/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210319.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 19, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 51
Headlines
ABBYSON.COM LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Jaquez Says
ABC COLLECTORS: Steccone Files FDCPA Suit in Montana
ACCELLION INC: Exposes Personal, Medical Info to Hackers, Suit Says
ACCELLION INC: Faces Stobbe Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
ALLIANCE UNITED: Denies Coverage for New Car Damage, Suit Says
ALPHABET INC: Refuses to Redeem Google Play Gift Cards, Suit Says
ARIZONA AIRCRAFT: Hires Lee & Associates as Real Estate Broker
AVANTEUSA LTD: Faces Madanick FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
BAY AREA TRAFFIC: Faces Murillo Employment Suit in California
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
BEAR DOWN: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEIS TRAVEL: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
BOMBAY'S INDIAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escamilla Suit Alleges
BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Brown Files Suit v. Sheriff Wayne Ivy
BROADWAY FINEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bravo Suit Alleges
CACI INT'L: Underpays Background Investigators, Pittmon et al. Say
CANTALOUPE HOLDINGS: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Abarca Claims
CB CONSUMER: Misleads Synthetic Rayon as Bamboo Fabric, Suit Says
CRATEJOY INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DAVID MASON: Faces Lampos Suit Over Pipeline Inspectors' Unpaid OT
DON ROBERTO JEWELERS: El Hallal Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
DUMBO MOVING: Faces Scott Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
EMPIRE MOVERS: Scott Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
FOR LIFE PRODUCTS: Iglesias Disputes Safety Label in Cleaning Aid
FORD MOTOR: Lund Suit Transferred to E.D. California
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Beiswinger Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
GERBER PRODUCTS: Hazely Hits Non-disclosure of Toxins in Baby Food
GOLUB CORP: Maclean Sues Over Deceptive Vanilla Nonfat Greek Yogurt
HANOVER VENTURES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Harassment
INFINITY Q: Hunter Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements
KEYCORP: Faces Carlon Contract Suit in Eastern Dist. of Washington
LANDRY'S INC: Underpays Tipped Employees, Owen FLSA Suit Alleges
LBK CONSULTING: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, DeSalvo Says
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Faces Stafford Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
LOVE'S TRAVEL: Shilling Seeks to Recover Asst. Managers Unpaid OT
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Abdelsayed Sues Over Unfair Trade Practices
MINDLANCE INC: Lopez Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Calif.
MR V BERRY FRUTAS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Alleges
MULTIPLAN CORP: Proxy Statement Lacks Business Info, Srock Says
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Lane Suit Over Pathfinder CVT Defect
OHIO BUREAU: Cirino Sues Over Workers' Compensation Benefits
ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces Lapata FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PLUG POWER: Faces Beverly Suit Over 19.4% Drop in Share Price
PRIDE TRANSPORT: Chalaye Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRIME THERAPEUTICS: Shattuck Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
PRIMESOURCE BUILDING: Hodgens Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Redhair Employment Suit in California
R&A TOWING: Faces Jones Suit Over Unlawful Employment Termination
RAWNATURE5 CORPORATION: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
REGION BANK: Clampitt Sues Over Bank Staff's Unpaid OT Wages
SKY GLOBAL: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Morgan Balks at Great Outdoors Merger Deal
STELLANTIS NV: Guerrero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
TACOS GRAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Suit Alleges
TANGE DESIGN: Lalli Sues Over Inaccessible Website to Blind Users
THRYV INC: Fry Seeks Call Center Staff's Unpaid Overtime Pay
TS TRANSPORTING: Trevino-Barron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TWITCH INTERACTIVE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Says
WADDELL & REED: Wheeler Balks at Merger Deal With Macquarie
WORKHORSE GROUP: Faces Farrar Suit Over Drop in Share Price
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Still Defends PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 99 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Claims as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Has $22.1MM Reserves as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $295MM in Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 137 Talc Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Faces Thousands of PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firstenergy Defends Multiple Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Still Faces Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intl. Paper Reports $115MM Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Subsidiaries Still Defends PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 2,769 Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mercer Intl. Follows Asbestos Disposal Guideline
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Still Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety's Subsidiary Faces 2,878 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Corp. Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair's Subsidiaries Has 630 Pending Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Subsidiaries Faces 7,000 PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Faces 561 PI Cases at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $21.4MM Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has Dispute on Coverage Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 855 Active Claims at Dec. 31
*********
ABBYSON.COM LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Jaquez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBYSON.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01995-PGG (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 8, 2021) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.patelbrothersusa.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
ABBYSON.COM, LLC manufactures home furnishing products. The Company
offers leather and fabric chair, recliner, table, and TV console
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
ABC COLLECTORS: Steccone Files FDCPA Suit in Montana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Collectors, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Marinella Steccone, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC Collectors, Inc.,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 9:21-cv-00028-DLC-KLD (D. Mont., March 15,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
ABC Collectors Inc. -- https://www.abccollect.com/ -- is a debt
collection agency located in Kalispell, Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David K.W. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
Robert Farris-Olsen, Esq.
MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP
401 N Last Chance Gulch
PO Box 557
Helena, MT 59624
Phone: (406) 442-3261
Fax: (406) 443-7294
Email: kwilson@mswdlaw.com
rfolsen@mswdlaw.com
ACCELLION INC: Exposes Personal, Medical Info to Hackers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE BOLTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCELLION, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-01645 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 8, 2021) is an action for actual
damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages, with attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses under the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a direct and
proximate result of Accellion's inadequate data security, Plaintiff
and Class Members' personally identifying information and personal
medical information have been accessed by hackers and exposed to an
untold number of unauthorized individuals.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar forms of
criminal mischief, which risk may last for the rest of their lives.
Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members must devote
substantially more time, money, and energy protecting themselves,
to the extent possible, from these crimes, the suit says.
Accellion, Inc. provides secure collaboration and managed file
transfer solutions. The Company offers productivity, enterprise
content, file sharing and synchronization and storage, replacement,
and backups and recovery. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
ACCELLION INC: Faces Stobbe Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
JARAMEY STOBBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACCELLION, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-01353 (N.D. Cal.,
Feb. 24, 2021) is a class action suit brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other individuals (Class Members) who had their
sensitive personal information including names, email addresses,
phone numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers (SSN), bank account and routing information, information
used to process health insurance claims, and prescription
information (Personal Information) disclosed to unauthorized third
parties during a data breach compromising Accellion's legacy File
Transfer Appliance software (the "Data Breach").
Allegedly, Accellion made headlines in late 2020/early 2021 (and
continues to receive a raft of negative publicity) following its
December 23, 2020 disclosure to numerous clients that criminals
breached Accellion's client submitted data via a vulnerability in
its represented "secure" file transfer application.
Accellion is a software company that provides third-party file
transfer services to clients. Accellion makes and sells a file
transfer service product called the File Transfer Appliance (FTA).
Accellion's FTA is a 20-year-old, obsolete, "legacy product" that
was "nearing end-of-life" at the time of the Data Breach, thus
leaving it vulnerable to compromise and security incidents.
During the Data Breach, unauthorized persons gained access to
Accellion's clients' files by exploiting a vulnerability in
Accellion's FTA platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore Maya, Esq.
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505-4521
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Erich P. Schork, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
e.schork@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
- and -
Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY
www.abingtonlaw.com
320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 588-3400
E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com
ALLIANCE UNITED: Denies Coverage for New Car Damage, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HIBA KHAIRI ABDULKREEM ALASHAAB and MOHAMED LUAY ABDULKREEM, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ALLIANCE
UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY; KEMPER CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01186148-CU-BC-CXC-ROA (Feb. 25, 2021)
is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs, the named
insured under their respective AUIC automobile policies issued for
private passenger auto physical damage including comprehensive and
collision coverage (the Policy).
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are informed and believe
that, routinely and as a matter of general business practice, AUIC
issues policies of automobile insurance, such as the one at issue
to them, promising automatic 30 days coverage, only to then
fraudulently save money by denying coverage absent notice of the
purchase, which effectively negates the promise of automatic
coverage.
This lawsuit is brought by Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated insureds who allegedly suffered
damages due to AUIC's practice of denying coverage for property
damage on newly-purchased cars which coverage AUIC contends is
triggered by notice prior to damage to the vehicle despite the
express language in the policy affording automatic coverage for new
vehicles for 30 days without notice.
AUIC's conduct in denying coverage for property damage to newly
purchased vehicles unless it received notice prior to the damage
constitutes a breach of the Policy and of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing implied in the Policy. It also
constitutes an unfair business practice, added the suit.
The Plaintiffs have been denied benefits due and owing. They have
also been falsely induced to buy policies and pay premiums for
coverage offered and not provided. The named Plaintiffs have claims
typical of the class members as to all particulars stated.
In March 2, 2019, the Plaintiffs purchased an automobile insurance
policy from AUIC via policy number MIL3864541. The Policy provided
insurance coverage for the Plaintiffs' two vehicles, including
bodily injury and property damages coverage. While the Policy was
in full force and effect, and after Plaintiffs had satisfied all
terms and conditions under the Policy, Hiba purchased a new
automobile. Under the terms of the Policy, the Plaintiffs were
entitled to 30 days of automatic coverage for any newly acquired
vehicle. Within this 30-day time period, in fact within 15 days
after the purchase of the new auto, Hiba was involved in an
automobile accident. The property damage caused to the car exceeds
$25,000.
The Plaintiffs immediately tendered a claim regarding the Accident
to AUIC. Surprisingly, however, AUCI denied Plaintiffs' claim.
While the denial letter itself acknowledges "the automatic 30-day
coverage" language for newly acquired vehicles under the policy,
AUIC denied Plaintiffs' claim coverage based upon completely
contradictory, confusing and ambiguous language. AUIC's denial is
based solely on one sentence in the entire Policy, which wholly
negates the "automatic 30-day coverage" benefit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vatche Chorbajian, Esq.
Alain Chorbajian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF VATCHE CHORBAJIAN, APC
6006 El Tordo Road, Suite 207
Mailing: P. O. Box 661
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Telephone: (858) 759-8822
Facsimile: (858) 923-2124
E-mail: vatche@vclegal.com
alain@vclegal.com
ALPHABET INC: Refuses to Redeem Google Play Gift Cards, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HENK MEYERS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., and
GOOGLE ARIZONA LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01767 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 25,
2021) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the
Defendants because Google refuses to redeem Google Play gift cards
in accordance with the California law.
The Plaintiff seeks restitution, declaratory, and injunctive relief
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.
Google Play is Google's software application (a/k/a "app") store,
which allows users to download applications, electronic books,
music, and the like to their mobile and computer devices. Google
markets Google Play gift cards, which are redeemable towards one's
Google Play balance. Google markets these gift cards as "easy to
redeem," "never expire," and can be used to "easily manage"
spending on Google Play content.
However, for many users, Google's assurances that its gift cards
are easy to use rings hollow. This is because contrary to the
Company's marketing, Google has erected barriers which can make
card redemption difficult or even impossible, the Plaintiff
contends.
Alphabet, Inc. is the parent company of Google, LLC and several
Google subsidiaries, and trades on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol
"GOOGL." The Defendant Google, LLC is a subsidiary of Alphabet,
Inc., and markets and sells digital media such as music, magazines,
books, movies and television programs in its online store, Google
Play.
Defendant GPC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google and maintains
consumers' redeemed Google Play gift cards through GPC's Google
Play balance. GPC maintains the Google Play balances of users,
including the balance attributable to redeemed Google Play gift
cards. GAZ issues the Google Play gift cards.
Google Play is an electronic application (or "app") store that
markets games, music, magazines, books, movies, and television
programs. To purchase content on Google Play, Google Play gift card
holders are required to have a Google Pay account.
The Google Pay account is a mobile payment system developed by
Google that allows users to store forms of payment such as credit
cards, debit cards and gift cards. Google Play is lucrative for the
Defendants, generating approximately $17.3 billion in the first
half of 2020 alone. SensorTower, Global App Revenue Reached $50
Billion in the First Half of 2020, Up 23% Year-Over-Year,
https://sensortower.com/blog/app-revenue-and-downloads-1h-2020
(June 30, 2020).
As part of the Google Play service, Google sells and markets gift
cards users in over 875,000 retail locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard D. McCune, Esq.
David C. Wright, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Telephone: (909) 557 1275
E-mail: dm@mccunewright.com
dcw@mccunewright.com
ARIZONA AIRCRAFT: Hires Lee & Associates as Real Estate Broker
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Aircraft Painting, LLC, seeks approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona to employ Lee &
Associates Arizona Commercial Real Estate Services Company as real
estate broker.
