the two employees' conservative outlook.
The Court next held that plaintiffs failed to plead falsity with
respect to the Company's statements that it had "started the
installation of Model 3 manufacturing equipment" and built 50
"production cars." Plaintiffs argued these statements implied that
"automatic" manufacturing equipment had already been installed and
that cars were being produced using that equipment. The Court
rejected these arguments, holding that plaintiffs were not claiming
that these things had not happened and that plaintiffs otherwise
failed to plead that the actual words used had "some special or
nuanced meaning that differ[ed] from what the literal words
suggest," e.g., that the manufacturing equipment necessarily was
"automatic."
Finally, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend. Plaintiffs argued that amendment was not futile because they
could plead an additional alleged misstatement that had not been
raised in the operative complaint. The Court rejected this
argument, finding that plaintiffs could not adequately plead loss
causation with respect to this alleged misstatement because the
Company's stock price quickly recovered after the alleged
misrepresentation became public. Specifically, the Court held that
a "quick and sustained price recovery after the modest . . . drop
refutes the inference that the alleged concealment of this
particular fact caused any material drop in the stock price." [GN]
TKS CARE: Duran Seeks Minimum Wages & Overtime Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE DURAN, an individual, residing in Fresno County, California,
and on behalf of herself and all Aggrieved Employees v. TKS CARE
SERVICES, INC. dba SENIOR HELPERS OF FRESNO/CLOVIS, a California
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CECG00239
(Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Jan. 27, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime
wages, and failed to provide all mandated meal periods or
additional wages in lieu in violation of the California Labor
Code.
The Plaintiff contends that she was and is a victim of the
Defendants' policies and/or practices, lost money, and/or property,
and has been deprived of the rights guaranteed by the California
Business & Professions Code, the California Labor Code, Wage Order
or any other applicable Wage Order, and the common law.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants. She worked as
a nonexempt hourly employee of the Defendants while in the state of
California beginning July 30, 2018. She and all others similarly
situated, were not properly compensated for all hours worked,
including overtime hours, because the Defendants paid nonexempt
employees for certain tasks, including compensable travel time,
based on predetermined estimates of how much time each task
"should" take, rather than tracking and paying the employees’
actual compensable work time, she alleges.
The Defendants are part of the business services sector
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
Jared Hague, Esq.
Brady Briggs, Esq.
SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, P.C.
5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 203
Fresno, CA 93704
Telephone: (559) 325-0500
Facsimile: (559) 981-1217
E-mail: brett@suttonhague.com
jared@suttonhague.com
brady@suttonhague.com
TOWN OF VALLEY BROOK: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kimiesha Hill, Jason Garnett, Kiara McCorkle,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Town
of Valley Brook; Valley Brook Municipal Court; Lewis Nieman, in his
offical capacity as Mayor of Valley Brook; Stephen Haynes, in his
official capacity as Municipal Judge; Michael Stamp, in his offical
capacity as Chief of Valley Brook Police; Valley Brook Police
Department; Case No. CJ-21-00067 was removed from Oklahoma County
District Court, to the U.S. District Court for Western District of
Oklahoma on Feb. 9, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00097-PRW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Valley Brook is a town in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, United States
and is part of the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Woodrow K Glass, Esq.
WARD & GLASS LLP
1601 36th Avenue NW, Suite 100
Norman, OK 73072
Phone: (405) 360-9700
Fax: (405) 360-7902
Email: woody@wardglasslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Andrew W Lester, Esq.
Anthony J Ferate, Esq.
Courtney Jo Davis Powell, Esq.
Shannon F Davies, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP - OKC
9400 N Broadway Extension, Suite 600
Oklahoma City, OK 73114-7423
Phone: (405) 844-9900
Fax: (405) 844-9958
Email: alester@spencerfane.com
ajferate@spencerfane.com
cpowell@spencerfane.com
sdavies@spencerfane.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Hybrid Brake Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TOYOTA HYBRID BRAKE LITIGATION, Consolidated
Case No. 4:20-CV-127 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division,
denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Master
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
The case arises out the Plaintiffs' allegations, on behalf of
various classes, that Defendants Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor
Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., did not properly
design and manufacture break booster pump assemblies for the class
vehicles, leading the braking systems of these vehicles to fail.
The Defendants deny these allegations.
On July 20, 2020, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint, currently
before the Court. On Aug. 17, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their
response. On Aug. 31, 2020, the Defendants filed their reply. On
Sept. 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their sur-reply. And on Oct.
30, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the Motion.
The Defendants assert that the Court should dismiss the Master
Consolidated Class Action Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) because the
Plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to state claims for
relief for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraud, unjust enrichment, as well as for a claim under the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.
