/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 13, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 68 Headlines 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees 3D SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline 3M COMPANY: Blazio Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Brown Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Cox Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Green Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Harmon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Lueder Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Miller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Sarconi Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Sauer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Schaffer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing ADIDAS AMERICA: Employees Lose Bid to Remand Wage-and-Hour Suit ADVANTA SEEDS: Farmers Lose Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Seeds ALISAL UNION: Elementary Students Seek Class Certification ALKERMES PUBLIC: Midwest Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal ALLSTATE INVESTMENT: Underpays Administrative Assistant, Clark Says AMAZON.COM INC: Bookends & Beginnings Files Class-Action Suit AMDOCS LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 8 Deadline AMDOCS LIMITED: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Grace Suit Wins Final Approval ARGENTINA: Central Bank Measure 'Violates' Privacy Rights ARIA PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges ARIZONA: Shin Appeals Ruling in Parsons Prisoner Suit to 9th Cir. ARKANSAS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Frazier Suit Against DOC ASHEVILLE, NC: Funds From Class Action to be Donated to Nonprofits ATHENEX INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Breast Cancer Treatment ATHENEX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Omega Sues Over Monopoly of Crop Inputs Market BELLUS HEALTH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mesh Class Action Lawsuit Pending in Australia BP CORP: Judge Recommends Class Status for Pension Plan Suit BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Class Settlement Uphold Release of Detainees BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Settlement Reached in Landmark COVID-19 Suit BRISTOW GROUP: August 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CANOO INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline CANOO INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline CANOO INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline CANOO INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Martinez Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia CARDINAL HEALTH: Cal. Court Dismisses MEI's 1st Amended Complaint CAVIAR INC: Case Mgmt. & Pre-trial Order in Tiffin Suit Modified CELSION CORP: O'Connor Settlement Granted Final Approval CELSION CORP: Spar Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop Underway CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Garcia Employment Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Class Settlement in Rael Suit Gets Final Approval CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Chef Joins COVID-19 Claims Class Action CLEAN HARBORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fogg Suit Alleges COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Court Approves Pepe Class Settlement COSTCO WHOLESALE: Averts Class Action Over AirPod Charger Ads CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Seeks to Certify Hourly Employee Class CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed CV SCIENCES: Discovery in Smith Purported Class Suit Ongoing CYTODYN INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Ito-Stone Securities Class Action Underway DMG MORI: Arnold's Bid for Summary Judgment in FCRA Suit Granted DOLLAR TREE: Facing Zantac-Related Class Suit DOLLAR TREE: Smoked Almonds Related Class Suit Underway DOUG CONNOR: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice in Reguena DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar's Bid to Enjoin Arbitration Deal Granted EBANG INT'L: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Frank R. Cruz Announces Class Action Lawsuit EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 7 Deadline EBIX INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline EDWARD D. JONES: Huang's Bid to Enforce Schultz Settlement Denied EXPEDIA GROUP: Settles False Advertising Class Action With Hotels FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Ongoing FEDEX CORP: No Appeal Filed in Dismissal of New York Class Suit FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: District Court Dismissed Securities Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Claims in Chapman's Second Amended Suit Narrowed GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Chrome's Incognito Mode GOSHEN HOSPITAL: Faces Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over Negligence HALODINE LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says HEALTHCARE INFORMATION: Settles Class Action Suit for $2.8 Million HERTZ CORPORATION: Court Certifies Three Classes in Denicolo Suit HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC: Votes to Join Class Action Against Airbnb HILTON MANAGEMENT: Collins Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California IMPERIAL PARKING: Wash. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Alemu Suit JAKKS PACIFIC: Brown Putative Class Suit in Delaware Underway JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 19 Deadline JOHN TILLEY: Casey Rhoades Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates JUUL LABS: School District Suit Moved From D.N.J. to N.D. Cal. KATCH INC: Isidro Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages KDEM EATS: De Jesus Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages KELLOGG CO: Settlement Proposed in Cereals Consumer Class Action KEVIN KAUFFMAN: Class Certification Sought in Molina Suit LA CARRETA: June Deadline is Nearing to Join Class Action Lawsuit LA PURA: Suit Claims Over 'Free Trial' Skin Cream Scam Advance LEDGER SAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Customer Data Breach LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 5 Deadline LEO PHARMA: Faces Phyllis Levitt Suit Over Defective Picato Gel LGI HOMES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for 'Building Shoddy Homes' LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Fourth Investors Class Action Lawsuit LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims LOUISIANA HEALTH: Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Opelousas Suit LOUISIANA: Court Enters Judgment in Lewis Suit v. LSP at Angola LOUISIANA: Public Defense System Lawsuit Not a Class Action LOYAL SOURCE: Class Settlement in Ortega FCRA Suit Gets Prelim. Nod MAGELLAN HEALTH: Facing Anderson Putative Class Suit MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Class Action MERRILL LYNCH: Gamma Traders Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. MICHIGAN: Pearson Gets Leave to File Amended Complaint Against MDOC MONEYGRAM INT'L: The Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 7 Deadline NAT'L SPINE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Junk Fax Class Suit NAVISTAR INT'L: Dismissal of MaxxForce Engine Class Action Affirmed NEW SCHOOL: Vasquez Sues Over School Employees' Unpaid Wages NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Edwards-Mortley NEW YORK: Industry Suffers Setback in 421a Class Action Lawsuit NEW YORK: Jake Pankey Seeks Class Action Certification ONTARIO: Settlement Proposed in Class Action Lawsuit OREGON: Agrees to Settle Coronavirus Relief Class Action Lawsuit ORORA NORTH: Coleman Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Hirsch Sues Over Corporate Voting Rights PARTS DISTRIBUTION: Adams Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling to 3rd Cir PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Diamond Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari PIONEER NATURAL: Seeks 5th Circuit Review in Kennedy FLSA Suit PLAINS ALL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Newman FLSA Suit PLUG POWER: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of May 7 Deadline PLUG POWER: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline PORCELANA CORONA: Beteselassie Sues Over Defective Toilet Tanks POST FOODS: Judge Okays $15MM Consumer Class Action Settlement PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Housey Suit Over Deceptive Toothpaste Ads QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: To Explain Failure to Produce Docs in Mantha RA MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Derr Suit Pending REALREAL INC: N.D. California Dismisses Sanders' Rule 10b-5 Claims RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit RENEWABLE ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of May 3 Deadline RENEWABLE ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline RIVER CITY BANK: Faces Rodriguez Suit in California State Court ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krumenacker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ross Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to S.D. Fla. ROOT INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Judge Certifies Lawsuit Challenging Funding SAN DIEGO HOUSE: Cal. App. Tosses Appeal in Miliate Class Suit SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Question in Pearson Suit Certified to SJC SERVICE KING: Hearing on Class Status Bid Rescheduled to April 22 SIERRA INCOME: Fee Motion in Anderson Putative Class Suit Tossed SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: '33 Federal Action Settlement Granted Final OK SOS LIMITED: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Judge OKs Class Action Lawsuit Against Police T-MOBILE USA: Seeks Transfer of Class Action to Federal Court TGM PIZZA: Leiting Files Suit to Recover Unreimbursed Expenses TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MA: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Baez Class Suit TRAVEL GUARD: Gustafson Suit Stayed Pending Order on Bid to Dismiss TRIPLE V HOME: Faces Lymbertos Wage-and-Hour Suit in California UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Discrimination Suit Over Background Checks UNITED AIRLINES: USERRA Class Action Lawsuit Can Proceed UNITED CEREBRAL: Trapani Suit Alleges Improper Payment of Wages UNITED STATES: Commonwealth Seeks to Stop Bond Class Action UNITED STATES: Conservation Appraisers Strike Back at IRS With Suit UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Final OKs Over Navy Federal's $16M UNITED STATES: Marshals Service Seeks Dismissal of Class Action UNITI GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Boley to 3rd Cir. UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court Allows 401k Class Action Suit to Proceed UTGR INC: Final Approval of Settlement in Ramer Suit Granted VELODYNE LIDAR: Case Management Conference Set for May 26 VELODYNE LIDAR: Facing Putative Class Suit in California VELODYNE LIDAR: Facing Reese Putative Class Action VELODYNE LIDAR: Graf Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline VELODYNE LIDAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Putative Class Suit Dismissed VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Launch Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages WEBULL FINANCIAL: Williams Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. WEHOCOIFFEUR LLC: Faces Waters Employment Suit in California WELLS FARGO: Pension Fund Tapped to Lead Lawsuit Over Risky Loans XL FLEET: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline YAZAKI CORP: June 10 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set [*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Continue to Rise [*] Federal Judge Dismisses RESPA Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio [*] Global Corporate Exposure to Rule 10b-5 Suit Amounts to $37.8BB [*] Healthcare Data Privacy, Data Breach Class Action to Rise ********* 1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- 1Life Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to its collection of Annual Membership Fee. In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed by two former members against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the Company made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying the Annual Membership Fee, or AMF in violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel the plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, which motion was granted as to one plaintiff and denied as to the other. The Company is appealing the denial of its motion to compel arbitration and filed its appellate brief in November 2019. Appellate proceedings are delayed due to COVID-related court shutdowns. An arbitrator conducted arbitration between the Company and the plaintiff, and in June 2020, issued a decision that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable against the plaintiff. The Company filed its challenge to the arbitrator's decision in August 2020. The trial court upheld the arbitrator's decision, and the appellate court denied the Company's writ petition for review. The Company answered the complaint in November 2020, denying the allegations and asserting various defenses. In light of, among other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. Legal fees, net of amounts recoverable from the Company's insurance provider, have been recorded as general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations. Additional attorney's fees in excess of those covered will be expensed as incurred. 1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers in the United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California. 3D SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of the securities of 3D Systems Corp. (NYSE: DDD), between May 6, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for 3D Systems investors under the federal securities laws. To join the 3D Systems class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2049.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 3D Systems lacked proper internal controls over financial reporting; and (2) as a result, 3D Systems' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2049.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] 3M COMPANY: Blazio Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- ROMAN ANTHONY BLAZIO, SR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00762-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Blazio case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Brown Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN LEROY BROWN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00759-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Brown case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Cox Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ---------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER DALE COX v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00756-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Cox case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Green Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------ SHAWN GREEN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00760-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Green case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Harmon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY EDWARD HARMON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00758-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Harmon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Lueder Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER JOHN LUEDER III v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00757-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Lueder case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Miller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD MARK MILLER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00761-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Miller case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Sarconi Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH VINCENT SARCONI III v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00755-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Sarconi case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Sauer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------ AARON MICHAEL SAUER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00749-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Sauer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 3M COMPANY: Schaffer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN WALTER SCHAFFER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00748-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals, including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Schaffer case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com - and - Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2021, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. related to the data security incident involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc. On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaint alleges negligence by us, and seeks monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief, relating to a data security incident involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc., which was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016. Since 2009, the company had provided certain IT infrastructure outsourcing services to Starwood. On October 27, 2020, the court issued an order largely denying Accenture's motion to dismiss the claims against it. Accenture said, "We continue to believe the lawsuit is without merit and we will vigorously defend it. At present, we do not believe any losses from this matter will have a material effect on our results of operations or financial condition." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland. ADIDAS AMERICA: Employees Lose Bid to Remand Wage-and-Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- BloombergLaw reports that a proposed class of Adidas America Inc. employees who allege the company violated numerous wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code aren't entitled to have the case remanded to state court because the company showed the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold required for removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal district court in California ruled. The complaint alleges Adidas failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods, failed to accurately compensate the members of the proposed California class for missed meal and rest periods. [GN] ADVANTA SEEDS: Farmers Lose Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Seeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Daly at abc.net.au reports that a long-running legal battle between a group of sorghum farmers and a major seed company has ended with the Queensland Supreme Court dismissing the case. About 120 sorghum growers in New South Wales and Queensland joined the class action, arguing bags of MR43 Elite sorghum seed supplied by Advanta Seeds, formerly known as Pacific Seeds, were contaminated with the seeds of a weed called shattercane. The contaminated seed was advertised as 99 per cent pure and the plaintiffs claimed damages for negligence or misleading conduct on the part of the company. Advanta Seeds strenuously denied the allegations of negligence or breaches of duty and managing director Barry Croker said the company was pleased with today's ruling. "From here we intend to continue to invest in research, technology and new products and support those hardworking farming businesses who are the backbone of Australia's agricultural sector," he said. Mr Croker said Advanta would not make further comment on the case. The plaintiffs have 28 days to appeal the court's decision. Case Dismissed in Court The contaminated crops were planted in 2010 and the weed infestation that ensued cost some farming enterprises millions, according to Dan Creevey from Creevey and Russell Lawyers. The plaintiffs argued the certified seed bags were contaminated with shattercane and retailed with negligence and inadequate warning. The allegations of negligence centred around breaches of the duty of care farmers believed Advanta Seeds owed them. But Justice David Jackson concluded there was no duty of care. "The plaintiffs do not establish that, for the tort of negligence, the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs to take reasonable care to avoid the risk of economic loss of increased expenses of farming operations and decreased revenue from sorghum sales if MR43 seed was contaminated," he wrote. In its defence Advanta Seeds argued that the "terms of sale" printed on the bags operated as a disclaimer of an assumption of responsibility. "Pacific Seeds Pty Ltd will not be liable to you or any other person for any injury, loss or damage caused or contributed to by Pacific Seeds Pty Ltd (or its servants or agents), directly or indirectly arising out of or related to the use of the product in this bag, whether as a result of their negligence or otherwise," the terms read. Breach of Duty The farmers also accused the seed company of failing to adequately test or "grow out" the MR43 Elite prior to sale, which may have revealed contamination. A grow-out refers to planting and growing a sample of seed from a production batch to assess if it is contaminated. Advanta Seeds stopped doing grow-outs of samples of sorghum seed produced for commercial sale from 2006, according to court documents. Justice Jackson found Advanta Seeds did breach a standard of care for failing to conduct a grow out prior to the sale of the contaminated batch of sorghum seeds. The plaintiffs also accused the seed company of breaching its duty by failure to warn customers of contamination until mid-March 2011. Employees of the company became aware of the problem in mid-December 2010. Justice Jackson made no finding on whether Advanta breached duty or was misleading or deceptive by keeping silent. Inaccurate Claims Justice Jackson said the individual plaintiffs' damages claims were not accurate enough for him to award aggregated damages to the class action group. The defendant argued there were a number of variables not represented in the plaintiffs' evidence of losses. They included the variability of sorghum yields, sale prices and overhead costs, the area planted with contaminated seed, and farming practices and rotations. "An overall reading of the evidence as to the losses suffered by the plaintiffs and sample group members is itself enough to demonstrate the high degree of variability in the losses suffered by group members, which cannot be simply averaged on either an area or per bag purchased or planted basis to give a reasonably accurate assessment of the individual losses," Justice Jackson said in his judgement statement. Justice Jackson is yet to issue orders in regard to the legal costs of the defendant and has called for submissions before making the decision. The plaintiffs' lawyer was unable to be reached for comment. [GN] ALISAL UNION: Elementary Students Seek Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO V.; GERALDINE JULIE B.; I.G.V., a minor by and through Guardian At Litem, MARIO V.; OSCAR G.; CHRISTINA G.; O.D.G., a minor by and through Guardian At Litem, CHRISTINA G.; Y.P., a minor by and through Guardian At Litem, CHRISTINA G.; HUGO P.; ALICIA P.; A.P.H., a minor by and through Guardian At Litem, ALICIA P., and other Similarly Situated, v. ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, OSCAR F. LOYA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, HENRY AMENTA, DIANA GARCIA, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 5:18-cv-00041-BLF (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on September 23, 2021 to enter an order certifying the following class: "All students who attended Dr. Oscar F. Loya Elementary School in the Alisal Union School District from 2011 to 2017, and had blood drawn from them by Defendant Henry Armenta without parental consent." This is a class action brought by students, minor children and their parents for constitutional, federal and State Law violations. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated. From 2011 until his resignation in 2017, Defendant Henry Armeta made a practice of pricking his students' fingers, often without changing the lancet he used, and conducting nonconsensual blood sugar tests. Defendant Armenta performed this test on dozens of students over the course of six years. Defendant Armenta performed the nonconsensual test in his classroom, either during the school day or shortly after the school day ended. All the students involved experienced the same violation: without consent Armenta pricked their fingers; drew their blood; performed a blood sugar test; and exposed them to blood borne pathogens. All of Armenta's acts were done without parental consent, in direct violation of state, federal and constitutional law. Given the duration of the violation, a class action is the most efficient way to inform, compensate, and provide medical monitoring for the students involved. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s15Ou8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles A. Bonner, Esq. A. Cabral Bonner, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER 475 Gate Five Rd, Suite 211 Sausalito, CA 94965 Telephone: (415) 331-3070 Facsimile: (415) 331-2738 E-mail: cbonner799@aol.com cabral@bonnerlaw.com ALKERMES PUBLIC: Midwest Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------- Lead Plaintiff Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Simin Karimian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alkermes Public Limited Company, RICHARD F. POPS, and JAMES M. FRATES, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-7410, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Alkermes from February 17, 2017 through November 1, 2018, both dates inclusive. Plaintiff sought recovery of compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Lead Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order and Judgment dated February 26, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is captioned as Karimian v. Alkermes Public Limited Company, Case No. 21-801, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 26, 2021.[BN] Movant-Appellant Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund is represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 357-0370 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com Defendants-Appellees Alkermes Public Limited Company, Richard F. Pops, James M. Frates, Elliot Ehrich, and Blair Jackson are represented by: Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570-1339 E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com ALLSTATE INVESTMENT: Underpays Administrative Assistant, Clark Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21SMCV00632 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an administrative assistant from on or about June 19, 2019 until on or about May 15, 2020. Allstate Investment Group, Inc. is an investment management firm based in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin Crough, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com AMAZON.COM INC: Bookends & Beginnings Files Class-Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Northwestern reports that when Nina Barrett (Medill '87) expanded Bookends & Beginnings earlier this year, she hoped the bookstore's new window on Sherman Avenue would increase its visibility. By late March, the window was serving a higher purpose: displaying copies of a bright orange booklet, titled "How to Resist Amazon and Why." Barrett -- and Bookends -- are well acquainted with the zine's message. The independent Evanston bookstore is the initial plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed on March 25, which alleges Amazon and the nation's five leading trade book publishers have restrained competition, fixed prices and created a monopoly in the print trade bookselling industry. "We're not supposed to have bullies on the playing field that prevent entrepreneurs and small businesses like mine from existing," Barrett said. "So when (the law firms) invited me to become essentially the face of the case, I was totally ready to do that." Two firms with antitrust experience, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Chicago's Sperling & Slater, P.C. -- which recruited Bookends -- filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Amazon's co-defendants in the case, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, combine for an estimated 80 percent of the trade book publishing market. Trade books are those written for a general audience and not for academia or reference, and often comprise most of bookstores' selections. Amazon, which did not respond to The Daily's request for comment, accounts for over half of the country's print book sales, and more than 90 percent of online print book sales. Barrett, who founded her store in 2014, is hoping the suit will help change Amazon's business practices and award financial damages to independent bookstores -- recompense for the way they've been choked out of the bookselling market. The complaint argues that preferential "most favored nation" clauses between Amazon and the publishers combine with Amazon's dominance to hurt booksellers and consumers. These clauses generally mandate that a business be treated no worse than any competitor. In 2020, a U.S. House Judiciary Committee investigation accused Amazon of forcing the clauses upon book publishers by threatening financial penalties. Because of the clauses, bookstores are unable to buy books from publishers at cheaper rates than Amazon or release books before the internet giant does, essentially leaving no room to compete, the complaint alleges. The bookstore lodges its allegations as proof the defendants have violated the Sherman Act, which outlines U.S. monopoly and competition law. Because the complaint was filed as a class-action lawsuit, other retail booksellers will be able to join the case if it continues, be represented by the Evanston bookstore's arguments and benefit from a possible positive ruling. "People are talking about it as if it's a David versus Goliath. But I am not the only David here," Barrett said. "Every single independent bookstore in the country is fighting the same struggle that I'm fighting, and is being invited to join the suit." Bookends, small businesses, and the pandemic Independent bookstores have struggled during the pandemic, and Barrett said in the beginning, the outlook was especially frightening. The lockdown, she said, proved to be a major obstacle. She launched a GoFundMe for the store -- which raised almost $50,000 -- and Bookends attempted to reach more customers online. The store also received a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Then, Barnes & Noble left downtown Evanston, which sent more customers to Bookends and encouraged Barrett to expand her storefront. Many other bookstores haven't made it. Allison Hill, the chief executive officer of the American Booksellers Association, told The Daily 72 of the organization's 1,800 member bookstores closed in 2020. She said while the pandemic hit hard, Amazon had already been causing trouble - she described the company as a "preexisting condition." "Amazon has been 'boxing out' local bookstores and other small businesses all across the country, resulting in the losses of local jobs; local sales tax revenue; and a sense of neighborhood personality, community, and tradition," Hill said in an email. That sense of community is vital to Barrett, who sees her business as a "third place" for people -- somewhere outside the workplace and home where they can find uplifting interaction. She said the experience at Bookends is antithetical to Amazon's quick, personless platform. She said she has seen the effects of Amazon's dominance for years, and not known how to stop it. "Do I feel in any way bad about poking them? No. Do I feel silly, because I'm so little, and they're so big? No," Barrett said. "It has to start with somebody speaking up." The wider fight The fight against bookselling monopoly power didn't start in Evanston, even though Bookends has become its newest face. Hagens Berman, one of the law firms representing Bookends, sued Amazon and the publishers earlier in 2021 for ebook price-fixing. The plaintiffs in that case were consumers rather than stores. Managing Partner Steve Berman told The Daily the firm has received "considerable, positive interest" from other bookstores around the country about the newest suit. In tandem with the U.S. Department of Justice, the firm also sued Apple and the publishing companies in the early 2010s for ebook price-fixing. The antitrust case eventually yielded around half a billion dollars in payouts to ebook readers. The government and academic worlds are grappling with what antitrust cases look like in the age of big tech. President Joe Biden intends to work with Lina Khan, whose 2017 paper "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox" launched a stiff critique of the company's business practices. Khan's key point was that American antitrust policy is too focused on prices for consumers, and not enough on the relationships between businesses. The Bookends suit is in what may become a popular vein of antitrust litigation, accusing Amazon and the publishers of stifling competition. "My beef is with having this ginormous, faceless website, which is buying books on different terms from mine for different reasons -- not because they care about books," Barrett said. "Just because, well, it helps them become an even more ginormous business." [GN] AMDOCS LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 8 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Amdocs Limited ("Amdocs" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DOX), and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-03078, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Amdocs ordinary shares between December 13, 2016 and March 30, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Amdocs ordinary shares during the Class Period, you have until June 8, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Amdocs, through its global subsidiaries, provides software and services to communications, cable and satellite, entertainment, and media industry service providers worldwide. Historically, the Company's largest percentage of revenues come from its North American business, mostly the U.S., particularly from large customers including, among others, AT&T Inc. ("AT&T"). The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Amdocs overstated its profits, cash, and liquidity, while understating its debt; (ii) Amdocs concealed its large borrowing; (iii) while Amdocs' reported results showed that its North American business was stable, that business was actually deteriorating annually, in part because the Company was losing AT&T as a customer; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 31, 2021, pre-market, Jehoshaphat Research published a short-seller report addressing Amdocs, which alleged, inter alia, that Amdocs overstated its profits, evidenced by steady parent profits despite declining subsidiary profits; that there was a concerning pattern of reputable auditors resigning, only to be replaced by "scandal-plagued or tiny shops"; that Amdocs "window-dressed" its balance sheets to keep its large borrowing a secret, namely by paying down its debt just prior to the end of each quarter, therefore showing a debt-free balance sheet on that day, before re-borrowing the money shortly thereafter; and that all of the foregoing was corroborated by former employees and direct competitors of the Company, who noted that Amdocs was losing AT&T as a customer, as well as a former American Amdocs executive, who stated that the Company's "US business was declining at a rate of [around] 7% annually . . . but then we would see the company [publish results that] say North America is stable." On this news, Amdocs' ordinary share price fell $9.19 per share, or 11.58%, to close at $70.15 per share on March 31, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] AMDOCS LIMITED: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-amdocs-limited-class-action-lawsuit.html) announced that it filed a class action seeking to represent purchasers of Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ:DOX) common stock during the period between January 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Eastern District of Missouri and is captioned Glover v. Amdocs Limited, No. 21-cv-00418. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Amdocs common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Amdocs class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Amdocs class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Amdocs class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Amdocs class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Amdocs class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss the Amdocs class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 631-454-7719 or via e-mail at mblasy@rgrdlaw.com You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-amdocslimited-class-action-lawsuit.html. The Amdocs class action lawsuit charges Amdocs and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Amdocs provides global software and services to the communications, cable and satellite, entertainment, and media industry service providers. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Amdocs overstated the strength of its business metrics and financial prospects, including concealing that Amdocs had been losing customers and that its U.S. business in particular had been declining, that Amdocs had been borrowing undisclosed sums in the past in order to meet its capital needs but concealing that borrowing from investors, that Amdocs was concealing the restrictions on the cash it held, that Amdocs had been overstating its operating profits by up to 50%, and that as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its prospects and revenue growth rate during the Class Period. On March 31, 2021, stock research firm Jehoshaphat Research issued a report entitled "WHERE DID AMDOCS' PROFITS AND AUDITORS GO?," revealing the results of that firm's "months-long investigation into what" it believes to be "a massive financial deception taking place at Amdocs." Jehoshaphat Research said that it had "gathered extensive evidence from the national corporate registry filings of dozens of subsidiaries from around the globe" which it had compared to Amdocs' public filings and found, among other things, "wildly overstated profit margins, a balance sheet that is far from the cash-rich fortress it appears to be, and a revolving door of company auditors resigning from their posts in multiple countries." The complaint alleges that according to Jehoshaphat Research, the "enormous discrepancies between DOX's true business health and the mirage that is its reported finances simply do not reconcile." On this news, the market price of Amdocs common stock declined more than $9.00 per share on March 31, 2021, more than 10%, on extremely heavy trading volume. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For eight consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Mary K. Blasy, 800-449-4900 mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN] APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Grace Suit Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement. On Sept. 10, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement. On Feb. 8, 2021, it held a hearing to consider final approval of the Settlement. Having considered all the briefing, the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the record in the case, Judge Koh granted the parties' motion for final approval of the Settlement. The Judge finds that the Notice Plan, which was direct notice sent to 99.8% of the Settlement Class via email and U.S. Mail, has been implemented in compliance with the Court's Order and complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B). On Sept. 19, 2018, the Court issued a class certification order certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) defined as "all owners of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices." On Sept. 10, 2020, it issued an Order preliminarily approving the Settlement and finding that the proposed Settlement Class was consistent with the previously-certified class, and therefore met the requirements of Rule 23. It finds that the Settlement Class meets the Rule 23 requirements and certifies the Settlement Class. The Judge further finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member. The Class Members who did not timely submit opt out forms will be bound by the Settlement. She further finds that the distribution plan is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Here, the amount of payments to each participating Settlement Class Member will be calculated based on each Settlement Class Member's proportional share of the Net Settlement Fund, i.e., the Net Settlement Fund balance divided by the total number of eligible devices. The vast majority of Settlement Class Members will receive payment automatically without the need to file a claim form. The Judge finds that the claims administrator's fees are fair and reasonable. The Settlement is ordered finally approved. All terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and are ordered to be consummated. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5268mf8 from Leagle.com. ARGENTINA: Central Bank Measure 'Violates' Privacy Rights --------------------------------------------------------- news.bitcoin.com reports that the idea of the Argentinean central bank asking local banks for information on customers who deal with cryptocurrencies is generating controversy in the local industry. A new chapter in this story has been written, as a local lawyer has filed a class-action complaint before a national court to overturn such a ruling. Argentinean Central Bank Measure 'Violates' Privacy Rights, Says Lawyer According to Victor Castillejo, an Argentinean lawyer, the "habeas data" complaint filed argues that the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic (BCRA) decision to ask such data is illegal. In fact, he claims that the ruling violates the "privacy, human rights, constitutionally protected" of every individual who wants to trade with cryptos, such as bitcoin (BTC). Castillejo provides the following comment about the alleged BCRA's legal wrongdoing: "The BCRA does not have the power to compile a list of these characteristics, and if it does, that power does not allow it to avoid the obligations regarding the protection of personal data provided by Law 25,326 and Regulatory Decree 1558/2001." The lawyer filed the class action habeas data before the National Court in Administrative Litigation No. 10 in Argentina, which seeks to "oblige the BCRA to eliminate the information collected and/or, failing that, to disassociate (not allow individuals to be identified) the data that it has requested." BCRA Is Requesting Personal Data Such as National Identification Numbers From Crypto Traders As Bitcoin.com News reported early this week, the BCRA asked domestic banks to forward them information about its customers who deal with bitcoin and perform any other kind of crypto transactions. The measure aims to evaluate whether the crypto market "should be required for an even bigger regulation or not." That said, the Argentinean central bank backs up its decision by saying that they have "functions of supervising" domestic payment systems. Inside the email sent to all domestic banks, the BCRA asks for the national identification numbers, home address, and account types of the individuals involved in crypto-related transactions.