The firm will market and sell the Debtor's real property located at
4911 E. Falcon Drive, Mesa, Ariz.
The firm will be paid a commission of 5 percent of the gross sales
price.
Jerry Marrell, a partner at Lee & Associates, disclosed in a court
filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is
defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The firm can be reached at:
Jerry Marrell
Lee & Associates Arizona Commercial
Real Estate Services Company
3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Tel: (602) 956-7777/(602) 954-3744
Email: jmarrell@leearizona.com
About Arizona Aircraft Painting
Arizona Aircraft Painting, LLC specializes in aerospace performance
coatings. It also offers design services, interior refurbishment,
vortex generators, aircraft cleaning and detailing services, and
window replacement services. Arizona Aircraft Painting operates
out of a 10,000-square-foot facility in Mesa, Ariz.
Arizona Aircraft Painting filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D.
Ariz. Case No. 19-05477) on May 3, 2019. In the petition signed by
Steven Head, member, the Debtor estimated $1 million to $10 million
in assets and $500,000 to $1 million in liabilities.
Judge Daniel P. Collins oversees the case.
Keery McCue, PLLC serves as the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel.
AVANTEUSA LTD: Faces Madanick FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AvanteUSA, Ltd., et
al. The case is captioned as Nathanial Madanick v. AvanteUSA, Ltd.,
et al, Case No. 6:21-cv-00377-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Paul G. Byron.
The Defendants also include CF Medical, LLC and John Does 1-25.
AvanteUSA is an accounts receivable management firm.[BN]
Plaintiff Nathanial Madanick individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (754) 217-3084
Facsimile: (754) 217-3084
E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
BAY AREA TRAFFIC: Faces Murillo Employment Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Area Traffic
Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as Ivan Murillo v. Bay Area
Traffic Solutions, Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00295160-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged employment violations.
Bay Area Traffic Solutions, Inc. is located in Fremont, California
and is part of the Business Services Sector Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are represented
by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAD DEKREY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP; BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; CARGILL INCORPORATED; BASF CORPORATION;
SYNGENTA CORPORATION; WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC.; FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD.; CHS INC.; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC.; GROWMARK INC.; GROWMARK FS, LLC; SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.;
and TENKOZ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00639 (D. Minn.,
Mar. 5, 2021) is an action arising from an unlawful agreement among
the Defendants to artificially increase and fix the prices of seeds
and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides ("Crop Inputs") used by farmers.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
established a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs
prices inflated at supracompetitive levels and, in furtherance of
their conspiracy, denies farmers access to relevant market
information, including transparent pricing terms that would allow
comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions and
information about seed relabeling practices that would enable
farmers to know if they are buying newly developed seeds or
identical seeds repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a
higher price.
Beginning early as 2014, new online Crop Inputs sales platforms
launched and offered pricing comparison tools to allow farmers to
view what other farmers were paying for the same Crop Inputs,
increasing price transparency. These online sales platforms,
including Farmers Business Network ("FBN") and AgVend Inc., became
successful with farmers.
Viewing this success, the Defendants allegedly conspired and
coordinated to boycott these online Crop Inputs sales platforms
because of the threat they posed to the Defendants' market position
and price control. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Defendants' have
maintained supracompetitive prices for Crop Inputs by denying
farmers access to accurate pricing information and have injured
farmers by forcing farmers to accept opaque price increases that
drastically outweigh any increase in crop yields or market prices,
added the suit.
Bayer Cropscience LP operates as a crop science company. The
Company offers fungicides, harvest aids, herbicides, insecticides,
traits, seed, and seed treatments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Alyssa J. Leary, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com
-and-
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (480) 348-6415
E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
-and-
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
William Kalas, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 West University Drive,
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
wk@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
BEAR DOWN: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bear Down Brands,
LLC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Bear
Down Brands, LLC doing business as: Pure Enrichment, Case No.
1:21-cv-01360 (E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bear Down Brands -- https://pureenrichment.com/ -- is a network of
consumer brands that each focus on premium home, health, and
personal care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BEIS TRAVEL: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. BEIS TRAVEL, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01679-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2021), alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website,
www.beistravel.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff Nisbett and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website.
Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act,
the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights
Law against the Defendant.
Plaintiff Nisbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause the
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is a retailer of luggage and accessories. Through the
Website, customers can purchase items such as suitcases, tote bags,
diaper bags, backpacks, wallets, dopp kits, luggage tags and
similar items. The Defendant does not operate any brick-and-mortar
stores, however some items can be purchase at third-party retailers
such as Ulta and Nordstrom. However, the Website is the only way to
view and purchase the Defendant's entire line of products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392.4772
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
BOMBAY'S INDIAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Escamilla Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO ESCAMILLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOMBAY'S INDIAN CUISINE INC. (D/B/A BOMBAY'S
INDIAN CUISINE); VIDHAN BHATT INC. (D/B/A AAHAR INDIAN CUISINE);
PRASHANT BHATT; and SONAL VYAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01994
(S.D.N.Y., Mar. 8, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Escamilla was employed by the Defendants as delivery
worker.
BOMBAY'S INDIAN CUISINE INC. owns and operates a taco restaurant,
located at New York, New York under the name "Bombay's Indian
Cuisine", and "Aahar Indian Cuisine". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Brown Files Suit v. Sheriff Wayne Ivy
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ivey. The case is
styled as Joseph Norman Brown, III, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Wayne Ivey, Case No.
6:21-cv-00477-GKS-DCI (M.D. Fla., March 15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Sheriff Wayne Ivey --
https://www.brevardsheriff.com/home/meet-the-sheriff-wayne-ivey/ --
has been a Law Enforcement Officer for over three decades.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
BROADWAY FINEST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bravo Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS DIAZ BRAVO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROADWAY FINEST DELI CORP. (D/B/A
BROADWAY FINEST DELI); and ALI MUSAND AKA ABDUL, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01946 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 5, 2021) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as deli man.
BROADWAY FINEST DELI CORP. owns and operates a taco restaurant,
located at New York, New York under the name "Broadway Finest
Deli". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
CACI INT'L: Underpays Background Investigators, Pittmon et al. Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA PITTMON and JOEL MACKAY, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs
v. CACI INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CACI, INC. - Federal, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02044 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2021) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged failure to pay overtime in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid and
non-exempt background investigators.
The Plaintiffs contends that the Defendants required them to work
in excess of 40 hours in workweek due to the Defendants' production
requirements. Due to the heavy workload the Defendants assigned to
them, they typically worked through their meal and rest breaks, and
occasionally performed work on weekends. However, the Defendants
did not pay them overtime at one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. In addition, the Defendants did not keep accurate records
of the hours the Plaintiffs and other background investigators
worked, and failed to provide them with wage statements that
accurately reflect all hours they worked. When their employment
ended, the Defendants did not pay all wages that were due to them,
including overtime premiums, the Plaintiff allege.
On behalf of themselves and all members of the FLSA Collective, the
Plaintiffs seek unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime rate,
liquidated damages and penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, and other relief as the Court may dem appropriate and just.
The Corporate Defendants provide information technology products
and services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 277-7235
Fax: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
- and –
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eight Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 256-3200
Fax: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: fisher@nka.com
- and –
Jason Christopher Marsili, Esq.
ROSEN MARSILI RAPP LLP
3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite I 800
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622
Tel: (213) 389-6050
Fax: (213) 389-0663
E-mail: jmarsili@rmrllp.com
- and –
Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles St., Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Tel: (410) 244-7005
Fax: (410) 244-1047
E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
CANTALOUPE HOLDINGS: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Abarca Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROXANNE E. ABARCA, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANTALOUPE HOLDINGS, LLC, a
California corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV08753 (Cal. Sup. Ct., March 5, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant seeking penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act for its alleged violations of the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee at the Defendant's Santa Monica location from
approximately April 19, 2018 until her termination on or about
October 23, 2020.
According to the complaint, the Defendants forced the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees to work while "off the clock"
without being compensated. Specifically, they were required to go
through a body temperature screening checkpoint process, as part of
its policies established in light of the COVID-19 global pandemic
to minimize the risk of the spread of the COVID-19, which would
regularly have long lines resulting in unpaid time incurred by
them, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants failed to:
-- include all non-discretionary compensation in their regular
rate of pay when calculating their overtime compensation;
-- provide them a legally mandated meal and rest periods;
failed to pay and calculate minimum wage appropriately;
-- provide them with itemized wage statements that accurately
reflect the correct amount of gross wages earned, net wages earned,
or the applicable hourly rates; and
-- pay the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all wages
owed at their time of separation from employment.
The Plaintiff notified the Defendant via certified mail and the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) via its
website on or about December 28, 2020 concerning the Defendants'
alleged violations.
Cantaloupe Holdings, LLC operates a skilled nursing facility in
Santa Monica, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 975-1493
Fax: (310) 675-0861
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
- and –
Sanjay Bansal, Esq.
BANSAL LAW
725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2250
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (424) 501-5099
E-mail: sanjay@bansalesq.com
CB CONSUMER: Misleads Synthetic Rayon as Bamboo Fabric, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SCHACHNER, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CB CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC dba LUXOME, Case No.
1:21-cv-00995-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021) is an action about
certain unfair and deceptive consumer sales practices of Defendant
CB Consumer Products attendant to its advertising and sale in New
York of synthetic rayon masquerading as natural bamboo fabric in in
violation of the New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, CBC does not disclose in its
advertising, marketing or packaging that the Products are made of
rayon despite the fact that such Products are 100% rayon and do not
contain a single bamboo fiber. CBC does not disclose in its
advertisements, marketing or packaging that the Product is imported
or that it is manufactured in and imported from China, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff adds that CBC has made and continues to make unfair,
deceptive and misleading Bamboo Claims to consumers in a pervasive,
nationwide, marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers
about the true source and qualities of the Products.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, actual
damages, restitution and/or disgorgement of profits, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief available to
the Class as a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct.
Rayon (or viscose) is the generic name for a type of regenerated or
manufactured fiber made from cellulose. Rayon fabric is
manufactured by taking purified cellulose from a plant source
(including Bamboo), also called a cellulose precursor, and
converting it into a viscous solution by dissolving it in one or
more chemicals, such as sodium hydroxide. The chemical solution is
then forced through spinnerets and into an acidic bath where it
solidifies into fibers. The process is materially toxic to the
environment according to the FTC. Rayon, fabricated from plant
cellulose, is considered a "synthetic textile."
Mr. David Schachner is a consumer and resident of Queens County,
New York.
CBC markets, sells, and distributes consumer products via its own
proprietary Website (https://luxome.com) and through third-party
ecommerce marketplace channels, where CBC fulfills transactions
that are brokered by such third-party. CBC advertises and offers
for sale a number of rayon Products represented in its marketing
and advertising, regardless of sales channel, as "100% Bamboo,"
"Premium Bamboo" or simply "Bamboo" ("Bamboo Claims").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Schlachet, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
9511 Collins Ave., Ste 605
Surfside, FL 33154
Telephone: (216) 225-7559
E-mail: markschlachet@me.com
CRATEJOY INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cratejoy, Inc. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Cratejoy, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01356 (E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cratejoy -- https://www.cratejoy.com/ -- is home to hundreds of
monthly subscription boxes for all hobbies, interests, and
passions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DAVID MASON: Faces Lampos Suit Over Pipeline Inspectors' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS LAMPOS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. DAVID MASON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01264 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2021) brings this class and
collective action complaint against the Defendant seeking to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a pipeline welding
inspector from approximately September 2017 until October 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has stopped paying him and
other similarly situated employees' overtime at the beginning of
2018. Instead, they were only paid the same straight time for all
hours worked despite working approximately 60 to 84 hours in a
typical workweek.
David Mason & Associates, Inc. offers designs and assessment for
highways and bridges, buildings, sewers and tunnels, and electric
and gas networks used by millions of Americans every day. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
DON ROBERTO JEWELERS: El Hallal Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WAFFE AMALIA AL HAJARI EL HALLAL, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly aggrieved v. DON ROBERTO JEWELERS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 24, 2021) seeks to recover
penalties arising from unpaid wages earned and due, including
unpaid and illegally calculated overtime and minimum wage
compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay
all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to
maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment, and
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or
losses incurred in discharging their duties under the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.