After reviewing the Plaintiffs' complaint, the Motion, the
response, the reply, the sur-reply, and the arguments of the
counsel, Judge Mazzant finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged sufficient facts to state claims for relief under the
various asserted theories. Accordingly, their pleadings are
sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Judge Mazzant, therefore, denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2m8qyjgy from
Leagle.com.
TRANSDEV BUS: Individual Claims in Richards Dismissed W/ Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSDEV BUS ON DEMAND,
LLC., and DOES 1 through 100, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-06425-VC
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiff's individual claims, and dismissed without prejudice the
unnamed class members and aggrieved employees claims.
On March 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action and PAGA
representative action complaint.
On Oct. 20, 2020, the Action was related to the Hakeem v. Transdev,
et al., Case No., 19-cv-02161-VC, a class action that is still
pending in the Court and was certified by it on Sept. 1, 2020;
which concerns substantially the same parties, bus
drivers/operators, and transactions including the alleged failure
to pay wages, provide accurate wage statements and waiting time
penalties.
Since a class has been certified in Hakeem, the Parties have agreed
to settle the Plaintiff's individual claims without prejudice to
the claims or rights of those in the Hakeem case or those Plaintiff
sought to represent in the Action. Since the matter is in its
early stages, no class notice was sent to the unnamed class members
regarding the Action, and their rights are not affected by the
settlement of the Plaintiff's individual claims. Dismissal of the
Action will not prejudice the unnamed class members/aggrieved
employees whose claims will be dismissed without prejudice. For
these reasons, the Parties believe that the unnamed class
members/aggrieved employees do not need to be notified of the
dismissal.
On Jan. 15, 2021, the Parties settled all of the Plaintiff's
individual claims in the Action and the Plaintiff executed a
general release of all claims arising out of her employment with
the Defendants. The settlement agreement allocates the following
to the Plaintiff's individual PAGA claim: $500 ($666.67 x 0.75) to
the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") which is 75% of
her total individual PAGA claims of $666.67.
The Parties stipulate to dismiss the Plaintiff's individual claims
with prejudice, and the putative or unnamed class members/aggrieved
employees claims without prejudice.
Based upon the Stipulation of the Parties, Judge Chhabria so
ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4ebnrlnd from Leagle.com.
TRICIDA INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Feb. 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCDA) from September 4, 2019 through October
28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Tricida, Inc. investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tricida's NDA for
veverimer was materially deficient; (2) accordingly, it was
foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for
veverimer; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]
TRUSTPILOT INC: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank LLP on Feb. 3 announced the filing of a federal class action
lawsuit against Trustpilot Inc. and Trustpilot A/S (together,
"Trustpilot"), famous for the Trustpilot.com customer-reviews
website. The suit alleges Trustpilot subscribers -- mainly small to
mid-sized companies -- were subjected to deceptive business
practices, among other violations of the law.
Trustpilot.com earns billions of dollars a year posting consumer
reviews of businesses by claiming to offer a platform internet
users can trust, because its integrity is not for sale.
The new complaint alleges Trustpilot did sell its integrity, to
companies reviewed on its site. Worse, while Trustpilot promised
many paying companies it would help them game the reviews system,
it actually helped only a handful of high-paying, large companies
do this. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized companies with tight
budgets got nothing for precious dollars they spent on annual
"subscriptions" for Trustpilot's services. And when media reports
blew the lid off the scheme, and subscribers were eager to cancel,
Trustpilot sent them "auto-enroll" emails designed to go straight
to subscribers' junk folders so the email went unread until it was
too late to cancel.
This class action suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, seeks
compensation for this group of mainly small to mid-sized companies
in the U.S.
IF YOU ARE OR HAVE BEEN A TRUSTPILOT SUBSCRIBER AND WISH TO SPEAK
TO AN ATTORNEY ABOUT CLAIMS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST TRUSTPILOT, EMAIL
INVESTIGATIONS@FRANKLLP.COM.
Founded in Denmark in 2007, Trustpilot grew exponentially by
filling a hole in the online-review market. Other sites like Yelp
and TripAdvisor focus on online reviews of mainly bricks-and-mortar
businesses like restaurants and hotels. Trustpilot focused on
online reviews of businesses which themselves operated mainly
online.
Trustpilot's website was popular, but not profitable, as its
content was free. To increase revenue, Trustpilot began selling
annual "subscriptions" with benefits that would purportedly help
companies reviewed on Trustpilot improve their online reputations.
For example, a favorable Trustpilot star-ranking for a subscribing
company would be embedded as an image in Google search results
about that company. Trustpilot's revenues grew, but profits
remained elusive, as Trustpilot struggled to attract subscribers,
especially in the U.S.