[GN] ARIA PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS RIVERA; and MIGUEL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARIA PLUMBING, LLC; and WOJCIECH WAKSMANSKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01756 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 31, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiffs and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction laborer. ARIA PLUMBING, LLC provides plumbing services in DuPage County, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn R. Gaffney, Esq. GAFFNEY & GAFFNEY P.C. 1771 Bloomingdale Road Glendale Heights, IL 60139 Telephone: (630) 462-1200 Facsimile: (630) 462-7698 E-mail: glenn@gaffneylawpc.com ARIZONA: Shin Appeals Ruling in Parsons Prisoner Suit to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants DAVID SHINN, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Victor Antonio Parsons, et al. v. Charles Ryan, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. According to the complaint, Prisoner Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are housed in Arizona Department of Corrections state prisons, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Charles Ryan and Michael Pratt, in their official capacities. Prisoner Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are entirely dependent on Defendants for their basic health care. However, the system under which Defendants Ryan and Pratt provide medical, mental health, and dental care (collectively, "health care") to prisoners is grossly inadequate and subjects all prisoners to a substantial risk of serious harm, including unnecessary pain and suffering, preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement, and death, the suit says. The complaint alleges that despite warnings from their own employees, prisoners and their family members, and advocates about the risk of serious injury and death to prisoners, Defendants are deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of pain and suffering to prisoners, including deaths, which occur due to Defendants' alleged failure to provide minimally adequate health care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Arizona prisoners also suffer serious harm and are subject to a substantial risk of serious harm as a result of Defendants holding prisoners in isolation in supermax Special Management Units in cruel and unusual conditions of confinement. Defendants continue to be deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of pain and suffering, including deaths, which occur due to their systemic failure to provide minimally adequate conditions to prisoners in isolation, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the suit contends. The Defendants now are seeking a review of the Court's Order and Judgment dated February 24, 2021, denying Defendants' motion for relief. The Court had ordered that judgment was entered against Defendants Richard Pratt and David Shinn reflecting contempt fines for June 2019 totaling $1,100,000. The appellate case is captioned as Shawn Jensen, et al. v. David Shinn, et al., Case No. 21-15589, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 2, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Richard Pratt and David Shinn, Director Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 9, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by May 3, 2021; -- Transcript is due on June 2, 2021; -- Appellants Richard Pratt and David Shinn, Director opening brief is due on July 12, 2021; -- Appellees Arizona Center For Disability Law, Maryanne Chisholm, Robert Carrasco Gamez Jr., Joseph Hefner, Shawn Jensen, Desiree Licci, Joshua Polson, Sonia Rodriguez, Jeremy Smith, Stephen Swartz, Jackie Thomas, Christina Verduzco and Charlotte Wells answering brief is due on August 12, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Defendants-Appellants DAVID SHINN, Director; and RICHARD PRATT, Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona Department of Corrections, in their official capacities, are represented by: Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq. Rachel Love, Esq. Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq. STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO PLC 3100 W. Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 Telephone: (480) 420-1600 E-mail: nacedo@swlfirm.com rlove@swlfirm.com dstruck@swlfirm.com Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAWN JENSEN, STEPHEN SWARTZ, SONIA RODRIGUEZ, CHRISTINA VERDUZCO, JACKIE THOMAS, JEREMY SMITH, MARYANNE CHISHOLM, DESIREE LICCI, JOSEPH HEFNER, JOSHUA POLSON, and CHARLOTTE WELLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel Clayton Barr, Esq. Amelia M. Gerlicher, Esq. John H. Gray, Esq. PERKINS COIE 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788 Telephone: (602) 351-8085 E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com agerlicher@perkinscoie.com jhgray@perkinscoie.com - and - Kathleen Erin Brody, Esq. MITCHELL STEIN CAREY CHAPMAN, PC One Renaissance Square 2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 388-8958 E-mail: kathy@mscclaw.com - and - David Cyrus Fathi, Esq. ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 915 15th St., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 E-mail: dfathi@npp-aclu.org - and - Amy Fettig, Esq. NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT-ACLU 915 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6608 E-mail: afettig@npp-aclu.org - and - Alison Hardy, Esq. Rita Katherine Lomio, Esq. Sara Norman, Esq. Donald Specter, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 E-mail: ahardy@prisonlaw.com rlomio@prisonlaw.com snorman@prisonlaw.com dspecter@prisonlaw.com - and - Corene Thaedra Kendrick, Esq. ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 E-mail: ckendrick@prisonlaw.com ARKANSAS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Frazier Suit Against DOC ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, NICHOLAS FRAZIER, et al., Plaintiffs v. SOLOMON GRAVES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00434-KGB (E.D. Ark.), Judge Kristine G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, enters an order: a. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery; b. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for the Court to take judicial notice of 48 additional incarcerated people testing positive for COVID-19 at third facility operated by the Defendants; c. denying as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint; d. denying as moot the State Defendants' motion to continue the trial setting; and e. granting in part and denying in part the State Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. Before the Court is Defendants Solomon Graves, Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Corrections ("DOC"); Dexter Payne, Division of Correction Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections ("ADC"); Benny Magness, Chairman of Arkansas Board of Corrections ("ABC"); Bobby Glover, Vice Chairman of ABC; John Felts, Member of ABC; William "Dubs" Byers, Member of ABC ("State defendants")'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed a response to the motion on Sept. 10, 2020. The State Defendants, all of whom are sued in their official capacity only, replied to the response on Oct. 9, 2020, and filed a supplemental reply to the response on Oct. 20, 2020. On April 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint and petition for writ of habeas corpus. They alleged that conditions in ADC facilities create a serious risk of COVID-19-related infection, disease, and death. They claimed that the spread of COVID-19 in ADC facilities jeopardizes the public health of surrounding communities, especially African American communities. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants have intentionally failed to adopt and implement adequate policies and procedures to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. They asserted three causes of action: (1) violation of the Eighth Amendment brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of all the Plaintiffs; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment brought by a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 on behalf of the proposed high risk subclass; and (3) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., on behalf of the proposed disability subclass. The Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint and petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 13, 2020. The amended complaint added a number of plaintiffs and two new Defendants, Arkansas Secretary of Health, Dr. Jose Romero, and Wellpath, LLC, the contracted medical provider for the DOC. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of people who are currently incarcerated, or will be in the future, in an ADC detention facility during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs also propose two subclasses, to include an (a) high risk subclass, defined as: People in the custody of a DOC facility aged 50 or over and/or who have serious underlying medical conditions that put them at particular risk of serious harm or death from COVID-19, including but not limited to people with respiratory conditions such as chronic lung disease or asthma; people with heart disease or other heart conditions; people who are immunocompromised as a result of cancer, HIV/AIDS, or for any other reason; people with chronic liver or kidney disease, or renal failure (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); people with diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, blood disorders (including sickle cell disease), or an inherited metabolic disorder; people who have had or are at risk of stroke; and people with any condition specifically identified by CDC, currently or in the future, as increasing their risk of contracting, having severe illness, and/or dying from COVID-19. The Plaintiffs also propose a disability subclass, defined as: People in custody who suffer from a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of contracting, becoming severely ill from, and/or dying from COVID-19 due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability, with a broad construction of disability pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Section 35.101, which favors expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) that does not require extensive analysis. The State Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, contending that they are immune from the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief; the Plaintiffs' claims against Dr. Romero are barred by sovereign immunity because he has "no connection to the policies and practices the Plaintiffs challenge"; the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim "falls short of stating a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference against the DOC officials named in the lawsuit"; the Plaintiffs ADA claim "fails to seek any reasonable accommodation that the State Defendants do not already provide and seeks accommodations that the Plaintiffs never requested from any of the State Defendants before bringing suit"; and the Plaintiffs' claim seeking "temporary release to home confinement is a condition-of-confinement claim that is not cognizable in habeas." A. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, Judge Baker finds that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint seeks declaratory relief from ongoing illegal policies and practices and, as such, they seek prospective relief permissible under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). She denies on this basis the State Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief. Second, at this stage of the litigation, the Judge concludes that, based on the Plaintiffs' allegations which she accepts as true and under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent which the Court is bound to follow, the Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to establish a causal connection between Dr. Romero and the enforcement of DOC's policies to bring him into the Ex parte Young exception and make him a proper defendant. The Judge grants the State Defendants' motion to dismiss Dr. Romero based on sovereign immunity. Third, accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs have stated an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against State Defendants. Among other things, she finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have stated an Eighth Amendment claim against State Defendants, (ii) the Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient allegations in the amended complaint to satisfy the objective prong of the deliberate indifference test for their Eighth Amendment claims, and (iii) the Plaintiffs have stated an Eighth Amendment claim against State Defendants based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Fourth, Judge Baker finds that the subclass Plaintiffs are not challenging the validity of their convictions or the length of their detentions, such as through alleged loss of good time credits. Instead, they assert what are essentially conditions-of-confinement claims and seek for this federal court to order immediate release or transfer to home confinement, in a case involving an unchallenged state-court conviction and sentence. For these reasons, the Judge dismisses the Plaintiffs' 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 claim. Lastly, the Judge concludes that, at this stage, based on the allegations in the amended complaint, the named Plaintiffs and the putative class members in the disability subclass have stated a claim under Title II of the ADA. The Plaintiffs in the putative disability subclass state that they have alleged plausibly that State Defendants have refused to provide the reasonable accommodations that they have requested and, as a result, they are at a greater risk of contracting or succumbing to COVID-19. B. Other Pending Motions Judge Baker denies as moot the State Defendants' motion to continue the trial setting because the Court never entered a final scheduling order setting a firm trial date and under Administrative Order 12 all non-jury trials for the period between March 23, 2021, and May 21, 2021 have been continued. The Judge denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery, which the Plaintiffs filed while the Court had under advisement their request for preliminary injunctive relief. She will issue a final scheduling order setting a new trial date and other pre-trial deadlines. The Judge has the parties' other pending motions under advisement and will rule on those motions in a separate order. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baker denies as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery; grants the Plaintiffs' motion for the Court to take judicial notice of 48 additional incarcerated people testing positive for COVID-19 at third facility operated by the Defendants; denies as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint; denies as moot the State Defendants' motion to continue the trial setting; and grants in part and denies in part the State Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/37uvyzva from Leagle.com. ASHEVILLE, NC: Funds From Class Action to be Donated to Nonprofits ------------------------------------------------------------------ The City of Asheville will make significant donations to two local nonprofits as part of a legal settlement to disperse funds acquired prior to a 2018 class action lawsuit involving the City's capital fee collected as part of the combined utility statement. The lawsuit claimed that property developers had paid these fees to the City without legal authority to charge for them. All potential claimants were property developers. The City has consistently denied that it lacked the legal authority to collect these fees or that any individuals or entities were harmed through the collection of these fees. The settlement was undertaken to mitigate legal risk and avoid unnecessary expense. The money for these donations comes directly from the settlement amount following the payment of all verified claims filed by developers for reimbursement. As part of the settlement agreement, the City must give the remaining money to charity. The recipient organizations required approval by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the judge in the action. The total settlement was $1.85 million. Of this, $949,185.12 was left unclaimed and will be dispersed between two organizations -- the Asheville City Schools Foundation and CoThinkk. During their April 13 meeting, Asheville City Council will vote to approve the $949,185.12 to these two organizations. This was not a grant process, but rather an internal recommendation made by City Council and then submitted to the class action plaintiffs and the court. A traditional public process could not occur due to the City's inability to unilaterally select the entities. The Council chose these organizations because of the work they are doing to advance racial equity in our community. How the money will be used Asheville City Schools Foundation -- The donation will be used to fund two scholarship funds. The first will establish a scholarship to be awarded in perpetuity to Black high school students within Asheville City Schools, with special consideration given for Black students pursuing a career in education. The second will establish a scholarship fund for Black, Indigenous, or People of Color who are educators and staff of Asheville City Schools and who are pursuing their next level of education and/or certification. Founded in 1988 by parents, community members, and school personnel, the Asheville City Schools Foundation works to increase local support for public education, particularly by engaging the community to increase equity in education. CoThinkk -- CoThinkk is focused on bringing together community leaders who care about the economic and social well-being of communities of color in Asheville and Western North Carolina. This donation will be used in three areas: -- To provide access to resources, capacity-building, and equitable grant making for local/regional organizations/change agents led by BIPOC/African-American/Latinx to address racial equity and structural change; -- As general operating support for CoThinkk to build and support innovative internal capacity within our four strategic levers: healing, access to resources, capacity-building, and systems change; and -- To create a structure/fund anchored in equity to address racial equity and structural/systems change. CoThinkk will grow and leverage dollars from regional/national funders and social impact investors designated for long-term regranting to regional organizations/groups led by BIPOC organizations/change agents. Both groups will provide written reports to the Asheville City Council about how the donated funds have been used. Reports shall be provided twice annually with the first one being given six months from the date of donation, and continuing every six months thereafter until funds have been exhausted (or two years following the date of donation, whichever comes first).[GN] ATHENEX INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Breast Cancer Treatment ----------------------------------------------------------------- post-journal.com reports that Athenex is on track to refile its New Drug Application to the federal Food and Drug Administration for breast cancer treatment — but may have a legal challenge on its hands at the same time. First, the good news. Athenex Inc. officials recently announced that company officials participated in a constructive meeting with FDA officials to discuss the clinical section of the company's New Drug Application for oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Athenex officials said they are on track to submit the application in accordance with the FDA's guidance, and will provide a further update when the FDA's official response to the filing becomes available. The company is building a 409,000 square foot facility in Dunkirk that should be open by the end of the year, with a portion dedicated to manufacturing large batches of prescriptions to healthcare facilities for office use. While the company has been working to get its breast cancer treatment approved by the FDA, the company and its executives are also facing a class action lawsuit that alleges Athenex officials failed to disclose to investors that the data included in Athenex's application to the FDA presented a safety risk to patients and that the company used an inadequate phase 3 study that may not have met FDA guidelines. The lawsuit points to several news releases and public statements by company officials from the fall of 2019 through February 26, 2021, in which company officials touted the development of oral paclitaxel and its likely approval by the FDA. Before the financial markets opened on March 1, 2021, Athenex announced that the FDA issued a complete response letter for the company's New Drug Application for oral paclitaxel plus encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In the letter, the FDA cited safety risks to patients and uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of the objective response rate which might have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the blinded independent central review. The FDA further recommended that "Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical trial in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the population in the U.S." The FDA also noted that additional risk mitigation strategies to improve toxicity would be required for this cancer treatment to be approved. The letter sent Athenex's stock prices tumbling by 55% in one day, or hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market capitalization, according to the lawsuit. Several law firms are now trying to line up investors to file a class action lawsuit for any investors who purchased Athenex stock from Aug. 7, 2019, through Feb. 26, 2021, and who lost money. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, located at 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, NY 14202. The case is captioned Gupta v. Athenex, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00337 (W.D.N.Y.), and has not yet been assigned to a specific judge. "Throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit alleges the data included in the oral paclitaxel plus encequidar NDA presented a safety risk to patients and that the uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate at week 19 conducted by blinded independent central review reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the blinded independent review. Lawyers also allege Athenex's Phase 3 study that was used to file the NDA was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S. population, such that the FDA would recommended a new such clinical trial. "As a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve Athenex's NDA in its current form; and consequently, Athenex's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit asks for a jury trial to determine whether or not Athenex violated the federal Exchange Act, omitted or misrepresented material facts, whether the statements by Athenex officials omitted facts in their statements, if company officials knew or recklessly disregarded that their statements may be false or misleading, whether the company's stock prices were artificially inflated and how much damage was sustained by investors and an appropriate measurement of the damages. "Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages in that, in reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated prices for the company's shares. Plaintiff and the class would not have purchased the company's shares at the price paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by defendants' misleading statements," the lawsuit states. [GN] ATHENEX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on March 15 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. IRTC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=13660&wire=1 BTBT Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13660&wire=1 ATNX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/athenex-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13660&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:IRTC) IRTC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 4, 2020 - January 28, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=13660&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, iRhythm Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ:BTBT) BTBT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 21, 2020 - January 8, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13660&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Bit Digital, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining operation; and (2) 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. Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATNX) ATNX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 7, 2019 - February 26, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/athenex-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13660&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Athenex, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA presented a safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in neutropenia-related sequalae; (ii) the uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at week 19 conducted by BICR; (iii) the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR; (iv) that the Company's Phase 3 study that was used to file the NDA was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S. population, such that the FDA would recommended a new such clinical trial; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the Company's NDA in its current form; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://www.zlk.com [GN] BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Omega Sues Over Monopoly of Crop Inputs Market ----------------------------------------------------------------- LITTLE OMEGA 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., SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00297 (S.D. Ill., March 16, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of the classes consisting of persons or entities in the United States, including its territories, that, at least as early as January 1, 2014 and continuing through the present (the Class Period), purchased from a Defendant a Crop Input. The Plaintiff brings this action for treble damages under the antitrust laws of the United States against the Defendants. The market for "Crop Inputs" -- seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides --used by American farmers is one of the largest markets in the world with annual sales in excess of $65 billion. This market is dominated by: (1) four major manufacturers, Defendants Bayer CropScience Incorporated ("Bayer"), Corteva Incorporated ("Corteva"), Syngenta Corporation ("Syngenta"), and BASF Corporation ("BASF"), (collectively, the "Manufacturer Defendants") (2) three large wholesalers, Defendants Cargill Incorporated ("Cargill"), Winfield Solutions, LLC ("Winfield"), Univar Solutions, Incorporated ("Univar") (collectively the "Wholesaler Defendants"), that control the distribution of Crop Inputs to farmers; and (3) retailers, including Defendants CHS Incorporated ("CHS"), Nutrien Ag Solutions Incorporated ("Nutrien"), GROWMARK, Incorporated ("Growmark"), Simplot AB Retail Sub, Incorporated ("Simplot"), Tenkoz Incorporated ("Tenkoz"), and Federated Co-operatives Limited ("Federated") (collectively the "Retailer Defendants"). Historically and continuing to the present, the existing distribution and sale process for Crop Inputs maintains supra-competitive prices in part by denying farmers accurate product information, including pricing information, which would allow them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. As a result, the average price American farmers pay for Crop Inputs is increasing at a rate that dramatically outpaces yields, the suit says. For example, over the last 20 years, the price of one type of Crop Input, seed corn, rose 300%, while corn yields increased only 33% to 35%. In 1989, U.S. farms spent $15.6 billion overall on chemicals, fertilizer, and seeds. This number rose to $59 billion in 2019, outpacing inflation by 60%. Crop Inputs have consequently composed a larger share of farm budgets. In 1989, Crop Inputs composed 12.6% of farm expenditures; by 2019, Crop Inputs composed 16.4% of farmer spending. These increases are proving increasingly devastating to farmers, who are now the least profitable level of the American food supply chain and are drowning in hundreds of billions of dollars of operating debt that is forcing them into bankruptcy at a record pace. Recognizing these inefficiencies, several electronic Crop Inputs sales platforms launched in at least the past decade. These electronic platforms aimed to provide a cheaper, more transparent way for farmers to buy Crop Inputs, circumventing the existing opaque, convoluted distribution system. These new platforms threatened the Defendants' dominant market position and control over Crop Inputs pricing. As a result, rather than compete fairly with these new electronic platforms, the Defendants allegedly conspired to block the platforms' access to Crop Inputs by engaging in a group boycott, added the suit. Given the structure of the Crop Inputs industry with the necessary relationships between manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, an effective boycott of electronic platforms would not have been feasible absent actual coordination and cooperation among Defendants. Absent an agreement among themselves, the Defendants' actions were against their independent economic self-interests. As a result of Defendants' misconduct, farmers remain trapped in an inefficient, opaque Crop Inputs market and have paid more for Crop Inputs than they would have but for the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff contends. Bayer AG is a multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, and agriculture company. Bayer CropScience Incorporated is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri that develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United States. Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, and is a crop science company that sells Crop Inputs in the United States. Corteva develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United States. BASF Corporation is the principal U.S.-based operating entity and largest subsidiary of BASF SE, a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and chemical company. BASF develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United States. Syngenta Corporation is the main U.S.-based operating subsidiary of Syngenta AG. It is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. Syngenta develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United States. Cargill owns and operates a wholesaler AgResource Division, which distributes Crop Inputs to Cargill’s retail network and to retailers. Cargill's AgResource Division maintains contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta entitling it to purchase and distribute branded Crop Inputs and entitling it to special rebates. Winfield Solutions is a Crop Inputs wholesaler. It maintains contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta authorizing it to purchase and distribute branded Crop Inputs and entitling it to special rebates. Winfield is also a major Crop Inputs retailer that operates as a cooperative owned by its members, which are 650 Crop Inputs retail businesses operating 2,800 retail locations throughout the United States and parts of Canada. Univar Solutions , Incorporated is a Crop Inputs wholesaler. Univar maintains contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta authorizing it to purchase and distribute branded Crop Inputs and entitling it to special rebates. Defendant CHS is one of the largest Crop Inputs wholesalers in the United States. Like many large wholesalers, it also operates retail networks bearing the CHS brand around the country that sell Crop Inputs from brick and mortar stores. Nutrien Ag Solutions sells Crop Inputs to farmers throughout the country and maintains contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta authorizing it to purchase and distribute Crop Inputs and entitling it to special rebates. Nutrien is a large Crop Inputs retailer headquartered in Illinois. Tenkoz is one of the largest Crop Inputs retailers in the United States. Tenkoz purchases and sells 25% of all crop protection chemicals sold in the United States annually through 550 retail locations and 70 wholesale locations around the country. Simplot AB is a large Crop Inputs wholesaler and retailer that operates 135 retail locations across 27 states. Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a large Crop Inputs retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don Barrett, Esq. John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. David McMullan, Jr., Esq. Sterling Starns, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095-0927 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Victoria Sims, Esq. Blaine Finley, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com bfinley@cuneolaw.com BELLUS HEALTH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming May 17, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased BELLUS Health Inc. securities between September 5, 2019 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their BELLUS investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. BELLUS is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose lead product is BLU-5937, which is being developed for the treatment of chronic cough and other afferent hypersensitization-related disorders. On July 6, 2020, before the market opened, BELLUS announced topline results from its Phase 2 RELIEF trial of BLU-5937 in patients with refractory chronic cough. According to the Company, the trial "did not achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoint of reduction in placebo-adjusted cough frequency at any dose tested." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $9.05, or 75%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.97 on July 8, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that while BLU-5937's "high selectivity" contributed to the drug causing little to no taste alteration in chronic cough patients, that high selectivity also contributed to the drug potentially being less efficacious and thus likely not be able to meet the primary endpoint of the Company's Phase 2 trial. If you purchased or otherwise acquired BELLUS securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 17, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com URL : http://www.howardsmithlaw.com Contact Information: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mesh Class Action Lawsuit Pending in Australia ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emily McPherson, writing for 9News, reports that when Queensland woman Marina Schekoske was wheeled into an operating room to have mesh implant surgery for a prolapsed uterus, she had no way of knowing her life was about to be changed irrevocably. All the mother-of-two says she can remember from when she woke up after the operation was the searing pain. "I thought this was maybe what post-operative pain felt like… but I never expected it would be as bad as it was," she said. "The pain was phenomenal." In the weeks and months that followed her 2017 surgery, the pain did not go away, Ms Schekoske said. "Imagine a hot, steaming poker being shoved through your body every time you sat. I couldn't stand for long, I couldn't walk the length of my house, I was in bed or on the couch," she said. Four years on, Ms Schekoske is joining other Australian women who claim their lives have also been destroyed by their mesh implants in a new class action lawsuit. The class action, against medical manufacturer and distributor Boston Scientific, was lodged in the NSW Supreme Court earlier in March by Sydney law firm AJB Stevens. It follows a high-profile mesh class action against Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon on behalf of 10,000 Australian women. AJB Stevens director and lawyer Steven Mousas told nine.com.au his firm's class action would represent "a large group" of Australian women who say they suffered debilitating injuries caused by mesh implants distributed by Boston Scientific. AJB Stevens alleges Boston Scientific breached both its duty of care to patients and Australian Consumer Laws by distributing the medical devices without properly evaluating the risks and effectiveness of their products. The lawsuit also alleges Boston Scientific failed to warn hospitals and surgeons of the risks and complications which could be caused by the mesh devices. "We say the medical implants did not offer sufficient warning, advice or information and ultimately, the medical implants were not fit for purpose," Mr Mousas said. "The medical implants were not of merchantable quality and did not have an acceptable quality when being distributed." A similar lawsuit in Canada against Boston Scientific resulted in the company reaching a settlement of $21.7 million in September last year. Boston Scientific is yet to respond to nine.com.au's request for comment. However, when asked by nine.com.au last year about the pending lawsuit, a spokesperson said: "It is our practice not to comment on pending litigation. Patient safety is always our highest priority, and we stand by the safety and quality of our products. Boston Scientific remains committed to helping women, and all patients, live better and longer lives." The number of mesh-related lawsuits lodged by women continues to grow in Australia. It follows a damning 2018 Senate inquiry which found surgery with mesh should only be used as a "last resort". AJB Stevens also has another ongoing mesh class action in the Federal Court on behalf of the thousands of Australian women implanted with Tissue Fixation System (TFS) devices, which were designed by Australian doctor Peter Petros. Ms Schekoske is one of three lead plaintiffs in the Boston Scientific class action. She was 32 when she had her surgery. She said she was not warned by doctors of any risks or potential complications. Ms Schekoske has since undergone another major surgery to have the mesh removed but said many of the debilitating effects from the mesh still lingered. "There's still some things I can't do, I still can't push a heavy trolley, I can't lift up a heavy washing basket… and now I'm very incontinent every day," she said. However, she says one of the things that hurt the most was not being able to pick up her children. "I can't pick my daughter up for a cuddle. "She is a very cuddly kid and sitting on the floor and cuddling her isn't enough. "I have also missed out on years of a relationship with my husband. I had setbacks at work. "It's strained every friendship and relationship out there . . . people don't understand what you're going through or have been through. "Every little thing can cause so much trauma psychologically." Ms Schekoske said as well as offering the chance of getting financial compensation for her injuries, the class action was about achieving "justice". "I think the biggest thing is wanting to see justice done for people like me who have been so badly physically, mentally and psychologically hurt," she said. "I would like to see it in the media so much that people really question when a doctor still uses mesh, they question the doctor and say I don't want that product, there are other options out there for me. Maybe it will save someone else from going through this." [GN] BP CORP: Judge Recommends Class Status for Pension Plan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit accusing BP Corp. NA of failing to properly explain how its acquisition of Standard Oil of Ohio would negatively affect pension benefits got a boost when a federal magistrate judge in Houston recommended that the case be certified as a class action covering hundreds of retirees. BP challenges the proposed class definition -- which includes hundreds of participants in the BP America Retirement Accumulation Plan who ended up with lower pension benefits because of a 1989 plan change -- by arguing that "individualized mini trials" involving complex pension calculations would be required to determine each plan participant's status as a class member . . ." [GN] BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Class Settlement Uphold Release of Detainees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Dooling at wbur.org reports that a settlement deal was reached Tuesday in a class action lawsuit against the Bristol County Sheriff's Office that sought to release all immigration detainees at the county's house of correction during the coronavirus pandemic. The lawsuit, filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) in March 2020, claimed the correctional facility's holding of detainees was inhumane. Among the suit's arguments were that the detention facility was seriously overcrowded, making it impossible for detainees to socially distance. It also noted that detainees lacked adequate access to personal protective equipment. Since the lawsuit was filed, dozens of people represented in the suit were granted bail, remaining under the supervision of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while their immigration proceedings play out. "The case dramatically reduced the number of people held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention at BCHOC -- from 148 to seven -- allowing dozens of civil immigration detainees to return to their families and safely quarantine at home," Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of LCR, said in a statement Tuesday. The lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind brought during the pandemic on behalf of every immigrant detainee in Bristol County custody, not just those individuals with serious medical conditions. If approved by the court, the settlement will uphold the release of those individuals out on bail, secure the release of six additional individuals, and allow the remaining seven detained individuals the option of transferring to another New England ICE facility, according to a press release. In June 2020, a group of immigrants detained in a unit of the Plymouth County Correctional Facility also sought release because of risks associated with COVID-19. The ACLU of Massachusetts and others represented the class members over the course of nearly a year, during which time the immigrant detainee population in the unit was reduced by 90%. Earlier this month, the voluntary dismissal of the suit was approved in federal court. Those class members remaining in detention have been offered the vaccine for the coronavirus, according to the ACLU. [GN] BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Settlement Reached in Landmark COVID-19 Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- lexology.com reports that the parties in Savino v Souza, the landmark class action lawsuit challenging unsafe conditions at the Bristol County House of Correction (BCHOC) in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, asked the federal judge hearing the case to approve a settlement agreement. If approved, the settlement would resolve one of the most successful class actions filed on behalf of detained individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case dramatically reduced the number of people held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention at BCHOC – from 148 to seven – allowing dozens of civil immigration detainees to return to their families and safely quarantine at home. The class action lawsuit was filed in March 2020 and is believed to be the first lawsuit brought during the pandemic on behalf of all individuals in ICE detention at a facility, as opposed to only individuals with certain medical risk factors. The case brought ICE and BCHOC officials' life-threatening mismanagement of the pandemic to the attention of US District Court Judge William G. Young, an effort that proved to be enormously successful at protecting class members' health and well-being and that served as a blueprint for similar class actions across the country. During the course of the litigation: -- The Court granted class certification, allowing the action to proceed on behalf of all individuals held in civil immigration detention at BCHOC. These individuals were not held on criminal charges but rather solely because of their immigration status. -- The Court determined that BCHOC was likely to be found deliberately indifferent to class members' health and safety needs due to "cavernous holes in the government's mitigation strategy" during the pandemic, including a failure to reduce overcrowding, a lack of testing, and inadequate contact tracing. -- The Court released 43 individuals on bail, allowing them to safely quarantine at home during the pendency of the lawsuit, instead of in the unsafe and overcrowded conditions at BCHOC. During the litigation, others paid bond set by Immigration Judges, obtained relief in their immigration cases, or were voluntarily released. -- The Court granted a preliminary injunction, barring ICE from admitting new individuals to detention without Court approval, which maximized and sustained population reduction. The Court also ordered that testing be made available to class members and BCHOC staff. The settlement announced if approved by the Court, will: -- Secure the continued release of those on bail. The fact that these class members have successfully remained under ICE supervision, free of detention, demonstrates the accuracy of Judge Young's statement, in ruling on the Preliminary Injunction, that "it would appear we are spending millions of our national treasure to lock up thousands of people who might better be released…without impairing the safety of our citizens or the operations of our government." -- Secure the release of six additional individuals. -- Provide the remaining seven detained individuals the option of transferring to another New England ICE facility. In documents filed, the parties have jointly asked the Court to preliminarily approve the settlement and to set a Final Fairness Hearing within 28 days to grant final approval. The Plaintiff class is represented by Lawyers for Civil Rights, the law firm of WilmerHale, which has generously provided its legal services to the class on a pro bono basis, the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, and Rights Behind Bars. The advocacy efforts of community organizations and individual attorneys have also played an invaluable role in securing this positive outcome.