Don Roberto Jewelers Inc is located in San Clemente, California,
and is part of the jewelry stores industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
Vanessa M. Rodriguez, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
mgordon@maternlawgroup.com
vrodriguez@maternlawgroup.com
DUMBO MOVING: Faces Scott Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DUMBO MOVING & STORAGE, and LEO DOE, and
VLADIMIR DOE, representing fictitious and unknown Co-Defendants yet
to be ascertained, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01190-JS-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act for its alleged unlawful pay practices and policies.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a foreman/driver
from approximately September 2012 through September 2014.
The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40
hours per week and regularly working more than 10 hours per day
during his employment with the Defendants, the Defendants did not
pay him any overtime pay at one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay nor spread-of-hours pay. As a result, the Plaintiff received
below the statutory federal and state minimum wage. In addition,
the Defendants failed to provide him with weekly records of his
compensation and hours worked, the Plaintiff adds.
Purportedly, the Defendants applied the same employment policies,
practices, and procedures to all Collective Action members,
including policies, practices, and procedures with respect to the
payment of minimum wages, overtime, and spread of hours pay. Thus,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment and an injunction
against the Defendants from engaging in each of the unlawful
practices, as well as a compensatory award of unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Dumbo Moving & Storage offers local, long distance, residential,
and commercial moves. Leo Doe and Vladimir Doe were involved in the
day-to-day operations of the company and played an active role in
managing the business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia Rose Lynch, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Tel: (718) 269-2240
E-mail: Plynch@saccofillas.com
EMPIRE MOVERS: Scott Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE MOVERS, and FLORIN DOE, and OMAR DOE,
representing fictitious and unknown Co-Defendants yet to be
ascertained, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01936 (S.D.N.Y., March 5,
2021) alleges the Defendants of violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a foreman and
driver from approximately September 2014 through September 2015.
The Plaintiff contends that although he worked regularly more than
40 hours per week during his employment with the Defendant, he was
not paid overtime compensation at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for those hours worked in excess of 40 and
spread-of-hours pay for those ten hours worked per day. Instead,
the Defendant paid him $200.00 to $250 per week regardless of the
number of hours he worked in a shift, day, or week. As a result,
his effective rate of pay was always below the statutory federal
and state minimum wages. In addition, the Defendant did not provide
him with any wage notices or information, and with weekly wage
statement, added the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons seeking
to recover unpaid wages, compensatory and liquidated damages,
punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs
and reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Empire Movers provides transportation and trucking services. Florin
Doe and Omar Doe, who are unknown co-defendants yet to be
ascertained, are owners or part owners and principals of the
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patricia Rose Lynch, Esq.
SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
31-19 Newtown Avenue, Seventh Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Tel: (718) 269-2240
E-mail: Plynch@saccofillas.com
FOR LIFE PRODUCTS: Iglesias Disputes Safety Label in Cleaning Aid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Iglesias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. For Life Products, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-01147 (N.D. Cal., February 16, 2021), is a class action
complaint for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law,
False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and for breach
of express warranty and unjust enrichment.
For Life Products creates, owns, markets and distributes the
"Rejuvenate" brand surface care cleaning and renewal products to
the US, Canada, Europe and Dubai. It prominently and uniformly
labels the front display panel of their products with the
representation "SAFE FOR PETS & KIDS." Iglesias alleges that
contrary to this, said products contain (in varying combinations)
diethylene glycol ethyl ether, dipropylene glycol methyl ether,
fragrance, 1-octanesulfonic acid, sodium hexametaphosphate, sodium
metasilicate pentahydrate, sodium sulfate and tetrasodium
pyrophosphate, which are not safe for humans and pets. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Tel: (213) 788-4050
Fax: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
Kevin O. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
228 Hamilton Ave., 3rd Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tel: (619) 915-9432
Fax: (650) 618-0478
Email: chris@moonlawapc.com
kevin@moonlawapc.com
FORD MOTOR: Lund Suit Transferred to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Patricia Lund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
2:20-cv-02228, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on March 15, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00468-TLN-CKD to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford --
https://corporate.ford.com/home.html -- is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip J. Milligan, Esq.
MILLIGAN MEDLOCK GRAMLICH LLP
500 So. 16th Street
P.O. Box 2347
Fort Smith, AR 72902
Phone: (479) 783-2213
Fax: (479) 783-4329
Email: patsylund@sbcglobal.net
- and -
Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
THRASH LAW FIRM
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 374-1058
Fax: (501) 374-2222
Email: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
- and -
William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
WILLIAM T. CROWDER, PLLC
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-1214
Phone: (501) 374-1058
Fax: (501) 374-2222
Email: willcrowder@thrashlawfirmpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Edwin Lee Lowther, Jr.
WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS LLP
200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 371-0808
Fax: (501) 376-9442
Email: elowther@wlj.com
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Beiswinger Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA BEISWINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00222 (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to consumers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had a mortgage with
Caliber Home Loans that was acquired by the Defendant. Subsequently
in early 2020, the Defendant begun contacting the Plaintiff on her
cellular telephone number in an attempt to offer her mortgage
refinancing that would drop her mortgage rate by 1%. After speaking
with numerous Freedom Mortgage employees, the Plaintiff has decided
by the end of 2020 that she was no longer interested in getting the
discounted rate and told them by phone in mid-January 2021 to stop
calling her phone number. Although the Defendant said that it would
remove the Plaintiff's number, the Defendant placed additional
unwanted solicited calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number which have caused harm to the Plaintiff in the form of
annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, the suit asserts.
On behalf of herself and on behalf of similarly situated persons,
the Plaintiff bring this complaint seeking redress for the injuries
she endured that includes actual and/or statutory damages and
costs, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited calling activity, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a home mortgage loan provider.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (877) 333-9427
Fax: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
- and –
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Tel: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Hazely Hits Non-disclosure of Toxins in Baby Food
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crista Marie Hazely and Kathryn McCarthy, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gerber Products
Co., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00317 (M.D. Fla., February 16,
2021), seeks injunctive relief resulting from negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express
warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and for violation of
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Gerber packages, labels, markets, advertises, formulates,
manufactures, distributes and infant food throughout the United
States under the Gerber brand.
This action derives its claim from a recent report by the U.S.
House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform revealing that certain
brands of commercial baby food (including Gerber products made with
ingredients such as rice flour, sweet potatoes, certain juices,
certain juice concentrates, and carrots, among other ingredients)
are tainted with significant and dangerous levels of toxic heavy
metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury saying that
exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ and
endangers neurological development and long-term brain function,
among numerous other deleterious alarming conditions and problems.
Plaintiffs seek full disclosure of all such substances and
ingredients in Gerber's marketing, advertising and labeling;
requiring testing of all ingredients and final products for such
substances. Hazely is a resident of Deltona, Florida while McCarthy
resides in Export, Pennsylvania. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Phone: (561) 232-6002
Fax: (888) 421-4173
Email: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
eService@4-Justice.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Phone: (917) 983-9321
Fax: (888) 421-4173
Email: LFeldman@4-justice.com
E-Service: eService@4-Justice.com
- and -
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (917) 899-1765
Fax: (332) 206-2073
Email: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
GOLUB CORP: Maclean Sues Over Deceptive Vanilla Nonfat Greek Yogurt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lea Maclean, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Golub Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-40025-TSH (D.
Mass., Feb. 25, 2021) seeks to remedy the Defendant's deceptive
labeling, marketing, and sale of its "Vanilla Nonfat Greek
Yogurt."
According to the complaint, the Defendant has misled the Plaintiff
and reasonable consumers to believe the Product
contains vanilla as the ingredient that provides for the Product's
characterizing vanilla flavor. In reality, the Product contains
"natural flavors," as the ingredient that provides for the
Product's characterizing vanilla flavor, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and a jury trial
for Defendant's deceptive and misleading actions that have unjustly
enriched the Defendant.
The Plaintiff is currently, and has been throughout the Class
Period, a resident of Westborough, Massachusetts. During the Class
Period, the Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Product on several
occasions at the Price Chopper Store located at 731 Boston
Turnpike, Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, based on the representation
and reasonable belief that the Product contained vanilla as an
ingredient that provides for the Product’s vanilla flavor.
Golub Corporation is an American supermarket operator.
Headquartered in Schenectady, New York, it owns the chains Market
32 and Price Chopper Supermarkets.[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
HANOVER VENTURES: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denny Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Hanover Ventures Marketplace LLC, John Doe Company 1,
Paul Lamas, Peter A Poulakakos, Nicolas Abello and David Coucke,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01347, (S.D. N.Y. February 16, 2021),
seeks to recover unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, unpaid
spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act including damages and other relief
under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City
Administrative Code for creating and fostering a hostile work
environment through persistent sexual harassment against Gonzales.
Defendants operate the marketplace known as Le District, which
encompasses restaurants, cafes, food counters, a grocer and a
wholesaler. Le District owns and operates a Michelin Star
restaurant, "L'Appart a Le District," where Gonzales worked as a
waiter, but was frequently asked to engage in non-tipped tasks. He
claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week
without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and
denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours.
Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite
requiring him to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of
the total hours worked each workweek. He also claims to have never
received wage statements.
In addition to the wage and hour violations, Gonzales was subject
to regular sexual harassment from David Coucke, supervisor and
Maitre D at L'Appart. Coucke's harassment included belittlement,
consistent contempt and derision due to Gonzalez's sexual
orientation and was routinely physically bullied by Couke,
routinely shoved by Coucke and subject to comments and derisive
conversations regarding his personality, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
INFINITY Q: Hunter Sues Over Misleading Registration Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA HUNTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. INFINITY Q DIVERSIFIED ALPHA FUND; TRUST FOR ADVISED
PORTFOLIOS; INFINITY Q CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; CHRISTOPHER E.
KASHMERICK; JOHN C. CHRYSTAL; ALBERT J. DIULIO, S.J.; HARRY E.
RESIS; RUSSELL B. SIMON; STEVEN J. JENSON; JAMES VELISSARIS;
LEONARD POTTER; SCOTT LINDELL; QUASAR DISTRIBUTORS, LLC;
EISNERAMPER LLP; BONDERMAN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LP; and
INFINITY Q MANAGEMENT EQUITY, LLC, Case No. 651295/2021 (N.Y. Sup.,
New York Cty., Feb. 24, 2021) is an action by and on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased shares of the Fund (tickers:
IQDAX (Investor Class), during the period of February 24, 2018
through February 18, 2021, inclusive (the Class Period), pursuant
and/or traceable to one of the Fund's Registration Statements or
Prospectuses.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Fund, its investment adviser,
trustees, underwriter, auditor, and other Defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") by registering, offering,
and selling shares of the Fund pursuant to false and misleading
registration statements and prospectuses. The action asserts
strict-liability, non-fraud claims under sections 11, 12, and 15 of
the Securities Act.
During the Class Period, Infinity Q used models provided by
third-party pricing services to determine the value of certain of
the Fund's swap contracts for purposes of calculating its NAV.
On or about February 22, 2021, in a filing with the SEC, the Fund,
the Trust, and Infinity Q admitted that Infinity Q's Chief
Investment Officer James Velissaris, had been improperly "adjusting
certain parameters" within third-party pricing models that affected
the valuation of swap contracts owned by the Fund. The disclosure
of this information was prompted by an SEC investigation, the suit
says.
As a result of this disclosure, it became clear that incorrect
valuations of the Fund's assets have been reported to investors in
SEC filings as well as in the Fund's daily share pricing (NAV) for
some time.
Thus, throughout the Class Period, the Fund misrepresented and
artificially inflated the value of its assets and its NAV. As such,
the Fund was a house of cards waiting to be knocked down as soon as
the manipulated valuations came to light, added the suit.
From the start of the Class Period until December 31, 2020 (when
the Fund was "closed to all new investment" for unknown reasons),
investors steadily invested in the Fund, causing its assets under
management to increase from approximately $190 million to
approximately $1.7 billion. This inflow of new investments masked
the truth about the Fund's inflated NAV and the risks associated
with its investments.
In the same disclosure of February 22, 2021, the Fund also revealed
that other of its assets may have been valued in an unreliable
manner. As a result, the Fund would be liquidating itself after a
proper valuation of its assets.
On February 22, 2021, the SEC issued an order approving Infinity
Q's request to temporarily halt redemptions in the Fund as of
February 19, 2021. Investors are now stuck waiting to learn what
their shares are actually worth and what they will receive in the
liquidation. This has damaged Plaintiff and the other members of
the class significant, according to the complaint.