Critics of Trustpilot long wondered how the site could maintain
integrity when it relied on reviewed companies for profit.
Beginning in late 2018, investigations by top British media outlets
confirmed Trustpilot was selling its integrity to the highest
bidders -- large, wealthy companies who got help gaming the reviews
system to falsely boost their online reputations. Honest, negative
reviews about these preferred subscribers were removed, while fake
positive reviews about them were allowed to proliferate.
In the wake of this, Google in late 2019 announced changes in its
relationship with Trustpilot -- most painful for the majority of
subscribers, restrictions on visibility of positive Trustpilot
scores within search results. For countless honest businesses
struggling to simply improve their online presence -- an essential
goal of any modern company -- this erased what little value their
Trustpilot subscriptions had.
The complaint alleges that Trustpilot prevented subscribers from
ending their money-wasting connection to Trustpilot by sending
renewal emails from two web domains that it owns. The primary
Trustpilot domain, "Trustpilot.com," is Trustpilot's highly visible
face. In addition to hosting the site, one of the internet's most
popular, Trustpilot uses this domain for nearly every email it ever
sends, from addresses ending in "@trustpilot.com."
But Trustpilot also owns "Trustpilot.net," which hosts no website
and is essentially a zombie domain. No Trustpilot subscriber would
recognize an email from an address with "@trustpilot.net" -- even
if their email application didn't block it as junk immediately.
Yet, when Trustpilot faced a wave of subscriber cancellations on
the back of its integrity scandal, it used "@trustpilot.net"
addresses to send subscribers emails automatically re-enrolling
them for another year's subscription (and at higher rate).
Subscribers did not see these emails originating from the zombie
"Trustpilot.net" domain, and did not realize until seeing a new
charge on their credit account that Trustpilot had secretly locked
them in for yet another year. If they did complain, Trustpilot said
it was too late to cancel.
The complaint further alleges that the scheme worked out well for
Trustpilot. It has recently crowned itself a "unicorn" -- an online
startup valued at $1 billion or more, a distinction relatively few
European firms achieve. The complaint alleges that this valuation
was largely supported by gains in revenues from U.S. subscribers
deceived into new subscriptions they did not want and could not get
out of. Building on its unicorn status, Trustpilot has begun plans
to sell shares in an initial public offering, securing its
financial future.
Frank LLP is a national firm based in New York. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting consumer
protection litigation.
CONTACT:
Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
Frank LLP
Tel: 212-682-1853
investigations@FrankLLP.com [GN]
TWITTER INC: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due September 24
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOTSTRATEGY, CO.,
Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
TWITTER, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-06176-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Charles R. Breyer entered an order approving the parties'
proposed stipulation and adopting the scheduling order as follows:
Event Proposed Deadline
Close of fact discovery Motion July 16, 2021
for class certification:
The Plaintiff's deadline to August 9, 2021
identify class certification
expert witnesses and serve
reports:
Deposition of Plaintiff's September 10, 2021
class certification experts
no later than:
Opposition to motion for September 24, 2021
class certification:
The Defendant's deadline to September 24, 2021
identify class certification
expert witnesses and serve
reports:
Deposition of Defendant's October 22, 2021
class certification experts
no later than:
Reply in support of motion November 8, 2021
for class certification:
The Plaintiff's deadline to November 8, 2021
serve rebuttal expert reports:
Deposition of Plaintiff's December 10, 2021
rebuttal experts no later than:
Hearing on motion for class February 11, 2022 or
certification: such other date at
the Court's
convenience
Motion for summary judgment: April 1, 2022
Opposition to summary judgment: May 16, 2022
Reply in support of summary June 24, 2022
judgment:
Twitter is an American microblogging and social networking service
on which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets".
Registered users can post, like and retweet tweets, but
unregistered users can only read them.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2MLDbTn at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the plaintiff and the proposed class, are:
Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
CERA LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 777-2230
Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
tbright@cerallp.com
- and -
David A. Hodges, Esq.
THE DAVID HODGES LAW FIRM
212 Center Street, 5th Floor
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 374-2400
Facsimile: (501) 374-8926
E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Whitty S. Omvichian, Esq.
Benjamin K. Leine, Esq.