[GN] BRISTOW GROUP: August 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- To all persons or entities who, between February 8, 2018 and February 12, 2019, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired Bristow Group Inc. ("Bristow") Common Stock, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $6,250,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims, both known and unknown, in the Action. A hearing will be held on August 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Keith P. Ellison at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, United States Courthouse, Courtroom 3176, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated January 27, 2021 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Bristow Group Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 4:19-cv-00509 (KPE), c/o Angeion Group, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103, by emailing info@BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by calling toll free at 844-749-0019. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 6, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than July 16, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than July 16, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Bristow, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: In re Bristow Group Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 4:19-cv-00509 (KPE) c/o Angeion Group 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 844-749-0019 www.BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com info@BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: SUSMAN GODFREY LLP Barry Barnett Michael C. Kelso 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 651-9366 bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com mkelso@susmangodfrey.com and KIRBY McINERNEY LLP Ira M. Press Thomas W. Elrod 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Tel: (212) 371-6600 ipress@kmllp.com telrod@kmllp.com BY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [GN] CANOO INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Canoo Inc., ("Canoo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV) from August 18, 2020 through March 29, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Canoo securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Canoo Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) an engineering services segment, (ii) the sales of subscriptions to vehicles to consumers, and (iii) the sale of vehicles to other businesses. The complaint alleges that, on March 29, 2021, the Company revealed that it was radically changing its business model by deemphasizing its engineering services business and by no longer focusing on its subscription-based business. On March 29, 2021, after the markets closed, Canoo issued a press release ("Q4 Release") reporting its fourth quarter and full year 2020 results. The Q4 Release removed the language touting its "unique business model" simply stating: "Canoo has developed breakthrough electric vehicles that are reinventing the automotive landscape with bold innovations in design and pioneering technologies." On the same day the Company held a conference call to discuss its financial results (the "Q4 Call"). During the call Defendant Aquila announced that Defendant Balciunas was being replaced as CFO. The Company's CEO, Defendant Kranz was not on the call. During the Q4 Call Defendant Aquila revealed that "it was decided by our Board to de-emphasize the originally stated contract engineering services line." In response to this news, shares of Canoo fell $2.50 (or 21.2%) from a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021, on heavy volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Canoo securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/canooinc-goev-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-386/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] CANOO INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Canoo, Inc. (formerly known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV) ("Canoo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW; HCAC; HCACW) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-03080, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Canoo common stock and/or warrants from August 18, 2020, through and including March 29, 2021, (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Class"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Canoo common stock and/or warrants during the Class Period, you have until June 1, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Canoo is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in 19951 Mariner Avenue, Torrance, California. The Company was incorporated in Delaware on August 6, 2018 and conducted its initial public offering in March 2019. The Company was formed for the purpose of effecting a business combination with specific focus on businesses in the industrial, technology and infrastructure sectors. Such companies are referred to as "blank check" companies or special purpose acquisition companies ("SPACs"). In December 2020, the Company entered into a business combination with Canoo Holdings Limited (the "Business Combination"). The combined company purports to be a mobility technology company that develops electric vehicles ("EV"). The Company's common stock and warrants are listed on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "GOEV" and "GOEVW," respectively. Prior to December 22, 2020, the Company's common stock and warrants traded under the symbols "HCAC" and "HCACW," respectively. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) the Company's engineering services was not a viable business, would not provide meaningful revenue in 2021, and would not reduce operational risk; (ii) that the Company would no longer be focused on its subscription-based business model; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 29, 2021, after the market closed, Canoo issued a press release ("Q4 Release") reporting its fourth quarter and full year 2020 results. The Q4 Release removed the language touting its "unique business model" simply stating: "Canoo has developed breakthrough electric vehicles that are reinventing the automotive landscape with bold innovations in design and pioneering technologies." That same day, on an earnings call to discuss the Company's fourth quarter and full year 2020 results, Canoo executives confirmed that the Company was radically changing its business model, and it was revealed that the Canoo's CFO was being replaced. In response to this news, shares of Canoo fell $2.50 (or $21.2%) from a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021, on heavy volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] CANOO INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Canoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV) investors that acquired shares between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021. Investors have until June 1, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. Canoo filed its Registration Statement on a Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on September 18, 2020. Subsequently, the Registration Statement was amended on October 23, 2020 and November 27, 2020. On December 4, 2020 Canoo also filed its Prospectus on a Form 424b3 with the SEC. Stockholders voted at a special meeting to approve the Merger on December 21, 2020. After the market closed on March 29, 2021, Canoo held a conference call in relation to its fourth quarter 2020 financial results which were released the same day. During the call, defendant Tony Aquila, a director of Canoo since the closing of the Merger, revealed that Canoo would no longer be focusing on its engineering services line. Canoo also announced on the same day that effective April 2, 2021, Paul Balciunas, who served as the Chief Financial Officer of Canoo following the close of the Merger, had resigned. On March 30, 2021, Canoo's stock price fell $2.50, or 21.19%, on this news to close at $9.30 per share. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Canoo failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canoo had decreased its focus on its plans to sell vehicles to consumers in the form of a subscription model; (2) Canoo's engineering services business would be deemphasized; (3) Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced partnership with Hyundai, contrary to prior statements, ; and (4) positive statements about Canoo's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, as a result of the foregoing. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] CANOO INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California has been filed against Canoo Inc. (the "Company" (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW) ("Canoo") f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAQ: HCAC; HCACW; HCACU) ("Hennessy Capital") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Canoo securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares of Canoo Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of Canoo Inc. you may, no later than June 1, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Canoo Inc. Canoo was formed by a business combination between Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (a special purpose acquisition (SPAC) company) and Canoo Holdings Limited in December 2020. The Company is a mobile technology company that develops electric vehicles. The filed complaint alleges that prior to and after the combination, the Company promoted a business model based on a three-phased approach to generating revenue and growth: -- an engineering services segment, -- the sales of subscriptions to vehicles to consumers, and -- the sale of vehicles to other businesses. On March 29, 2021, the Company revealed that it was radically changing its business model by deemphasizing its engineering services business and by no longer focusing on its subscription-based business. In response to this news, Canoo fell $2.50 per share ($21.2%) from a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Martinez Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MAGALI MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, a Colorado corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-cv-1017-WJM-MEH (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: (i) granted the Defendant Capstone's Motion to Transfer Venue, or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration; and (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Defendant, a Colorado corporation, operates approximately 300 franchised restaurants across 16 states. The Plaintiff was employed as an assistant manager at a restaurant owned by the Defendant in Calhoun, Georgia between May 2018 and March 2019. Prior to beginning her employment, the Plaintiff completed certain pre-employment documents through SnagAJob.com, a third-party website which the Defendant used to facilitate onboarding and management of personnel documentation. The pre-employment documents included an arbitration agreement, which contained a forum-selection clause stating that disputes between the parties would be arbitrated "in the county and state in which the Employee is or was employed by the Company," which here was Calhoun, Georgia. Calhoun is located in the Northern District of Georgia. On April 10, 2020, the Plaintiff initiated the action on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant improperly classified her as an exempt employee and therefore unlawfully denied her overtime compensation. She brings the action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. The Defendant filed its Motion to Transfer on June 9, 2020, arguing that the forum-selection clause in the arbitration agreement designates the Northern District of Georgia as the proper venue for the action. The Plaintiff filed a response on Oct. 16, 2020, and the Defendant filed a reply on Oct. 30, 2020. On Oct. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Certify Class. The Defendant filed a response on Nov. 11, 2020, and the Plaintiff filed a reply on Nov. 18, 2020. A. Enforceable Arbitration Agreement The Defendant argues that the Court should transfer the action to the Northern District of Georgia based on the forum-selection clause contained in the arbitration agreement. Once transferred, it seeks to compel arbitration. In response, the Plaintiff categorically "denies the existence of the arbitration agreement" and contends that she did not assent to its terms. She argues that Defendant cannot prove that she read, understood, and assented to the agreement. She concludes that because the Defendant failed to authenticate the agreement, the forum-selection clause does not apply to this dispute. Judge Martinez holds that the Plaintiff's failure to recall executing the arbitration agreement does not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of the agreement. The Plaintiff does not dispute that she completed the online pre-employment documentation, nor that completing this documentation was required prior to beginning her employment. She offers no alternative explanation for the notation stating that she signed the arbitration agreement, and she cites no binding authority where an arbitration agreement was held unenforceable under similar circumstances. To the extent that she suggests that any electronically signed agreement may be held invalid by a general denial of signing, such argument is unpersuasive. The Defendant has met its initial burden of demonstrating the existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement, which the Plaintiff has failed to overcome. Accordingly, the Judge proceeds to the question of whether to honor the forum-selection clause. B. Forum-Selection Analysis The Defendant argues that the Court should transfer the action to the Northern District of Georgia in accordance with the forum-selection clause of the arbitration agreement so that it may compel arbitration. The Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that the public-interest factors of the Section 1404(a) balancing test weigh in her favor. She argues that "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to her claims occurred" in the District of Colorado. Specifically, she posits that the "drafting, formation, and management of the policies and procedures" which she challenges in the action occurred in the District. Further, she argues that the Defendant's principal place of business is in Colorado and that she initiated the action here. Judge Martinez holds that a "plaintiff's choice of forum merits no weight" where a forum-selection clause exists. Additionally, the Plaintiff's arguments regarding the parties' private interests are unavailing here, as they are deemed waived by the forum-selection clause. Therefore, a party challenging a forum-selection clause waives arguments regarding the convenience of the parties. As the Plaintiff fails to specifically address public-interest factors, she has not shown that her case is one of the rare or exceptional instances where the forum-selection clause should not be enforced. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Transfer is granted. Because the Judge will transfer the action to the Northern District of Georgia, the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied as moot. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinez (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Transfer; (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. He transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the Clerk will transmit the file to the Clerk of that court. Unless and until ordered otherwise by the Northern District of Georgia, unexpired deadlines in the case (if any) continue to control. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/487zf8tk from Leagle.com. CARDINAL HEALTH: Cal. Court Dismisses MEI's 1st Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MEI SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff v. CARDINAL HEALTH 110, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-2424-CC (N.D. Ga.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: -- grants Defendant Cardinal Health 110, LLC's Motion to Dismiss MEI Services, Inc.'s First Amended Complaint; and -- denies Cardinal Health's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. Plaintiff MEI Services, Inc. is a pharmacy company that provides a broad array of services including pharmacy consulting, wholesale distribution, and pharmacy benefit management. Defendant Cardinal Health is a multi-national health services company. As a pharmacy company, MEI has engaged in considerable business with Defendant Cardinal Health, including the purchase of significant amounts of prescription drugs. On December 27, 2016, MEI sold the assets of one of its stores to CVS Pharmacy pursuant to an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement ("APA"). Pursuant to the APA, $340,000 of the sale proceeds were to be kept by CVS as a holdback to ensure that MEI complied with certain indemnification provisions in the APA. To the extent the indemnification provision was not triggered, the APA originally called for CVS to return 50% of the Holdback to MEI after 18 months and the remaining 50% after 36 months. Prior to the closing, MEI had negotiations with both Cardinal Health and Live Oak Bank Co. Both Cardinal Health and Live Oak were secured creditors of MEI and, as such, both would have to release liens in connection with the closing. Accordingly, it was agreed that MEI would assign the Holdback funds to Cardinal Health and Live Oak. On February 7, 2017, Cardinal Health sent correspondence to CVS confirming this agreement. Pursuant to correspondence dated August 6, 2018, which slightly modified what was set forth in the prior correspondence, the Holdback funds were to be split equally ($170,000 each, made in two installments) between Live Oak and Cardinal Health. MEI and Cardinal Health specifically agreed on the usage and treatment of the Holdback funds. Under the agreement, Cardinal Health agreed to use any Holdback funds received from CVS exclusively to pay any outstanding notes or trade accounts between MEI and Cardinal Health. It was also agreed that to the extent MEI was not indebted to Cardinal Health on any notes or trade accounts, Cardinal Health would return the Holdback funds to MEI. In accordance with the agreement, on Aug. 9, 2019, CVS sent the first installment of the Holdback to Cardinal Health in the amount of $85,000. After discussing the matter, MEI requested that Cardinal Health apply the $85,000 as a credit to a trade account operated by an MEI affiliate. Cardinal Health agreed and the credit was applied without incident. In a separate transaction, in May 2018, MEI-affiliate Buckhead Pharmaceutical Association, which signed its initial Cardinal Health agreement contemporaneous with MEI's initial agreement contemporaneous with MEI's initial agreement, sold its assets. Following that sale, MEI-affiliate Buckhead incurred a debt on its account with Cardinal Health in the amount of $69,511.65. MEI's principal, Michael Bogachek, Buckhead, and MEI all refused to pay the debt. In February 2020, MEI requested that CVS release the second--and final--$85,000 payment. Pursuant to the request, CVS paid the remaining $85,000 to Cardinal Health. At the time of the payment, MEI and Cardinal Health were engaged in considerable business and MEI was indebted to Cardinal Health on a certain trade account in an amount in excess of $85,000. Accordingly, it was understood by both parties that Cardinal Health would simply apply the $85,000.00 as a credit to MEI's account. This was consistent both with the initial agreement and also with the course of dealing established with the payment of the initial Holdback funds. Around this time, Mr. Bogachek began to have a number of other business disputes with Cardinal Health unrelated to the Holdback. In March 2020, MEI learned that Cardinal Health had reversed course, retracted the credit, and was now refusing to pay the $85,000 to MEI or apply it as a credit to MEI at all. Cardinal Health instead issued instructions applying the Holdback amount to the trade account of MEI-affiliate Buckhead. On March 23, 2020, counsel for MEI demanded the return of the $85,000. MEI disputed Cardinal Health's right to apply the Holdback to the Buckhead account. MEI and Mr. Bogachek threatened class litigation on behalf of MEI and its affiliates, having nothing to do with the Holdback. MEI and Cardinal Health began to have certain settlement negotiations through counsel. On April 16, 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The complete agreement between the parties is reflected in an email chain. As part of the agreement, Cardinal Health would credit the $85,000 to MEI's debt and MEI would provide "Cardinal Health with a full release of all claims, including the usury class action claims previously alleged by Mr. Bogachek." Additionally, Cardinal Health agreed to provide a draft of the settlement agreement on April 20, 2020, and Cardinal Health did so. Prior to the email chain, the respective counsels for MEI and Cardinal Health had verbal discussions. At no point in the verbal discussions, or any of the written communications, did Cardinal Health request that MEI include any entity other than MEI in any settlement agreement. Much to MEI's dismay, on April 20, 2020, counsel for Cardinal Health circulated a proposed settlement draft that included a number of parties whose inclusion was never discussed (or agreed upon)--either in telephone conversations or in the email discussions. As a result, MEI insisted that Cardinal Health honor the settlement that was reached. Despite best efforts by MEI, Cardinal Health refused to honor the settlement. Moreover, Cardinal Health continues to hold the $85,000. MEI consequently commenced the instant lawsuit. On May 7, 2020, MEI commenced the action in the State Court of Gwinnett County alleging claims for conversion, breach of contract (related to the application of credit), breach of contract (related to the settlement agreement), punitive damages, and attorney's fees. On June 5, 2020, Cardinal Health removed the case to this Court. On June 12, 2020, Cardinal Health moved the Court to dismiss the Complaint. MEI exercised its right to amend its pleading and filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now the operative pleading in the action. Like the original Complaint, the First Amended Complaint includes claims for conversion, breach of contract (related to the application of credit), breach of contract (related to the settlement agreement), punitive damages, and attorneys' fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 13-6-11. Cardinal Health presently moves the Court to dismiss the First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Motion to Dismiss Cardinal Health contends that the Court should dismiss MEI's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for three reasons. First, Cardinal Health maintains that it cannot be liable for conversion since it holds title to the funds that are the subject of the claim and because there is a commercial contract that allows Cardinal Health to apply the funds to the defaulted account of an MEI affiliate that governs the parties' debtor-creditor relationship and the funds at issue. Second, ith argues that its internal directives did not establish a contract between Cardinal Health and MEI. Finally, Cardinal Health contends that the parties never consummated the settlement agreement and that, even if they did, MEI has not adequately alleged how Cardinal Health breached the agreement. Senior District Judge Clarence Cooper holds that MEI's conversion claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the instant case, it is apparent that MEI bases its conversion claim on Cardinal Health's alleged breach of an alleged agreement and not a violation of an independent duty. As such, the conversion claim fails as a matter of law. The breach of contract claim that MEI alleges in Count Two fails to state a claim because Cardinal Health's internal communications did not give rise to a contract that MEI can enforce, Judge Cooper finds. In the First Amended Complaint, MEI alleges that an email between two Cardinal Health employees constitutes a "binding agreement wherein Cardinal agreed to apply the $85,000 as a credit on MEI's account." However, Judge Cooper finds, MEI does not allege that it provided any consideration to support the alleged contract upon which MEI bases the second count of the First Amended Complaint. MEI also does not address this issue at all in response to Cardinal Health's Motion to Dismiss. MEI next claims that Cardinal Health breached a settlement agreement reached by the parties. Whether this claim should be dismissed presents a closer question, Judge Cooper holds. However, after careful consideration, the Court agrees with Cardinal Health that it is due to be dismissed, too. The Court finds that MEI and Cardinal Health agreed on the essential terms. While the parties still had to reduce the parties' email agreement to a final, comprehensive settlement agreement, "the parties need only agree to the essential terms of the contract, and the absence of agreement on nonessential terms does not render the agreement unenforceable." MEI alleges that Cardinal Health "breached the agreement by failing to follow through as agreed." Judge Cooper opines that this conclusory allegation, however, is contradicted by factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint and the attachments to the First Amended Complaint. Cardinal Health's first obligation, based on the parties' email agreement, was to provide a settlement draft. There is no dispute that Cardinal Health met that obligation. The Court understands that MEI took and continues to take issue with the proposed settlement draft, but Cardinal Health's obligation was only to provide a settlement draft. Cardinal Health was not obligated to take any further action until after the parties executed the final settlement agreement, which never happened, Judge Cooper holds. Motion for Sanctions In the case at bar, the Court finds that Rule 11 sanctions are not warranted. MEI's claims in the First Amended Complaint were weak, especially the claim for conversion and the breach of contract claim based on the internal communications of Cardinal Health's employees. However, the claims were not so objectively frivolous so as to justify an award of sanctions. Therefore, the Court denies the Motion for Sanctions. The Court likewise will not award MEI's request for sanctions, as Cardinal Health's Motion for Sanctions had to be served and filed prior to the time that the Court issued a ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. Further, the Motion for Sanctions was not substantively frivolous, given the weaknesses of the claims in the First Amended Complaint. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant Cardinal Health's Motion to Dismiss and denies its Motion for Sanctions. It directs the Clerk of Court to mark the case closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 5, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3x9bwukf from Leagle.com. CAVIAR INC: Case Mgmt. & Pre-trial Order in Tiffin Suit Modified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TIFFIN CHERRY HILL LLC, and TIFFIN MOUNT AIRY, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAVIAR, INC., d/b/a TRY CAVIAR, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00403-SK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Sallie A. Kim of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Parties' stipulation to alter case management and pre-trial order as modified. The Parties submit the Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the Case Management and Pre-Trial Order previously entered by the Court on Jan. 12, 2021. On Jan. 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated the putative class action against Caviar for breach of contract, conversion, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. In April 2020, the Parties began discussing early resolution and scheduled a mediation with JAMS to take place on Sept. 20, 2020, which was then rescheduled twice due to events outside of their control. On April 30, 2020, Caviar moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims, which the Plaintiffs opposed and the Court granted with respect to the conversion claim but denied with respect to the breach of contract and UCL claims on May 15, 2020. On May 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs served Defendant with their first set of discovery requests. On June 12, 2020, the Defendant served its first set of discovery requests on the Plaintiffs. On July 13, 2020, the Defendant served its objections and responses to the Plaintiffs' first set of discovery requests, and the Plaintiffs also served their objections and responses to the Defendants' first set of discovery requests. The Parties subsequently engaged in several meet and confers regarding the Plaintiffs' discovery requests and certain of Caviar's objections, and Caviar's counsel requested that the Parties pause full-scale discovery in favor of narrow discovery for purposes of mediation so that Caviar could conserve resources that could otherwise be used for settlement. On Sept. 8, 2020, in light of the circumstances, the Court issued an order extending the mediation and case management deadlines. On Oct. 29, 2020, the Parties jointly moved to stay all pre-trial deadlines pending mediation. The next day, the Court stayed all deadlines, including discovery deadlines, pending the Parties' upcoming mediation. On Dec. 22, 2020, the Parties engaged in mediation, but the mediation was ultimately unsuccessful. Following that unsuccessful mediation, on Jan. 12, 2021, the Court entered an Order setting the following deadlines for the action: (i) Close of Fact Discovery: 4/8/2021, (ii) Initial Expert Disclosures: 4/22/2021, (iii) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: 4/22/2021, (iv) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: 5/19/2021, (v) Close of Expert Discovery: 5/26/2021, (vi) Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification: 6/8/2021, (vii) Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification: 7/16/2021, (viii) Hearing on Class Certification Motion: no later than 8/9/2021, (ix) Dispositive Motion Hearing: 11/22/2021 (9:30 a.m.), (x) Pretrial Conference: 1/21/2022, and (xi) Trial: 3/1/2022. On Jan. 25, 2021, the Parties submitted certain discovery disputes to the Court by joint letter. Two days after, the Court issued an Order resolving these discovery dispute. Pursuant to the Court's Feb. 2, 2021 Order on Motion for Leave to File Reconsideration, on Feb. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the portion of the Discovery Order limiting the relevant discovery period to "from 2017 onward," and requested that the discovery period commence from Jan. 1, 2014 onward. On Feb. 17, 2021, the Court issued an Order denying the request without prejudice and provided the Plaintiffs leave to renew their motion upon providing support for the earlier discovery period. On Feb. 26, 2021, Caviar served a second set of discovery requests. The Plaintiffs served their second set of discovery requests on March 5, 2021. On March 14, 2021, new document discovery disputes arose between the Parties, but the Parties are working cooperatively to resolve them without Court intervention. The day after, Caviar served its notices of deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) on the Plaintiffs; and the Plaintiffs served their notice of deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) on Caviar. On March 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for reconsideration of the discovery period. As the overview reflects, the Parties have been working diligently to complete document discovery in compliance with the Discovery Order, but based on the volume of discovery, the renewed motion to extend the discovery period, and several discovery issues that have arisen, the Parties anticipate that discovery will take longer than anticipated to complete. Therefore, subject to the approval of the Court, the Parties agreed that all pre-trial deadlines and the trial date are extended by six months as follows: (i) Trial Date: Sept. 1, 2022, (ii) Pretrial Conference: July 7, 2022, (iii) Summary Judgment Hearing: May 22, 2022 , (iv) Reply in Support of Cross-motion: May 2, 2022, (v) Reply and Opposition to Cross-motion: April 26, 2022, (vi) Opposition and Cross-Motion: April 12, 2022, (vii) Opening Summary Judgment Motion: March 28, 2022, (viii) Class Certification Hearing: Feb. 9, 2022, (ix) Reply in support of Class Certification: Jan. 17, 2022, (x) Opposition to Class Certification Motion: Dec. 8, 2021, (xi) Expert Discovery Deadline: Dec. 3, 2021, (xii) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Nov. 19, 2021, (xiii) Class Certification Motion: Oct. 29, 2021, (xiv) Initial Expert Disclosures: Oct. 29, 2021, and (xv) Close of Non-expert Discovery: Oct. 22, 2021. The Stipulated Order may be modified by a Stipulated Order of the Parties or by the Court for good cause shown. Judge Kim granted the Parties' stipulation as modified. She continued all dates and deadlines as follows: (i) Trial Date: Sept. 6, 2022, (ii) Pretrial Conference: Aug. 5, 2022, (iii) Summary Judgment Hearing: May 23, 2022 , (iv) Reply in Support of Cross-motion: May 2, 2022, (v) Reply and Opposition to Cross-motion: April 26, 2022, (vi) Opposition and Cross-Motion: April 12, 2022, (vii) Opening Summary Judgment Motion: March 28, 2022, (viii) Class Certification Hearing: Feb. 14, 2022, (ix) Reply in support of Class Certification: Jan. 17, 2022, (x) Opposition to Class Certification Motion: Dec. 8, 2021, (xi) Expert Discovery Deadline: Dec. 3, 2021, (xii) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Nov. 19, 2021, (xiii) Class Certification Motion: Oct. 29, 2021, (xiv) Initial Expert Disclosures: Oct. 29, 2021, and (xv) Close of Non-expert Discovery: Oct. 22, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3764vu8h from Leagle.com. Ruby H. Kazi -- rkazi@beneschlaw.com -- Whitney (Carlson) Johnson -- wjohnson@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP, in San Francisco, California, and J. Erik Connolly -- econnolly@beneschlaw.com -- Kate Watson Moss -- kwatsonmoss@beneschlaw.com -- Madhavi Seth -- mseth@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP, in Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Defendant. CELSION CORP: O'Connor Settlement Granted Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Celsion Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in O'Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No. MER-C-000068-19, has been granted final approval. On September 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain officers and directors. The Company was a defendant in this derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, filed by a shareholder against the Company (as both a class action defendant and nominal defendant), and certain of its officers and directors, with the caption O'Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No. MER-C-000068-19. The Shareholder Action alleged breaches of the defendants' fiduciary duties based on allegations that the defendants omitted or made improper statements when seeking shareholder approval of the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan. The Shareholder Action sought, among other things, any damages sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing, a declaratory judgment against all defendants invalidating the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and declaring any awards made under the Plan invalid, rescinded, and subject to disgorgement, an order disgorging the equity awards granted to the Individual Defendants under the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 24, 2020, the Company, the Individual Defendants, and the plaintiff entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release, which memorializes the terms of the Parties' settlement of the Shareholder Action. The Settlement calls for repricing of certain stock options and payment of plaintiff legal fees of $187,500. On July 24, 2020, the Court issued an order approving the Parties' proposed form of notice to shareholders regarding the Settlement. A hearing was held on September 8, 2020 whereby the Court issued a final approval approving the Settlement. Pursuant to the Settlement, the Company paid $187,500 on October 1, 2020. Without admitting the validity of any of the claims asserted in the Shareholder Action, or any liability with respect thereto, and expressly denying all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage against the Company and the Individual Defendants arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the Shareholder Action, the Company and the Individual Defendants concluded that it was desirable that the claims be settled on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Company and the Individual Defendants entered into the Settlement Agreement for settlement purposes only and solely to avoid the cost and disruption of further litigation. Celsion Corporation, a development-stage oncology drug company, focuses on the development and commercialization of directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA-based therapies for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers. Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. CELSION CORP: Spar Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Celsion Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative securities class action suit entitled, Spar v. Celsion Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-15228. On October 29, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Spar v. Celsion Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-15228. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding one of the Company's product candidates, ThermoDox(R), and brings claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all Defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 against the Spar Individual Defendants. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. Celsion Corporation, a development stage oncology drug company, focuses on the development and commercialization of directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA based therapies for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers. Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Garcia Employment Suit Goes to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PAUL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV05429, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03039 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices. Center For Employment Opportunities, Inc. is a provider of employment services with its principal place of business in New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Ariana Sanudo, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: adam.siegel@jacksonlewis.com ariana.sanudo@jacksonlewis.com CHILDREN'S PLACE: Class Settlement in Rael Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MONICA RAEL and ALYSSA HEDRICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-370-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California: (i) grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Award; and (ii) denies without prejudice their Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Feb. 11, 2016, Plaintiff Rael brought suit on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Defendant The Children's Place, Inc. ("TCP"). She amended the complaint three times and added a second Named Plaintiff, Hendrick. On Nov. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint alleging three causes of actions for violations of: (1) California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (2) California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; and (3) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq. The Plaintiffs' three causes of action stem from the allegation that the Defendant advertises children's clothing with discounted prices from false original prices to deceive customers as to the real value of their goods, thus unlawfully driving sales. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class including "all individuals in the United States who, from Feb. 11, 2012 through the date the Court enters the preliminary approval order, purchased any product bearing a discount at one of The Children's Place retail or outlet stores." The Plaintiffs further divide the Class into three Tiers. "Tier 1 Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying purchases total less than $50, or any individuals who do not submit proof of their purchases. "Tier 2 Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying purchases total $50.01 to $150. "Tier 3 Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying purchases total more than $150. Tier 2 and Tier 3 Claimants are required to submit proof of their purchases. Tier 1 Claimants get one voucher, Tier 2 Claimants get two vouchers, and Tier 3 Claimants get three vouchers. To compensate the Class for settling the action, the Settlement Agreement provides for a "Voucher Fund" which will contain 800,000 vouchers to be awarded to the qualifying Class Members. Vouchers may be used at a TCP store, outlet, or online, and come in one of two forms: "(i) $6 off a purchase (no minimum purchase) or (ii) 25% off a purchase (of the first $100)." They are "transferable," valid for 6 months, and "may be used on items that are on sale or otherwise discounted." Vouchers cannot be "combined with any other coupon or promotional offer," redeemed for cash, or replaced if lost, stolen, or damaged. The $6 vouchers are "stackable" while the 25% vouchers are not. To obtain a voucher, the Class Members must comply with the Claims Procedure detailed in the Settlement Agreement. The Procedure permits them to file a claim with the Claims Administrator, object to the Settlement Agreement, or request to be excluded from the Class. The Class Members must perform these actions on or before the response deadline, which would initially be set at 120 calendar days after the entry of the Order. They may also request to appear at the Fairness Hearing. In addition to collecting biographical information, the Claim Form asks Claimants to select their Tier, note their purchases and any available proof, choose which voucher to obtain, and provide an e-mail address for electronic delivery. As noted, the number of vouchers each Claimant receives will be equal to the Tier number. If there are timely claims to more than 800,000 vouchers in the first round of distribution, the Fund will only distribute dollar-based vouchers, and the value of those vouchers will be calculated on a pro rata basis. In subsequent rounds of distribution, Claimants receive vouchers according to the selections made in their Claim Forms. Again, if there are fewer vouchers left in the Voucher Fund than are timely claimed in any subsequent round of distribution, the Fund will then disburse only dollar-value vouchers at a pro-rated value. Vouchers disbursed through subsequent rounds from the Fund are to have different "expiry" period. More specifically, the periods of expiry for each "round" of Voucher distribution will be successive (i.e., if the Vouchers to be distributed in the first "round" are valid between Jan. 