Plaintiff Andrea Hunter purchased shares of the Fund during the
Class Period (ticker: IQDNX) pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses at issue in this Complaint
and has been damaged thereby.
The Fund is a diversified open-end investment company. Its
investment objective is to seek to generate positive absolute
returns. The Fund is generally intended to provide exposure to
several strategies often referred to as "alternative" or "absolute
return" strategies. Absolute return strategies seek to produce
positive performance in both positive and negative environments for
equities, fixed income, and credit markets. Utilizing a diversified
portfolio of instruments, the
Defendant Trust for Advised Portfolios is the Fund's registrant.
The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust and is registered with the
SEC under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ICA) as an
open-end management investment company. The Defendant Infinity Q is
the Fund's investment adviser and is registered as an investment
adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
rswartz@scott-scott.com
- and -
Michael E. Criden, Esq.
Lindsey Grossman, Esq.
CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515
South Miami, FL 33143
Telephone: (305) 357-9000
Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com
lgrossman@cridenlove.com
KEYCORP: Faces Carlon Contract Suit in Eastern Dist. of Washington
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KeyCorp. The case is
captioned as Heather Carlon v. KeyCorp, Case No. 2:21-cv-00097-SMJ
(E.D. Wash., Feb. 24, 2021).
The case arises from contract-related claims and is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr.
KeyCorp operates as the holding company for KeyBank National
Association that provides various retail and commercial banking
products and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric J. Harrison, Esq.
5400 California Ave SW Ste E
Seattle, WA 98136
Telephone: (206) 388-8092
E-mail: eric@attorneywestseattle.com
LANDRY'S INC: Underpays Tipped Employees, Owen FLSA Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELYN OWEN on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. LANDRY'S, INC., LANDRY'S SEAFOOD HOUSE --
FLORIDA, INC., and RAINFOREST CAFE, INC., Case No.
6:21-cv-00372-CEM-LRH (M.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2021) implicates the
Defendants violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's tip credit
and subsequent underpayment of their employees at the federally
mandated minimum wage.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a collective action under the
FLSA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all similarly situated
workers.
The Defendants allegedly pay their tipped employees, including
servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage rate by taking
advantage of the tip-credit provision of the FLSA. Under the
tip-credit provision, an employer of tipped employees may, under
certain circumstances, pay its employees less than the minimum wage
rate by taking a "tip credit" against the minimum wage requirement
based upon the amount of tips the employees received from
customers.
Plaintiff Jacquelyn Owen is an individual residing in Orlando,
Florida. The Plaintiff was previously employed by the Defendants at
the Rainforest Cafe in the Disney Animal Kingdom Theme Park from
July 2016 to March 2020.
Landry's is an American, privately owned, multi-brand dining,
hospitality, entertainment and gaming corporation headquartered in
Houston, Texas. Landry's, Inc. owns and operates more than 600
restaurants, hotels, casinos and entertainment destinations in 35
states and the District of Columbia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ria N. Chattergoon, Esq.
RC LAW GROUP
3900 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 301
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 400-1620
Facsimile: (954) 400-1676
E-mail: ria@therclawgroup.com
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: DFoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
LBK CONSULTING: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, DeSalvo Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. LBK CONSULTING INC d/b/a KREISS, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-01722-MCS-JC (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully equally accessible to and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website,
https://www.kreiss.com, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of the ADA,
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read Website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity
with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind
people who 4 meet this definition have limited vision. Others have
no vision.
The Defendant offers the Website to the public allowing all
consumers to access the goods and services in connection with its
physical locations. The goods and services offered by Defendant
include collections such as Azul, Libra, Mambo Bedroom, Aurora,
Aria, Deauville, Corniche, Mambo, Aria Bedroom, Mykonos, Dover,
Giverny, Hollywood, Monitoro, and Panama; products such as sofas,
coffee tables, end tables, console tables, lounge chairs, beds,
nightstands, dressers, dinning tables, barstools, buffets,
credenzas, desks, mirrors, and linens; interior design services;
about Defendant; showrooms locations, and contact information. The
Defendant's Website also allows consumers to access information
regarding press releases, frequently asked questions, and social
media Webpages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
LIVEFREE EMERGENCY: Faces Stafford Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT STAFFORD, Plaintiff v. LIVEFREE EMERGENCY RESPONSE, INC.
d/b/a LIFE BEACON, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00184 (E.D. Tex.
March 7, 2021) brings this class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated individuals against the
Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the TCPA by
placing numerous calls on his residential cellular telephone number
972-235-8480 beginning on February 5, 2020 in an attempt to promote
its services. Specifically, the Defendant's calls were seeking to
provide emergency response services to the Plaintiff. The Defendant
purportedly used an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in
placing its calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone without
obtaining his prior express written consent to receive such calls.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and all members of the proposed classes have been harmed
in the form of multiple involuntary telephone and electrical
charges, the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that
necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing
telephone calls, and violations of their statutory rights. Thus,
the Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief for himself and all class
members restraining the Defendant from engaging in future
telemarketing, as well as statutory and actual damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.
LiveFree Emergency Response, Inc. d/b/a Life Beacon provides
emergency response services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092
Tel: (817) 416-5060
Fax: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
LOVE'S TRAVEL: Shilling Seeks to Recover Asst. Managers Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SHILLING, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. LOVE'S TRAVEL STOPS & COUNTRY STORES, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-00152-PRW (W.D. Okla., Feb. 24, 2021), is a collective
action instituted by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant's
practices and policies of not paying its hourly, non-exempt
assistant managers, including the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff also brings this case as a class action pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of himself and others like him who
worked for the Defendant in Ohio and suffered the same harms.
The Defendant owns and operates more than 500 travel stops in 41
states. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly, non-exempt
Assistant Manager at Defendant's travel stop located at 13190
Deshler Rd, North Baltimore, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 824-5770
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Abdelsayed Sues Over Unfair Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ABDELSAYED; and FRANK CIGLAR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00402-BEN-JLB
(S.D. Cal., Mar. 5, 2021) alleges that the Defendant used unlawful
trade practices called "drip pricing" and "partition pricing" when
marketing and advertising its hotel rooms.
According to the complaint, Marriott engages in drip pricing by
falsely baiting consumers into believing they are getting a
bargain, and then hides and disguises a portion of a hotel room's
daily rate from consumers. Marriott does this through a range of
tactics, including, but not limited to, completely hiding price
terms, mischaracterizing and hiding terms in small print, or adding
various charges throughout the vending process. These fees include,
but are not limited to "resort fees," "amenity fees," "destination
fees," or "taxes and fees," the suit added.
Allegedly, Marriott does not include these daily fees in the room
rate it advertises on its Website in the room rate advertised by
the online travel agency Websites, thereby depriving consumers of
the ability to readily ascertain and compare the actual price of a
room at a Marriott hotel to the bait price of the bargain Marriott
claims it is offering, or to the hotel rooms offered by Marriott's
competitors and at other Marriott hotels.
Marriott International Inc. owns and operates hotels and motels.
The Company provides hotel accommodations, luxury suites, car
rental, fitness and recreation, pool, internet, and other
amenities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Blair E. Reed, 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
breed@bursor.com
MINDLANCE INC: Lopez Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ROCIO LOPEZ, individually and
on behalf of other individuals similarly situated v. MINDLANCE
INC., a New Jersey Corporation; THALES AVIONICS, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01177684 CU OE-CXC (Filed Jan. 7, 2021), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Feb. 24, 2021.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:21-cv-00366 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arises out of the complaint of Mr. Lopez related to his
employment with Defendant Mindlance, Inc. in violation of the
California Labor Code Section 201.3. The Plaintiff indicated in his
complaint that he is seeking compensatory damages, penalties,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and such other and
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Mindlance provides staffing services.[BN]
Defendants Mindlance Inc. and Thales Avionics are represented by:
Amber M. Spataro, Esq.
Tracy R. Williams, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Newark Center, 8th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 848-4700
Facsimile: (973) 643-5626
E-mail: aspataro@littler.com
trwilliams@littler.com
MR V BERRY FRUTAS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castro Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSSELINE CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MR V BERRY FRUTAS Y VEGETALES INC,
MR. LIME & MR. KIWI INC, KICOPI 957 INC, KICOPI 31 INC, KICOPI 32,
INC, JUNSEOK YOON, JACK YOON, DONG KEUN YOON, and JOON YUN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01201 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 5, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Castro was employed by the Defendants as juicer and
cashier.
MR V BERRY FRUTAS Y VEGETALES INC. distributes fruits and
vegetables. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
MULTIPLAN CORP: Proxy Statement Lacks Business Info, Srock Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER M. SROCK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. MULTIPLAN CORPORATION f/k/a CHURCHILL CAPITAL
CORP. III, MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY TARAGIN, MARK KLEIN, MICHAEL ECK,
GLENN R. AUGUST, PAUL GALANT, JEREMY PAUL ABSON, MALCOLM S.
McDERMID, KAREN G. MILLS, BONNIE JONAS, MARK TABAK, DAVID REDMOND,
M. KLEIN AND COMPANY, CHURCHILL SPONSOR III, LLC and THE KLEIN
GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01640 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021) is a
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Churchill
III securities between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020,
inclusive (the Class Period); and all holders of Churchill III
Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill III's merger
with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated
subsidiaries consummated in October 2020 (the Merger).
On September 18, 2020, the Defendants filed with the SEC the final
Proxy for the Merger on Form DEFM14A. Allegedly, the Proxy stated
that the Board unanimously recommended that shareholders vote in
favor of the Merger.
The Proxy discussed the material importance to MultiPlan of its
largest customers, but failed to disclose any loss of business from
these customers. Instead, the Proxy highlighted that MultiPlan had
recently grown its revenue share attributable to its largest two
customers from 50% in 2018 to 55% in 2019, the suit adds.
Plaintiff Jennifer M. Srock purchased Churchill III securities
during the Class Period and suffered damages.
Defendant Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with
MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist. The Company's Class A
common shares trade in New York on the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) under the symbol "MPLN," and its public warrants trade under
the symbol "MPLN.WS." Prior to the Merger, Churchill III Class A
stock traded under the symbol "CCXX," its public warrants traded
under the symbol "CCXX.WS," and its ownership units, which
contained both stock and fractional warrants, traded under the
symbol "CCXX.U." The Individual Defendants are officers and
directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Ralph M. Stone
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 292-5690
Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Faces Lane Suit Over Pathfinder CVT Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON LANE, DEBBIE O'CONNOR, and MICHELLE WILLIAMS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NISSAN OF NORTH
AMERICA, INC, and NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD., Case No. 3:21-cv-00150
(M.D. Tenn., Feb. 25, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons who purchased or leased any 2015 through present Nissan
Pathfinder vehicle in the United States (Class Vehicles) that was
designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold or leased by
the Defendants Nissan of North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor
Company, Ltd.
Prior to making the Class Vehicles available to consumers, the
Defendants allegedly knew that the Class Vehicles contain one or
more design and/or manufacturing defects that can cause the
continuously variable transmission (CVT) to malfunction (CVT
Defect).
According to the complaint, numerous Class Vehicle owners have
reported a significant delay in the Class Vehicle's response while
attempting to accelerate from a stop or while cruising, such as
when attempting to merge into freeway traffic or pass another
vehicle, which requires the ability to accelerate rapidly. This
delay in response is often accompanied by engine revving while the
driver depresses the gas pedal without little to no increase in
vehicle speed. Class Vehicle owners have also experienced and
reported stalling, jerking, lurching, juddering and/or shaking
while operating their Class Vehicles. Some Class Vehicle owners
have reported rough shifting or delayed engagement when shifting
from park into reverse and/or drive, the suit says.
Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA, is the
North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan. The company manufactures and
sells Nissan and Infiniti brand cars, sport utility vehicles and
pickup trucks through a network of approximately 1,082 Nissan and
211 Infiniti dealers in the United States, including 187
independent Nissan dealerships, 38 Infiniti retailers and 45 Nissan
Commercial Vehicle dealers in Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is 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
E-mail: MGodino@glancylaw.com
dmanning@glancylaw.com
OHIO BUREAU: Cirino Sues Over Workers' Compensation Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CIRINO v. OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Case No.
CV-21-944521 (Ohio Com. Pleas Ct., Cuyahoga Cty., Feb. 26, 2021) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated as a refiling of the claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief that had been originally commenced on May 21, 2010, in the
lawsuit styled Cirino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp., C.P. Cuyahoga
Case No. 727380.