Lilia R. Lopez, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Fancisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone: (415) 693-2000
Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com
bkleine@cooley.com
llopez@cooley.com
TYSON FOODS: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 3 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Tyson Foods, Inc. ("Tyson Foods" or
the "Company") (NYSE: TSN) in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired the securities of Tyson Foods between March 13, 2020
and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Tyson Foods investors under the
federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Tyson Foods knew, or
should have known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was
spreading throughout the globe; (ii) Tyson Foods did not in fact
have sufficient safety protocols to protect its employees in its
facilities; (iii) as a result, Tyson Foods employees contracted and
spread the coronavirus within the facilities; (iv) as a result of
the foregoing, Tyson Foods would face negative impact to its
production, including complete shutdowns of certain facilities; (v)
due to the failure to protect its employees, Tyson Foods would
suffer financial harm related to its lowered production; and (vi)
as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Tyson Foods
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
5, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 3
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN)
between March 13, 2020 and December 15, 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 April 5, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Tyson 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 Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.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. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 5, 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.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have
known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was spreading
throughout the globe; (2) Tyson did not in fact have sufficient
safety protocols to protect its employees in its facilities; (3) as
a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread the coronavirus
within the facilities; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tyson
would face negative impact to its production, including complete
shutdowns of certain facilities; (5) due to the failure to protect
its employees, Tyson would suffer financial harm related to its
lowered production; and (6) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.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]
U.S. BANK: Partial Bid to Dismiss Amended Maag Suit Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT MAAG, ANTHONY BELL, WENDELL COVAL, and NICK
STERNAD, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs v. U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00031-H-LL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Marilyn L.
Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California denied as moot the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint without prejudice to Defendant U.S.
Bank moving to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On Nov. 9, 2020, Plaintiff Maag filed a class action complaint
against Defendants U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Diego. On Dec. 8, 2020,
the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the
Defendants in state court, alleging claims for: (1) violation of
the California Consumer Privacy Act; (2) negligence; and (3)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
On Jan. 8, 2021, the Defendants removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1441 on the basis of jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act.
On Jan. 15, 2021, Defendants U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank filed a
partial motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for failure to
state a claim. On Feb. 1, 2020, the Court took the motion to
dismiss under submission.
On Feb. 2, 2020, in lieu of filing an opposition to the motion to
dismiss, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint dropping
U.S. Bancorp as a Defendant; dropping his claim for negligence; and
adding Anthony Bell, Wendell Coval, and Nick Sternad as additional
Plaintiffs.
In light of the Plaintiffs' amended pleading, Judge Huff denied as
moot the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint without prejudice to Defendant U.S. Bank moving to
dismiss the second amended complaint. In addition, she dismissed
Defendant U.S. Bancorp from the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/599px87u from Leagle.com.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Wit ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant United Behavioral Health filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID WIT, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, GARY ALEXANDER,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case
No. 3:14-cv-02346-JCS, Related Case No. 14-cv-05337 JCS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant
United Behavioral Health (UBH), which also operates as OptumHealth
Behavioral Solutions, administers mental health and substance use
disorder benefits for commercial welfare benefit plans. In that
capacity, it has developed Level of Care Guidelines and Coverage
Determination Guidelines (Guidelines) that it uses for making
coverage determinations. Plaintiffs in these related class actions
assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), alleging that they were improperly denied benefits
for treatment of mental health and substance use disorders because
UBH's Guidelines do not comply with the terms of their insurance
plans and/or state law.
The Plaintiffs assert two claims: 1) breach of fiduciary duty
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim) and 2) arbitrary and capricious
denial of benefits (Denial of Benefits Claim). Plaintiffs assert
the Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B) (Count I in all of the operative complaints) and, to
the extent the injunctive relief Plaintiffs seek is unavailable
under that section, they assert the claim under 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(3)(A) (Count III in all of the operative complaints).
United Behavioral Health appeals to the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit from (1) the Final Judgment entered on February 1,
2021, together with all other orders and rulings adverse to UBH in
these consolidated cases, including but not limited to: (2) the
Remedies Order entered on November 3, 2020, (3) the Order denying
UBH's motion to dismiss in Wit v. UBH entered on November 20, 2014;
(4) the Order denying UBH's motion to dismiss in Alexander v. UBH
entered on April 7, 2015; (5) the Order granting Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification entered on September 19, 2016; (6) the
Order denying UBH's motion to for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration entered on October 12, 2016; (7) the Order granting
in part and denying in part UBH's motion for summary judgment
entered on August 14, 2017; (8) the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law entered on February 28, 2019; (9) the Further
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered on August 6, 2020;
and (10) the Order granting in part and denying in part UBH's
motion for class decertification entered on November 3, 2020.