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021, those that are part of the second "round" would be valid from July 1, 2021 until Dec. 31, 2021). The Settlement Agreement permits the Named Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel to recover fees independent of the Voucher Fund. Each Named Plaintiff may recover an "Individual Settlement Award" of $2,500 or less, subject to the Court's approval. The Class Counsel may seek up to $1,080,000 in costs and fees (total), subject to the Court's approval. If the Court awards less than that maximum amount in fees and costs to the Class Counsel, the difference between the actual award and $1,080,000 will go to the Voucher Fund or, if certain criteria are met, become a cy pres distribution to the National Consumer Law Center. In the Jan. 28, 2020 Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, the Court approved a tri-part notice structure. The Plaintiffs reported the results from their notice via the declaration of the Settlement Administrator, KCC Class Action Services, LLC's employee, Mr. Jay Geraci, which he completed on June 26, 2020. As of June 26, 2020, KCC had received 101,350 timely-filed claim forms. It was a total of 49,929 Tier 1 claims, 32,985 Tier 2 claims, and 18,436 Tier 3 claims. These claims represent 171,207 Vouchers in total. (Id.) KCC received 10 timely requests for exclusion. KCC also received three objections. Execution costs of the notice and claims process, as of June 26, 2020, had totaled $653,724.45. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Incentive Award, and Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. In an Order issued on Oct. 23, 2020 ("First Final Settlement Order"), the Court deferred ruling on the two Motions, and directed the parties to file Supplemental Briefs and corresponding Replies. Judge Curiel finds that the modified Settlement Agreement does not reveal collusion. While the First Final Settlement Order initially expressed concerns for the scope of release being overly broad, these concerns have been addressed by the parties' agreed-upon modification, which the Judge approves. The Judge also finds that the Notice Plan used in the case satisfied the requirements of Rule 23. As part of the modified Settlement Agreement, TCP has agreed to re-notice the class and notify class members that the release has been altered so as to carve out the Washington class action litigation from the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Given that the modifications inure to the benefit of class members in the State of Washington, there is a question whether notice regarding the release is required. However, out of an abundance of caution, the Judge will direct the Defendant to arrange for supplemental notice. As such, he concludes that the Notice Plan implemented provided the best possible notice under the circumstances of the original settlement and the modifications to the release. Turning to the attorneys' fees, Judge Curie denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and instead bifurcates the issue so that the Court will determine the appropriate fee award in the future once the modified Settlement Agreement is executed and the class recovery amount has been determined. The parties have agreed to this method and the Judge will proceed accordingly. The underlying Motion is not something the Court may grant, regardless of the Court approving a modified settlement, because the Court may award attorney's fees only after the class settlement's value is determined. In the case, it hinges on "the true amount" that the settlement class recovers from the $6 vouchers and the 25% off coupons. Once the recovery amount is determined, the Plaintiffs may file a new attorney's fees motion. Having approved the modified Settlement Agreement, Judge Curiel also clarifies its instruction to the parties on follow-up actions to take. First, the Defendant will file the modified Settlement Agreement by April 2, 2021. Second, by April 7, 2021, it will provide a copy of its proposed class notice to the Plaintiffs' counsel. If the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agree on the class notice's contents, they will jointly file the proposed notice for the Court's approval by April 14, 2021. Should any disagreements occur over the contents of the class notice, the Defendant may file a motion for class notice by April 16, 2021, in which the Plaintiffs may file an opposition by April 19, 2021, and the Defendant may file a reply by April 21, 2021. And should such motion be filed, a telephonic hearing will be scheduled for April 23, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. Finally, the Judge reaffirms that a telephonic status conference is set for Nov. 5, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. The parties will file a joint status report a week before. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Curiel approves the modified class action settlement agreement and denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees, with the attorney's fees to be determined later. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vvzbehym from Leagle.com. CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Chef Joins COVID-19 Claims Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Erika Wells, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that an award-winning Raleigh, North Carolina chef is the latest Triangle restaurateur to take legal action against an insurance company over claims tied to business losses resulting from the pandemic. Ashley Christensen's restaurants have filed a class action lawsuit against Cincinnati Insurance Company over business interruption coverage. Her restaurants Death & Taxes, Poole's Diner, Beasley's Chicken + Honey, Chuck's Burgers (which closed permanently last year), Poole'side Pies, and Fox Liquor Bar are listed as plaintiffs along with Christensen's catering service, Aux Kitchen, and the Bridge Club event venue. Christensen closed her restaurants last March following a mandatory statewide order that prohibited bars and dining establishments from serving guests indoors. She immediately cut her staff of 300 employees to about 50 people and has since been doing takeout orders, according to the suit. Even though restaurants were allowed to resume indoor dining last summer, Christensen is yet to do so at her establishments, citing safety and health concerns. AC Restaurants says it plans to resume indoor dining at four locations in mid-April: Poole's, Poole'side Pies, Beasley's and Death & Taxes. Like many restaurants during the pandemic, Christensen saw her insurance claims denied, even as her establishments faced "the prospect of permanent closure," and their "margins were often razor-thin," according to the lawsuit. The case was filed in federal court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Christensen is being represented by attorney Gagan Gupta with Paynter Law in Raleigh. In a prepared statement, Christensen said the business interruption coverage is critical for her establishments. "But despite that the pandemic has wreaked havoc on the restaurant industry, Cincinnati Insurance has categorically refused to honor its business interruption policies sold across North Carolina," the statement said. "This is true even though Cincinnati's policies, including mine, do not have virus exclusions. I brought this class action lawsuit to try and force Cincinnati to pay this coverage, which will be critical to ensuring restaurants across our state survive this devastating pandemic." In a statement to TBJ, Cincinnati Insurance Company said it does not comment on pending litigation, but that it "remains committed to doing our part to support the families and businesses in our agents' communities, helping them to proactively manage risks and promptly paying covered claims." The lawsuit does list an exact amount for how much Christensen is seeking to claim under her policies -- it says the amount exceeds $75,000. Regarding the class action status for North Carolina, it says the aggregate amount exceeds $5 million. This isn't the first time Gupta has taken on Cincinnati Insurance Company. Last fall, he earned a court victory for local restauranteurs Matt Kelly and Giorgios Bakatsias when a North Carolina judge ruled the insurance company must honor and pay out similar policies -- the company said it would appeal the ruling. "In October 2020, Paynter Law secured a groundbreaking and powerful win for our clients in court," Gupta said. "With this class action suit, and with Ms. Christensen's support, we are seeking to build upon that victory and help policyholders across our state." Christensen, a veteran of the food industry, has made a name for herself in the Triangle since taking over Poole's Diner in Raleigh in 2007. She won a James Beard Award in 2014 for Best Chef in the Southeast and again in 2019 for the Outstanding Chef category. Last year, Christensen helped start the Independent Restaurant Coalition, a grassroots effort by chefs and independent restaurant owners across the country to help members of the restaurant industry during the pandemic. [GN] CLEAN HARBORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fogg Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- OREESE FOGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-07626 (D.N.J., Mar. 31, 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 Fogg was employed by the Defendant as equipment operator. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. provides hazardous and non-hazardous material management and disposal services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Messina, Esq. Berkowitz Lichtstein Kuritsky GIASULLO & GROSS, LLC 75 Livingston Ave Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Telephone: (973) 325-7800 Facsimile: (973) 325-7930 -and- Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Kyle Bates, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Court Approves Pepe Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the terms of the settlement of the class action suit initiated by Anthony Pepe. On September 20, 2018, Anthony Pepe, individually and on behalf of a class, filed with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey a complaint against the Company, certain current and former executive officers and directors of the Company and the other defendants named therein for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class consisted of the persons and entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from September 23, 2013 through September 7, 2018. Pepe also alleged violation of other sections of the Exchange Act by the defendants named in the complaint other than the Company. Pepe seeks damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On January 16, 2019, Ms. Susan Church, a stockholder of the Company, filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington a derivative suit against certain current and former executive officers and directors of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the rules governing proxy solicitation. Church sought, among other things, money damages, disgorgement of profits from alleged wrongful conduct, including cash bonuses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On December 16, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the terms of the settlement of the above class action, the derivative action, and two related derivative actions. The Company paid $450,000 for its share of the total class action settlement. As for the settlement of the derivative lawsuits, on February 14, 2021, the Board of Directors of the Company approved certain corporate governance changes that the Company agreed to make pursuant to the terms of the settlement, including an amendment to its Bylaws. Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology company, engages in discovering and developing various novel antiviral therapeutics that target the replication machinery of hepatitis viruses, influenza viruses, and noroviruses. Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Tucker, Georgia. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Averts Class Action Over AirPod Charger Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a California federal judge freed Costco on March 12 from a proposed class action claiming AirPods purchased from the store were falsely advertised as having wireless charging capabilities, ruling that online reviews used by the customer as evidence actually hurt his case. [GN] CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Seeks to Certify Hourly Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charletta Harwell-Payne On behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. Cudahy Place Senior Living, LLC; Matthews Senior Living, LLC Encore Management & Development, LLC Encore Senior Living, LLC, Case No. 21-CV-328 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order order granting conditional class certification and court facilitated notice to the following persons: "All hourly employees who worked at any Wisconsin facility administered by 41 Management LLC during the time period between August 31, 2017 and the present" Cudahy Place is a senior living provider in Cudahy, Wisconsin. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t7404j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit initiated by Michelene Colette remains stayed. On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a putative class action complaint in the Central District of California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Colette Complaint. Instead of opposing the company's motion, plaintiffs elected to file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020. On March 11, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that stayed this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the amended complaint. CV Sciences said, "The portion of the proceeding that is stayed will remain stayed until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promulgates rules that govern cannabidiol products (the "FDA Rules"). When such FDA Rules are promulgated, the plaintiffs will be allowed to ask the court to reopen the proceeding. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations." CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp. and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. CV SCIENCES: Discovery in Smith Purported Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the purported class action suit initiated by David Smith. On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action complaint in Nevada District Court alleging certain misstatements in the Company's public filings that led to stock price fluctuations and financial harm. Several additional individuals filed similar claims, and the Smith Complaint and each of the other suits all arise out of a report published by Citron Research on Twitter on August 20, 2018, suggesting that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose that the Company's efforts to secure patent protection for CVSI-007 had been "finally rejected" by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On November 15, 2018, the court consolidated the actions and appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated actions. On January 4, 2019, Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, filed a"consolidated amended complaint". On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and the parties have commenced discovery in the action with a discovery cutoff date of May 24, 2021. CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp. and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. CYTODYN INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of CytoDyn, Inc. (OTCQB: CYDY) investors that acquired shares between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021. Investors have until April 19, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. It is alleged in this complaint that made materially misleading and/or false statements touting Leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19 in order to inflate the CytoDyn stock price while executives were aggressively selling their shares. It is also alleged in this complaint that CytoDyn engaged in an illegal scheme whereby Iliad Research and Trading L.P. and other entities related to Iliad's principal John Fife operated as an unregistered securities dealer for CytoDyn. CytoDyn's share price fell $1.14 per share, or 28%, on this news, to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. Shares of CytoDyn dropped an additional 19% on March 9, 2021 to close at $2.35, thereby further injuring investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 19, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Ito-Stone Securities Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ DBV Technologies S.A. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Travis Ito-Stone v. DBV Technologies, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00525. On January 15, 2019, Travis Ito-Stone individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Executive Officer, its former Deputy Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Business Officer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Subsequently, Ruth Pruitt and Asdrubal Delgado were appointed as lead plaintiffs and an amended complaint was filed on January 24, 2020 and a second amended complaint was filed on June 5, 2020. The complaint, as amended, purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired our securities between February 14, 2018 and March 16, 2020 and seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements related to the company's business, operational and compliance policies. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. DBV Technologies said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom." DBV Technologies S.A., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the research and development of epicutaneous immunotherapy products. The Company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Montrouge, France. DMG MORI: Arnold's Bid for Summary Judgment in FCRA Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEVEN ARNOLD, et al., Plaintiffs v. DMG MORI USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02373-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denies the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Named Plaintiffs Brandon Bebault and Steven Arnold sued their former employer, Defendant DMG, for obtaining background reports on prospective employees with disclosure and authorization forms that violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. The Court certified a class consisting of "all persons residing in the United States for whom DMG procured or caused to be procured a consumer report for employment purposes on or after April 19, 2016," with Arnold as the class representative. The Plaintiffs applied for jobs with DMG, which makes cutting machine tools, on or after April 19, 2016. As part of the application process, DMG gave them background check disclosures that described their rights under the FCRA and, in the same document, related rights under California, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington state laws. The Plaintiffs' sole claim in the case is that DMG's forms violated the FCRA. To show this, they focus mainly on DMG's practice of combining FCRA and state law disclosures. The parties agree that, under the FCRA, an employer must provide (i) a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure that a consumer report is being procured (ii) "in a document that consists solely of that disclosure" (the standalone document requirement), which (iii) the employee must authorize in writing. The Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the FCRA, which requires them to show that DMG's violations were "willful." At multiple turns in the litigation, DMG has tried to get the case dismissed on the theory that the Plaintiffs did not suffer a concrete injury in fact for Article III standing purposes. The Court denied these efforts because our circuit definitively rejected the same contention in Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492 (9th Cir. 2017), a case that is directly on point and leaves no room for reasonable disagreement. Syed expressly concluded that a plaintiff establishes a concrete injury and Article III standing by alleging an improper disclosure under Section 1681b(b)(2)(A). While that would seem enough to have put the standing issue to rest, DMG raises the point again on summary judgment on the basis of an unpublished memorandum in Ruiz v. Shamrock Foods Co., 804 F. App'x 657 (9th Cir. 2020), which was decided after the Court certified the class in the instant case. In a split decision with one judge dissenting, the panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer because the Plaintiffs did not "produce admissible evidence establishing a concrete injury," namely that "they were confused by the inclusion of the references to state law" in the disclosure form, and that they would not have signed the authorization if it were sufficiently clear. That specific determination is the sole ground for DMG bringing up the standing point again, and Judge Donato finds it unavailing for several reasons. To start, DMG's cross-motion on this issue is in effect an improper request for reconsideration by another name. DMG did not comply with the requirements for seeking reconsideration. It did not seek permission to file for reconsideration in advance, and did not identify a material change in the record or governing law that might warrant reconsideration. DMG implies that Ruiz is such a change in law, but an unpublished memorandum is not a binding precedent for reconsideration purposes. DMG's reliance on Ruiz is also questionable substantively. Looming over DMG's position is Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019). Gilberg built on Syed and the plain language of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) to conclude that when "a disclosure form does not consist solely of the FCRA disclosure, it does not satisfy the standalone document requirement." Gilberg reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer on precisely this basis. The disclosure form there blended FCRA and state law disclosures. Gilberg concluded that this would necessarily "confuse a reasonable reader because it combines federal and state disclosures." So too in the case, Judge Donato holds. He says the disclosure form DMG gave to potential employees is identical in all material respects to the one that fell short of the standalone requirement in Gilberg. Ruiz did not mention Gilberg, or account for its holding, and DMG offers nothing on that score, either. On this basis alone, DMG's renewed attack on standing falls apart. Judge Donato further finds that DMG's reading of Ruiz is also out of step with other Ninth Circuit decisions on injury and standing under the FCRA. DMG says that Ruiz requires extrinsic evidence of "actual concrete damages for each class member" resulting from non-compliant disclosures in order to demonstrate a concrete injury. But that is not consonant with governing law in the circuit, as the dissent in Ruiz demonstrated. Several published circuit decisions have concluded that Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) protects substantive informational and privacy rights. Consequently, providing a disclosure form with extraneous information violates substantive informational and privacy rights under the FCRA. These decisions did not require a separate showing of "actual damages," as DMG would have it, and the plain text of the FCRA certainly does not demand that. In any event, Judge Donato holds that Ruiz is distinguishable on the facts. The thrust of DMG's argument is that the Plaintiffs, like the ones in Ruiz, did not tender evidence of confusion from the faulty disclosures, or a reluctance to sign them had they been clear. That is not a complete picture of the record in the case. In support of class certification, both named Plaintiffs declared that they were "confused" about what they were signing, and that they might not have signed had they understood the forms. This is the kind of evidence that DMG says is required by Ruiz, and it is contained in the record before the Court. As for liability, the undisputed facts amply establish that DMG violated the FCRA. DMG provided the Plaintiffs with a standardized disclosure and authorization form, which the Plaintiffs signed. In addition to the disclosures required by the FCRA, the form contained statements about the laws of several states. As noted, the Ninth Circuit has held on "indistinguishable" facts that forms such as those used by DMG that contain "extraneous information relating to various state disclosure requirements in that disclosure" violate Section 1681(b)(2)(A)(i). DMG does not dispute that its initial form violated the FCRA. It tries to cabin the consequences of that by pointing to a revised form it used after the Gilberg decision, which it says omits the references to state law and otherwise complied with Section 1681(b)(2)(A). On this basis, DMG suggests that liability should be limited to the original form. Judge Donato finds that the revised form violates the FCRA in other respects. That is because it contains extraneous language stating that the signatory has "the right, upon written request made within a reasonable time, to request whether a consumer report has been run about you and to request a copy of your report." The circuit has concluded that substantially similar language, even if presented "in good faith," is inconsistent with the standalone document requirement in Section 1681(b)(2)(A)(i). The remaining question for summary judgment is whether DMG's violations may be deemed willful. A company violates the FCRA "willfully" when it knows that its actions violate the FCRA, or when it displays a "reckless disregard" for its requirements. A violation of the FCRA is reckless as a matter of law if it ignored an unambiguous requirement of the statute. Consequently, because the FCRA unambiguously requires that a disclosure be provided in a standalone document, a "prospective employer's violation of the FCRA is 'willful' when the employer includes terms in addition to the disclosure." These principles make the issue of willfulness straightforward, Judge Donato holds. DMG's original form contained extraneous references to California, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington law on top of the FCRA disclosure and authorization. This included information about the applicant's rights to inspect consumer reports requested by DMG, to request information about DMG's secure recordkeeping practices, and to request a summary of the applicant's rights, see id., among other information unrelated to disclosing that "a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes." While omitting references to state law, the revised form contained unrelated information about applicants' rights to inspect documents. Consequently, DMG willfully violated the FCRA by including additional terms in its disclosures. DMG again tries to reduce its exposure by saying that until Gilberg was published in 2019, no authority indicating that its original form failed to comply with the FCRA. Syed rejected a substantially similar argument in 2017. DMG had the benefit of Syed by the time it issued its revised disclosure form in 2019, and so cannot claim that it was in the dark about its obligations under the FCRA. Judge Donato concludes that summary judgment is granted in favor of the Plaintiffs on liability and willfulness. The Plaintiffs did not seek summary judgment on the amount of damages. Because the amount of damages is the only issue remaining open, a referral to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference is a good next step. Potential statutory damages under the FCRA range from $100 to $1,000 per Plaintiff. The parties should have a fairly precise count of the class members. With this information, the lower and upper boundaries of damages are readily ascertainable, leaving considerable room in between for a compromise that would relieve the need for further disputed proceedings, or possibly a trial. The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Hixson for a settlement conference. All remaining pretrial and trial dates are vacated, and the case is administratively closed pending further order. The Plaintiffs' request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 for re-litigating the standing issue is denied. While DMG's reliance on Ruiz was misplaced, Judge Donato cannot say that it was so frivolous or unreasonable as to warrant sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ekht9zp3 from Leagle.com. DOLLAR TREE: Facing Zantac-Related Class Suit ---------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that an Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint was filed against the company and other retailers, manufacturers, and distributors alleging unjust enrichment, physical harm, loss of consortium, and death related to Zantac. In late 2019 and early 2020, personal injury and consumer class actions were filed alleging that the company sold Zantac containing N- Nitrosodimethylamine, which is classified by the Food and Drug Administration as a probable carcinogen. Although all the suits were dismissed in December 2020, on February 8, 2021, an Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint was filed against the company and other retailers, manufacturers, and distributors alleging unjust enrichment, physical harm, loss of consortium, and death. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOLLAR TREE: Smoked Almonds Related Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consumer class action suit related to smoked almonds. In August 2020, a consumer class action was filed against the company in New York alleging Smoked Almonds sold by the company are mislabeled because the almonds do not go through a smoking process but rather acquire their smoky taste through the use of smoked flavoring. The legal claims include New York consumer protection laws, negligent misrepresentations, breach of warranties, fraud and unjust enrichment. Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake, Virginia. DOUG CONNOR: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice in Reguena ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reguena v. Doug Connor, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-01670 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sep. 11, 2020), the Hon. Judge Embry J Kidd entered an endorsed order denying motion to certify class without prejudice for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) 27. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Doug Connor is a complete sitework company. The company We also offer demolition work and crushed concrete aggregates.[CC] DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar's Bid to Enjoin Arbitration Deal Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin or Limit Application of Defendants' New Arbitration Agreement, Approve Curative Notice, and Limit Defendants' Communications with Putative Class Members and Request for Expedited Ruling in the lawsuit captioned Kelli Salazar, et al., Plaintiffs v. Driver Provider Phoenix LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-19-05760-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz.). The Plaintiffs, chauffeur drivers, who worked for The Driver Provider in Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming, filed the lawsuit against the Defendants on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees for the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate employee drivers with minimum wage and overtime wages and the failure to maintain payroll records for the Plaintiffs. The Defendants are privately owned chauffeur companies in Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming and their owners and officers. The Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint brings three causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (2) violation of Arizona's Wage Act, A.R.S. Sections 23-350, et seq., and (3) violation of the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. Sections 23-362, et seq. The Plaintiffs recently learned that the Defendants emailed employees and required them to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of continued employment. On December 17, 2020, Jennifer Norton, Defendants' "Financial Controller," emailed "'active Chauffeurs" through DocuSign stating that The Driver Provider was "update[ing] its personnel files electronically." The email told employees to "review the attached documents and sign via Docusign at your earliest convenience and no later than Monday, December 21st, 2020. The email directed employees to reach out to Barry Gross if they had questions." Attached to the email was a 15-page pdf packet. At the end of the packet was an arbitration agreement titled, "Employment Dispute Resolution Agreement." The Defendants never advised employees of the existence of the lawsuit or gave them an opportunity to opt-out of the Agreement. The Agreement itself states, "Your execution of this Agreement is a condition of your employment or continued employment with the Company and the benefits and compensation that you receive as an employee constitutes consideration for your acceptance of this Agreement." The "Covered Claims" section of the Agreement states that it covers "all disputes relating to or arising out of the Driver's employment with the Company or the termination of that employment." The "Class and Collective Action Waiver" portion of the Agreement expressly prohibits arbitrations on a class basis. At the end of the Agreement, it states in all caps, "This Agreement constitutes a waiver of the parties' right to a jury trial and the right to bring or participate in any class or collective action as to Covered Claims." The Plaintiffs filed the Motion to move the Court for an order "(1) enjoining application of the Defendants' new 'Employment Dispute Resolution Agreement' to the claims of any current or putative Class Members in the case; (2) approving and authorizing curative notice to putative Class Members; and (3) limiting the Defendants' ex parte communications with putative Class Members." The Plaintiffs' Motion first asks the Court to find that the Agreement does not apply to the claims of the case. The Defendants counter by arguing that a finding on the enforceability of the Agreement is premature and that the Plaintiffs lack standing. Specifically, they claim that they have not yet decided whether they will seek to enforce the Agreement as it relates to the claims in this case. They claim that even if it were ripe, the communications made to employees were not misleading or coercive. The Defendants first argue that the Court should deny the Plaintiffs' motion because they lack standing because they cannot demonstrate an injury-in-fact before the Defendants attempt to enforce the Agreement. The Defendants "have not yet decided whether they will seek to enforce" the Agreement as it relates to this case. The Plaintiffs argue that they have already realized an injury: "Drivers will believe they are prohibited from participating in this case when, in fact, they are not." They, in other words, argue that the Agreement will have a chilling effect on potential collective action members' participation in the case. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have already suffered in injury in the form of deterring potential collective action members from opting into the action. After signing the Agreement, potential collective action members are likely to assume that their participation in this case is prohibited. Thus, the Plaintiffs have standing and need not wait until the Defendants decide whether to enforce the Agreement to bring this Motion, District Judge Susan M. Brnovich opines. The Plaintiffs cite a litany of cases where district courts have found arbitration agreements improper or unenforceable when sent to potential class members before certification, citing Jimenez, 2015 WL 4914727, at *6; OConner, 444 F. Supp. 3d at 603. The Defendants counter that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that The Driver Provider obtained consent to the Agreements as a result of coercive, misleading, or other improper communications with potential collective action members. They urge the Court to consider the factors used in Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 449 F.Supp.3d 216, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), and find that their communication with employees was not misleading under the totality of the circumstances. The factors in Chen-Oster are: (1) the relative vulnerability of the putative class members; (2) evidence of actual coercion or conditions conducive to coercion; (3) whether the defendant targeted putative class members in a purposeful effort to narrow the class; (4) whether the arbitration provision was unilaterally imposed on the putative class; and (5) evidence of misleading conduct, language, or omissions, including the extent to which the agreement does or does not mention the existence of the putative class action and related information. While the Court recognizes that the Chen-Oster case is not controlling, it nonetheless finds the factors cited in the case instructive. Examining the Chen-Oster factors, the Court finds that The Driver Provider's communication regarding the Agreement and portions of the Agreement itself are coercive and misleading as it relates to the case. First, the putative class members are particularly vulnerable. Second, there are conditions conducive to coercion present. Examining the third factor, it is unclear whether the Defendants targeted the putative class members. Fourth, the Defendants unilaterally imposed the Agreement on drivers. Fifth, the communication and Agreement were misleading and contained a complete omission of the existence of this action. Additionally, language of the Agreement itself is misleading if the Agreement were applied to the claims in the case, Judge Brnovich holds. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the Defendants' communication and Agreement with employees was coercive and misleading if the Defendants attempted to use the Agreement to bar employees from participating in the collective action. Its holding is narrow. The Court rules only that the Agreement is not enforceable against the putative Plaintiffs for this action only. It does not rule that the Defendants are precluded from enforcing the agreement for other claims or future cases. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should issue a curative notice to potential collective action members is appropriate considering the Agreement and its potential to mislead class members. The Court agrees that a corrective notice is appropriate. Other courts have issued a corrective notice under similar circumstances. Judge Brnovich points out that a corrective notice is appropriate to cure any chilling affect the Agreement may have on potential collective action members, who may falsely believe that the Agreement bars them from participating in this action. The Court is in receipt of the Plaintiffs' proposed curative notice. The Defendants are ordered to submit a proposed curative notice or a notice of no objection to the Plaintiffs' proposed curative notice to the Court within seven days of the date of this order. The Plaintiffs also urge the Court to limit communications between the Defendants and potential collective action members. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to "prohibit Defendants from making unilateral, ex parte communications" with class members and putative class members regarding this case and issues directly related to it. The Court declines to limit communications between the Defendants and potential class members at this time. However, it will not hesitate to do so if the Defendants engage in conduct or communications with putative class members that threaten the fairness of this litigation. For the reasons discussed in the Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin or Limit Application of Defendants' New Arbitration Agreement, Approve Curative Notice, and Limit Defendants' Communications with Putative Class Members and Request for Expedited Ruling. The Motion is granted in that the Court orders that the Defendants' arbitration agreement cannot be enforced against putative collection action members for the purposes of this litigation. The Motion is also granted as to the Plaintiffs' request for a curative notice as described above. The motion is denied as to the Plaintiffs' request that the Court limit the Defendants' communications with putative collection action members. The Defendants are directed to submit their proposed corrective notice or notice of no objection to the Plaintiffs' corrective notice to the Court within seven days. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 5, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2m8rbzpa from Leagle.com. EBANG INT'L: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Zaker v. Ebang International Holdings Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-03060) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ebang International Holdings, Inc. ("Ebang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBON) securities between June 26, 2020 and April 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your Ebang investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/ebang-international-holdings-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On April 6, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Ebang is directing proceeds from its IPO last year into a "series of opaque deals with insiders and questionable counterparties." According to the report, Ebang raised $21 million in November 2020, claiming the proceeds would go "primarily for development," and that instead the funds were directed to repay related-party loans to a relative of the Ebang's Chief Executive Officer, Dong Hu. The report also noted that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange had failed due to widespread media coverage of a sales inflation scheme with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending platform that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655 million "vanish[ing] into thin air." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.82, or approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per share on April 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a statement stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed] many errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate interpretations of events," the "Board, together with its Audit Committee, intends to further review and examine the allegations and misinformation therein and will take whatever necessary and appropriate actions may be required to protect the interest of its shareholders." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, or 2.17%, to close at $5.41 per share on April 7, 2021. The stock price continued to decline over the next trading session by $0.38, or 7%, to close at $5.03 per share on April 8, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the proceeds from Ebang's public offerings had been directed to an low yield, long term bonds to an underwriter and to related parties rather than used to develop the Company's operations; (2) that Ebang's sales were declining and the Company had inflated reported sales, including through the sale of defective units; (3) that Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and inflated sales figures; (4) that Ebang's purported cryptocurrency exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto exchange; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Ebang securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Frank R. Cruz Announces Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Zaker v. Ebang International Holdings Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-03060) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ebang International Holdings, Inc. ("Ebang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBON) securities between June 26, 2020 and April 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/3g0nyDE to participate. On April 6, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Ebang is directing proceeds from its IPO last year into a "series of opaque deals with insiders and questionable counterparties." According to the report, Ebang raised $21 million in November 2020, claiming the proceeds would go "primarily for development," and that instead the funds were directed to repay related-party loans to a relative of the Ebang's Chief Executive Officer, Dong Hu. The report also noted that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange had failed due to widespread media coverage of a sales inflation scheme with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending platform that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655 million "vanish[ing] into thin air." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.82, or approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per share on April 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a statement stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed] many errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate interpretations of events," the "Board, together with its Audit Committee, intends to further review and examine the allegations and misinformation therein and will take whatever necessary and appropriate actions may be required to protect the interest of its shareholders." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, or 2.17%, to close at $5.41 per share on April 7, 2021. The stock price continued to decline over the next trading session by $0.38, or 7%, to close at $5.03 per share on April 8, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the proceeds from Ebang's public offerings had been directed to an low yield, long term bonds to an underwriter and to related parties rather than used to develop the Company's operations; (2) that Ebang's sales were declining and the Company had inflated reported sales, including through the sale of defective units; (3) that Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and inflated sales figures; (4) that Ebang's purported cryptocurrency exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto exchange; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased Ebang securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Ebang securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Ebang International Holdings (NASDAQ: EBON) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: June 26, 2020 – Apr. 5, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 7, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/EBON Contact An Attorney Now: EBON@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Ebang International Holdings (NASDAQ: EBON) Securities Fraud Class Action: The complaint focuses on the accuracy of Ebang's statements concerning its use of capital raised from investors and its claim to be a leading manufacturer of bitcoin mining machines. According to the complaint, over the past year, Ebang raised approximately $374 million from investors in public offerings and represented it would use these proceeds to "further expand our operations" in cryptocurrency mining, exchange platforms, and general corporate purposes. Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on Apr. 6, 2021, when analyst Hindenburg Research published a scathing report entitled "Ebang: Yet Another Crypto 'China Hustle' Absconding With U.S. Investor Cash." According to Hindenburg, the company directed much of the cash out of the company through a series of opaque deals with entities linked to Ebang's Chairman/CEO and its underwriter. Specifically, Hindenburg concludes the company directed (1) $103 million into bond purchases linked to its underwriter which has a track record of fraud allegations levied against it, and (2) $21 million to a relative of its Chairman/CEO coincident with raising that amount from investors. Hindenburg also concludes Ebang is not a leading bitcoin mining machine producer, only sold a pittance compared to other large Chinese producers, and is slated for a 97% decline in such sales for FY 2020. In response, the price of Ebang shares declined sharply. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Ebang lied to investors about its true operations and use of capital," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are an Ebang investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Ebang should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email EBON@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] EBIX INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased EBIX stock or other securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Ebix to submit their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. The case alleges that Ebix and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there was a material weakness in Ebix's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) Ebix's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel. Interested Ebix investors have until April 23, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 www.tenlaw.com/cases/Ebix [GN] EDWARD D. JONES: Huang's Bid to Enforce Schultz Settlement Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VALESKA SCHULTZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-1346-JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied Objector Shiyang Huang's pro se Motion to Enforce Settlement, Compel Accounting, Order Payment of Lost Interest of the Class, and Equitable Reduction of Class Counsel Fee. Mr. Huang argues that the Class Counsel breached its fiduciary duty to the Class by failing to distribute the settlement funds for over one year and to reimburse lost interest to the "$10 de minimis" class members. Huang also asks the Court to reduce the Class Counsel's fee by the amount of interest earned on the class fund, i.e., $13,677, to increase the de minimis distribution of class fund for its failure to distribute one year ago. On April 22, 2019, the Court approved the settlement between the Class and the Defendants. Of a class of 74,121 individuals, three filed objections, which the Court overruled. Following final approval, Huang alone appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, thereby, delaying the Effective Date of Settlement under the terms of the Court-approved Settlement Agreement. On Jan. 30, 2020, the Eighth Circuit denied Huang's appeal. Huang then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on Oct. 5, 2020. As a result, distributions to the Class were on hold until the Effective Date of the Settlement 25 days later, on Oct. 31, 2020. The Plaintiffs state that since that date, the Class Counsel, the Defendants, the Settlement Administrator, and the Defendants' recordkeepers have had to update class member information; calculate the Distributable Settlement Amount to account for administrative costs and interest earned on the Settlement Fund; allocate to each Class Member a share of the Distributable Settlement Amount; and revise and re-allocate those amounts to progressively increase all Class Members to at least a $10 distribution. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, interest earned on the Settlement Fund is added to the total amount distributable to all the Class Members before calculating the minimum $10 distributions. Thus, Huang is not entitled to any additional interest on the $10 minimum distribution. On March 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a declaration from Derek Smith, Director at KCC Class Action Services, LLC, confirming that the Settlement Administrator has now completed distributions to the Class Members. Judge Ross holds that nothing in the record before the Court suggests that the conduct of the Class Counsel was not in the best interest of the Class. While it was certainly his right to appeal, Huang cannot complain of delay in distributing settlement funds when that delay was the result of his appeal. Therefore, Judge Ross denied Huang's Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7uttnth from Leagle.com. EXPEDIA GROUP: Settles False Advertising Class Action With Hotels ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino at CourtHouse News reports that travel booking giant Expedia and its affiliates will take steps to ensure non-partnering hotels are no longer falsely advertised as "sold out" on its platforms under the terms of a class action settlement approved. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria approved the deal nearly five years after two California hotels sued the online booking company in August 2016. Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn claim Expedia used deceptive online ads to target consumers who searched for hotels that could not be booked through Expedia. Consumers were allegedly directed to webpages that listed fake phone numbers for non-partnering hotels and falsely labeled them as unavailable for sold out. The plaintiffs claim Expedia intended to siphon business away from non-partnering hotels to lodges and inns that pay the company fees for its online booking services. Expedia said the practice resulted from "inadvertent technical errors" that have since been corrected. In 2019, Chhabria certified a class of hotels to seek injunctive relief but no monetary damages. The class includes all hotels that appear on Expedia's websites even though they are not capable of being booked on those sites. Last year, Chhabira denied Expedia's motion for summary judgment and found the company would have to face a bench trial on claims that it violated false advertising prohibitions under the Lanham Act. Chhabria found that while some advertising messages such as "We are sold out" were "literally false," other messages were "not literally false" but potentially misleading. For example, one Expedia ad for nonparticipating hotels read: "Your dates are popular! Rooms are unavailable for your trip dates on Expedia. Try new dates to check availability." The message suggested that Expedia could book rooms for that hotel if different reservation dates were chosen, even though it could not, Chhabria concluded. In February, both sides proposed a settlement in which Expedia will commit to a series of measures to ensure nonparticipating hotels are no longer listed on its platforms. To accomplish that goal, Expedia will contractually require third-party booking companies that it works with to notify Expedia when a hotel terminates its relationship with that third party. It will also use technological controls to prevent nonparticipating hotels from appearing in its search engine results when it learns those hotels no longer work with its third-party booking partners. Additionally, the company also vowed to "act promptly" to remove nonparticipating hotels from its websites if it learns a hotel is being falsely advertised as unavailable. The terms of an injunction imposed by the settlement will expire after three years. "The settlement provides significant benefits to the Class and to the general public, as travelers will no longer be misled as to the availability of class member hotels that are not bookable on Expedia's websites," attorneys for the plaintiff class wrote in a Feb. 24 motion for settlement approval. Chhabria granted a request for $2.1 million in attorneys' fees and costs for the plaintiff class lawyers. He also granted incentive awards of $12,500 to each named plaintiff. Lawyers for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The plaintiff class is represented by James Patterson and Jennifer French of the Patterson Law Group in San Diego. Attorney Cortlin Lannin of Covington & Burling in San Francisco represents Expedia. First founded by Microsoft in 1996, Expedia spun off as a separate company in 1999 during the height of the dot-com boom. Today, Expedia owns multiple online booking platforms, including Vrbo, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Orbitz, Travelocity, Trivago and CarRentals.com. Expedia earned $12 billion in revenue in 2019 but saw its revenue dwindle to $5.2 billion in 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The company is valued at $25 billion. [GN] FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing and the motion to withdraw the Turners as lead plaintiffs and to substitute Brokop as lead plaintiff in the purported class action suit headed by the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner, is pending On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Kachmar v. Farmland Partners Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and certain of its officers by a purported Company stockholder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's disclosure related to the FPI Agribusiness Inc. (FPI) Loan Program was materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar Action. Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar action voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action. On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner, as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action. On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended complaint in the Turner Action. On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. On June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. The defendants answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019. On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Obelisk Capital Management from the case. In connection with Obelisk Capital Management's dismissal from the case, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019, which automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the court's determination of the motion. On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to have the Turners and purported stockholder Don Brokop appointed as class representative. On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to add Brokop as additional plaintiff in place of Obelisk Capital Management. Defendants filed a response opposing the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on January 17, 2020, and filed a motion to adjourn the class certification briefing schedule in light of the discovery stay on January 29, 2020. On December 8, 2020, the court granted the Turners' motion to amend to add Brokop as an additional plaintiff and denied the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings. As a result, the automatic discovery stay was lifted and the court entered a schedule for proceedings going forward. The company, Mr. Paul A.Pittman, and Mr. Luca Fabbri filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on February 8, 2021. On February 17, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw the Turners as lead plaintiffs and to substitute Brokop as lead plaintiff. Discovery remains ongoing. Farmland said, "At this time, no class has been certified in the Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can provide no assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate of related expenses at this time." Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. FEDEX CORP: No Appeal Filed in Dismissal of New York Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2021, for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2021, that the plaintiff in the consolidated class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, did not appeal the dismissal by the deadline. On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and former officers were named as defendants in two putative class action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to alleged misstatements or omissions in FedEx's public filings with the SEC and other public statements during the period from September 19, 2017 to December 18, 2018. On February 4, 2021, the consolidated lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal by the deadline. FedEx Corporation provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services under the FedEx brand. The Company's primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the world's largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a leading North American provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc., a leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload freight services. The company is based in Memphis, Tennessee. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: District Court Dismissed Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ On March 25, 2021, the Northern District of California dismissed all claims in a consolidated securities class action against Ropes & Gray client Forescout Technologies, Inc., and two former executives. Forescout provides device visibility and control solutions that protect organizations' computer networks from cyberattacks. Forescout was acquired last year by Ropes & Gray client Advent International. Plaintiffs had alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5. Relying mostly on fifteen confidential witnesses, plaintiffs claimed that over the course of 2019 and early 2020, Forescout and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements about Forescout's revenue projections, sales force, pipeline, and its then-upcoming merger with Advent. On behalf of Forescout, Ropes & Gray moved to dismiss, arguing that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 barred certain forward-looking statements and that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity, scienter, and loss causation. Ropes & Gray argued that the defendants' optimistic predictions about unexpected headwinds' impact on the business and about a merger signed right before the onset of a global pandemic did not amount to securities fraud. Less than a week after oral argument, Judge Susan Illston issued an order granting Forescout's and the executives' motions to dismiss. Judge Illston agreed with Forescout that the plaintiffs did not establish falsity as to any of the statements, and found that the allegations from the fifteen confidential witnesses were vague and unreliable. Judge Illston also held that the plaintiffs failed to plead the requisite strong inference of scienter. Forescout actively defends the Enterprise of Things by continuously identifying, segmenting and enforcing compliance of every connected thing. The Ropes & Gray team included litigation & enforcement partners C. Thomas Brown (who argued the motion to dismiss), Anne Johnson Palmer, and Peter Welsh. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Claims in Chapman's Second Amended Suit Narrowed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK D. CHAPMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-12333-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and denied the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations. The case is a large putative class action: 21 Named Plaintiffs seek to sue GM over its use of the Bosch CP4 fuel pump in GMC and Chevrolet diesel trucks from model year 2011-2016. They allege fraud on GM's part that has subsequently caused them to suffer injury. There are 114 counts in the 574-page SAC covering federal law as well as state fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, consumer protection, warranty, and unjust enrichment claims under the laws of 49 states. The Plaintiffs all bought diesel fuel GMC and Chevrolet trucks from GM for the model years 2011-2016, with 6.6L Duramax engines and a Bosch CP4 model high-pressure fuel injection pump. They allege injury at the point of sale: They paid a premium of $5,000 to $8,000 for these trucks because they run on diesel and were advertised to have a longer life, greater fuel efficiency, and other features above and beyond other vehicles. The Plaintiffs allege GM was aware of these issues with the CP4 fuel pump even before it began to sell trucks with the pump incorporated. Despite that, it marketed the vehicles as having increased durability and fuel efficiency, in part due to their use of diesel. The Plaintiffs also allege that GM did not take steps to remedy the problem, and instead actively concealed the defect for as long as possible. GM stopped using the CP4 pump after the 2016 model year of the class vehicles, switching to another model of pump that had been in use since 2004. The Plaintiffs allege the following broad categories of claims under federal law and the laws of 49 states and the District of Columbia: (i) Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. Section 2301, (ii) fraudulent concealment, (iii) breach of contract, (iv) implied warranty of merchantability (IWM) (state-specific statutes), (v) consumer protection (state-specific statutes), (vi) unjust enrichment (UE) (state-specific statutes). There are 114 counts: One for the MMWA, one for fraudulent concealment on behalf of all of the sub-classes, one for breach of contract on behalf of all of the sub-classes, and the rest by state (naming the applicable consumer protection, IWM, and UE statutes for each state). Every state has at least one consumer protection claim and California, Georgia, New York, and South Carolina have two each for a total of 54 counts; 42 states have IWM claims and California has two for a total of 43 counts; 14 states have UE claims. GM seeks to dismiss the SAC in full, and challenges the Plaintiffs' claims under theories relating to: standing, deficiencies in the IWM claims, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of contract, deficiencies in fraudulent concealment claims, consumer protection, unjust enrichment, and class allegations. Within each of these broad categories, GM makes numerous arguments as to why claims should be dismissed. Some challenges can be resolved the same way for all claims, while others have state-specific considerations and outcomes. Additionally, some claims could theoretically be dismissed under more than one theory. To promote clarity, Judge Berg independently addressed all state-specific theories that GM has put forward, even if the resulting analysis shows that certain claims could be dismissed for more than one reason. GM also alleges that the Plaintiffs cannot show their claims meet the requirements of a class action, citing deficiencies relating to commonality, predominance, and superiority. It is essentially asking the Court to rule on the propriety of the proposed class at this stage. The Plaintiffs reply that class claims should not be ruled on until the class certification or summary judgment stage, when there is a fuller record. Judge Berg held oral argument on Jan. 29, 2021, primarily to resolve the Motion to Dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Judge asked both sides for supplemental briefing on several specific issues. GM filed a supplemental brief and the Plaintiffs subsequently moved to file their supplemental brief under seal, indicating that they felt compelled to ask for a seal by an earlier protective order in the case. GM next filed a Motion to Strike the supplemental brief, arguing that the Plaintiffs improperly included information outside the scope of the Court's request. The Plaintiffs' Response to the motion to strike also begins with a motion to seal. Also outstanding on the docket are the Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Gary Goodwin, the Defendant's Motion to Compel also as related to Gary Goodwin, and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Brandon Tirozzi for Failure to Prosecute. Judge Berg has thoroughly considered all these outstanding matters and addressed the other pending motions in his Order as well. He granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss. Of the total of 114 claims, 20 will be dismissed with prejudice, one is dismissed without prejudice, and 93 survive. For convenience, the Judge attached a Table of Claims containing a breakdown of the claims that survive and those that are dismissed. The Table of Claims is incorporated in his Order by reference and specified according to the Count numbers in the SAC which claims remain and which are being dismissed. Among other things, Judge Berg found that (i) in view of these allegations, at this stage, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a possibility of future harm to give them standing for injunctive relief; (ii) the Plaintiffs allegations regarding engine stalls and catastrophic failure are serious enough to plausibly allege unmerchantability; (iii) the Plaintiffs concede that their breach of contract claims are insufficiently pled in light of the Court's opinion in Raymo, 2020 WL 4366061, at *20. See n. 8, ECF No. 53, PageID.5968; Tr. 1/29/21, 12:18-21, PageID.7068; (iv) the specific allegations the Plaintiffs make contain enough facts at this stage to show fraudulent omission; (v) overpayment at the point-of-sale is recognized as an injury; (vi) consumer protection claims are dismissed if they involve claims where GM did not have knowledge of the defect prior to the time of sale; and (vii) construing the facts in the Plaintiffs' favor, it is not a foregone conclusion that they will be unable to meet class certification requirements after discovery. Judge Berg granted the Motion to Strike, and instructed the Clerk to strike the following from the docket: a. ECF No. 68: The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (PageID.7238-42), the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief (redacted) (Ex. 1, PageID.7248-7259), Exs. 2-7 (redacted); b. ECF No. 69: Same as ECF No. 68, sealed and unredacted; c. ECF No. 70: The Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief (redacted) (PageID.7366-77), case chart with supplemental authorities (Ex. 1, PageID.7382-87), Exs. 2-7 (redacted). d. ECF No. 71: Same materials as ECF No. 70, sealed and unredacted. e. ECF No. 72: GM's Motion to Strike; f. ECF No. 73: GM's Response to the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief; g. ECF No. 74: The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (PageID.7692-94) and Response to Motion to Strike (Ex. 1, PageID.7698-7707); h. ECF No. 75: Same materials as ECF No. 74, sealed and unredacted; i. ECF No. 76: Response to Motion to Strike (redacted); and j. ECF No. 77: Same as ECF No. 76, sealed and unredacted. The Judge denied the Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 68, 69, 74, 75) as moot because the materials will no longer be part of the docket. The Plaintiffs are ordered to file a copy of their supplemental briefing with the stricken materials removed on the docket, and clearly label it to indicate what is included. The Judge also denied as moot the motions related to Plaintiff Goodwin. The parties have stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff Goodwin. Judge Berg granted the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Tirozzi and dismissed him from the action with prejudice. Plaintiff Tirozzi has not responded to the Court's Order to obtain counsel, or otherwise communicated with the Court in any way, making it difficult to determine what reasons are motivating his lack of response. GM will certainly be prejudiced if, after the entry of the order, it is forced to re-litigate these claims as to Plaintiff Tirozzi alone. The Order granting leave to withdraw did not specifically warn him that he could be dismissed for failure to find a new attorney. But because this is a class action, he cannot remain in the case as a named plaintiff without an attorney. The Judge granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiff Tirozzi, with the understanding that his claims may live on inasmuch as he would be a member of the Plaintiffs' putative class. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ju95ymuw from Leagle.com. GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTA MARIE HAZELY and KATHRYN MCCARTHY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., Case No. 1:21-cv-00321 (E.D.Va, March 16, 2021) is a class action suit against Gerber for deceptive business practices, including misrepresentations and omissions, regarding the presence of dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals and other contaminants contained within its Gerber Tainted Baby Foods that Plaintiffs purchased. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Class including (i) requiring full disclosure of all such substances and ingredients in the Defendant's marketing, advertising, and labeling; (ii) requiring testing of all ingredients and final products for such substances; and (iii) restoring monies to the members of the proposed Class. According to the complaint, parents and other caregivers, including the Plaintiffs, reasonably believe that the baby food they purchase for their babies will be healthy, nutritious, and non-toxic, and that is what Gerber wanted them to think. Alarmingly, parents and Plaintiffs were wrong. A recent report by the U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform (“House Subcommittee”) reveals that certain brands of commercial baby food -- including Defendant Gerber's Tainted Baby Foods -- are tainted with significant and dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. 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, the suit adds. The Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment, and violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law. The Plaintiffs had purchased Tainted Baby Foods that were manufactured and produced by Defendant Gerber that have been found to contain dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals. The Defendant packages, labels, markets, advertises, formulates, manufactures, distributes, and sells its Tainted Baby Foods throughout the United States, including New York and Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janine L. Pollack, Esq. CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP 1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 899-1765 Facsimile: (332) 206-2073 E-mail: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: LFeldman@4-justice.com eService@4-Justice.com - and - David J. George, Esq. Brittany L. Brown, Esq. GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC 9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302 Lake Worth, FL 33467 Telephone: (561) 232-6002 Facsimile: (888) 421-4173 E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com eService@4-Justice.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Chrome's Incognito Mode ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Daniel, writing for Verdict, reports that Google has found itself at the centre of a class action lawsuit after users allege that their personal information was collected while browsing in Chrome's private "Incognito" mode. According to Google, in Incognito mode Chrome won't save your browsing history, cookies and site data, or information entered in forms. However, it states that activity and IP address may still be visible to websites visited, whoever runs the network that is being used, search engines and your internet service provider. While the privacy-conscious may be aware that Incognito mode does not offer total anonymity, those involved in the class action, which was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, claim that they were misled by Google as websites continued to collect data using Google tools such as Google Analytics and Google Ad Manager when data collection was turned off in Chrome. They allege that the tech giant violated federal wiretap laws and the invasion of privacy act. The plaintiffs claim that Google tracks and collects consumer browsing history and other web activity data "no matter what safeguards consumers undertake to protect their data privacy". The complaint added that "Google must be held accountable for the harm it has caused to its users in order to ensure it cannot continue to engage in the covert and unauthorised data collection from virtually every American with a computer or phone". US district judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California said: "The court concludes that Google did not notify users that Google engages in the alleged data collection while the user is in private browsing mode." Bloomberg reported that Google's parent company Alphabet was unsuccessful in its initial attempt to quash the lawsuit after the federal judge rejected the attempt. [GN] GOSHEN HOSPITAL: Faces Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over Negligence ------------------------------------------------------------------ wsbt.com reports that a second class-action lawsuit is now filed against Goshen Hospital, alleging it failed to properly sterilize surgical instruments between April and September 30th of 2019. The newest suit lists more than 300 plaintiffs, adding to the lawsuit filed shortly after the announcement by the hospital back in 2019. It cites the potential for exposing nearly 1,200 patients to Hepatitis B and C as well as HIV. The lawsuit demands a jury trial. A statement by Goshen Health says it will continue to provide ongoing care for patients, but can't comment any further because of the pending litigation. [GN] HALODINE LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says ------------------------------------------------------------- KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. HALODINE LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02274-AT (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, www.lumitylife.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. 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 an online retailer of antiseptic solution. Through the Website, customers can purchase items such as nasal swabs, oral spray, liquid packets, and oral rinse. Items are available for purchase individually or they can be bundled together to save. The Defendant does not operate any brick-and-mortar stores. Products can only be purchased online through the Website, or via other online retailers such as Amazon.com.[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 HEALTHCARE INFORMATION: Settles Class Action Suit for $2.8 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Heather Landi, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that the organizer of the canceled HIMSS20 conference will pay $2.8 million to settle a lawsuit brought by HatchMed and other show exhibitors who complained that they received no refund when the show was called off. In the class-action suit, companies alleged Chicago-based Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) committed a "cash grab" by canceling the industry trade show and pocketing the show fees. HIMSS canceled last year's global health conference in March 2020 just days before it was slated to start due to concerns about COVID-19. HIMSS organizers took a lot of heat on social media and from attendees for planning to go ahead with the conference under the shadow of pandemic fears. Others were frustrated that HIMSS canceled the conference so late. At the time, HIMSS originally announced no refunds, which drew a lot of ire from exhibitors and registrants. Attendees and exhibitors complained about a lack of communication from HIMSS organizers and a lack of available refund options. HIMSS then adjusted its policy and announced in April that it would provide partial credits for the HIMSS21 and HIMSS22 events. In June 2020, HatchMed Corp., a small business that sells medical devices, beds, and stretchers, and several other companies that paid fees to attend the 2020 show filed a class-action lawsuit. HatchMed and other exhibitors allege that HIMSS used COVID-19 as a "transparent opportunity for a cash grab" and unilaterally kept exhibitors' money "without basis," according to the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. HIMSS denies any liability and wrongdoing in the litigation. In a statement, Karen Groppe, senior director of strategic communications at HIMSS, confirmed the settlement agreement. "Documents reflecting the negotiated resolution have been filed with the court for preliminary approval and HIMSS looks forward to finalizing the matter. Because this is still an active legal case, HIMSS has no additional comment at this time," she said in the statement. In the suit, HatchMed said it paid more than $11,000 in November 2019 to reserve floor space to exhibit its products during the 2020 conference, according to the company's suit. Other businesses looking to participate in the five-day show executed similar contracts, it claimed. The HIMSS conference typically attracts 1,300 exhibitors each year, according to the suit. HIMSS20 was scheduled to start March 9 and organizers announced March 5 that the show would be canceled after the World Health Organization (WHO) and others declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. "However, unlike other industry-wide tradeshows, HIMSS decided to utilize its cancellation as an unauthorized cash grab, as it unilaterally determined to keep the money that its exhibitors paid," HatchMed's suit claimed. That decision breached the contracts HIMSS entered with HatchMed and at least 100 other exhibitors, according to the suit. During a remote hearing, U.S. District Judge Martha Pacold said the parties had presented an "extensive" and "thorough" argument for granting the deal preliminary approval, Law360 reported. HatchMed's counsel, Peyton Healey of Hedrick Kring PLLC, told Law360 on March 12 that he and his client were "very excited" to get it approved. "We think that we've obtained a good result for the class that really does get them a significant benefit that will be useful at the end of the day," Healey said, Law360 reported. According to the settlement motion, lawsuit class members have two options: they can apply a 50% credit of their HIMSS20 exhibitor fees to HIMSS21 and another 10% for HIMSS22, or take a 20% cash refund of HIMSS20 fees along with a 30% credit of those fees applied toward HIMSS21 and 10% applied toward HIMSS22 The cash refund will come from a $2.8 million cash fund provided by HIMSS, the settlement states. HatchMed is represented by Peyton Healey of Hedrick Kring PLLC and Nicholas Peters and Nicole Little of Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery. HIMSS is represented by Mark Mester, Kirsten Caroline Lee, and Robert C. Collins III of Latham & Watkins. The HIMSS21 was pushed back to Aug. 9-13 in Las Vegas and will feature both an in-person event and an online component. Registration for the 2021 event is now open. Close to 10,000 peak hotel rooms have been reserved in Las Vegas for the August dates, according to HIMSS. The HIMSS21 exhibitor list shows 417 companies have committed to being on the show floor. [GN] HERTZ CORPORATION: Court Certifies Three Classes in Denicolo Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD G. DENICOLO, ET AL., v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION ET AL., Case No. 4:19-cv-00210-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting class certification to: -- Illinois Resident Class "All Illinois residents who received, for the first time, a letter from Viking: (1) that asserted a claim of damage to a vehicle rented from Hertz, Dollar or 4 Thrifty; (2) more than 30 days after the date of the purported damage; and (3) the vehicle was not rented by or in the name of a business. -- California Rental Class "All individuals who rented a vehicle in California and who received, for the first time, a letter from Viking: (1) that asserted a claim of damage to a vehicle rented from Hertz, Dollar or Thrifty; (2) more than 30 days after the date of the purported damage; and (3) the vehicle was not rented by or in the name of a business;" and -- California Resident Class "All California residents who received a letter from Viking asserting a claim for purported damage to a vehicle rented from Hertz, Dollar or Thrifty; and (3) the vehicle was not rented by or in the name of a business." The Court further Orders that: (a) plaintiff Ronald G. DeNicolo, Jr. is appointed class representative of the Illinois Resident and California Rental Classes; (b) plaintiff Michael G. Fox is appointed class representative of the California Resident Class; and (c) attorneys are Krislov & Associates, Ltd. and Andrus Anderson LLP are appointed class counsel. In light of the analysis here and in connection with summary judgment, the Court has modified the proposed class definitions, as set forth below. However, the Court finds that the classes should be further limited based upon the applicable statutes of limitations. The parties are Ordered to meet and confer and submit a joint statement as to appropriate temporal limitations on the class definitions. If the parties are unable to agree, they may state their respective positions in a joint statement not to exceed six pages (three per side). The joint statement shall be filed no later than April 12, 2021. The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida, that operates 10,200 corporate and franchisee locations internationally. A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wLFvvp at no extra charge.[CC] HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC: Votes to Join Class Action Against Airbnb ----------------------------------------------------------------- islandpacket.com reports that Airbnb and VRBO renters on Hilton Head Island need to pay their share. That's what town leaders, who voted Tuesday night to join a class action lawsuit against the short term rental companies, say makes renting on the island unfair. The suit will argue that the platforms should assess accommodations taxes like hotels do. Those taxes paid by visitors help boost tourism development. The vote came after the council discussed the potential litigation in executive session. The suit is being managed by Jesse Kirchner, a Charleston-based lawyer, and comes on the heels of a 2018 settlement in a similar case brought against Expedia, Travelocity and Priceline by eight South Carolina cities and counties. Taking Airbnb and VRBO to court over accommodations taxes is a powerful move for coastal municipalities because the suit will argue that short-term rental owners need to add accommodations taxes when calculating the price for renters like hotels and other rentals do. As more rentals pop up on the websites, town officials say the community is missing out on taxes that visitors should be paying when they stay there. On Hilton Head, accommodations taxes add 1% to room costs. The state of South Carolina assesses a 5% state sales tax on rentals and a 2% state accommodations tax on hotels, rentals and campgrounds. "At the end of the day everybody needs to pay their fair share," Ward 1 representative on Hilton Head Town Council told The Island Packet. "That A-TAX money is something we definitely depend on." If the lawsuit succeeds, the increased taxes would be brought back to the state and town. Hilton Head divides accommodations taxes to the Hilton Head Island-Bluffton Chamber of Commerce and makes the rest available in grants to organizations that serve and boost tourism on the island. Town Council attorney Curtis Coltrane confirmed the town's involvement in the litigation. [GN] HILTON MANAGEMENT: Collins Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHASTA COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HILTON MANAGEMENT LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-589873, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-02523 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay wages when due. Hilton Management LLC is a hospitality company doing business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com - and – Isabella L. Shin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. Riverpark Tower 333 West San Carlos Street, Suite 1625 San Jose, CA 95110-2714 Telephone: (408) 579-0404 Facsimile: (408) 454-0290 E-mail: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com IMPERIAL PARKING: Wash. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Alemu Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SOLOMON ALEMU, an individual; GETACHEW TADESSE, an individual; TESFAYE AYELE, an individual, Respondents v. IMPERIAL PARKING (U.S.), LLC, a foreign limited liability company, dba Impark, Appellant, Case No. 80376-0-I (Wash. App.), the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirms the trial court's orders granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Chapter 7.45 SeaTac Municipal Code ("SMC") promotes a living wage for employees working in SeaTac, Washington. Specifically, SMC 7.45.050 requires defined hospitality and transportation employers, who employ a certain number of employees, to pay those employees $15 per hour. Imperial Parking (Impark) managed the SeaTac DoubleTree Hotel's parking lot by providing, among other services, valet for the Hotel's guests. This case involves a narrow issue of statutory interpretation as to whether Impark is a hotel subcontractor subject to SMC 7.45.010(D)'s $15 per hour minimum wage requirement. Impark employees brought a putative class action against Impark for failure to pay $15 per hour. Impark appeals the trial court's orders granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying Impark's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the ordinance's application to Impark. The parties agree that the dispositive issue in the appeal is whether the trial court erred by concluding that SMC 7.45.010(D) applied to Impark and granting partial summary judgment in favor of the employees. Impark contends that, in order to be subject to the ordinance as a hospitality employer's subcontractor, it must employ 30 or more employees. The Appellate Court disagrees. The Appellate Court concludes that a hotel employer's subcontractor does not need to employ 30 employees. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it granted partial summary judgment in favor of the employees and denied Impark's motion for summary judgment. Impark asserts that because it performs transportation employer functions, it cannot be considered a hospitality employer. The Appellate Court disagrees. Impark is a transportation employer under the plain meaning of SMC 7.45.010(M)(2)(a)-(b), Judge Lori K. Smith, writing for the Panel, opines. Impark managed a parking lot of more than one hundred parking spaces, falling under the definition of transportation employer. However, it did not meet the employee threshold because it employed less than 25 workers. Thus, Impark is not subject to the ordinance as a transportation employer. However, this does not exempt Impark from the other provisions of the ordinance, Judge Smith holds. The ordinance does not provide such an exemption, i.e., it does not state that a transportation employer, who employs less than 25 workers, is exempt from the ordinance, Judge Smith opines. Rather, it merely regulates a transportation employer that employs 25 workers or a hospitality employer or its subcontractor. For these reasons, Impark's contention is without merit. The Appellate Court affirms the trial court's orders in favor of the employees. Therefore, the Appellate Court remands to the trial court for the matter to proceed. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 5, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4dm2yny4 from Leagle.com. Harry J.F. Korrell III -- harrykorrell@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, at 920 5th Ave., Ste. 3300, in Seattle, Washington 98104-1610, Devin M. Smith -- devinsmith@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, at 929 108th Ave. NE, Ste. 1500, in Bellevue, Washington 98004-4786, Jeffrey Bennett Youmans -- jeffreyyoumans@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, at 920 5th Ave., Ste. 3300, in Seattle, Washington 98104-1610, Kathryn S. Rosen -- katierosen@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, at 920 5th Ave., Ste. 3300, in Seattle, Washington 98104-1610, Counsel for Petitioner(s). Duncan Calvert Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC, at 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Ste. 200, in Shoreline, Washington 98155-8208, Mark Alexander Trivett -- mtrivett@badgleymullins.com -- Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC, at 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Ste. 200, in Shoreline, Washington 98155-8208, Daniel R. Whitmore, Law Offices of Daniel R. Whitmore, PS, at 6840 Fort Dent Way, Ste. 210, in Tukwila, Washington 98188-2555, Counsel for Respondent(s). JAKKS PACIFIC: Brown Putative Class Suit in Delaware Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action lawsuit entitled, Brown v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al. A purported class action lawsuit was filed on November 10, 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Brown v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al.) alleging that the Proxy Statement issued in connection with the shareholder meeting held in June 2020 contained misstatements regarding the manner in which broker votes would be counted and that such votes were improperly included in approving the Company's reverse stock split at the meeting. The purported class action seeks damages in an unspecified amount, alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. JAKKS said, "Since the action was recently commenced, however, we cannot assure you of its outcome and cannot estimate the range of any potential damage award. The Company is taking steps to hold a Special Meeting of the Shareholders on April 30, 2021 to obtain shareholder ratification of the filing of the Certificate of Amendment to its Certificate of Incorporation effecting the reverse split, in accordance with ratification procedures under Delaware law, and if ratified, to then seek settlement and dismissal of the lawsuit." JAKKS Pacific, Inc. develops, produces, and markets consumer and related products worldwide. The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Halloween. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California. JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Jianpu Technology Inc. ("Jianpu" or the "Company") (NYSE: JT) and reminds investors of the April 19, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Jianpu stock or options between May 29, 2018 and February 16, 2021 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/JT. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that certain of the Company's transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed relationships or lacked business substance; (2) that, as a result, Jianpu's revenue and costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019 were overstated; (3) that there were material weaknesses in Jianpu's internal control over financial reporting; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was reasonably likely to be restated; and (5) 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 February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of its review into "transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit" with third-party business entities. The Company concluded that previously reported revenue and associated expenses had been inflated due to "certain transactions [that] involved third-party agents (including both upstream agents and downstream suppliers) with undisclosed relationships and some transactions [that] lacked business substance." In the same press release, Jianpu stated that it would restate its financial statements for fiscal 2018 and that "investors must exercise caution" with respect to the previously reported fiscal 2019 financial information. Jianpu stated that it "anticipates the total amount of overstated revenue for the fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to be approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164 million, respectively, representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of the total revenue previously reported." On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.60, or 13%, to close at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Jianpu's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. [GN] JOHN TILLEY: Casey Rhoades Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY RHOADES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHN TILLEY, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00019-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "All state inmates who were incarcerated only for violations of post-incarceration supervision under KRS 532.400(1)(b), and who were not cleared for release within 12 hours of Kentucky Department of Corrections' (KDOC's) receipt of the Court of Appeals' orders denying KDOC relief from the Franklin Circuit Court's orders." In February 2017, Donnell Mitchem served out a one-year prison sentence. However, upon his release, he learned for the first time that he would be subjected to one year of post-incarceration supervision (PIS) by the Kentucky Department of Corrections, as if he had been granted parole or probation. Because Mitchem failed to make contact with his PIS supervisor, he was incarcerated again and given another year to serve. Mitchem's sentence did not include the additional year of supervision. Instead, it was foisted upon him by KDOC based on KRS 532.400(1)(b) (the PIS statute), which provides: “any person who [h]as a maximum or close security classification as defined by administrative regulations promulgated by [KDOC]. The court further ordered Mitchem's release, which KDOC did not oppose. Because Rhoades has established that his proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b), he respectfully requests that the Court certify the proposed class. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mz4M7H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Belzley, Esq. Camille A. Bathurst, Esq. Aaron Bentley, Esq. BELZLEY, BATHURST & BENTLEY Prospect, Kentucky 40059 Telephone: (502) 292-2452 E-mail: gbelzley@aol.com camillebathurst@aol.com abentley3B@gmail.com JUUL LABS: School District Suit Moved From D.N.J. to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled FREEHOLD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Monmouth County, New Jersey, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES LLC; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-06178, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-02506-WHO to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the New Jersey Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by promoting e-cigarettes to young people and creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Weinkowitz, Esq. Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and – Michael D. Fitzgerald, Esq. 1 Industrial Way W, Building B Eatontown, NJ 07724 Telephone: (732) 223-2200 E-mail: mdfitz@briellelaw.com - and – Lance A. Harke, Esq. HARKE PA 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536-8220 E-mail: LHarke@Harkepa.com KATCH INC: Isidro Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Isidro, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Katch Inc. (d/b/a Katch Astoria) and William McSorley, Case No. 1:21-cv-08126 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that the Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Isidro's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a waiter, food runner and delivery worker instead of a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Isidro at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him above tip-credit rate, but below the minimum wage. Moreover, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours compensation for the hours that he worked, says the complaint. Mr. Isidro was ostensibly employed by the Defendants at Katch Astoria from approximately December 12, 2018 until February 16, 2020. Katch Inc. operates Katch Astoria, a sports bar, owned by William McSorley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 KDEM EATS: De Jesus Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Joel de Jesus, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Kdem Eats Inc. d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine, Karena Foods Inc. d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine, Eda Food Inc. d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine, Mahender Tulsiani and Gary Tulsiani, Case No. 1:21-cv-02886 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly-aggrieved employees arising out of the Defendants' violation of numerous New York Labor Law provisions and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf of all employees, including cooks, food preparers, dishwashers, cashiers, hosts/hostesses, porters, bartenders, barbacks, servers, runners, busser and delivery persons employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the complaint in this case (FLSA Collective Plaintiffs). The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the minimum wage, failed to pay overtime premium, failed to pay wages for all hours worked due to a policy of time-shaving, failed to pay spread of hours premium, failed to provide proper wage statements per requirements of the New York Labor Law and failed to provide proper wage and hour notices per requirements of the New York Labor Law. Mr. De Jesus was employed by the Defendants from December 28, 2019, until the employment was terminated on January 6, 2021. He worked as a delivery person for the Defendants. Kdem Eats Inc., Karena Foods Inc., and Eda Food Inc. all operate Mughlai Indian Cuisine, a restaurant located at various places in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 - and - Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 KELLOGG CO: Settlement Proposed in Cereals Consumer Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that as previously covered on this blog, a plaintiffs' class action lawsuit filed in 2016, and certified for three classes of consumers in 2018, alleges that statements such as "heart healthy" and "lightly sweetened" on various Kellogg cereals are false and misleading because the cereals contain 18 to 40 percent added sugar. While the outcomes have been mixed in other lawsuits involving nutrition-related claims on breakfast cereals, as discussed here, the Kellogg class action appeared to be moving toward a settlement if the litigants could agree on terms that would be acceptable to the court. On March 10, 2021, the plaintiffs asked the court to approve a revised settlement that they say addresses numerous concerns, including high administrative fees, an overly broad class of consumers, and provisions that would allow Kellogg to reclaim millions if consumers do not act immediately. If approved, the revised settlement would establish a $13 million fund for payment of around $16.09 each to an estimated 16 million households who purchased the covered products between 2012 and May 1, 2020, as well as administrative fees. Any unclaimed funds would go to a supplemental distribution to consumers or to the American Heart Association and the UCLA Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy, which were also named as cy pres recipients in a preliminarily approved $15 million settlement, discussed here, of similar claims involving Post breakfast cereals. The revised settlement would also require that Kellogg refrain for at least one year from using claims such as "heart healthy," which appears on various Raisin Bran and Smart Start cereals, and "lightly sweetened," which appears on Frosted Mini-Wheat varieties of cereals. Nutrition claims that could imply the product is healthy seem risky for foods with added sugars based on mixed results in recent litigation and uncertainty about when and how FDA will act on a citizens petition (discussed here) requesting a regulation to establish disqualifying levels of added sugar that would prohibit the use of a "healthy" claim. [GN] KEVIN KAUFFMAN: Class Certification Sought in Molina Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL MOLINA, et al, v. KEVIN KAUFFMAN, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00038-MWB-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order issuing a class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1) and appointing class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1). The Plaintiff contends that the action should be certified as a class action by all persons who are or were incarcerated at SCI Huntingdon on or after December 30, 2018, and Marianne Sawicki should be appointed class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39XYwkw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marianne Sawicki, Esq. 2530 South Blair Avenue Huntingdon, PA 16652 Telephone: (814) 506-2636 E-mail: Law.Sawicki@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Kelly J. Hoke, Esq. Tara J. Wikhian, Esq. ASSISTANT COUNSELS PENNSYLVANIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS Office of Chief Counsel 1920 Technology Parkway Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 LA CARRETA: June Deadline is Nearing to Join Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A June deadline is nearing to join the class action lawsuit against Summerville restaurant 'La Carreta.' According to the suit, nearly 300 people contracted norovirus -- food poisoning -- after eating at the restaurant between November and December of 2018. A preliminary settlement has been drafted, which would require La Carreta to pay up to $1 million in damages to those who suffered from food poisoning after eating at the restaurant during the designated time period. Under the proposed settlement, "each class member who submits a claim and provides documentary evidence of medical treatment related to the consumption of food at the La Carreta restaurant located at 1580 Old Trolley Rd, A, Summerville, SC 29485 during November and December of 2018 will receive the greater of (a) three times the amount of related medical bills submitted, or (b) $5,000.00." Further, "each class member who submits a claim, but does not provide documentary evidence of medical treatment, must provide (1) proof of purchase and a signed Affidavit (example provided on the claim website at https://summervillefoodpoisoning.com/) affirming the class member's contraction of gastrointestinal illness, or (2) a complaint submitted to DHEC with the claimant's contact information and a signed Affidavit regarding gastrointestinal issues. Each class member who meets the requirements set forth in the this paragraph will receive the lesser of: (a) their pro rata share of the amount remaining after all other claims and costs have been paid, or (b) $1,000.00. In other words, eligible class members without evidence of medical treatment will receive up to $1,000.00." Those interested in joining the lawsuit should submit a claim to the following address on or before June 1, 2021. Suzanne Klok, Esq. Claims Administrator P.O. Box 2512 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 claimsadministrator@kloklaw.com (843) 375-1261 [GN] LA PURA: Suit Claims Over 'Free Trial' Skin Cream Scam Advance -------------------------------------------------------------- In early January 2020, LeAnne Tan received a text message promising a free gift of La Pura anti-wrinkle cream in exchange for completing an online survey. The text purported to be an ad from Amazon and only stipulated a small $4.94 shipping fee. Spurred by this assurance, she took the survey and clicked the link to receive her free gift. Tan was taken to the La Pura website's order page, where she saw that two more products had been added to her shopping cart. There was no option to remove them, but she still clicked the "complete my order" box, believing she would only be charged $4.94 in shipping for her "free gift." Tan immediately received an email from La Pura saying her credit card would be billed from three separate merchant accounts: "beautifullyremarkableh," "beautyhealthremarkable" and "skincarehealthybeautygroup." But rather than the expected $4.94, Tan was separately charged $88.46 and $84.37, for a total of $172.83 for three products -- La Pura Wrinkle Freezing Moisturizer, La Pura Instant Lifting Eye Serum, and La Pura Instant Tightening Serum. Alarmed by the charges for products she didn't want, Tan contacted La Pura's customer service number. Tan was unavailable for an interview about her experience, but a transcript of the conversation indicates Tan grew increasingly vexed. After some back and forth with the customer service agent, she secures a 70% refund and a promise that she won't be charged again -- a less than satisfying outcome. "You know, honestly this is so wrong, you guys should be reported," Tan told the agent. Instead, she filed a federal class action against some 60 entities that market and brand La Pura products and operate merchant accounts that bill customers' credit cards. In her complaint, she claims the La Pura defendants "maintained hundreds of such merchant accounts under a host of shell companies, using them in a churn-and-burn scheme" to evade detection by credit card companies and banks who keep lists of high risk merchants in order to decline suspicious transactions. All of these merchants share the same registered agent whose address leads to a back alley in downtown Sacramento. It's an all too common scheme according to consumer protection experts, where an unwitting consumer is lured in by the promise of a free product in exchange for the cost of shipping. Across the internet, affiliate marketers are paid to post fake celebrity endorsements of various products like La Pura skin cream, enticing consumers to visit phony product landing pages and sign up for a free trial, only to be enrolled in an automatic, high-cost monthly "subscription." "None of this surprises me. This is a very lucrative business and they are very sophisticated about who they market to," said Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Most people wouldn't click on an ad for face cream "endorsed" by Joy Behar, Rheingold said, but it only takes a few. In scheme like this one, Tan says in her complaint, the La Pura scammers set up a hidden landing page to show the banks that Tan had consented to the free trial -- a false-front website that Tan had actually never seen. Tan's attorney Kevin Kneupper said he'd been investigating consumer scams for years with his law partner. In a phone interview, he said it's not about the product. For this type of scheme, the only goal is to get ahold of the consumer's credit card. "The product changes over time with whatever the fad is," Kneupper said. "I've seen people do this with CBD. I've seen them doing it with flashlights. I've seen them doing this with skin creams and Keto diets and açai berries. Any time there's a fad, there's a new type of website, and a lot of them are copy/paste jobs. They use the same templates." Kneupper said affiliate marketing generally targets older, less savvy consumers. At an affiliate marketing conference in 2019, keynote speaker Neil Patel recaps the scheme to the audience: "[Y]ou tell 'em it's a free trial, but they don't really see in the fine print that they're gonna get billed every single month. And then you target the older demographics who have no idea why they're continually getting rebilled. And then some of you guys have what's called a quote-unquote hell room that just deals with the calls. And the refunds." Tan's lawsuit also lists software company Konnektive Corporation and CEO Matthew Martorano among the defendants, claiming the company performed "load balancing" services to automatically spread purchases across merchant accounts. This avoids suspicion by keeping the refunds or chargeback numbers artificially low. "A normal business would only need one merchant account, because they are following the rules. The La Pura defendants needed to run their purchases through hundreds of them, forcing the banks and credit card companies to play whack-a-mole and ensuring the fraud would continue and that they could keep selling La Pura," Tan says in her complaint. Tellingly, the complaint notes, Martorano threw a party at the 2020 Affiliate Summit in Las Vegas where he urged invitees "to network with Konnektive and a rogue's gallery of 'chargeback mitigation' companies who also assist scammers." Fulfillment company Quick Box LLC also plays a role in the scheme, Tan says in her lawsuit, by receiving, storing and shipping generic "white label" products for shell brands and handling the returns. Its executives, who are listed as individual defendants Stephen Adele, James Martell, and Chad Biggins, appear to have a long history of running "free trial" scams, according to the complaint. All of the defendants deny that they participated in a conspiracy to defraud hapless consumers. "What they want to be able to do is what we call 'ostrich defense.' Anything they say they don't know they intentionally didn't know. It's all about plausible deniability," Rheingold said. Senior U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff denied their motion to dismiss the case, finding Tan had shown the existence of a conspiracy in which all defendants appeared to have played some part, and that she had sufficiently stated a claim for violation of California's consumer protection laws. "In sum, the court concludes that plaintiff has plausibly, and with sufficient particularity, pled that the La Pura, Quick Box, and Konnektive defendants engaged in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, and that their conduct caused injury to her business or property," Huff wrote. In an emailed statement, lead counsel for the Konnektive defendants Christopher Queally said his clients were not involved in any wrongful conduct. "We are naturally disappointed by the court's decision on the motion to dismiss. That said, the court was required to accept the plaintiff's allegations as true, rather than weigh or decide any facts," Queally said. "Konnektive merely provides customer relationship management (CRM) software to its clients, and neither Konnektive nor its people were involved with any of the alleged wrongful conduct. When the true facts are presented, we are very confident our clients will be vindicated." Attorney Damon Wright, who represents the Quick Box defendants, also distanced his clients from La Pura. "It isn't hard to state a claim when a plaintiff takes tremendous liberty with the facts," he said in an email. "We are disappointed by the court's decision on the motion to dismiss, but understand the decision since the court was required to accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true at this stage. The reality is that Quick Box is only a fulfillment services provider, it does not advertise to consumers or transact with consumers, and neither Quick Box nor its people were involved with any wrongful conduct. Once the court has the benefit of the true facts, we fully expect dismissal of the claims against our clients." Both Queally and Wright are partners at Gordon & Rees. Having weathered the first hurdle, Tan's attorneys will now have to trace the alleged scam back to its originators, to determine who exactly is behind La Pura. "This will require a lot of forensic work," Rheingold said. "I give credit to the plaintiffs' attorneys for bringing this case because it is complicated and difficult." Court documents have provided some clues. Quick Box executive Adele swore in February that Quick Box signed a contract to ship La Pura with a company called Rocket Management Group LLC and described a meeting with its owner, someone allegedly named "Kiet Liu." "There's just been some surprise at the idea that they can even be located," Kneupper said, adding that the case is being closely monitored by the industry. "A lot of scammers are watching this case," he said. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the companies and an unspecified amount in monetary damages. Stuart Rossman, director of litigation at the National Consumer Law Center, said it is very difficult to actually get any money from these kinds of companies, even if the lawsuit is successful. "It's going to be like getting blood from a rock," he said. Years ago, Rossman represented a class of military veterans who were defrauded out of their pensions by an unscrupulous loan company. A judge awarded the plaintiffs $3 million in 2011, but they were never able to collect. "The day after we got the verdict they filed for bankruptcy protection to wipe it out," Rossman said. "But the guy just started the same scam out of New York and was indicted there by the attorney general." Rossman said government enforcement is often the only way of stopping consumer fraud. "Fraud is portable product," he said, noting companies can dissolve one day and then start up again the next under a different name and in a different state, skirting any real consequences. "These companies often operate with just a table, telephone and computer hookup. This kind of scheme is so intentional and so venal, government enforcement that results in criminal penalties is the kind of thing we need to keep this from happening in the future." Rheingold agreed. "This is the kind of thing where you would expect criminal action to be taken," he said. "And I don't think there's any question it's criminal -- they're stealing money from people." Sometimes the fraud appears so egregious that government agencies do take note. In 2018, the Federal Trade Commission took Apex Capital and a host of related entities to court for marketing "free trial" offers for personal care products and dietary supplements online, then charged customers full price for the products -- a scheme much like the one Tan claims she fell for. The perpetrators agreed to surrender millions worth of assets under a settlement. "The reality is if you really want to shut something like this down you need government intervention," Rossman said. "Private enforcement of it is like trying to squeeze Jello into a baggie. I applaud the consumer attorneys who are bringing this case, but the pot at the end of the rainbow may be empty." Aside from avoiding these ads altogether, Rossman said consumers can protect themselves by immediately contacting their credit card company or bank to have the unauthorized charges canceled. [GN] LEDGER SAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Customer Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- theblockcrypto.com reports that Ledger and Shopify, which handles the online sales of Ledger's wallets, have been hit with a class action over last year's data breach. Ledger produces some of the most popular cold wallets on the market. The summer of 2020 saw news spread of phishing attacks against Ledger users, with the firm ultimately disclosing that it suffered a data breach that June during which customer contact and order information was compromised. In December, a database containing the personal information for more than a quarter-million Ledger customers was posted online. Ledger and Shopify eventually identified a rogue Shopify employee as responsible for the leak, but not before some users reported threats of home invasion and other scareware tactics. At the time, Ledger CEO Pascal Gauthier took to Twitter to reassure users that their hardware wallets had not been compromised and that their funds were safe. Nonetheless, talk of starting a class-action case began soon after. The lawsuit, the first to be filed in response to the information leak, comes from law firm Roche Freedman, which filed the complaint in a San Francisco court on April 6. The firm is known for its class actions against crypto firms such as Binance, Tron and iFinex, the parent company of Tether and Bitfinex. Last week, Roche Freedman filed a lawsuit on behalf of a customer of Nexo, as reported by Law360. Regarding the Ledger breach, law firm partner Kyle Roche told The Block, "We've been investigating this since the day it became public. This investigation included speaking with experts in the data security and cryptocurrency fields." In a statement, Ledger general counsel Antoine Thibault said: "Ledger does not comment on ongoing legal issues. Ledger would however like to take this moment to remind our customers, yet again, never to divulge their 24 words and validate the identity of the recipient of your transactions. You are in sole and total control of access to your funds." The case will hinge on the question of who is responsible for what. Ledger's wallets themselves were not compromised, but the complaint includes the security of Shopify's service as part of Ledger's duty to clients. As noted in the complaint: "[b]y operating in the crypto-asset security space, Ledger places itself between user's funds and would-be hackers. The anonymity of its customer list is a key and obvious element of the security that Ledger offers." Central to delegating responsibility will be the question of what Ledger and Shopify knew and how quickly they communicated that information to users. As Roche told The Block: "The case is noteworthy because two very large and sophisticated companies handling sensitive information will need to explain why it took them so long to warn their customers about such an awful and highly damaging incident." The current complaint does not specify the amount of relief that it seeks for the class, but it does identify the "[m]atter in controversy" as worth over $5 million. Currently, the complaint references only two Ledger users directly, who together lost 4.2 BTC, 11 ETH and 150,000 XLM to phishing attacks. At today's prices, those holdings add up to $340,000, but were worth significantly less as of the time of the attacks. [GN] LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 5 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on March 15 disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) ("Leidos") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Leidos securities between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Leidos securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 5, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/leidos-holdings-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=leidos Leidos is a science, engineering, and information technology company that provides services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, homeland security, civil and health markets, both domestically and internationally. The Class Period commences on May 4, 2020, when Leidos announced that it had completed the acquisition of L3Harris Technologies' Security Detection and Automation businesses ("SD&A Businesses"). According to the complaint, on February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC ("Spruce Point") published a research report, alleging, among other things that "Leidos is potentially covering up at least $100m of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international revenue." The report also alleged that Leidos was "concealing numerous product defects from investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports and borders." Following this news, Leidos's share price fell $2.58, or 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021. Then, on February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, Leidos reported $89 million in revenue related to the SD&A Businesses for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales. Leidos expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst estimates of $1.083 billion. Following this news, Leidos's stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021. Finally, on February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos had "materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2020, which had been filed after the market closed on February 23, 2021. Spruce Point tweeted: "We believe it is validating all the major points of our report." Spruce Point noted that Leidos expanded its risk disclosures regarding insurance coverage, as "Leidos is shipping defective products back from various countries [that] may not have the same protections as in the U.S." Following this news, Leidos's stock price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the purported benefits of Leidos's acquisition of L3Harris Technologies' SD&A Businesses were significantly overstated; (2) Leidos's products suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Leidos's financial results were significantly overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Leidos's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Leidos investors may, no later than May 5, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] LEO PHARMA: Faces Phyllis Levitt Suit Over Defective Picato Gel --------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS LEVITT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LEO PHARMA INC. and LEO PHARMA A/S, Case No. 7:21-cv-02301 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) is a class action lawsuit about LEO Pharma's manufacturing and distribution of prescription Picato gel (ingenol mebutate). Picato was indicated to treat precancerous actinic keratosis, but it instead increased the risk of squamous cell skin cancer. Accordingly, Picato is worthless and the Defendants should be required to fully refund consumers like Plaintiff. LEO Pharma has sold Picato in the United States since 2012. Picato is used to treat actinic keratosis, a scaly, crusty lesion on the skin, caused by too much sunlight exposure. In September 2019, following reports of Picato-related skin cancer incidents, the European Commission requested a safety review of the drug. In January 2020, the European Medinces Agency ("EMA") suspended sale of Picato while its Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee ("PRAC") conducted the review. Plaintiff Levitt is a citizen of New York who resides in Mt. Kisco, New York. In January 2015, Ms. Levitt's doctor diagnosed her with actinic keratosis and prescribed Picato. Immediately thereafter, Ms. Levitt filled her prescription for Picato at the Northern Westchester Prescription Center ("NWPC") located in Mr. Kisco, New York and used the Picato as directed by her doctor. Ms. Levitt filled another prescription for Picato at the same pharmacy in June 2015. Ms. Levitt purchased the Picato using her insurance, and she paid a total of approximately $364.42 out of pocket in copayments. The Picato that Ms. Levitt purchased was manufactured by LEO Pharma A/S, distributed by LEO Pharma Inc. and sold by NWPC. When purchasing the Picato, Ms. Levitt reviewed the accompanying labels and disclosures, and understood them as representations and warranties by the manufacturer, distributor, and pharmacy that the medications were properly designed, effective, free from defects and safe. Ms. Levitt relied on these representations and warranties in deciding to purchase Picato from Defendants, and these representations and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not have purchased Picato if she had known that it was not, in fact, properly designed, effective, free from defects and safe. LEO Pharma is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant LEO Pharma A/S. LEO Pharma Inc. conducts substantial business in the United States, and specifically in the State of New York. LEO Pharma Inc. distributes and sells Picato in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com scott@bursor.com LGI HOMES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for 'Building Shoddy Homes' ----------------------------------------------------------------- kiro7.com reports that a new class-action lawsuit in the works accuses home developer LGI Homes of shoddy construction and violating the Consumer Protection Act. Casey Law, representing homeowners, hired an inspector who discovered major problems in parts of the build after a February storm damaged dozens of homes in Enumclaw. The homes impacted are in the Suntop Farms neighborhood. "It's very frustrating. Brand-new house, a half-million dollar house," said one homeowner who didn't want to be identified. He said he is weighing his options and considering joining the lawsuit. Many of the dozens of houses damaged are under warranty; but two months later, roofs are still covered in plastic, siding is still missing, and homeowners say LGI is refusing to step up. "They were still claiming the 'act of God,'" said homeowner Dave Baldwin, who is considering joining the lawsuit. The architecture inspector hired by Casey Law found that if installed properly, the shingles and siding on the homes would withstand winds of at least 116 miles per hour. The highest recorded wind speed the night of the storm was just over 50 miles per hour. "If it happened on one or two homes, that's a bad day. But it happened on 24 homes. That's more than a bad day. That's clearly cutting corners," said Chris Casey, an attorney who specializes in construction defect law. The law firm said inspector William Martin has reviewed about 10 homes in the neighborhood so far, and in every home he found improper installation. A full report for one of the properties said, "The siding and roofing were installed in a defective manner that caused it to fail under conditions substantially below that prescribed by applicable building code for Enumclaw, Washington." Casey Law said in some cases, the nails used were too small, so the siding blew off during the "vanilla storm." In other cases, not enough nails were used. Sometimes the nails were not in the studs. The inspector also found cases where the shingles were not properly sealed. The inspector said as pieces of the homes ripped off, it also tore holes in the weather-resistant layer underneath. It means homes will need the roofing and siding completely removed and then reinstalled. The repairs are estimated to cost $140,000-$160,000 per home. The damage also led to snow inside some homes, as well as leaks and water damage. "We (have a) brand-new baby just born two weeks ago. My wife, my mother, my teenage daughter is there. It's very heartbreaking to know my family is not in a house that's safe -- just very frustrating," one homeowner said. Casey Law says so far, 40 people have signed up to be part of the class-action lawsuit. The suit says LGI Homes has violated the Consumer Protection Act by promising quality homes, then failing to deliver. Attorneys suspect all of the 288 homes in the area may be improperly built. "If that's true on every home, then every home is eligible (to join the suit)," said Wesley Higbee, who works with Casey Law. Higbee said they would have an inspector come look at the homes without cost to the homeowners to see if they are eligible. Attorneys say the home purchase agreement contracts also stripped the homeowners of the right to take LGI Homes to court. However, the Consumer Protection Act still presents a way to pursue legal action. "These contracts . . . leave these homeowners essentially to deal with this on their own. We had to think of a way to get around these contracts," Casey said. While the legal battle is just beginning, families with money tied up in their new homes have nowhere else to go. "I worry about my family's health with the water damage, I pray there's no mold. I'm very worried," one homeowner said. Casey Law said it notified LGI Homes of the lawsuit and will be able to formally file after 21 days. KIRO7 reached out to LGI Homes both in February and for this story requesting comment, but received no response. [GN] LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Fourth Investors Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- A fourth class-action complaint has been filed against Lordstown Motors Corp., alleging the company misled investors regarding pre-orders of its all-electric Endurance pickup truck. The filing joins three previous class-action cases filed in U.S. District Court here in the wake of a damaging report by short-seller Hindenburg Research issued March 12. According to the latest lawsuit, investor Jesse Brury claims he acquired shares of Lordstown Motors at "artificially inflated prices" between Aug. 3, 2020, and March 17, 2021. The complaint contends, as do the previous actions, that Lordstown Motors and certain executives made "materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business." Specifically, the lawsuit said that Lordstown Motors failed to disclose that the company's pre-orders were non-binding and that many of the would-be customers lacked the means to purchase the vehicle. The lawsuit names Lordstown Motors, its CEO Steve Burns, President Rich Schmidt and Chief Financial Officer Julio Rodriguez as defendants. Many of the allegations stem from the Hindenburg report, which contends that Lordstown Motors and some of its executives mischaracterized non-binding letters of intent as "pre-orders" for the Endurance pickup. The report also alleges that the company is far behind schedule in production of the vehicle. "The company has consistently pointed to its order book of 100,000 pre-orders as proof of its deep demand for its proposed EV truck," the report said. "Our conversations with former employees, business partners, and an extensive document review show that the company's orders are largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer legitimacy." Burns has since said that the company had always disclosed that the pre-orders were non-binding. Earlier this month, Lordstown Motors unveiled the first two beta models of the Endurance, which will be used for safety validation and crash testing. The Endurance is billed as the world's first all-electric commercial pickup. Lordstown Motors' Burns has said that the company is on track to begin full production of the vehicle by the end of September. The CEO has said the company wants to hire as many as 1,500 workers once production hits full stride.