The case Cirino v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' was terminated
involuntarily other than on the merits on July 10, 2018, Cirino v.
Bur. of Workers' Comp., 153 Ohio St.3d 333, 2018-Ohio-2665, 106
N.E.3d 41, refiled on August 1, 2018, in the action styled Cirino
v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp., Ct. of Cl. No. 2018-01140JD, and
involuntarily terminated other than on the merits on February 28,
2020. An appeal of that latest decision presently remains pending.
Cirino v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp., 10th Dist. Franklin No.
20-AP-187.
According to the complaint, in 2006, the Defendant implemented a
Debit Card Program as an alternative means of disbursing workers'
compensation benefits to successful claimants. Under authority of
R.C. 4123.311(A)(3), Defendant retained JPMorgan Chase Bank, M.A.,
as an "agent" to supply the debit cards and fund the recipients'
accounts with the workers' compensation benefits that were due
under law. Accordance with this arrangement, the Defendant then
transferred the workers' compensation benefits that were due to the
Named Plaintiff and members of the Class to Chase. At least in
theory, the injured workers could then access their benefits
through their Chase debit card accounts, added the suit.
Unbeknownst to the Named Plaintiff and the members of the Class,
the Defendant and Chase had allegedly agreed to fund the debt card
program through an assortment of banking fees that were to be
collected and retained from the workers' compensation benefits.
Plaintiff Michael Cirino was a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
Defendant, Administrator Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, is
an official charged with overseeing and managing the Ohio Workers'
Compensation system that was established by the legislature
pursuant to statute. R.C. 4121.121. In contrast to certain other
state agencies, the functions performed by the Ohio Bureau of
Workers' Compensation with regard to the collection of premiums and
payment of benefits are purely ministerial with no discretionary
authority.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
John P. Hurst, Esq.
BASHEIN & BSHEIN C O., L.P.A.
50 Public Square, 35th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 771-3239
E-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com
jhurst@basheinlaw.com
- and -
Paul W. Flowers, Esq.
Louis E. Grube, Esq.
PAUL W. FLOWERS CO., L.P.A.
50 Public Square, 40th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Telephone: (216) 344-9393
E-mail: pwf@pwfco.com
leg@pwfco.com
- and -
Charles J. Gallo, Esq.
CHARLES J. GALLO CO ., L.P.A.
55 Public Square, Suite 2222
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 771-1081
E-mail: cjgallo@gallolawfirm.com
ONLINE INFORMATION: Faces Lapata FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Online Information
Services, Inc. The case is captioned as John Lapata, Sr. v. Online
Information Services, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00991-SJF-AYS
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein.
Online Information Services Inc. offers the collection of past due
accounts for creditors.[BN]
The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC
280 Prospect Ave 6G
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (877) 827-3395
Facsimile: (877) 827-3394
E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com
PLUG POWER: Faces Beverly Suit Over 19.4% Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN BEVERLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLUG POWER INC., ANDREW MARSH, and PAUL B.
MIDDLETON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02004 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 8,
2021) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Plug securities between November 9,
2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company would be unable to
timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related to the
review of classification of certain costs and the recoverability of
the right to use assets with certain leases; (2) that the Company
was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal
control over financial reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and prior
period financial statements."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The share price continued to decline by $9.48, or 19.4%,
over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $39.30 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume, the suit
says.
Plug Power, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and commercializes
fuel cell systems for electric lift trucks and materials handling
equipment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
-and-
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
-and-
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
PRIDE TRANSPORT: Chalaye Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pride Transport, Inc.
The case is styled as Jean-Louis Chalaye, an individual, on behalf
of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Pride Transport, Inc., a Corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0002245 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March
15, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Pride Transport -- https://www.pridetransport.com/ -- is a
family-owned and operated refrigerated carrier located in Salt Lake
City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani O. Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
3990 Old Town Ave, Ste C204
San Diego, CA 92110-2933
Phone: (619) 255-9047
Fax: (858) 404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
PRIME THERAPEUTICS: Shattuck Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shattuck Pharmacy Management PC doing
business as: Medic Pharmacy and Gifts, a Domestic for-Profit
Corporation, individually, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; Kylene Rehder, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Prime Therapeutics LLC, a Foreign
Limited Liability Company; Health Care Service Corporation, a
Mutual Reserve Company; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oklahoma, a
Division of Health Care Service Corporation; Case No. CJ-21-00003
was removed from the District Court of Ellis County, to the U.S.
District Court for Western District of Oklahoma on March 15, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00221-D to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Prime Therapeutics LLC operates as a non-profit organization. The
Company provides clinical solutions, benefit design, cost controls,
and pharmacy services. .[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan F. Benham, Esq.
Katresa J. Riffel, Esq.
Michael Craig Riffel, Esq.
RIFFEL LAW FIRM - ENID
3517 W Owen K Garriott Rd, Suite One
Enid, OK 73703
Phone: (580) 234-8447
Fax: (580) 234-5547
Email: jbenham@westoklaw.com
katresa@westoklaw.com
craig@westoklaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ryan T. Leonard, Esq.
Travis W. Brown, Esq.
EDINGER LEONARD & BLAKLEY PLLC
6301 N Western Ave, Suite 250
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Phone: (405) 702-9900
Fax: (405) 605-8381
Email: rleonard@leonard-law.net
tbrown@elbattorneys.com
PRIMESOURCE BUILDING: Hodgens Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primesource Building
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Ricky Hodgens, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Primesource
Building Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0002249 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March
15, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
PrimeSource BP -- https://www.primesourcebp.com/ -- is a global
building products distributor that carries a wide variety of brands
and is a carrier of fasteners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Fax: (213) 232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces Redhair Employment Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Brian R. Redhair v.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation, Case
No. 34-2021-00295190-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb.
24, 2021).
The case arises from employment-related issues.
Progressive Casualty is an insurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
10045 SW 111th St.
Miami, FL 33176-3462
Telephone: (305) 439-7872
Facsimile: (305) 270-3203
R&A TOWING: Faces Jones Suit Over Unlawful Employment Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LEE JONES, JR., Individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. R&A TOWING, LLC, MILSTEAD AUTOMOTIVE, LTD,
MILSTEAD MANAGEMENT, LLC, AMY MILSTEAD, Case No. 4:21-cv-00618
(S.D. Tex., Feb. 25, 2021) seeks to recover damages incurred
because of the Defendants' unlawful retaliation, as well as recover
minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
Defendants' unlawful pay practices.
According to the complaint, Defendants were Plaintiff's joint,
single, or successor employer until February 14, 2020, when
Plaintiff's 13-year employment as a wrecker driver was unlawfully
terminated. The Defendants' adverse employment action was
retaliation for the Plaintiff's contemporaneous protective leave
under the Family Medical Leave Act.
The Plaintiff contends that he was a non-exempt employee and was
not paid an hourly wage. Instead, the Defendants paid him a
commission. He regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek
but Defendants did not pay him an overtime wage calculated on his
regular hourly wage. The Plaintiff sues on behalf of similarly
situated wrecker drivers and asks for collective action for all
those that join the suit.
The Defendants employ wrecker drivers assigned to postal stations
to retrieve and transport USPS vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Carlton Wilson, Esq.
Sonila Themeli, Esq.
WILSON WEHMEYER THEMELI, PLLC
12012 Wickchester Lane, 470-B
Houston, TX 77079
Telephone: (713) 670-6891
E-mail: carl@wwtlawyers.com
sthemeli@wwtlawyers.com
RAWNATURE5 CORPORATION: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rawnature5
Corporation. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Rawnature5 Corporation doing business as: Koia, Case No.
1:21-cv-01359 (E.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Koia -- https://drinkkoia.com/ -- delivers plant-based drinks
packed with plant protein & made with little sugar.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
REGION BANK: Clampitt Sues Over Bank Staff's Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
TRACEY CLAMPITT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00036-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., March 7, 2021) is a collective
and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Indiana
Wage Payment Act, and the common law of Indiana.
The Plaintiff begun working with the Defendant from in or around
June 2007 until she voluntarily ended her employment in or around
July 2018. She was one of the non-exempt, hourly paid employees
employed by the Defendant in the positions of Bankers, Tellers,
Head Tellers, Financial Relationship Specialists, who performed
Opening Procedures from September 23, 2016 through in or around
April 2019 uncompensated.
The Plaintiff asserts that although she and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek, the Defendant failed to properly pay all overtime wages
due to them at one and one-half times their regular rate for each
hour worked more than 40 hours per workweek and failed to
accurately record all of the time they worked.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages, as well
as liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses and reasonable
legal fees, compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest
at the applicable legal rate, and other relief as the Court deems
fair and equitable.
Regions Bank is bank operating in Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Highway North, Ste. 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Tel: (856) 685-7420
Fax: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
mmiller@swartz-legal.com
SKY GLOBAL: Construction Workers Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rene Gutierrez, Luis Sevilla, Cesar Meza, Efrain Garcia and Kleber
Conforme, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sky Global Concrete Corp. and Gregorio
Barrera, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00845, (E.D. N.Y., February 16,
2021), seeks to recover damages for violations of New York State
labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act, compensatory and
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and all other
legal and equitable remedies.
Sky Global Concrete is a construction company where Plaintiffs were
employed as construction workers. They claim to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per day without overtime premium,
spread-of-hours premium and denied accurate wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Email: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com
SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Morgan Balks at Great Outdoors Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MORGAN v. SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE HOLDINGS, INC., JON BARKER,
MARTHA BEJAR, PHILIP C. WILLIAMSON, CHRISTOPHER
EASTLAND, GREGORY P. HICKEY, RICHARD MCBEE, and JOSEPH P.
SCHNEIDER, Case No. 3:21-cv-01315 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2021) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated asserting claims Sportsman's and the members of
Sportsman's Board of Directors for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking to enjoin the vote on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which Sportsman's will be
acquired by Great Outdoors Group through Great Outdoors Group's
subsidiary Phoenix Merger Sub I, Inc.
On December 21, 2020, Sportsman's issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
December 21, 2020 to sell Sportsman's Warehouse to Great Outdoors
Group. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Sportsman's
Warehouse stockholder will receive $18.00 in cash for each share of
Sportsman's Warehouse common stock they own.
On February 16, 2021, Sportsman's Warehouse filed a Schedule 14A
Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which
recommends that Sportsman's Warehouse stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning the Company's financial projections and the
data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that
support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial
advisor, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, the suit says.
In short, unless remedied, Sportsman's Warehouse's public
stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy
Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them
from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on
the Proposed Transaction, added the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.
The Plaintiff is, and has been, a continuous stockholder of
Sportsman's Warehouse.
Sportsman's Warehouse is an outdoor sporting goods retailer focused
on meeting the 7 everyday needs of the seasoned outdoor veteran,
the first-time participant, and everyone in between. The Individual
Defendants are directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. No. 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
STELLANTIS NV: Guerrero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Michael Guerrero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stellantis N.V., Stellantis Foundation,
Stellantis US LLC and FCA US LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00372,
(N.D. Ohio, February 16, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
Defendants design, manufacture, and sell or distribute vehicles
under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, FIAT and Alfa Romeo brands.
On January 16, 2021, FCA US LLC merged with Peugeot S.A. and the
combined company was renamed "Stellantis." Guerrero worked at
Defendants' Streetsboro, Ohio location as a "picker" from
approximately early-November 2020 through approximately mid-January
2021. He claims to have regularly worked more than 40 hours per
workweek without overtime compensation. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 824-5770
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
TACOS GRAND: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL DE LA LUZ AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TACOS GRAND CENTRAL, INC. (D/B/A
TACOS TIMES SQUARE); CESAR HERNANDEZ; ELIAS DOE; and RODOLFO
HERNANDEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01963 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 5,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as delivery
worker.
TACOS GRAND CENTRAL, INC. owns and operates a taco restaurant,
located at New York, New York under the name "Tacos Times Square."
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
TANGE DESIGN: Lalli Sues Over Inaccessible Website to Blind Users
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GABRIEL LALLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TANGE DESIGN, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-00420-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read Website content using his
computer.
The Plaintiff asserts he has encountered multiple access barriers,
during his numerous visits to the Defendant's Website at
https://www.tangedesign.com/, which denied him full and equal
access to the facilities, goods, and services offered to the public
and made available to the public on the Defendant's Website. These
access barriers on the Defendant's Website have deterred the
Plaintiff from visiting the Defendant's physical location and
enjoying it equal to sighted individuals because he was unable to
find the location and hours of operation of the Defendant's
showroom on its Website.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide him and
other similarly situated visually impaired consumers with equal
access to the Website.