The appellate case is captioned as David Wit, et al v. United
Behavioral Health, Case No. 21-15193, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, February 3, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant United Behavioral Health Mediation Questionnaire
was due on February 10, 2021;
-- Appellant United Behavioral Health opening brief is due on
April 5, 2021;
-- Appellees Gary Alexander, Lori Flanzraich, David Haffner,
Cecilia Holdnak, Mary Jones, Corinna Klein, Brian Muir, Brandt
Pfeifer, Linda Tillitt, David Wit and Natasha Wit answering brief
is due on May 5, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVID WIT; NATASHA WIT; BRIAN MUIR; BRANDT
PFEIFER, on behalf of the Estate of his deceased wife, Lauralee
Pfeifer; LORI FLANZRAICH, on behalf of her daughter Casey
Flanzraich; CECILIA HOLDNAK, on behalf of herself, her daughter
Emily Holdnak; GARY ALEXANDER, on his own behalf and on behalf of
his beneficiary son, Jordan Alexander; and CORINNA KLEIN; DAVID
HAFFNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Adam Abelson, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
100 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 949-1148
E-mail: aabelson@zuckerman.com
- and -
Meiram Bendat, Esq.
PSYCH-APPEAL, INC
8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 598-3690
E-mail: info@psych-appeal.com
- and -
Jason Cowart, Esq.
Brian Hufford, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 704-9600
E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
dbhufford@zuckerman.com
- and -
Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
1800 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 778-1800
E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com
creynolds@zuckerman.com
Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees LINDA TILLITT and MARY JONES are
represented by:
Adam Abelson, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
100 E. Pratt Street, Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 949-1148
E-mail: aabelson@zuckerman.com
- and -
Meiram Bendat, Esq.
PSYCH-APPEAL, INC
8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 598-3690
E-mail: info@psych-appeal.com
- and -
Jason Cowart, Esq.
Brian Hufford, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 704-9600
E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
dbhufford@zuckerman.com
- and -
Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
1800 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 778-1800
E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com
creynolds@zuckerman.com
Defendant-Appellant UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH is represented by:
Nathaniel Philip Bualat, Esq.
Thomas F. Koegel, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 365-7294
E-mail: nbualat@crowell.com
tkoegel@crowell.com
- and -
Andrew Holmer, Esq.
Jennifer S. Romano, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING, LLP
515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 622-4750
E-mail: aholmer@crowell.com
jromano@crowell.com
- and -
April N. Ross, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 624-2500
E-mail: aross@crowell.com
UNITED STATES: Devos Files Motion to Quash in Sweet Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled as Theresa Sweet, Alicia Davis, Tresa Apodaca,
Chenelle Archibald, Jessica Deegan, Samuel Hood, Jessica Jacobson,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The
Secretary of the United States Department of Education, The United
States Department of Education, Case No. 19-cv-03674-ALSUP, Former
U.S. Secretary of Education Elisabeth DeVos, and the U.S.
Department of Education, moved the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Rule 45(d)(3)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to quash the non-party subpoena
Plaintiffs have served upon the former Secretary, which orders her
to appear for a deposition in this District on February 25, 2021.
The underlying lawsuit is an Administrative Procedure Act ("APA")
case pending in the Northern District of California, where a class
of student-loan borrowers alleges that Defendant U.S. Department of
Education unreasonably delayed deciding their loan-discharge
applications.
The United States Department of Education, also referred to as the
ED for Education Department, -- https://www.ed.gov/ -- is a
Cabinet-level department of the United States government. The
United States secretary of education is the head of the U.S.
Department of Education.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Margaret O'Grady, Esq.
LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
122 Boylston Street
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
Phone: (617) 390-2576
Email: mogrady@law.harvard.edu
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin Hancock, Esq.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
Phone: (202) 694-1650
Email: kevin.p.hancock@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Lopez Appeals Class Action Dismissal to 8th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Franklin Lopez, et al, filed an appeal from a court
ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Franklin Lopez, Yeriel
Ramirez Torres and Samuel Martinez Lopez, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. William P. Barr, James McHenry, United
States Attorney General, United States of America, Chad F. Wolf and
The United States of America, Defendants, Case No.
0:20-cv-01330-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.
Under this complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have
violated the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights, by issuing, and now following, the Attorney
General's decision in Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271
(A.G. 2018). As a result, Plaintiffs, who are noncitizens in
removal proceedings, are now unable to apply for provisional
unlawful presence waivers to adjust their immigration status, as
administrative closure of removal proceedings is first required,
but such closure is now disallowed under Castro-Tum. Thus,
Plaintiffs seek to overturn Castro-Tum.
The Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, arguing that various provisions of 8 U.S.C.
Section 1252 bar the Court from considering Plaintiffs' claims.
Because Section 1252 strips the Court of subject matter
jurisdiction over this action, the Court granted Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.
The Plaintiffs are now seeking an appeal from the said Court Order
dated January 20, 2021, granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction.