On behalf of himself and others similarly situated legally blind
and visually impaired persons, the Plaintiff seeks a preliminary
and permanent injunction requiring the Defendant to take steps
necessary to make its Website readily accessible to and usable by
visually impaired individuals, as well as statutory minimum
damages, reasonable attorney' fees and expenses, pre-judgment
interest, litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Tange Design, Inc. offers its goods and services to the public
through its Website. The Defendant's gallery depicting previous
fine linens and decor rentals, party accessories, fine linen
services, collections for events, and customizable invitations.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
THRYV INC: Fry Seeks Call Center Staff's Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
ROY FRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THRYV, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00283-MTS (E.D. Mo., March 5, 2021) brings this collective
and class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
illegal pay policy that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Call Center
Worker.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant technically classified him
and other similarly situated Call Center Workers as non-exempt from
overtime, but they were treated as exempt from overtime at times.
Despite routinely working more than 40 hours per week, they were
only paid for 40 hours of work per week. The Defendant did not pay
them their lawfully earned overtime premium at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime
rate, all liquidated damages and penalties, all costs and
attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.
Thryv, Inc. is a print and digital marketing company that delivers
cloud-based business software on a subscription basis, as well as a
host of marketing products, to over 400,000 small businesses in the
U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel: (816) 945-7110
Fax: (816) 945-7118
E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
- and –
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
THE HODGSON LAW FIRM
3609 SW Pryor Road
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
Tel: (816) 600-0117
Fax: (816) 600-0137
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
TS TRANSPORTING: Trevino-Barron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TS Transporting Inc.
The case is styled as Jeronimo Trevino-Barron, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public v. TS Transporting Inc., a California corporation, Case No.
BCV-21-100566 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 15, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
Ts Transporting, Inc. -- https://www.tstransportation.com/ -- is a
licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running
freight hauling business from Bakersfield, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
TWITCH INTERACTIVE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01651
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.twitch.tv, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a live streaming service company, and owns and
operates the Website offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which the Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State. The Defendant offers the commercial
Website to the public. The goods and services offered by Defendant
include ability to browse subscriptions for purchase, view a blog,
obtain defendant's contact information, and related goods and
services available online.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
WADDELL & REED: Wheeler Balks at Merger Deal With Macquarie
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACOB WHEELER v. WADDELL & REED FINANCIAL, INC., THOMAS C.
GODLASKY, KATHIE J. ANDRADE, SHARILYN S. GASAWAY, JAMES A. JESSEE,
KATHRINE M.A. KLINE, DENNIS E. LOGUE, MICHAEL F. MORRISSEY, PHILIP
J. SANDERS, and JERRY W. WALTON, Case No. 5:21-cv-01326 (N.D.
Calif., Feb. 24, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated alleging that Waddell & Reed and the
members of Waddell & Reed's Board of Directors violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, and seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Waddell & Reed will be acquired by
Macquarie Management Holdings, Inc. and Merry Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub").
On December 2, 2020, Waddell & Reed issued a press release
announcing that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated December 2, 2020 (the Merger Agreement) to sell Waddell &
Reed to Macquarie. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
Waddell & Reed stockholder will receive $25.00 in cash for each
share of Waddell & Reed common stock they own (the Merger
Consideration). The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately
$1.7 billion.
On February 17, 2021, Waddell & Reed filed a Schedule 14A
Definitive Proxy Statement (the Proxy Statement) with the SEC. The
Proxy Statement, which recommends that Waddell & Reed stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents
material information concerning the Company's financial projections
and the financial analyses supporting the fairness opinion provided
by the Board's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC. The
Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading
Proxy Statement in violation of 26 Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, the Plaintiff contends.
In short, unless remedied, Waddell & Reed's public stockholders
will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on
the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act
violations are cured, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff is and has been a continuous stockholder of Waddell &
Reed.
Waddell & Reed is a holding company that, through its subsidiaries,
provides investment management and advisory services, investment
product underwriting and distribution, and shareholder services
administration to a group of mutual funds and institutional
accounts. Waddell & Reed also provides wealth management services,
primarily to retail clients through Waddell & Reed, Inc. (W&R), and
independent financial advisors associated with W&R, who provide
financial planning and advice to their clients. As of December 31,
2020, Waddell & Reed's asset management business had $74.8 billion
of assets under management and its wealth management business had
assets under administration of $69.7 billion. The Individual
Defendants have been directors of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. No. 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
WORKHORSE GROUP: Faces Farrar Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAM FARRAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WORKHORSE GROUP, INC., DUANE HUGHES, and
STEVE SCHRADER, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02072 (C.D. Cal., Mar.
8, 2021) is an action by the Plaintiff and the Class who purchased
the securities of Workhorse between July 7, 2020 and February 23,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements pertaining to the
Company's business, operational and financial results, which were
known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was merely
hoping that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its
Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or
indication from United States Postal Service ("USPS") that this was
the case; (2) the Company had concealed the fact that – as
revealed by the postmaster general in explaining the ultimate
decision not to select an electric vehicle – electrifying the
USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically
expensive; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Workhorse Group Inc. designs and builds battery-electric vehicles
and aircrafts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Still Defends PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc.'s Western Auto subsidiary, together with
other defendants (including Advance and other of its subsidiaries),
has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The plaintiffs have alleged that certain
products contained asbestos and were manufactured, distributed
and/or sold by the various defendants. Many of the cases pending
against us are in the early stages of litigation. While the damages
claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are
substantial, we believe many of these claims are at least partially
covered by insurance and historically asbestos claims against us
have been inconsistent in fact patterns alleged and immaterial. We
do not believe the cases currently pending will have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3twxJmK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 99 Pending Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., has 99 asbestos cases pending as
of December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to
be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Illinois state
courts.
"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of
December 31, 2020, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount
related to pending claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3rXBe5s
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Claims as of Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
AMETEK Inc. (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a
defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states "Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business
which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which
were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these
lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the
Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The
Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended
by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all
respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such
party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date,
no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of
any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good
and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend
them vigorously."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3cFADz0
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Assurant Has $22.1MM Reserves as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc., has exposure to asbestos, environmental and other
general liability claims arising from its participation in various
reinsurance pools from 1971 through 1985, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "This exposure arose from a contract that we
discontinued writing many years ago. We carried case reserves for
these liabilities, as recommended by the various pool managers, and
incurred but not reported (IBNR) reserves totaling $22.1 million
(before reinsurance) and $19.1 million (net of reinsurance) at
December 31, 2020. Estimation of these liabilities is subject to
greater than normal variation and uncertainty due to the general
lack of sufficiently detailed data, reporting delays and absence of
a generally accepted actuarial methodology for determining the
exposures. There are significant unresolved industry legal issues,
including such items as whether coverage exists and what
constitutes an occurrence. In addition, the determination of
ultimate damages and the final allocation of losses to financially
responsible parties are highly uncertain. Based on information
currently available, and after consideration of the reserves
reflected in the Consolidated Financial Statements, we do not
believe or expect that changes in reserve estimates for these
claims are likely to be material."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2OYHThg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $295MM in Asbestos Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has asbestos liability balance of $295 million
at At December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain of our subsidiaries are one of many
defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured with
components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such
components were acquired from third-party suppliers and were not
manufactured by any of our subsidiaries nor were the subsidiaries
producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. Additionally, pursuant
to the definitive purchase agreements related to the sale of our
Fluid Handling and Howden businesses, we have retained the
asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverage related to
these businesses, even though we do not retain an interest in the
ongoing operations of the Fluid Handling or Howden businesses.
"The Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the
asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims that will
be resolved in the next 15 years and has recorded that liability as
its best estimate. While it is reasonably possible that the
subsidiaries will incur costs after this period, the Company does
not believe the reasonably possible loss or a range of reasonably
possible losses is estimable at the current time. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be paid after the
next 15 years. Defense costs associated with asbestos-related
liabilities as well as costs incurred related to litigation against
the subsidiaries' insurers are expensed as incurred.
"Each subsidiary has separate insurance coverage acquired prior to
Company ownership of each independent entity. The Company has
evaluated the insurance assets for each subsidiary based upon the
applicable policy language and allocation methodologies, and law
pertaining to the affected subsidiary's insurance policies."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3s9KNyt
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Defends 137 Talc Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil
actions alleging that certain talcum powder products that were sold
prior to 1996 were contaminated with asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Most of these actions involve a number of
co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
suppliers of asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike
the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos. As of
December 31, 2020, there were 137 individual cases pending against
the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United
States, as compared to 121 cases as of December 31, 2019. During
the year ended December 31, 2020, 65 new cases were filed and 49
cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal
by the court. The value of the settlements in the years presented
was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to each
such period’s results of operations.
"A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending
and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes will
continue to be, covered by insurance policies issued by several
primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers, subject to
deductibles, exclusions, retentions and policy limits.
"While the Company and its legal counsel believe that these cases
are without merit and intend to challenge them vigorously, there
can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these
matters. With the exception of one case where the Company received
an adverse jury verdict in the second quarter of 2019 that the
Company has appealed, the range of reasonably possible losses in
excess of accrued liabilities disclosed above does not include any
amount relating to these cases because the amount of any possible
losses from such cases currently cannot be reasonably estimated."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Q75Kf2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Con Edison Faces Thousands of PI Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc., has suits brought in New York State and
federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants,
wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of
compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange &
Rockland Utilities, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The suits that have been resolved, which are
many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or
for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The
amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total
billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these
amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of
previous claims. At December 31, 2020, Con Edison and CECONY have
accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential
liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be
brought over the next 15 years. These estimates were based upon a
combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor
assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on
appeal may continue, to apply different standards for determining
liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied
historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that
there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess
of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to
estimate the amount or range of such loss. In addition, certain
current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers'
compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to
asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for
subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos
lawsuits and workers' compensation claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3lqT8ez
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firstenergy Defends Multiple Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. has been named as a defendant in pending asbestos
litigations involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants,
in several states. The majority of these claims arise out of
alleged past exposures by contractors (and in Pennsylvania, former
employees) at both currently and formerly owned electric generation
plants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In addition, asbestos and other regulated
substances are, and may continue to be, present at currently owned
facilities where suitable alternative materials are not available.
We believe that any remaining asbestos at our facilities is
contained and properly identified in accordance with applicable
governmental regulations, including OSHA. The continued presence of
asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities,
however, could result in additional actions being brought against
us. This is further complicated by the fact that many diseases,
such as mesothelioma and cancer, have long latency periods in which
the disease process develops, thus making it impossible to
accurately predict the types and numbers of such claims in the near
future. While insurance coverages exist for many of these pending
asbestos litigations, others have no such coverages, resulting in
FirstEnergy being responsible for all defense expenditures, as well
as any settlements or verdict payouts."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3lpBRSM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Still Faces Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
GATX Corporation and several of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Some of these proceedings include claims for
punitive as well as compensatory damages. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or
premises liability. In addition, demand has been made against GATX
for asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in
connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3qRZRPv
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intl. Paper Reports $115MM Asbestos Liabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company has $115 million total recorded
liability with respect to pending and future asbestos-related
claims, net of estimated insurance recoveries as of December 31,
2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various
asbestos-related personal injury litigation, in both state and
federal court, primarily in relation to the prior operations of
certain companies previously acquired by the Company. The Company
regularly conducts a comprehensive legal review of its asbestos
liabilities and reviews recent and historical claims data. During
the second quarter of 2020, as previously disclosed, we adjusted
our estimated net liability associated with asbestos-related
litigation concerning products sold by Champion International
Corporation prior to our acquisition of Champion in 2000 to revise
the time period associated with anticipated future claims through
2059, a commonly viewed end point when such claims are more
predictable. We concluded the adjustment of $43 million to increase
this net liability, which resulted in a liability of $75 million,
net of estimated insurance recoveries, was not material to any
period. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur
losses in excess of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos-related matters, we do not believe material losses are
probable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3lmyWKK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Subsidiaries Still Defends PI Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc's subsidiaries, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, have been
sued along with many other companies in product liability lawsuits
alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) that contained
asbestos. To the extent that these third-party parts may have
contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other)
material and was non-friable.
"Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that
may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty
and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the
timing, severity, quality, quantity, and resolution of claims. The
methodology used to project future asbestos costs is based largely
on the Company's recent experience in resolving asbestos claims. To
estimate the Company's exposure for pending claims, we use recent
dismissal rates and settlement averages to calculate the expected
cost of those cases. To estimate the unasserted claims, the Company
relies on previously conducted epidemiological studies estimating
the population of U.S. workers across 11 different industry and
occupation categories believed to have been exposed to asbestos. We
use relevant information from those studies to calculate an
estimate of the number of claims to be compensated by the Company
and then apply our recent experience on settlement averages to
calculate the estimated costs to be incurred to resolve those
unasserted claims. In addition, the estimate is augmented for the
costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system. The asbestos
liability has not been discounted to present value as the timing of
future cash flows may vary. The Company retains a consulting firm
to assist management in estimating our potential exposure to
pending asbestos claims and for claims estimated to be filed in the
future. The methodology to project future asbestos costs is one in
which the underlying assumptions are separately assessed for their
reasonableness and then each is used as an input to the liability
estimate.
"The liability estimate is most sensitive to assumptions
surrounding mesothelioma and lung cancer claims, as together, the
estimated costs to resolve pending and estimated future
mesothelioma and lung cancer claims represent approximately 98% of
the indemnity liability, but only 33% of pending claims.
"The assumptions used by the Company are interdependent and no one
factor predominates in estimating the asbestos liability. While
there are other potential inputs to the model used to estimate our
asbestos exposures for pending and estimated future claims, our
methodology relies on the best input available for each individual
assumption and, due to the interdependencies, does not create a
range of reasonably possible outcomes. Projecting future asbestos
costs is subject to numerous variables and uncertainties that are
inherently difficult to predict. In addition to the uncertainties
surrounding the key assumptions, additional uncertainty related to
asbestos claims arise from the long latency period prior to the
manifestation of an asbestos-related disease, changes in available
medical treatments and associated medical costs, changes in
plaintiff behavior resulting from bankruptcies of other companies
that are potential defendants or co-defendants, uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, and the impact of potential legislative or judicial
changes.
"We record a corresponding asbestos-related asset that represents
our best estimate of probable insurance recoveries related to the
recorded asbestos liability. In developing this estimate, the
Company considers coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements
with its insurers, as well as a number of additional factors,
including expected levels of future cost recovery, the financial
viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses
will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years
covered by those policies, the extent to which settlement and
defense costs will be reimbursed by the insurance policies, and
interpretation of the various policy and contract terms and limits
and their interrelationships. The asbestos-related asset has not
been discounted to present value, consistent with the asbestos
liability as the timing of the insurance recoveries, including
those under coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements, is
dependent on the timing of payments of the asbestos liability.
"The Company retains a consulting firm to assist management in
estimating probable insurance recoveries related to pending and
future asbestos claims. The analysis of policy terms and the
likelihood of recovery from solvent insurers are provided by
external legal counsel and includes a risk assessment where policy
terms or other factors are not certain and allocates asbestos
settlement and defense costs among our insurers. The aggregate
amount of insurance available to the Company was acquired over many
years and from many different carriers. The Company is in
litigation with certain of these carriers to enforce its right to
coverage for asbestos-related losses under policies they or their
predecessors issued. Amounts deemed not recoverable generally are
due from insurers that are insolvent.
"Based on the estimated undiscounted asbestos liability as of
December 31, 2020, we have estimated that we will be able to
recover 48% of asbestos indemnity and defense costs from our
insurers. However, actual insurance reimbursements may vary
significantly from period to period and the anticipated recovery
rate is expected to decline over time due to exhaustion of policies
and the insolvency of certain insurers. Future recovery rates may
be impacted (positively or negatively) by other factors, such as
future insurance settlements, unforeseen insolvencies, and judicial
determinations relevant to our coverage program, which are
difficult to predict.
"Our estimated asbestos liability and related receivables are based
on management’s best estimate of future events largely based on
past experience; however, past experience may not prove a reliable
predictor of the future. Future events affecting the key
assumptions and other variables for either the asbestos liability
or the related receivables could cause actual costs and recoveries
to be materially higher or lower than currently estimated. For
example, a significant upward or downward trend in the number of
claims filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the
jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product
identification could change the estimated liability, as would
substantial adverse verdicts at trial. A legislative solution,
structured settlement transaction, or significant change in
relevant case law could also change the estimated liability.
Further, the bankruptcy of an insurer or settlements with our
insurers, whether through coverage-in-place agreements or policy
buyouts, could change the estimated amount of recoveries.
40
"Due to these uncertainties, it is difficult to predict the
ultimate cost of resolving all pending and estimated unasserted
asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that the future events
affecting the key factors and other variables in estimating our
liability could have a material adverse effect on our financial
statements.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/30OfLQB
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Faces 2,769 Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., is a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by approximately
2,769 plaintiffs as of December 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "In each instance, we are one of a large number
of defendants. The asbestos claimants allege that exposure to
asbestos contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs to
develop adverse pulmonary diseases, including mesothelioma and
other lung cancers.
"Since January 1, 1995, we have been a co-defendant in asbestos
cases that have been resolved as follows: 55,493 of those claims
were dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,008 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.
"The long-term impact of the asbestos loss contingency, in the
aggregate, on operating results, operating cash flows and access to
capital markets is difficult to assess, particularly since claims
are in many different stages of development and we benefit
significantly from cost-sharing with co-defendants and insurance
carriers. While we intend to contest these lawsuits vigorously, and
believe we have applicable insurance relating to these claims,
there are several risks and uncertainties that may affect our
liability for personal injury claims relating to exposure to
asbestos, including the future impact of changing cost sharing
arrangements or a change in our overall trial experience.
"Asbestos use in welding consumables in the U.S. ceased in 1981."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3bQTqYS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mercer Intl. Follows Asbestos Disposal Guideline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercer International Inc. is subject to regulations that require
the handling and disposal of asbestos in a prescribed manner if a
property undergoes a major renovation or demolition, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Mercer International states, "Otherwise, the Company is not
required to remove asbestos from its facilities. Generally asbestos
is found on steam and condensate piping systems as well as certain
cladding on buildings and in building insulation throughout older
facilities. The Company's obligation for the proper removal and
disposal of asbestos products from the Company's mills is a
conditional asset retirement obligation. As a result of the
longevity of the Company's mills, due in part to the maintenance
procedures and the fact that the Company does not have plans for
major changes that require the removal of asbestos, the timing of
the asbestos removal is indeterminate. As a result, the Company is
currently unable to reasonably estimate the fair value of its
asbestos removal and disposal obligation. The Company will
recognize a liability in the period in which sufficient information
is available to reasonably estimate its fair value."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3bvFUcV
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Still Faces Personal Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., is and has been a defendant in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These suits principally allege that the
plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.
MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products
nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing
or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits
principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain
research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's
employees during the period from the 1920s through approximately
the 1950s and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of
certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things,
improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks.
MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these
cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is
uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including
differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature
of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal
merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of
resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure,
including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial
rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits
under appropriate circumstances.
Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional
tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with
asbestos. MLIC’s defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs
— it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that
allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any
actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC’s conduct was not the cause of the
plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the
dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with
respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the
litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing
claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's
motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable
decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to
date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively
against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending
claims at trials.
"The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is
subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting
its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The
availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to
predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates,
including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims,
the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future
claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a
particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the
jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of
tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs
to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place
after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the
impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.
"The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.
"The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded
asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following
elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its
understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the
probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims
already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet
paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its
recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i)
the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and
(iii) the cost to defend claims.
"MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from
asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience,
reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos
liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its
asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These
variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its regular
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has
updated its recorded liability for asbestos-related claims to $425
million at December 31, 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3bUtcor
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety's Subsidiary Faces 2,878 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated's subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC ("MSA LLC") was named as a defendant in 1,622
cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 2,878 claims at December
31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Cumulative trauma product liability claims
involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and
coal dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long
periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis,
mesothelioma or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. A reserve has been
established with respect to estimated amounts for cumulative trauma
product liability claims currently asserted and incurred but not
reported ("IBNR") cumulative trauma product liability claims.
Because our cumulative trauma product liability risk is subject to
inherent uncertainties, and since MSA LLC is largely self-insured,
there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur
losses in excess of presently recorded liabilities. These factors
may develop over time or may be the result of sudden unfavorable
events within a single reporting period. Associated losses could
have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results,
financial condition and liquidity, or could result in volatility
from period to period.
"We will adjust the reserve from time to time based on developments
in MSA LLC's actual claims experience, the claims environment or
other significant changes in the factors underlying the assumptions
used in establishing the reserve. Each of these factors may
increase or decrease significantly within an individual period
depending on, among other things, the timing of claims filings or
settlements, or litigation outcomes during a particular period that
are especially favorable or unfavorable to MSA LLC. We accordingly
consider MSA LLC's claims experience over multiple periods and/or
whether there are changes in MSA LLC's claims experience and trends
that are likely to continue for a significant time into the future
in determining whether to make an adjustment to the reserve, rather
than evaluating such factors solely in the short term. Any future
adjustments to the reserve may be material and could materially
impact future periods in which the reserve is adjusted.
"In the normal course of business, MSA LLC makes payments to settle
these types of cumulative trauma product liability claims and for
related defense costs, and records receivables for the amounts
believed to be recoverable under insurance. MSA LLC has recorded
insurance receivables totaling $97.0 million and notes receivables
of $52.3 million at December 31, 2020. Since MSA LLC is now largely
self-insured for cumulative trauma claims, additional amounts
recorded as insurance receivables will be limited. Amounts recorded
as insurance receivables are based on the amount of future losses
presently recorded in the cumulative trauma product liability
reserve. These projected future losses are used to calculate
contingent reimbursements deemed probable of collection under
negotiated Coverage-in-Place Agreements. Reimbursements are
calculated based on modeled assumptions, including claims
composition, claims characteristics, and timing (each of which are
relevant to calculating reimbursement under the terms of
Coverage-In-Place Agreements). These factors, and the potential for
future insurer insolvencies, could affect the timing and amount of
receivables actually collected in any given period or in total."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3cKkLLk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Corp. Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newmarket Corporation is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
involving exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These cases involve exposure to asbestos in
premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by
subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never manufactured, sold, or
distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these
cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and involve
multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual for these proceedings,
as well as a receivable for expected insurance recoveries.
"The accrual for our premises asbestos liability related to
currently asserted claims is based on the following assumptions and
factors:
* We are often one of many defendants. This factor influences both
the number of claims settled against us and the indemnity cost
associated with such resolutions.
* The estimated percent of claimants in each case that, after
discovery, will actually make a claim against us, out of the total
number of claimants in a case, is based on a level consistent with
past experience and current trends.
* We utilize average comparable plaintiff cost history as the basis
for estimating pending premises asbestos-related claims. These
claims are filed by both former contractors and former employees
who worked at past and present company locations. We also include
an estimated inflation factor in the calculation.
* No estimate is made for unasserted claims.
* The estimated recoveries from insurance and Albemarle Corporation
(a former operation of our company) for these cases are based on,
and are consistent with, the 2005 settlement agreements with The
Travelers Indemnity Company.
"Based on the above assumptions, we have provided an undiscounted
liability related to premises asbestos claims of $9 million at
December 31, 2020 and $12 million at December 31, 2019. The
liabilities related to premises asbestos claims are included in
accrued expenses (current portion) and other noncurrent liabilities
on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Certain of these costs are
recoverable through the settlement agreements with The Travelers
Indemnity Company and with Albemarle Corporation. The receivable
for these recoveries related to premises asbestos liabilities was
$4 million at December 31, 2020 and $6 million at December 31,
2019. These receivables are included in trade and other accounts
receivable, net on the Consolidated Balance Sheets for the current
portion. The noncurrent portion is included in deferred charges and
other assets."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3l5yJv2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair's Subsidiaries Has 630 Pending Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries have approximately 630 claims pending as
of December 31, 2020, substantially all of which relate to its
discontinued operations, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Our subsidiaries, along with numerous other
companies, are named as defendants in a substantial number of
lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
materials, substantially all of which relate to our discontinued
operations. These cases typically involve product liability claims
based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution
of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were
attached to or used with asbestos-containing components
manufactured by third parties. Each case typically names a large
number of product manufacturers, service providers and premises
owners. Historically, our subsidiaries have been identified as
defendants in asbestos-related claims. Our strategy has been, and
continues to be, to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having
unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and settling claims before trial
only where appropriate. We cannot predict with certainty the extent
to which we will be successful in litigating or otherwise resolving
lawsuits in the future, and we continue to evaluate different
strategies related to asbestos claims filed against us including
entity restructuring and judicial relief. Unfavorable rulings,
judgments or settlement terms could have a material adverse impact
on our business and financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows. In addition, most of the asbestos claims against us are
covered by liability insurance policies from many years ago. As our
insurers resolve claims relating to past policy periods, the
aggregate coverage provided by those policies erodes. If we exhaust
our coverage under those policies, we will be exposed to potential
uninsured losses."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3t3VUJd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Subsidiaries Faces 7,000 PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's certain subsidiaries are co-defendants in
various lawsuits in a number of U.S. jurisdictions alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used
in certain components of our products, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain Water Management subsidiaries are also
subject to asbestos litigation. As of December 31, 2020, Zurn and
numerous other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately
6,000 asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 7,000
claims. Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by
exposure to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn. Zurn did not manufacture
asbestos or asbestos components. Instead, Zurn purchased them from
suppliers. These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense
strategy funded by insurers.
"As of December 31, 2020, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims described above, as well
as the claims expected to be filed in the next ten years, to be
approximately $59.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance
carriers to pay approximately $42.0 million in the next ten years
on such claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being
paid in subsequent years. The $59.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims. There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives. As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial. The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other
liabilities within the consolidated balance sheets.
"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2020, is in excess
of the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that
all current claims are covered by insurance.
"As of December 31, 2020, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of $59.0 million, which corresponds to
the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered by
available insurance and is currently determined to be probable of
recovery. However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits. Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers. The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the consolidated balance sheets.
"Certain Company subsidiaries were named as defendants in a number
of individual and class action lawsuits in various United States
courts claiming damages due to the alleged failure or anticipated
failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing systems in homes
and other structures. In fiscal 2013, the Company reached a
court-approved agreement to settle the liability underlying this
litigation. The settlement was designed to resolve, on a national
basis, the Company's overall exposure for both known and unknown
claims related to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of
such fittings, subject to the right of eligible class members to
opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims independently.
The settlement utilized a seven year claims fund, which was capped
at $20.0 million, and was funded in installments over the seven
year period based on claim activity and minimum funding criteria.
The seven year filing period expired on April 1, 2020. Any claims
after April 1, 2020 are time barred. The Company expects to make
payment on any remaining timely filed claims and close out the
settlement fund. The Company has recorded an accrual for the
balance of this liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2Oj6L3b
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rogers Corp. Faces 561 PI Cases at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation is a defendant in 561 asbestos-related product
liability cases as of December 31, 2020, compared to 592 cases as
of December 31, 2019, with the change reflecting new cases,
dismissals, settlements and other dispositions, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "We, like many other industrial companies, have
been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits filed in courts
across the country by persons alleging personal injury from
exposure to products containing asbestos. We have never mined,
milled, manufactured or marketed asbestos; rather, we made and
provided to industrial users a limited number of products that
contained encapsulated asbestos, but we stopped manufacturing these
products in the late 1980s. In virtually all of the cases against
us, the plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages above a
jurisdictional minimum against multiple defendants who may have
manufactured, sold or used asbestos-containing products to which
the plaintiffs were allegedly exposed and from which they
purportedly suffered injury. Most of these cases are being
litigated in Maryland, Illinois, Missouri and New York; however, we
are also defending cases in other states. We intend to vigorously
defend these cases, primarily on the basis of the plaintiffs’
inability to establish compensable loss as a result of exposure to
our products. As of December 31, 2020, the estimated liability and
estimated insurance recovery for all current and future indemnity
and defense costs projected through 2064 was $73.2 million and
$66.8 million, respectively.
"The indemnity and defense costs of our asbestos-related product
liability litigation to date have been substantially covered by
insurance. As of December 31, 2020, our consolidated statements of
financial position include $6.4 million of estimated
asbestos-related expenses that exceed asbestos-related insurance
coverage for all current and future indemnity and defense costs
projected through 2064.
"The Company's consolidated asbestos-related liabilities and
asbestos-related insurance receivables balances were $73.2 million
and $66.8 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2020.
Management reviews the asbestos-related projections annually in the
fourth quarter of each year unless facts and circumstances
materially change during the year, at which time management would
analyze these projections. Management recognizes a liability for
asbestos-related contingencies that are probable of occurrence and
reasonably estimable. In connection with the recognition of
liabilities for asbestos related matters, management records
asbestos-related insurance receivables that are deemed probable.
Estimates of asbestos-related contingent liabilities and related
insurance receivables are based on an independent actuarial
analysis and an independent insurance usage analysis, respectively,
prepared annually by third parties. The actuarial analysis contains
numerous assumptions, including the number of claims that might be
received, the type and severity of the disease alleged by each
claimant, the long latency period associated with asbestos
exposure, dismissal rates, average indemnity costs, average defense
costs, costs of medical treatment, the financial resources of other
companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact of potential
changes in legislative or judicial standards, including potential
tort reform. The insurance usage analysis considers, among other
things, applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, the
solvency and historical payment experience of various insurance
carriers, the likelihood of recovery as estimated by external legal
counsel and existing insurance settlements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3rVkHz3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $21.4MM Loss Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc., has a total recorded loss expense
reserves of $21.4 million as of December 31, 2020 and $21.6 million
as of December 31, 2019, for asbestos and environmental claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Our general liability, excess liability, and
homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental
claims. The emergence of these claims occurs over an extended
period and is highly unpredictable.
"Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or
property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants
other than asbestos. Our exposure to environmental liability is
primarily due to (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior
to the absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii)
residential underground storage tank leaks, mainly in New Jersey.
The landfill claims stem primarily from insured exposures in
municipal government, and small non-manufacturing commercial risks.
Some of these claims relate to specific landfill sites on the
National Priorities List ("NPL") by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("USEPA"). We currently have reserves for six
policyholders related to three NPL sites. The underground storage
tank claims relate largely to our homeowners policies. In 2007, we
introduced a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey homeowners
policies that greatly limited this exposure from that point
forward.
"Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have
occurred from exposure to products containing asbestos. Our primary
exposure arises from policies issued to various distributors of
asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing
materials. At December 31, 2020, asbestos claims constituted 23% of
our $21.4 million net asbestos and environmental reserves, compared
to 23% of our $21.6 million net asbestos and environmental reserves
at December 31, 2019.
"Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our
centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit.
That unit establishes case reserves on individual claims based upon
the facts and circumstances known at a given point in time, which
are supplemented by bulk IBNR reserves.
"Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is
difficult because these claims have delayed and inconsistent
reporting patterns. In addition, there are significant
uncertainties associated with estimating critical reserve
assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs,
potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages,
litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal
legislative changes. Prior to the introduction of the absolute
pollution exclusion endorsement in the mid-1980's, we primarily
wrote Standard Personal Lines, which has limited our exposure to
asbestos and environmental claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3v9RO46
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has Dispute on Coverage Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., continues to be involved in
disputes, including litigation, with a number of policyholders,
some of whom are in bankruptcy, over coverage for asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Travelers Companies states, "Many coverage disputes with
policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements.
Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is
difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations.
Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive
releases which are favorable to the Company, but which could result
in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated.
Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk
associated with these disputes, it remains difficult to predict the
ultimate cost of these claims. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.
"The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the
original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims. Factors underlying these claim filings include continued
intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the
focus by plaintiffs on defendants, such as manufacturers of talcum
powder, who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands
against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in
the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege
very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence
of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the
courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease
manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on
an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence
of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not
traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes
to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns
experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims
and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by
the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available
to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or
through the insolvency of other participating insurers.
"In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages
arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is
possible that other direct actions against insurers, including the
Company, could be filed in the future. It is difficult to predict
the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs
would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on
novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable
rulings in certain jurisdictions.
"Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder with open claims at least annually.
Among the factors the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any
umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated
claim adjustment expense; the potential role of other insurance;
the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos
claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses
or determinations, if any, including the determination as to
whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation
claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if
any, for that claim.
"The Company's net asbestos reserves at December 31, 2020 and 2019
were $1.34 billion and $1.28 billion, respectively, and include
case reserves, IBNR reserves and reserves for the costs of
defending asbestos-related coverage litigation. IBNR reserves
include amounts for new claims and adverse development on existing
policyholders, as well as reserves for claims from policyholders
reporting asbestos claims for the first time and for policyholders
for which there is, or may be, litigation. Asbestos reserves also
include amounts related to certain policyholders with whom the
Company has entered into permanent settlement agreements, which are
based on the expected payout for each policyholder under the
applicable agreement. Additionally, a portion of the asbestos
reserves relates to assumed reinsurance contracts primarily
consisting of reinsurance of excess coverage, including various
pool participations.
"The Company conducts an annual review of domestic policyholders
with open asbestos claims. Policyholders are identified for this
review based upon, among other factors: a combination of past
payments and current case reserves in excess of a specified
threshold (currently $100,000), perceived level of exposure, number
of reported claims, products/completed operations and potential
“non-product” exposures, size of policyholder and geographic
distribution of products or services sold by the policyholder.
"In the third quarter of 2020, the Company completed its annual
in-depth asbestos claim review, including a review of policyholders
with open claims and litigation cases for potential product and
"non-product" liability, and noted the continuation of the
following trends: a high level of litigation activity in certain
jurisdictions involving individuals alleging serious
asbestos-related illness, primarily involving mesothelioma claims;
while overall payment patterns have been generally stable, there
has been an increase in severity for certain policyholders due to
the high level of litigation activity; and a moderate level of
asbestos-related bankruptcy activity.
"The number of policyholders with open asbestos claims declined
slightly while gross asbestos-related payments increased slightly,
in each case when compared to 2019. Payments on behalf of these
policyholders continue to be influenced by a high level of
litigation activity in a limited number of jurisdictions where
individuals alleging serious asbestos-related injury, primarily
mesothelioma, continue to target defendants who were not
traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation.
"The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder, as
well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies, judicial
rulings and legislative actions. The Company also analyzes
developing payment patterns among policyholders and the assumed
reinsurance component of reserves, as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience,
year-by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves, and the Company's evaluations have not resulted
in a reliable method to determine a meaningful average asbestos
defense or indemnity payment.
"The completion of these reviews and analyses in 2020, 2019 and
2018 resulted in $295 million, $220 million and $225 million
increases, respectively, to the Company's net asbestos reserves. In
each year, the reserve increases were primarily driven by increases
in the Company's estimate of projected settlement and defense costs
related to a broad number of policyholders. The increase in the
estimate of projected settlement and defense costs primarily
resulted from payment trends that continue to be higher than
previously anticipated due to the continued high level of
mesothelioma claim filings and the impact of the current litigation
environment surrounding those claims. Over the past decade, the
property and casualty insurance industry, including the Company,
has experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve development with
regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company believes that over
that period there has been a reduction in the volatility associated
with the Company's overall asbestos exposure as the overall
asbestos environment has evolved from one dominated by exposure to
significant litigation risks, particularly coverage disputes
relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were asserting that
their claims were not subject to the aggregate limits contained in
their policies, to an environment primarily driven by a frequency
of litigation related to individuals with mesothelioma. The
Company's overall view of the current underlying asbestos
environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods, and there
remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to future
exposure to asbestos claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3eoJY0A
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Has 855 Active Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation was a defendant in approximately
855 active cases involving approximately 2,445 plaintiffs as of
December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants. About 1,540, or approximately 63 percent, of
these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. At December 31,
2019, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 800 cases
involving approximately 2,390 plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's
experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of
plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will
likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.
"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U. S. Steel fall
into three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos on the premises of U. S. Steel facilities; (2)
claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured
by U. S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and
maritime laws by employees of former operations of U. S. Steel.
"The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims.
"Further, U. S. Steel does not believe that an accrual for
unasserted claims is required. At any given reporting date, it is
probable that there are unasserted claims that will be filed
against the Company in the future. In 2019 and 2020, the Company
engaged an outside valuation consultant to assist in assessing its
ability to estimate an accrual for unasserted claims. This
assessment was based on the Company's settlement experience,
including recent claims trends. The analysis focused on settlements
made over the last several years as these claims are likely to best
represent future claim characteristics. After review by the
valuation consultant and U. S. Steel management, it was determined
that the Company could not estimate an accrual for unasserted
claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/38qFse1
*********
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 ***