The appellate case is captioned as Franklin Lopez, et al. v. Monty
Wilkinson, et al., Case No. 21-1259, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, February 3, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript is due on or before March 15, 2021;
-- Appendix is due on March 25, 2021;
-- Appellant Brief for Franklin Lopez and Samuel Martinez Lopez
is due on March 25, 2021; and
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Franklin Lopez, Samuel Martinez Lopez, and
all others similarly situated are represented by:
Nicholas Ratkowski, Esq.
CONTRERAS & METELSKA
200 University Avenue, W. Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN 55103
Telephone: (651) 771-0019
Defendants-Appellees Monty Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of
the United States; Executive Office for Immigration Review; Jean
King, Acting Director of the Executive Office for Immigration
Review; Ryan R. Wood, Assistant Chief Immigration Judge for the
Fort Snelling Minnesota Immigration Court; Chad F. Wolf, Acting
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; and United
States of America are represented by:
Andrew Tweeten, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
600 U.S. Courthouse
300 S. Fourth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415-0000
Telephone: (612) 664-5600
US FERTILITY: Faces Browne Suit Over Patient Info Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD F. BROWNE, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similar
situated v. US FERTILITY, LLC, SHADY GROVE REPRODUCTIVE SERVICE
CENTER, P.C. d/b/a "Shady Grove Fertility", and AMULET CAPITOL
PARTNERS, LP, Case No. 2:21-cv-00367-GAM (E.D. Pa., Jan. 27, 2021)
is a proposed class action arising from the facts described in a
form notice that was sent by US Fertility, LLC on January 8, 2021,
describing the 2020 data breach and theft of Patient Personal
Information ("PPI") and Master Patient Index ("MPI") information
relating to current and former patients at Shady Grove Fertility
clinics and other medical facilities.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to take
reasonable steps to safeguard and protect electronically stored PPI
and MPI information of the class from the foreseeable risk of a
ransomware attack and data breach by hackers. He adds that the
Defendants also negligently failed to take reasonable steps to
detect the data breach and data theft in real time, or as close to
real time as reasonably possible, and instead the Defendants failed
to even discover the incursion and theft for up to a month after it
occurred.
Plaintiff Browne is a New Jersey citizen who resides in Blackwood,
New Jersey, who was treated at Shady Grove Fertility clinics in
both Pennsylvania and Maryland. Browne received the form notice
from the Defendants notifying him of the data breach and theft of
his PPI and MPI information.
US Fertility has its principal place of business and headquarters
located at 9600 Blackwell Road, Suite 500, Rockville, Maryland. US
Fertility was jointly formed, and is owned and managed by, Shady
Grove Fertility, LLC and Amulet Capital Partners, LP and was
created to provide IT services to Shady Grove Fertility and to
manage, store and safeguard PPI relating to Shady Grove Fertility
patients, as well as the patients of other fertility clinics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-1721
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
sprince@denittislaw.com
VITALITY MEDICAL: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitality Medical Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Vitality Medical Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01178 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vitality Medical Inc. -- https://www.vitalitymedical.com/ --
provides medical equipment. The Company offers tapes, bandages,
wound dressing, gauze, diapers, incontinence care, pads, guards,
liners, catheters, urine bags, gloves, syringes, needles, enteral
feeding, ostomy bags, oxygen concentrators, tracheostomy,
nebulization, and breathing therapy.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
VOYAGER: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of March 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 3 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. ("Voyager" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
VYGR) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all investors that
purchased or otherwise acquired Voyager securities between June 1,
2017 and November 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Voyager Therapeutics, 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 shares of Voyager Therapeutics,
Inc., you may, no later than March 24, 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 Voyager Therapeutics, Inc.
Voyager, a clinical-stage gene therapy company, focuses on the
development of treatments for patients suffering from severe
neurological diseases. Included in the Company's preclinical
programs is VY-HTT01 for Huntington's Disease.
On June 1, 2017, Voyager issued a press release announcing that it
had selected VY-HTT01 as a lead clinical candidate for the
treatment of Huntington's disease. The press release also indicated
that, [p]reclinical pharmacology and toxicology studies [were]
underway with VY-HTT01 to support filing of an investigational new
drug (IND) application in 2018."
In September 2020, Voyager submitted an investigational new drug
("IND") application for VY-HTT01 for the treatment of Huntington's
disease to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").
On October 12, 2020, Voyager issued a press release disclosing that
it "has received feedback from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) on the Investigational New Drug (IND)
submission for VY-HTT01 for the treatment of Huntington's disease."
Specifically, Voyager advised investors that it "has been notified
that the IND was placed on clinical hold pending the resolution of
certain chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) matters."
Then, on November 9, 2020, Voyager issued a press release
announcing the Company's third quarter 2020 financial results and
corporate updates. In the press release, the Company disclosed
that, with respect to its IND application for VY-HTT01, "Voyager
recently received written feedback from the FDA requesting
additional information on specific CMC topics, including
drug-device compatibility and drug substance and product
characterization."
On this news, Voyager's stock price fell $2.60 per share, or
23.21%, to close at $8.60 per share on November 10, 2020.
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]
WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobby's' Reply to Summary Judgment Bid Due May 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOBBYS COUNTRY COOKIN, LLC v. WAITR HOLDINGS, INC.,
Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-0552 (W.D. La.), Judge Terry A. Doughty of
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Lake
Charles Division, granted Bobby's Motion for Denial or Deferral of
Consideration of Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d).
On April 30, 2019, Bobby's filed a Class Action Complaint,
individually, and on behalf of all persons or entities nationwide
who are similarly situated. The crux of Bobby's Complaint is as a
result of Waitr raising the Service Transaction Fee ("STF") it
charges to restaurants on Waitr's online ordering platform from 10%
to 15%.
A First Amended Complaint was filed adding Casa Manana, Inc. Que
Pasa Taqueria, LLC, and Casa Tu Sulphur, LLC, as additional
Plaintiffs.
On Dec. 14, 2020, Waitr filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
seeking dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims with regard to the STF
increases. Although the Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Waitr's
motion, Bobby's also filed the pending Motion for Denial or
Referral, arguing that it was not allowed discovery by Waitr, and
requesting denial or deferral of Waitr's motion until after Bobby's
is able to complete the discovery.
The question before the Court is whether to deny or dismiss Waitr's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in accordance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(d).
The Declaration of Nicholas W. Armstrong, Counsel for the
Plaintiffs, states it is necessary for them to take the deposition
of Tyson Queen, Brad Ragasa, Laura Vaughn and Mark Killebrew.
Armstrong maintains that these witnesses have information regarding
the creation, calculation, and implementation of STF increases.
Armstrong further declares that Waitr intends to limit the
depositions to non-merits issues. Additionally, Armstrong declares
the Plaintiffs have requested, through discovery, documents and
information regarding the creation, calculation, and implementation
of the STF increases.
In its Opposition, Waitr argues that Bobby's failed to establish
any ground to support their request by identifying the specific
documents and testimony that would influence the outcome of its
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. It further maintains the
Plaintiffs acquiesced in the STF increase and none of the
additional discovery requested will result in facts needed to
counter Waitr's motion.
Judge Doughty believes the Plaintiffs should be allowed additional
time to conduct discovery. The Plaintiffs should be allowed to
take the depositions of the four persons listed and to obtain
documents required through the discovery process. The depositions
taken should be allowed as to any facts necessary to allow Bobby's
to oppose Waitr's motion.
Therefore, the time for the Plaintiffs to respond to Waitr's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment will be extended until May 3, 2021.
Waitr will have seven days to Reply to Bobby's response within
seven days of filing of Bobby's response.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 3, 2021 Memorandum Ruling is
available at https://tinyurl.com/6oilz5dt from Leagle.com.
WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ELMY, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons,
v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
their Non-Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) causes of action as Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) class actions on behalf of the following
class:
"all truck drivers who leased a truck from New Horizons
Leasing, Inc. to drive for Western Express, Inc. who executed
a Contract Hauling Agreement at any time during the period
from the inception of the Owner-Operator Program in 2014 up
through the date of final judgment."
This case is in response to the Defendants' continued attempt to
reap the benefits of the "Owner Operator" program. The Defendants
designed that program to evade state and federal labor laws
intended to protect employees by misclassifying the Plaintiffs and
other Drivers as independent contractors.
The Plaintiffs brought suit to redress these violations on behalf
of themselves and other Drivers as a FLSA Collective Action Class
and as Rule 23(b)(3) class actions. The Plaintiffs' Non-FLSA causes
of action present questions capable of class resolution as they
focus on whether Defendants' uniform employment policies,
contracts, and representations violated the federal and state
statutes alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.
Western Express is an asset-based truckload carrier headquartered
in Nashville, Tennessee with terminals and facilities throughout
the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion to certify class dated
Feb. 1, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3d2uwX8 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley Tse, Esq.
Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
Emily J. Sullivan, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Telephone: (845) 255-9370
Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: ltse@getmansweeney.com
- and -
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Hwy N., Ste 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
WFS EXPRESS: Bautista Settlement Deal Wins Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIKIRI BAUTISTA, an
individual, ARI SILVA, an individual, v. WFS EXPRESS, a Delaware
corporation, a New York corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00757-RSM
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo S. Martinez entered an order
granting stipulated motion for certification of settlement class
and for consolidated aviation services, preliminary approval of
class action settlement as follows:
A. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement
The Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate and within the range of
reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval. The
Court finds that: (a) the Agreement resulted from
extensive arm’s length negotiations; and (b) the Agreement
is sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement to
persons in the Settlement Class and a full hearing on the
approval of the Settlement.
B. Class Certification For Settlement Purposes Only
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the
Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes
only, the following Settlement Class:
"all hourly employees at Employers' Sea-Tac International
Airport (STIA) facility who worked on the Amazon contract
during the period between May 15, 2016 and November 21,
2020, and who have not disclaimed in sworn testimony
experiencing missed meal or rest periods."
C. Settlement Hearing
A final approval hearing (the Settlement Hearing) shall be
held before the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez on June 3,
2021, at 9:00 a.m. as set forth in the Notice to the
Settlement Class, to determine whether the Agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved.
D. Class Notice
Class Notice shall be sent within thirty days
following entry of this Order. CMT is appointed as Claims
Administrator.
E. Mail Notice
The Claims Administrator will provide mail notice to
persons in the Settlement Class for whom the Defendants
possess mailing addresses. Mail Notice will be sent via
first-class mail to the most recent mailing address as
reflected in reasonably available employment records of
the Defendant.
F. Exclusion from the Settlement Class.
Persons in the Settlement Class will possess the right to
opt out by sending a written request to a designated
address within 30 days after the Notice Mailing Date. All
Settlement Class Members who do not opt out in accordance
with the terms set forth herein will be bound by all
determinations and judgments in this action. Exclusion
requests must contain the person's name, address,
telephone number, and signature, and must include the
following statement: "I request to be excluded from the
class settlement in Bautista v. WFS Express, Inc., Case
No. 2:18-cv-00757 RSM." The Claims Administrator will
retain a copy of all requests for exclusion. Not later
than 15 days from the exclusion deadline, the Claims
Administrator shall file with the Court a declaration that
provides copies of all exclusion requests received.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rFIfal at no extra charge.[CC]
WHOLE FOODS: Must Face Class Action Over Deceptive Graham Crackers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that Whole Foods Market's 365 Organic
Honey Graham Crackers are healthy? What a crock, says a proposed
class action that the health food store is deceiving shoppers about
the contents of the crackers.
A federal judge in Manhattan on Feb. 2 ruled that the plaintiff may
have a point, and that that Whole Foods Market must face the suit
over its box of crackers, which display a honey dipper in a bowl of
honey.
As reported by Fox Business, the judge said the sole plaintiff --
for now -- plausibly alleged that the words "Honey" and "Graham" on
the box misled reasonable consumers into thinking that the crackers
contained more healthy whole grain flour than non-whole grain
flour, and that honey rather than sugar was the main sweetener.
"It is not implausible that consumers would understand the words on
the box to say what they mean," the judge wrote in a 31-page
decision. [GN]
YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Retirement Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that workers suing Yale University for saddling
their retirement plan with high costs and poor investment choices
said the Ivy League school dropped the ball by making a sole
employee oversee its complex $5.5 billion plan. [GN]
YUMCO LLC: Xu Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
YIBO XU AND XINGXIAO JIANG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YUMCO LLC DBA R&G PING
PONG, RANKO INC. DBA ANDORRA PING PONG, CHAOMIN RAN AKA ALBERT RAN,
XIN GU AKA DIANA GU RAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00550 (E.D.
Pa., February 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law,
and the Pennsylvania common law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated restaurant employees
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Mr. Xu and Mr. Jiang were employed by the Defendants as waiters and
kitchen helpers at their restaurant from around October 2012 to
March 21, 2020 and from around January 1, 2016 until September 30,
2020, respectively.
Yumco LLC, doing business as R&G Ping Pong, is a restaurant owner
and operator located at 273 Swedesford Rd., Wayne, Pennsylvania.
Ranko Inc., doing business as Andorra Ping Pong, is a restaurant
owner and operator located at 8500 Henry Ave., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
136-20 38th Avenue Suite 10G
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
[*] Florida Luxury Vacation Rentals Firm Faces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lidia Dinkova, writing for Law.com, reports that vacation plans
across the U.S. were canceled once the coronavirus pandemic set in,
but a new lawsuit claims some who lost out on their dream Florida
trip aren't getting refunds they're entitled to.
The putative class action claims a Florida luxury vacation rentals
firm is illegally refusing to pay back customers whose trips were
nixed during last year's statewide vacation rentals suspension.
[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 ***