[GN] LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 16 disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ:RIDE) resulting from allegations that Lordstown Motors may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Lordstown Motors securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2056.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 12, 2021, Hindenburg Research published a report entitled: "The Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production Hurdles, And A Prototype Inferno". The report alleges, among other things, that based on "conversations with former employees, business partners and an extensive document review" the Company's book of 100,000 pre-orders "are largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer legitimacy." Further, the report alleges that "[f]ormer employees also shared that the company has completed none of its needed testing or validation, including cold weather testing, durability testing, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) testing required by the NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]." On this news, Lordstown Motor's stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on March 12, 2021, damaging investors. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] LOUISIANA HEALTH: Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Opelousas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC TRUST, D/B/A OPELOUSAS GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, D/B/A BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, Case No. CA 21-175 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, reverses the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Class and awarded the Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $416,830,039.60. The Appellate Court is composed of D. Kent Savoie, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Charles G. Fitzgerald, Judges. In the anti-trust class action, the Defendant, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co., doing business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana ("BCBSLA"), along with the Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance, Louisiana Department of Insurance, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, appeal the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Class. The trial court found that BCBSLA's "Blue Card" provision operates in restraint of trade in violation of La.R.S. 51:122. Additionally, on appeal, BCBSLA and the Association raised a peremptory exception for non-joinder. In the appeal, the Appellate Court must decide: (1) whether the trial court erred in granting the Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment finding that the Blue Card provision operates in restraint of trade in violation of La.R.S. 51:122; and (2) whether the Association and all other participants in the Blue Card Program are parties needed for just adjudication under La.Code Civ.P. art. 641. The Plaintiff, Opelousas General filed a class action on August 24, 2016, against BCBSLA, alleging BCBSLA conspired with the Association and 35 other Blue Cross Plans to engage in anticompetitive conduct in violation of La.R.S. 51:122. At this time, several anti-trust class actions were brought against various Blue Cross Blue Shield entities which were consolidated in a federal Multi-District Litigation in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Prior to certification of the class, attempts were made by BCBSLA to remove this case to federal court, but it was ultimately remanded back to Louisiana from the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal which cited a lack of diversity. BCBSLA participates in the Blue Card Program. Under that Program, BCBSLA and Blue Plans from other states sign licensing agreements with the Association for the exclusive use of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks when contracting insurance in their respective states. Each insurer participates in the Blue Card Program whereby patients from out of state Blue Plans can receive the same discounted in-network rates from providers that were negotiated with that state's Blue insurer. Each Blue insurer may only use the Blue trademarks within their respective states. The Plaintiff Class represents Louisiana health providers, who entered into contracts, known as provider agreements, with BCBSLA. Those agreements defined the term "member" to include insureds from out of state affiliate Blue Plans, and required the contractual discounts negotiated by BCBSLA for its insureds also apply to any patient with an out of state Blue Plan receiving care from the Louisiana contractual providers. The suit was tailored to include only provider agreements with BCBSLA and asserts only monetary claims under Louisiana Law. The Association filed a petition for intervention, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the Court. On October 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment seeking the return of contractual discounts for patients insured by out of state Blue insurers. In response, BCBSLA filed a motion to strike. Both motions were set for hearing on December 16, 2020, before Judge Alonzo Harris. At the hearing, the trial court denied the motion to strike and took the motion for partial summary judgment under advisement. On December 29, 2020, the trial court issued written reasons for judgment finding that BCBSLA's "Blue Card" provision operates in restraint of trade in violation of La.R.S. 51:122. In so finding, the trial court granted the motion for partial summary judgment. Judge Harris retired December 31, 2020. Plaintiffs circulated a proposed judgment on January 7, 2021, and BCBSLA objected. The trial court held a hearing on January 25, 2021, and stated that the successor Judge, Ledricka Thierry, would sign the judgment. The judgment was signed January 25, 2021, granting the partial motion for summary judgment and awarding the Plaintiffs $416,830,039.60 together with costs and legal interest. BCBSLA timely filed the suspensive appeal. The Association, the Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance, and the Louisiana Department of Insurance also appealed in this matter. The Association filed peremptory exceptions of non-joinder of a party and BCBSLA joined in support. Judge Sharon Darville Wilson, writing for the Panel, first addresses the exception for non-joinder before delving into the heart of this appeal. BCBSLA and the Association filed peremptory exceptions of non joinder alleging that the Association, along with the licensees of the Association, were parties needed for just adjudication. After reviewing the record, Judge Wilson disagrees. She finds that the record does not contain any evidence that supports finding the Association and the out of state Blue Plans are parties needed for just adjudication. The Plaintiffs are only seeking review of the provider agreements with BCBSLA and money damages under those agreements. They are not attacking the entire Blue Card Program or any of the Association's rules. Thus, there is no reason that complete relief could not be afforded in the absence of these additional parties, the Judge points out. Similarly, Judge Wilson explains, while the parties may have an interest in the subject matter, given the limited scope of the claim in this case, it cannot be said that they are so situated that adjudication in their absence may impair or impede their ability to protect their interest or subject any of the parties to a substantial risk of incurring multiple and inconsistent obligations. In support of the peremptory exception for non-joinder, the Association cites to several cases where they purport that compulsory joinder had been ordered on significantly less important interests of a non-party than their interests in the present case. However, Judge Wilson opines, after reviewing each of those cases, they are all easily distinguishable. She opines that the non-parties in those cases all had direct interests in the subjects of the cases, such as security rights in the property subject to litigation, or were subject to the contracts at issue in the case. That is not so in the case. The Appellate Court finds no evidence in the record that supports the contention that the parties seeking to be joined were parties needed for just adjudication. Accordingly, the peremptory exception of non joinder is denied. Although the Appellants assert various assignments of error, the heart of this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, Judge Wilson notes. On motion for summary judgment, the burden of proof remains with the movant, La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(D)(1). Thus, the Plaintiffs must show through the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden on summary judgment. The Plaintiffs assert that they have suffered injury by a lack of ability to contract with the out of state Blue Plans and by being forced to grant patients insured by the out of state plans the same contractual rates negotiated by BCBSLA. They evidence this injury through billing spread sheets showing what they would have charged these patients absent the provider agreements. The Plaintiffs do not however, provide any evidence of injury to competition in general. After reviewing the record, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to prove damage to competition, an essential element to any anti-trust claim. The Plaintiffs were also required to prove a relevant economic market to meet their burden in this case. The Appellate Court finds the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs was insufficient to meet that burden. Judge Wilson opines that the record in the case is devoid of any evidence that defines the relevant market under the appropriate standards. She adds that the Plaintiffs here failed to present any evidence of market power as part of their motion for partial summary judgment. If the Plaintiffs had included relevant evidence proving their market power and the injury to competition caused by the provider agreements in the relevant markets, summary judgment could potentially be granted in their favor, Judge Wilson explains. However, the Plaintiffs failed to put forth the necessary evidence. As such, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to show they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that the trial court erred in granting the partial motion for summary judgment. The Association, the Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance, and the Louisiana Department of Insurance asserted several other assignments of error on appeal. Given the Appellate Court's decision to reverse the trial court's ruling granting the motion for partial summary judgment, a review of those assignments is unnecessary. For these reasons, the Appellate Court finds that the trial court erred in finding the Plaintiffs met their burden on summary judgment. Accordingly,it reverses the ruling of the trial court granting the motion for partial summary judgment and awarding the Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $416,830,039.60. Additionally, the Appellate Court denies the peremptory exception of non joinder filed by the Association. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 5, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ud4rkcfe from Leagle.com. Michael William Magner -- mmagner@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker, at 201 St. Charles Ave., 51st Fl., in New Orleans, Louisiana 70170, (504) 582-8266, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. Richard Allen Sherburne, Jr., Attorney At Law, P.O. Box 98029, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898, (225) 295-2116, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. Joseph C. Giglio, Jr. -- jcgiglio@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, P. O. Box 52008, in Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-2008, (337) 232-7424, COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Patrick Craig Morrow, Sr. -- PatM@mmrblaw.com -- Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett, at 324 W Landry Street, in Opelousas, Louisiana 70570, (337) 948-4483, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, A Public Trust. Stephen Barnett Murray -- smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com -- Murray Law Firm, at 701 Poydras St., Ste. 4250, in New Orleans, Louisiana 70139, (504) 525-8100, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, A Public Trust. Michael H. Rubin -- mrubin@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey, Stafford, at 301 Main Street, 14th Fl., in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801, (225) 383-9000, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana Department of Insurance. James Alcee Brown -- jabrown@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, at 701 Poydras, Ste. 5000, in New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-5099, (504) 581-7979, COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. James Huey Gibson, Gibson Law Partners, P. O. Box 52124, in Lafayette, Louisiana 70505, (337) 761-6023, COUNSEL FOR: Anthem, Inc., Et Al. Thomas Allen Filo, Cox, Cox, & Filo, 723 Broad Street, in Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601, (337) 436-6611, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, A Public Trust. Ronnie L. Johnson -- rjohnson@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, at 301 Main St., Ste. 1400, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801, (225) 383-9000, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana Department of Insurance. Mark Aaron Cunningham -- mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poite, at 201 St. Charles Ave., 51st Flr., in New Orleans, Louisiana 70170-5100, (504) 582-8266, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. Pride Justin Doran, Doran & Cawthorne, P.L.L.C, P. O. Box 2119, in Opelousas, Louisiana 70571, (337) 948-8008, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. Douglas Michael Chapoton, Attorney At Law, P. O. Box 98029, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898, (225) 295-2116, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. Juston M. O'Brien -- Andy.OBrien@bcbsla.com -- McGlinchey, Stafford, 301 Main Street, 14th Floor, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801, (225) 383-9000, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana Department of Insurance. James David Caldwell, Jr., Dept. of Insurance Legal Serv., P. O. Box 94214, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9214, (225) 342-5272, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana Department of Insurance. Arthur M. Murray -- amurray@murray-lawfirm.com -- Murray Law Firm, at 701 Poydras St., Ste. 4250, in New Orleans, Louisiana 70139, (504) 525-8100, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, A Public Trust. Michael C. Drew -- mdrew@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker, at 201 St. Charles Ave., 51st Fl., in New Orleans, Louisiana 70170, (504) 582-8318, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. Alan W. Stewart, Gibson Law Partners, at 2448 Johnston Street, in Lafayette, Louisiana 70505, (337) 761-6023, COUNSEL FOR: Anthem, Inc., Et Al. Graham H. Ryan -- gryan@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker, LLP, at 201 St. Charles Ave., 51st Fl., in New Orleans, Louisiana 70170, (504) 582-8266, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. Jessica W. Chapman, Attorney At Law, P. O. Box 98029, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898, (225) 295-2116, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. Raven C. Boxie, Doran & Cawthorne, P.L.L.C., P. O. Box 2119, in Opelousas, Louisiana 70571, (337) 948-8008, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. William E. Kellner -- WEKellner@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, P. O. Box 52008, in Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-2008, (337) 232-7424, COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Monica M. Vela-Vick -- monica.vela-vick@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, at 400 Convention St., Ste. 1100, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802, (225) 346-0285, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina. Hayley Franklin -- hfranklin@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, at 301 Main St., Ste. 1400, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801, (225) 383-9000, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana Department of Insurance. Zachary Holmstead -- zachary.holmstead@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, at 300 North LaSalle, in Chicago, Illinois 60654, (312) 862-2392, COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Ryan M. Kantor -- ryan.kantor@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, at 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, in Washington, D.C. 20004-2541, (202) 739-5343, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company. LOUISIANA: Court Enters Judgment in Lewis Suit v. LSP at Angola --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL. v. BURL CAIN, ET AL., Civil No. 3:15-CV-318 (M.D. La.), Judge Shelly D. Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana enters judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. The suit was originally brought by several inmates incarcerated at the Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP"). The LSP at Angola (sometimes referred to as "Angola") is a maximum-security men's prison in Angola, Louisiana that housed between 6,200 and 6,400 men throughout the discovery period. Defendant Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections is a division of the State of Louisiana charged with overseeing the custody and care of inmates in state prisons, including LSP. The Plaintiffs claim that the medical care provided at LSP violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. They also claim that, through various general practices and policies, LSP systemically violates the rights of disabled inmates covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"). The Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all prisoners who are now, or will in the future, be confined at LSP, as well as an ADA Subclass of inmates with disabilities who are now, or will in the future, be confined at LSP. They seek injunctive relief to abate the alleged systemic deficiencies in the Defendants' policies and practices that subject all inmates to unreasonable risks of serious harm. On Feb. 26, 2018, following a class certification hearing and subsequent briefing by the Parties, the Court certified a class consisting of "all inmates who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at LSP," and a Subclass of "all qualified individuals with a disability, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated at LSP. The Class and Subclass are represented by Otto Barrera, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky Davis, Reginald George, Kentrell Parker, Lionel Tolbert, John Tonubbee and Edward Washington. The matter came before the Court for an 11-day non-jury trial on the merits beginning Oct. 9, 2018. Judge Dick also made a site visit to LSP on Feb. 5, 2020. She has considered the Parties' pre-trial and post-trial submissions, the evidence admitted at trial, and the arguments presented. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving that the Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to the inmates' serious medical needs in the means and manner of the delivery of health care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She also finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing, in part, that the Defendants violated the ADA, as modified by the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act, and Section 504 of the RA. For these reasons, Judge Dick holds that the Defendants, in their official capacities, are violating the Eighth Amendment rights of the Plaintiff Class and the ADA and RA rights of the Plaintiff Subclass. Based on the overwhelming evidence presented at trial, judgment will be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs following the remedy phase. The Judge will order injunctive relief regarding the following deficiencies: (1) Failing to provide constitutionally adequate clinical care in the following particulars: privacy in examinations; lack of routine medical equipment in exam rooms; lack of adequate medical records management; lack of clinical hygiene and spacing; episodic treatment of complaints; (2) Failing to provide adequate medical care with qualified providers at sick call; (3) Failing to provide access to medically necessary specialty care in a timely manner; failure to schedule and track specialty appointments; failure to comply with testing and diagnostic requirements; failure to execute appropriate follow-up care ordered by specialty care providers; and failure to coordinate care; (4) Failing to provide constitutionally adequate emergency care in the evaluation and assessment of emergencies by qualified providers and failing to timely treat and/or transport to hospital for emergent care; (5) Failing to provide adequate, qualified staff in infirmary/inpatient care; (6) Failing to provide medical leadership and organization in the following particulars: lack of meaningful mortality review; use of correctional personnel to manage medical decisions; lack of peer review; lack of medical staff involvement in budgeting; lack of medical supervision by Dr. Lavespere; and failure to maintain proper credentialing records; (7) Failing to comply with the ADA and RA in providing disabled inmates access to programs and services due to physical and architectural barriers; (8) Failing to provide adequately trained, staffed, and safe orderly assistance where physical modifications have not been made to provide access; failure to provide proper oversight of health care orderlies; (9) Failing to comply with LSP's own ADA Directives in maintaining a qualified ADA Coordinator and advisory committee to handle ADA issues; (10) Failing to make efforts to integrate disabled inmates within the spirit of the ADA implementing regulations; (11) Failing to adequately train medical staff regarding ADA compliance; (12) Failing to appropriately evaluate and address ADA accommodation requests and disability-related grievances; (13) Failing to identify and track disabilities and accommodation requests in a meaningful way; (14) Failing to accommodate disabled inmates in applying discipline; and (15) Maintaining blanket exclusionary policies for disabled inmates regarding access to various services, activities, and programs in violation of the ADA. By separate notice, Judge Dick will set a Status Conference to discuss proceeding to the remedy phase of the matter. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5et7extv from Leagle.com. LOUISIANA: Public Defense System Lawsuit Not a Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Gyan, writing for The Advocate, reports that a 4-year-old lawsuit that claims Louisiana's struggling public defense system does not provide adequate representation to poor clients has been stripped of its class-action status by a Baton Rouge appeals court. Then-19th Judicial District Judge Todd Hernandez, without ruling on the merits of the case, had decided in 2018 that every poor defendant in the state represented by a public defender was eligible to participate in the lawsuit, with the exception of juveniles and defendants in capital cases. The judge's ruling meant that if the lawsuit succeeded, officials would be forced to come up with a statewide plan for funding public defenders, rather than a solution that applied only to the original 13 named plaintiffs in the 2017 lawsuit. But a five-judge panel of the state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal reversed Hernandez by a 4-1 vote on March 12 and said class certification is not appropriate in the case. The panel said the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of commonality and typicality for class certification. Mark Cunningham, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said on March 8 he's hopeful the Louisiana Supreme Court will hear their appeal "of this critical issue." "If you are poor in Louisiana and charged with a non-capital crime, the public defender appointed to your case will almost certainly lack the resources to meaningfully investigate and contest the charges against you," he said. The public defense system is largely supported by court fees from convictions and traffic tickets rather than the state's general fund. The system took another hit in the past year as courts in the state trimmed their dockets amid the coronavirus pandemic, reducing the amounts of fines and fees available. Addressing the issue of commonality raised in the 2017 case, the 1st Circuit court panel cited a prior state Supreme Court ruling in which the high court stated: "A determination of effectiveness of counsel requires that the trial court `examine each case individually,' make `a particularized finding,' and `issue an independent judgment regarding each defendant.'" In addressing the issue of typicality, the panel explained that "claims of one class representative will not be typical of all class members." "What could be ineffective assistance of counsel for one class representative could simply be poor lawyering for another," the panel wrote. Only five of the original named plaintiffs remain in the case, the court noted. The lawsuit names Gov. John Bel Edwards, the Louisiana Public Defender Board and chief state public defender as defendants and alleges that tens of thousands of poor people across the state accused of crimes are at risk in the troubled public defense system that lacks money and oversight. Attorneys for the state have argued that class certification would make far too many people eligible for participation. The state's lawyers also say any fix to the public defense system needs to come from the Legislature because the issues stem from budget problems and, therefore, are not a matter of law. The plaintiffs' lawyers say Louisiana's public defense structure is systematically broken and requires an all-around fix. They claim the state systematically shortchanges poor defendants by saddling public defenders with high caseloads. In another case that originated in East Baton Rouge Parish, the state Supreme Court ruled in December that woefully underfunded public defenders cannot take it upon themselves to lighten their own caseloads, even if that would mean better service for poor clients. The high court said only state lawmakers have the power to adopt changes that could assure adequate representation. [GN] LOYAL SOURCE: Class Settlement in Ortega FCRA Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ISMAEL ORTEGA, KRISINDA WOLFE, DORIS WILLIAMS-JENKINS, and LILIA SILVA, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-0879-LAB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of settlement; (2) approving the Class Notice; (3) appointing the Settlement Administrator; and (4) scheduling final approval hearing. On March 22, 2021, a hearing was held on the motion of Plaintiffs Ismael Ortega, Krisinda Wolfe, Doris Williams-Jenkins and Lilia Silva for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement with Defendant Loyal Source, approval of the notice to be sent to the class about the settlement, and the setting of a date for the hearing on final approval of the settlement. Judge Burns finds that the Defendant has discharged its obligations under Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") to provide notice to the appropriate federal and state officials. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Class is both the California Class and the FCRA Class, as defined. The California Class is defined as "all individuals who worked for Defendant in California as non-exempt employees during the California Class Period. The "California Class Period" is Feb. 14, 2016 to Sept. 29, 2020. The FCRA Class is defined as "all employees or prospective employees of Defendant in the United States for whom Defendant procured a background check during the FCRA Class Period." The "FCRA Class Period" is Feb. 14, 2018 to Sept. 29, 2020. The Judge finds for settlement purposes only that the Class and the subclasses satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23. Judge Burns granted the parties' Agreement preliminary approval as it meets the criteria for preliminary settlement approval. He finds that the Settlement falls within the range of possible approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, and appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed negotiations and to treat all Class Members fairly. Judge Burns also finds that the Parties' proposed notice plan is constitutionally sound because individual notices will be mailed to all Class Members whose identities are known to the parties, and such notice is the best notice practicable. The Parties' proposed Notice of Pendency of Class Action Settlement and Hearing Date for Court Approval ("Class Notice") sufficiently informs the Class Members of the terms of the Settlement, their rights under the Settlement, their rights to object to the Settlement, their right to receive a Settlement Share or elect not to participate in the Settlement, and the processes for doing so, and the date and location of the final approval hearing, and therefore is approved. Any Class Member who does not submit a valid request for exclusion will be deemed a Participating Class Member and will be entitled to receive a Settlement Share based upon the allocation formula in the Agreement. Any Class Member who wishes to comment on or object to the Settlement, the attorneys' fees and costs, and/or the proposed Class Representative Service Payment, or who elects not to participate in the Settlement, has until 60 days after the mailing of the Class Notice to submit his or her written comment, objection, or request for exclusion in Settlement pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Class Notice. The Class Counsel must file their application for the attorneys' fees and costs no later than 14 days prior to the end of the objection period, and the application will be heard at the Final Approval Hearing. KCC, LLC is appointed to act as the Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is approved as the Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs are approved as the representatives of the Class. The Defendant is directed to provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class Data for each Class Member as specified by the Agreement no later than 14 days after the date of entry of the Order. Pursuant to the terms set forth in the Agreement, the Class Data, its contents and any files containing Class Data will remain confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone except as set forth in the Agreement. The Class Notice is approved. The Settlement Administrator is directed to mail the approved Class Notice by first-class mail to the Class Members at their last known address no later than 14 days after receipt of the Class Data. A Final Approval Hearing will be held on July 26, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. Any Class Member may appear at the final approval hearing in person or by his or her own attorney and show cause why the Court should not approve the Settlement, or object to the motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs and the service award. Written comments or objections to the Settlement or to the attorneys' fees and costs must be postmarked no later than 60 days after mailing of the Class Notice. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/7udv8p5b from Leagle.com. MAGELLAN HEALTH: Facing Anderson Putative Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Magellan Health, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 19, 2021, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Bryan Anderson v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 2021-0202-KSJM. On January 4, 2021, Magellan Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Centene Corporation, a Delaware corporation and Mayflower Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Centene ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation of the Merger and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Centene. On February 8, 2021, the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission its preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A and on February 19, 2021, the Company filed its definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A relating to the special meeting of stockholders of the Company scheduled to be held on March 31, 2021 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") to, among other things, vote on a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement. One putative class action lawsuit, Bryan Anderson v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 2021-0202-KSJM (Del. Ch. Mar. 9, 2021) has been filed against Magellan and the members of the Magellan board of directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Anderson Action alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against Magellan’s directors in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and further alleges that the Definitive Proxy Statement is false and misleading and/or omits material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. On March 9, 2021, the plaintiff in the Anderson Action also filed a motion to expedite proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction. Magellan Health, Inc. is a healthcare services company engaged in managing the care of patients with complex healthcare needs, pharmacy benefits and other specialty areas of healthcare. Magellan's customers include health plans and other managed care organizations, employers, labor unions, various military and governmental agencies and third-party administrators. The company is based in Phoenix, Arizona. MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Mora, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a federal appeals court entered the first major decision in a class action seeking $900 million in damages when it reversed and remanded a lower court ruling against real estate broker Marcus & Millichap and a nursing home operator by mandating that the case remain in federal court. At issue was whether economic studies and statistics, along with property and tax records, but not directly involving the plaintiffs in the case, are sufficient to establish whether a certain percentage of class members reside in a state for purposes of the local controversy and discretionary exemptions under the Class Action Fairness Act. [GN] MERRILL LYNCH: Gamma Traders Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Gamma Traders - I LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the case styled as GAMMA TRADERS - I LLC and VEGA TRADERS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MERRILL LYNCH COMMODITIES, INC., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, EDWARD BASES, JOHN PACILIO, and JOHN DOE Nos. 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-6002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action arising from Defendants' unlawful and intentional manipulation of COMEX Gold Futures, COMEX Silver Futures, NYMEX Platinum Futures, and NYMEX Palladium Futures contracts, and options on those futures contracts (collectively, "precious metals futures contracts") traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX") from approximately January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2014 (the "Class Period") in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, (the "CEA") and the common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants are a group of futures traders and the trading firms that employ them. The Defendants manipulated the prices of these precious metals futures contracts using a classic manipulative device called "spoofing," whereby Defendants placed orders that they never intended to execute for precious metals futures contracts to send false and illegitimate supply and demand signals to the market and then canceled those orders before execution. As a result, Defendants caused precious metals futures contracts prices to be artificial throughout the Class Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the expense of other investors, like Plaintiffs and the Class. The unlawful conduct and manipulation described herein has been the subject of both criminal and regulatory investigations. On July 17, 2018, Defendants Bases and Pacilio were indicted on commodities fraud, spoofing, and conspiracy charges in the Northern District of Illinois relating to the same conduct described in this Complaint. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, now seek a review of the District Court's March 4, 2021 Opinion and Order and March 4, 2021 Judgment, dismissing the action, and all other orders entered in the case that were adverse, either in whole or in part, to Plaintiffs. The appellate case is captioned as IN RE MERRILL, BOFA, AND MORGAN STANLEY SPOOFING LITIGATION, Case No. 21-853, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 2, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GAMMA TRADERS - I LLC and VEGA TRADERS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Raymond P. Girnys, Esq. Margaret MacLean, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com mmaclean@lowey.com jseredynski@lowey.com - and - Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq. Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, 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: dweintraub@scott-scott.com mschwartz@scott-scott.com tlaughlin@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com MICHIGAN: Pearson Gets Leave to File Amended Complaint Against MDOC ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, MACHELLE PEARSON, MARIA SHELDON, and RACHELL GARWOOD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. Defendants, and REBECCA SMITH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 19-10707, 19-10771 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, and denied the Defendants' Motions to Strike. The named Plaintiffs are either current or former inmates at the Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility ("WHV"). They filed the civil rights class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiffs challenge what they describe as inhumane, dangerous, and unconstitutional conditions endured by women incarcerated at WHV. These conditions, they allege, led to an outbreak of Sarcoptes scabiei which caused several women to become infected and left many more exposed. Plaintiffs say that despite their grievances, Defendants failed to provide access to adequate medical care and resources to properly examine, test, and treat the women, which allowed the infestation to spread. The Plaintiffs claimed damages include unbearable itching, pain, scarring, infections and mental anguish. Corizon, Dr. Jeffrey Bomber, Wayne State University ("WSU"), Dr. James Blessman, Dr. Carmen McIntyre, the Michigan Department of Corrections ("MDOC") and its employees ("MDOC Employee Defendants") filed Motions to Dismiss. On Sept. 4, 2020, the Court granted the motion. Then, the Court found that Wayne State and the MDOC had Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed the claims against them with prejudice. However, it dismissed the claims against individual WSU Defendants and Corizon Defendants without prejudice. It also dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint against the MDOC Employee Defendants without prejudice because it failed to put MDOC Employee Defendants on notice of the nature of the specific claims against them. In doing so, the Court permitted the Plaintiffs to "seek leave to reopen the case to file a second amended complaint that complies with the Order within 21 days of entry of the Order." It also instructed the Plaintiffs that if they refile, they must "set forth counts and allegations that are specific and which put each Defendant on notice concerning the misconduct alleged against that the Defendant, and that demonstrates their entitlement to relief against that Defendant." On Sept. 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. It named additional defendants and added specific allegations, but the Plaintiffs neglected to seek leave to reopen the case to file the complaint. Five days later, after defense counsel pointed out the Plaintiffs' omission, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for a nunc pro tunc order for leave to reopen the case to file an amended complaint. The Court struck that motion and the Plaintiffs filed a corrected motion for nunc pro tunc order on Oct. 8, 2020. They say that they failed to seek leave before filing their amended complaint due to an "unfortunate oversight" in their reading of the Court's Sept. 4, 2020 Order. In October 2020, Defendants MDOC, Shawn Brewer, Heidi Washington, Corizon, Russell Marlan, Kenneth Mckee, Lloyd Rapelje, Lia Gulick, Marti Kay Sherry, David Johnson, Karri Osterhout, Jeremy Howard, McIntyre, Blessman, and Bomber ("MDOC Defendants") filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs' amended complaint. On the following day Defendants Corizon Health Inc., Craig Hutchinson, Jeffrey Bomber, Robert Lacy, Keith Papendick and Rickey Coleman ("Corizon Defendants") filed a similar motion to strike the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. All the Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's nunc pro tunc request. A. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave The Plaintiffs seek leave to reopen their case and file an amended complaint, arguing: (1) their failure to seek leave was merely a technical oversight which a nunc pro tunc order is designed to remedy; (2) Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend should be "freely granted" when justice so requires; and (3) their amended complaint cured the deficiencies identified in the Court's September 4 Order by providing additional details which place each defendant on notice concerning the misconduct alleged against that the Defendant. The Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs failed to seek leave before the Court's deadline expired, they must demonstrate both good cause and excusable neglect before the Court can grant leave to reopen the case. They say the Plaintiffs failed to do so. Judge Roberts holds that despite the Plaintiffs' procedural defect, she accepts their amended complaint. She says the Plaintiffs' delay had absolutely no effect on judicial proceedings. Additionally, accepting the Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not prejudice the Defendants because it will "do no harm to the Defendants except require them to prove their case." Finally, although the delay was within the reasonable control of the Plaintiffs' counsel, there is nothing to suggest that they acted in bad faith. The most equitable result in the case is for the Court to allow the Plaintiffs' motion. The Judge does so. B. Defendants' Motions to Strike The Defendants asks the Court to strike the Plaintiffs' amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 because it would not survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and would be futile. They bill their motions as Rule 12(f) motions to strike but improperly rely on Rule 15, which addresses amended and supplemental pleadings. Judge Roberts evaluates motions to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(f). She has reviewed the amended complaint and finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently satisfy Rule 8 by making clear statements as to how they believe each Defendant committed gross negligence and/or violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They set forth a sufficient factual basis with respect to each individual Defendant. She also finds that the Plaintiffs allege personal knowledge or the failure to act or take corrective measures to prevent the spread of mold at WHV, and the existence of a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations. Accordingly, the amended complaint pleads the requisite elements of a claim under Section 1983 against these Defendants. In light of the foregoing, Judge Roberts granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave and denied the Defendants' Motions to Strike. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bw52x9u from Leagle.com. MONEYGRAM INT'L: The Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against MoneyGram International, Inc. ("Moneygram" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:MGI) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 17, 2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 30, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. MoneyGram was utilizing XRP, the cryptocurrency associated with its Ripple partnership, which was considered as an unregistered and unlawful security by the SEC. If the SEC took enforcement action against Ripple, the Company was likely to lose a significant revenue stream based on market development fees it received due to the partnership. In fact, the Company's revenue from these development fees was critical to its financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about MoneyGram, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 7 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN) 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 (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which was consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger"). Investors have until June 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Click here to participate in the action. Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist. In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S. healthcare industry. The MultiPlan class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in connection with the Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business, operation, and prospects of MultiPlan. On November 11, 2020 - only one month after the close of the Merger – Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within two years. As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger. If you purchased MultiPlan securities during the Class Period or were a Churchill III Class A common stock holder entitled to a vote on the merger and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] NAT'L SPINE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Junk Fax Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brent Owen, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs, reports that sometimes what the Court does not address is the most interesting issue in an opinion. That's the case we are covering today. Scoma v. National Spine & Pain Centers, LLC, 2:20-cv-430-JLB-MRM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46655, *7 (M.D. Fla. March 12, 2021). The TCPA prohibits using any facsimile machine to send "an unsolicited advertisement." 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C). In a case involving a frequent TCPA plaintiff, Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a court in the Middle District of Florida denied a Defendants' Motion to dismiss. First, the Court rejected Defendants' argument that the fax at issue did not qualify as an advertisement. Second, the Court also raised, but did not resolve, important First Amendment issues about the speech implicated by the fax. Let's start where Junk Fax cases always start: with the fax. Here, the fax included a bold header that read, "In-Office Telemedicine Appointments for Pain Available!" It then described how the Defendants were "accepting appointments for in-office visits for urgent matters–as well as telemedicine appointments for non-urgent matters." And it mentioned how its telemedicine "ensured patients don't end up in the overburdened Emergency Rooms, where the risk of contracting coronavirus will surely be higher." The fax also purported to provide contact information for providers "interested in scheduling appointments for patients." Summarizing Eleventh Circuit precedent, the Court explained that advertising is "the action of drawing the public's attention to something to promote its sale." Likewise, the Court explained FCC guidance that even a fax that "purport[s] to request survey responses" may be "pretext" and is an advertisement if it "ultimately leads to the promotion of goods or services." Applied to the fax here, the Court concluded that a "reasonable trier of fact could plausibly conclude that the fax sent to Scoma is an advertisement." Notably, the Court also rejected Defendants' argument that the TCPA's "emergency purposes" exception applied because the fax at issue provided emergency information about avoiding coronavirus exposure. As the Court explained, the TCPA "does not contain an 'emergency purposes' exception in the junk-fax provision." Simple enough. That leaves us with the First Amendment analysis in the Court's opinion. Defendants argued that the junk-fax provision is a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny. Scoma (and the Government, as an intervenor) argued that the junk-fax provision is subject to intermediate scrutiny as a restriction on commercial speech. The Court declined to reach the merits because "all parties" had simply assumed that the "standard of review [strict or intermediate scrutiny] is dispositive in this case": Either the junk-fax ban falls under strict scrutiny, or it survives under intermediate scrutiny. None of the parties envision a scenario where the junk-fax ban could survive strict scrutiny–in other words, the ban is ‘narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.' The Court is not prepared to assume–without discussion–that the level of scrutiny decides the junk-fax ban's constitutionality. The Court allowed the Defendants to re-raise the challenge later in the case and asked the parties to address the following issues next time around: * Can the junk-fax ban survive "strict scrutiny"? (Does it serve a "compelling interest"?) * What compelling or substantial interest does the TCPA serve? * Given the FCC's broad definition of advertisement (to include faxes that do not overtly sell or promote goods), does it reach non-commercial speech? These are important questions and we will keep an eye out for how the Court resolves them. [GN] NAVISTAR INT'L: Dismissal of MaxxForce Engine Class Action Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Grisolano, writing for Land Line, reports that a federal appeals court affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by two trucking companies against Navistar over the defective MaxxForce engines. In its ruling handed down on Thursday, March 11, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said the trucking companies -- Drasc Inc. and S&C Trucks of Winklepleck, both of Sugarcreek, Ohio -- cannot proceed with their lawsuit against the Lisle, Ill.-based truck maker, because they failed to opt out of the multimillion federal class action settlement that was approved in January. On Jan. 3, 2020, a federal judge in Illinois granted final approval of the $135 million settlement against Navistar. Carriers and truckers who owned a 2011-14 Navistar with a defective MaxxForce engine may be eligible for compensation. Class members who were part of that MaxxForce lawsuit were given three options -- file a claim, exclude themselves, or object to the settlement. The two trucking companies, meanwhile, proceeded with their own lawsuit in state court in Ohio. The companies claimed they never received notice of the settlement or the need to opt out. They argued that the fact that they continued their case against Navistar should be enough to show that they wanted to opt out. The district court disagreed, ruling that the companies had indeed been notified of their options and did not opt out before pursuing their own suit. The lower court found that Drasc's lawyers in the Ohio lawsuit had actual notice of the MaxxForce settlement. The lawyers had sent a letter to Navistar's counsel in May 2019, the day after the preliminary hearing on the settlement, showing awareness of the pending class action. And a settlement demand that Drasc's lawyers sent to Navistar on July 26, 2019, discussed the difference between what Drasc wanted in the Ohio case and what it expected to receive from the class-action settlement. "Drasc's lawyers must have known about the need to opt out," the appeals court ruling states. "No modern lawyer is unaware of the procedures for managing class actions. Nonetheless, Drasc's lawyers did not do anything to protect its interest in opting out." Navistar settlement Per the agreement, MaxxForce class members had three options to recover losses: Cash option - A lump sum payment of up to $2,500. Rebate option - A rebate of up to $10,000 toward the purchase of a new Navistar truck. The settlement limits this option to no more than 10 trucks per class member. The 10-truck cap was intended to prevent the claims of class members with large fleets from depleting the funds for the other options. "Prove up" option - The class member submits documentary evidence of damages for "covered expenses" totaling no more than $15,000. The deadline to file a claim for damages was June 10, 2020. Claim determination letters were mailed by Nov. 18 to all claimants who submitted a timely claim. The deadline to respond to the determination letters passed on Dec. 18, 2020. [GN] NEW SCHOOL: Vasquez Sues Over School Employees' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE MANUEL VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT, THE HELP GROUP CHILD AND FAMILY CENTER, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV13381 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a school secretary from in or about January 2017 until on or about September 15, 2020. New School for Child Development is an elementary school in California. The Help Group Child and Family Center is a family-focused, child-centered mental health provider in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin Crough, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Edwards-Mortley ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated February 19, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment, classifying Stephen Edwards-Mortley as a member of the Plaintiff class in this action, and holding that he is entitled to monetary and injunctive relief from Defendant as compensation for the injuries she suffered as a result of what the Court found to be the Defendant's discrimination. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 21-706, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 25, 2021.[BN] Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 Plaintiff-Appellee Stephen Edwards-Mortley is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com NEW YORK: Industry Suffers Setback in 421a Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Erin Hudson at therealdeal.com reports that tenants in a Bushwick building scored a victory against their landlord in court this week, which could be a harbinger of headaches to come for the real estate industry. A New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that the tenants' suit, which accuses landlord Spruce Capital Partners of rent overcharges at 1209 Dekalb Avenue, would continue. The landlord and three influential trade groups had petitioned the court to dismiss the case. It's one of seven separate cases where tenants are seeking class action status against landlords who received 421a tax abatements and then allegedly illegally inflated rents at their properties. The complaints were filed in the past seven months after investigations by the watchdog group Housing Rights Initiative. Though the judge's decision in Spruce Capital's case does not bind judges in the other cases, tenant advocates see it as a positive development. "This decision is a colossal setback, not just for the landlord in this case, but for the real estate lobby who tried and failed to get it dismissed," Aaron Carr, the founder of HRI, said in an email. "The real estate lobby is concerned that if this class action is successful, our organization will investigate every single landlord that is cheating on their 421a tax benefits. And they are correct." At the heart of the lawsuits is the question of whether it's legal to offer concessions on the initial rent for a unit in the 421a program. If the tenants prevail, the outcome of these cases would have widespread implications for developers using 421a and offering concessions to renters. In a joint statement, Real Estate Board of New York, the Community Housing Improvement Program and the Rent Stabilization Association -- which had filed a motion to appear in support of several of the landlords and argued for the tenants' complaints to be dismissed -- said the decision in Spruce Capital's case was based on the "favorable presumptions afforded by law to the plaintiffs" and does not answer or address the legal arguments put forward by the landlords' attorney or the industry. "As the case advances, we fully expect the Court to find that rent concessions are important government-endorsed tools to help recompense tenants in times of inconvenience," the groups said in the statement. Nativ Winiarsky, a partner at Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens, is representing a landlord in one of the other six cases. He said it's concerning that the court did not defer to the "long-standing" precedent set by the Division of Homes and Community Renewal to permit limited rent concessions. "Needless to say, given the large-scale impact of these decisions, it will no doubt only ultimately be resolved at the appellate levels and possibly the Court of Appeals," said Winiarsky in an email. A representative for Spruce Capital did not immediately respond to request for comment. [GN] NEW YORK: Jake Pankey Seeks Class Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jake Pankey v. STATE OF NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO; COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS ANTHONY ANNUCCI; AND DIRECTOR MEDICAL PAROLE JEFF MCKOY, Case No. 2:21-cv-01682-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class action certification. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QdTWrm at no extra charge. New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York City and towering Niagara Falls. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] ONTARIO: Settlement Proposed in Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against the Province of Ontario on behalf of individuals admitted to the Child and Parent Resource Institute ("CPRI") in London, Ontario. The action was certified as a class proceeding on December 22, 2016. The lawsuit alleged that between 1963 and 2011, the inpatients at CPRI suffered various harms, including injuries resulting from the wrongful acts of their peers, and that the Province owed a duty to supervise and failed to adequately ensure the safety of those individuals admitted. The Province denies these claims and a Court has not decided whether the Class or the Province is right. Instead, both sides have agreed to a settlement. If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, it will provide a claims process through which eligible class members may make a claim for compensation. A virtual settlement approval hearing will be held by the Court. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class, and whether to approve the Settlement Agreement. Notice of the settlement approval hearing will be provided to class members. The Court will determine the process and timing of the notice. More information is available on Class Counsel's website: https://kmlaw.ca/cases/cpri-class-action/ or by contacting them at 1-844-819-8523, or by email at cpriclassaction@kmlaw.ca. [GN] OREGON: Agrees to Settle Coronavirus Relief Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Mitchell, writing for Blue Mountain Eagle, reports that the state has agreed to settle a Grant County-based lawsuit halting coronavirus relief money for Black Oregonians. Should the court approve, the fund could resume paying out aid to Black-owned businesses and their families, and as part of the settlement, the state would pay an undetermined sum to non-Black applicants who had applied for help from the fund last year, according to a proposed settlement agreement filed March 12 in U.S. District Court in Pendleton. Great Northern Resources, a John Day logging company that lists Tad Houpt and Grant County Commissioner Sam Palmer as agents, filed a lawsuit alleging race-based discrimination after being denied funding from the coronavirus relief fund set up to help Black-owned businesses. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Great Northern would receive $45,000, plus up to $186,000 in fees for its attorneys. The settlement proposal noted that $25,000 of the logging company's payout would be for COVID-19-related expenses listed on its grant application, while the additional $20,000 would be its service award as the lead plaintiff of the class-action lawsuit. Applications that were submitted on time by business owners who are not Black will be automatically considered for funding through the grant program unless they opt out of the class action settlement, according to the settlement. Houpt declined to comment on March 12, and Palmer did not immediately respond to the Eagle as of March 12. Palmer told the Eagle in December that he was not involved in the lawsuit. In a March 12 press release, the Oregon Cares Fund said, amid mounting legal challenges, the fund offered to deposit with the court the remaining $8.8 million it had not distributed, after distributing $49.5 million to nearly 15,600 Black people, their families and their businesses. If the court approves the settlement, $5.3 million of the funds deposited with the court will be immediately released, and can be dispersed to eligible applicants who have been waiting for grants. The remaining $3.5 million will continue to be held. Great Northern -- the original plaintiffs in the case -- joined with Salem electrical contractor Dynamic Service Fire and Security and sought class-action status for the suit, according to a complaint filed Dec. 6. The state, per the settlement, agreed to use a different pot of money to pay grants to up to 1,252 non-Black applicants that sought funding through the program before Dec. 8, 2020. An independent third party will determine how much money those newly eligible will receive. According to the agreement, the applicants must meet the fund's race-neutral criteria and adequately demonstrate financial loss related to the coronavirus. According to the settlement agreement, the independent party issuing the funds would apply the same criteria -- except for racial self-identification -- the Oregon Cares Fund had in awarding claims. Not all claims will qualify for an award, according to the court document. By agreeing to the settlement, the court document said, neither side is admitting guilt. The state is settling to avoid "complex, costly and time-consuming litigation and the likelihood of success on the action's merit." [GN] ORORA NORTH: Coleman Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANTEZ COLEMAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ORORA NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2021L000375 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Mar. 31, 2021) alleges violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiffs and the Class with a written, publicly available policy identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Defendant allegedly failed to inform its employees of the complete purposes for which it collects their sensitive biometric data or to whom the data is disclosed, if at all, and failed to obtain their knowing consent to use their biometric data. ORORA NORTH AMERICA is part of the wholesale sector industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 Fax: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Hirsch Sues Over Corporate Voting Rights --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON HIRSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.; PETER THIEL; ALEXANDER KARP; and STEPHEN COHEN, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0275 (Del. Ch., Mar. 31, 2021) alleges violation of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have twisted the notion of stock and voting rights beyond recognition. Seeking to make the Founders rulers for life, the Defendants adopted charter provisions granting the Founders what it describes as "variable voting rights." These provisions, which the Defendants acknowledges are "novel" and "differ significantly from those of other companies that have dual or multiple class capital structures" -- insulate the Founders' voting control by causing votes to magically appear and disappear, on an election by election basis, precisely to the extent necessary to ensure the Founders receive precisely their desired percentage of the vote, the Plaintiff adds. Palantir Technologies Inc. develops software to analyze information. The Company offers solutions support many kinds of data including structured, unstructured, relational, temporal, and geospatial. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3601 -and- Thomas Curry, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. Tayler D. Bolton, Esq. 1000 N. West St., Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 485-0483 -and- Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Andrew Blumberg, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 -and- Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 PARTS DISTRIBUTION: Adams Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling to 3rd Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tiffany Adams filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Tiffany Adams, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Parts Distribution Xpress, Inc., PDX North, Inc. and PDX South, Inc. and PDX West, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2-20-cv-00697, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the fair Labor Standards Act. PDX operates as delivery/courier service where Adams worked as a Driver/Courier. PDX allegedly misclassified her as an independent contractor thus denied her overtime pay and minimum wages. Ms. Adams seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Adams v. Parts Distribution Xpress Inc, et al., Case No. 21-1634, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 1, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TIFFANY ADAMS, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com amurthy@forthepeople.com Defendants-Appellees PARTS DISTRIBUTION XPRESS INC., PDX NORTH INC., PDX SOUTH INC., and PDX WEST INC. are represented by: Colin D. Dougherty, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD 10 Sentry Parkway P.O. Box 3001, Suite 200 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (610) 397-6500 E-mail: cdougherty@foxrothschild.com PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Diamond Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Arthur Diamond, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled ARTHUR DIAMOND et al., Petitioners v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents, and JANINE WENZIG et al., Petitioners v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 668, Respondent, Case No. 20-1383. Response is due on May 3, 2021. Petitioners Diamond, et al., seek a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case titled ARTHUR DIAMOND et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, and JANINE WENZIG et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 668, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 19-2812, 19-3906. The Third Circuit entered judgment on August 28, 2020, denying a petition for rehearing en banc on October 30, 2020. The questions presented are: 1. Is there a good-faith defense to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that shields a defendant from damages liability for depriving citizens of their constitutional rights if the defendant acted under color of a law before it was held unconstitutional? 2. Are employees who had compulsory union fees seized from them in violation of their First Amendment rights prior to Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), entitled to damages or restitution for their injuries? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, who are all current or retired Pennsylvania public school teachers, allege that the Union Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights by forcing the Plaintiffs to pay fees to unions as a condition of their employment (fair-share fees) under 71 Pa. Stat. Section 575 (Section 575), even though the Plaintiffs chose not to join the Pennsylvania State Education Association or its affiliate unions. The Plaintiffs also claim that Commonwealth Defendants, who are charged in various ways with enforcing Pennsylvania's laws, must be enjoined from enforcing Section 575 in an unconstitutional manner.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Arthur Diamond, et al. are represented by: Brian Kirk Kelsey, Esq. LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER 208 S. LaSalle St. Ste. 1690 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 637-2280 Facsimile: (312) 263-7702 E-mail: bkelsey@libertyjusticecenter.org PIONEER NATURAL: Seeks 5th Circuit Review in Kennedy FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Pioneer Natural Resources Company filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ROBERT KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Case No. 7:20-CV-86, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated workers overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek and its misclassification of them as independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant seeks an interlocutory appeal as to the order adopting/rejecting report and recommendations, and terminating motions. Per 5th Circuit rules, the appellant has 14 days, from the filing of the notice of appeal, to order the transcript. The appellate case is captioned as Kennedy v. Pioneer Natural Resources Co., Case No. 21-50256, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 1, 2021.[BN] Defendant-Appellant Pioneer Natural Resources Company is represented by: Leslie Selig Byrd, Esq. BRACEWELL, L.L.P. 300 Convent Street San Antonio, TX 78205-3723 Telephone: (210) 299-3460 E-mail: leslie.byrd@bracewell.com Plaintiff-Appellee Robert Kennedy, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com PLAINS ALL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Newman FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KENNETH NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., Case No. 7:19-CV-244, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for conditional certification under the FLSA. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). Both the Plaintiffs' Motions and Defendants' Responses are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021)." The Defendant seeks an interlocutory appeal as to Court's Order adopting/rejecting report and recommendations, and terminating motions. Per 5th Circuit rules, the appellant has 14 days, from the filing of the notice of appeal, to order the transcript. The appellate case is captioned as Newman v. Plains All Amer Pipel, Case No. 21-50253, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 1, 2021.[BN] Defendant-Appellant Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is represented by: Mark Douglas Temple, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P. 811 Main Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-1600 E-mail: mtemple@reedsmith.com Plaintiff-Appellee Kenneth Newman, Individually and, on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Richard J. Burch,Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com Intervenor-Appellee Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, L.L.C. is represented by: Rachel Cowen, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, L.L.P. 444 W. Lake Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 372-2000 E-mail: rcowen@mwe.com - and - Nicole Figueroa, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, L.L.P. 2501 N. Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 295-8062 E-mail: nfigueroa@mwe.com PLUG POWER: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of May 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming May 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Plug Power Inc. ("Plug" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLUG) securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Plug investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/plug-power-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On 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/or 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 complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company 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. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Plug securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 7, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] PLUG POWER: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on March 15 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in PLUG: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/plug-power-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13654&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Plug Power Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1 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) the Company was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and (3) 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. Shareholders have until May 7, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the PLUG lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] PORCELANA CORONA: Beteselassie Sues Over Defective Toilet Tanks --------------------------------------------------------------- NEBIYU BETESELASSIE; and BETHLEHEM GELAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. formerly known as SANITARIOS LAMOSA S.A. DE C.V. also known as VORTENS J.J.R., INC., Defendant, Case 2:21-cv-02153-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan., Mar. 31, 2021) is a product liability action arising out of the Defendant's defective toilet tanks. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant was aware its toilet tanks were defective and tended to burst, causing substantial damage, but did not act to correct these defects by 2012. As of September, 2019, the Plaintiffs had eight Vortens toilet tanks, model number 3464. That same month, one of these toilet tanks spontaneously failed, causing significant property damage. The Plaintiffs replaced the seven other defective toilet tanks before they could themselves fail, causing even more damage, says the suit. These manufacturing defects were allegedly outside industry standards and created toilet tanks with latent defects. These toilet tanks are weak, brittle, and fragile, and spontaneously crack and fail at unacceptably high rates. The Defendant failed to stop manufacturing these toilet tanks until it could address and correct its manufacturing defects. Instead, the Defendant continued to manufacture its toilet tanks in the Benito Juarez plant through its investigation of the problem and deficiencies. As a result of the Defendant's decision to continue manufacturing and distributing what it knew to be defective toilet tanks, these defects and problems persisted after 2011, added the suit. PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. toilets, sinks, showers, faucets, bathtubs, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Kilgore, Esq. Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. HUMPHREY FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C. 221 W. Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: msk@hfmlegal.com jms@hfmlegal.com POST FOODS: Judge Okays $15MM Consumer Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Veeneman, Esq., of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on February 24, 2021, a judge in the United States Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved a $15 million class-action settlement for Post Foods, based on the case Debbie Krommenhock et al. v. Post Foods, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-04958-WHO, which concerns representations made by Post Foods LLC in the labeling and advertising of several popular cereal brands, including Honey Bunches of Oats and Raisin Bran. Plaintiffs Debbie Krommenhock and Stephen Hadley filed a class action complaint against Post in August 2016 alleging that Post violated California consumer protection laws by deceptively marketing high-sugar cereals with health and wellness claims. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that Post took advantage of the rise in consumer interest for healthy eating by claiming that its cereals were healthy even though they contained high amounts of sugar. The Plaintiffs alleged that regular consumption of Post's cereals was likely to contribute to excess added sugar consumption and increase consumer risk of chronic disease. In total, the Plaintiffs' Complaint targets representations made by Post regarding more than 50 of its cereals. The challenged representations include: * On the front of Post's Great Grains Cranberry Almond Crunch: "Less processed nutrition you can see;" * On the front of Post's Post Selects/Great Grain Raisins, Dates & Pecans: "naturally sweet Raisins & Dates;" and * On the front of Post's Honey Bunches of Oats: "Our Post Promise: No High Fructose Corn Syrup," as well as a depiction of whole grains and a heart in two adjacent circles. The settlement covers a class of all consumers of Post's cereals from August 2012 to present. Under the settlement, Post will pay $15 million to the class. Post will also stop making certain claims on cereal, including "no high fructose corn syrup," "less processed," "wholesome," "smart" and "nutritious" on products where 10% or more of the calories come from sugar. The hearing for final approval is set for Wednesday, June 23, 2021. Other cereal companies have faced similar consumer lawsuits. For example, Kellogg paid $20 million to settle claims concerning its use of the term "lightly sweetened" on Frosted Mini-Wheats cereals. General Mills succeeded in defeating a lawsuit in 2019, with a judge holding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled by claims about the sugar content when the products had clear ingredient labeling showing the sugar amount. Notably, the FDA has not created an official definition for "healthy" labeling, despite asking for public comment in September 2016. Without official FDA guidance, industry confusion and consumer class actions on "healthy" labeling are likely to continue. [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Housey Suit Over Deceptive Toothpaste Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- BELINDA HOUSEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02286 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) is a consumer class action against Procter & Gamble for its false advertising, unfair and deceptive marketing practices, and materially misleading claims and omissions they employed and disseminated in connection with the sale of its line of Crest (TM) toothpastes containing charcoal. Charcoal is highly porous and has adsorptive qualities that can be useful in certain contexts. In recent years, health and beauty products containing activated charcoal have become a consumer sensation. Opportunistic marketers, celebrities and social media influencers tout a variety of certain charcoal products for purported detoxifying properties and other enhanced wellbeing and health benefits. Consumers have been willing to pay a premium for these charcoal products based on these purported benefits. P&G sells oral care products containing charcoal, including: "Crest (TM) 3D White Whitening Therapy -- Charcoal with Hemp Seed Oil"; "Crest (TM) Gum Detoxify Charcoal Toothpaste"; "Crest (TM) 3D White Whitening Toothpaste with Charcoal." Allegedly, P& G actively misleads consumers to believe the Charcoal Toothpastes are enamel-safe whitening toothpastes that gently clean, and that can promote healthier gums. P&G promotes the Charcoal Toothpastes with multiple claims printed on the product packaging and tube labels of the Charcoal Toothpastes, specifically including that the Charcoal Toothpastes have "enamel safe whitening" capabilities, that they promote "healthy gums", and they can "gently clean." Plaintiff Housey resides in New York City. She purchased the Crest (TM) 3D White Whitening Toothpaste with Charcoal. Prior to her purchase, Ms. Housey saw and reviewed Defendant's advertising claims on the toothpaste packaging and labeling itself, and she made her purchase of the toothpaste in reliance thereon. Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in 1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway East, 2 nd Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 772-7200 Facsimile: (856) 210-9088 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com klaukaitis@shublawyers.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93 rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: To Explain Failure to Produce Docs in Mantha ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH MANTHA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 19-12235-LTS (D. Mass.), Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered QuoteWizard to submit a supplemental filing explaining why production of the documents at issue would constitute undue burden, in light of the evidence presented. The case is a putative consumer class action brought against Defendant QuoteWizard under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. At issue is an order from Chief Magistrate Judge Kelley requiring QuoteWizard to produce three categories of documents relating to text messaging conducted on its behalf by Drips Holdings, LLC. On Feb. 24, 2021, Judge Sorokin denied QuoteWizard's Objection to Judge Kelley's Order. On March 5, 2021, QuoteWizard moved for reconsideration of that ruling. On March 16, 2021, the Court issued a written decision regarding QuoteWizard's motion. In the decision issued on March 16th, Judge Sorokin affirmed again Judge Kelley's determination the three categories of documents at issue are (1) relevant and (2) within the possession, custody, or control of QuoteWizard. He noted, however, that QuoteWizard had -- for the first time since litigation over these documents began in September of last year -- offered evidence substantiating its claims of undue burden. Given the gravity of QuoteWizard's representations as to burden, the Judge determined he would overlook the procedural posture in which these fresh representations were raised and consider QuoteWizard's arguments on the merits. Consequently, the Judge reserved on the question of burden and ordered further briefing. The parties have obliged. Much of the briefing has focused on whether the production of roughly 46,000 Do Not Call requests in Drips' possession would constitute an undue burden. QuoteWizard argues the documents at issue are not reasonably accessible and production would "require thousands of hours of manpower that could threaten Drips' continued existence. In support, it offers an affidavit filed by Drips in an action brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ("Rule 45 action") -- Drips Holdings, LLC v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, 5:21-mc-00017-PAB (N.D. Ohio filed Mar. 15, 2021). In the Rule 45 action, Drips seeks to quash a subpoena from QuoteWizard demanding production of the Do Not Call requests. The affidavit filed by Drips in the Rule 45 action, and presented to the undersigned by QuoteWizard, contains the sworn representations of Drips Chief Strategy Officer Tom Martindale. As relevant in the matter, Martindale avers: (1) Drips keeps its records, including its communications with consumers, on so-called "active servers" for sixty days; (2) after 60 days, Drips' records are transferred to "cold storage servers in a data warehouse"; (3) Drips keeps significant amounts of data in cold storage and the data is not indexed or otherwise easily searchable; and (4) accessing the documents which Judge Kelley ordered produced would require the development of new software programs, "perhaps hundreds of thousands of hours" of labor, and "years of processing time." Martindale avers the associated burden would be so substantial that it could well "result in Drips having to shut down altogether." In response, Plaintiff Mantha points out Drips was previously able to produce 226,434 consumer Do Not Call requests, seemingly similar in nature to the Do Not Call requests at issue, in another proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California -- Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 400 F.Supp.3d 964, 977 (N.D. Cal. 2019). The Court has examined documents on the public docket underlying the decision cited by Mantha. From the Court's preliminary review of the spreadsheet, the text message communications seemingly produced by Drips span a period stretching from roughly mid-2017 through to early 2018 -- i.e. a period of greater than 60 days. QuoteWizard replied to Mantha's brief but did not address this evidence or the case to which Mantha pointed. Judge Sorokin holds that the law is clear the party resisting discovery bears the burden of showing that a request for documents imposes an undue burden. On this record, QuoteWizard has failed to address evidence before the Court which appears to show that Drips has previously produced records practically identical in nature to those presently at issue, and in much greater volume. This evidence, he says, sits in apparent tension with QuoteWizard's (and Drips') repeated representations that compelled production would impose extraordinary burdens on Drips. He recognizes, however, that Drips' prior production occurred in the past and that there may be factors regarding that production of which the Court is unaware. He therefore makes no determination at this time as to whether QuoteWizard has carried its burden. Judge Sorokin will allow QuoteWizard to submit a supplemental filing explaining why production of the documents at issue would constitute undue burden, in light of the evidence discussed. Drips is also invited to submit its own filing addressing its prior production, should it so choose. Any such appearance by Drips will be deemed to be for the limited purpose of addressing this question and will not be construed as consent to the Court's jurisdiction more generally. Should QuoteWizard or Drips choose to submit a supplementary filing, all facts or explanations offered in the filing must be supported by affidavits. Any such filing is due within seven days from the date of the Order and is limited to seven pages. Any response by Mantha is due seven days thereafter and is also limited to seven pages. QuoteWizard is ordered to provide Drips with a copy of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yzv7dunf from Leagle.com. RA MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Derr Suit Pending -------------------------------------------- RA Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the putative securities class action suit entitled, Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et al., is pending. On June 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action no. 19CV1079 LAB NLS) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, certain current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO). Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and the filing of a subsequent amended complaint, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions in the Company's registration statement in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between September 27, 2018 and November 27, 2019, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Management intends to vigorously defend the Company against this lawsuit. On March 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter defendants without prejudice. On March 13, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 14, 2020, the court informed the parties that the motion to dismiss is suitable for decision without oral argument. At this time, the Company cannot predict how a court or jury will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. RA Medical said, "Should the Company ultimately be found liable, the liability could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and its results of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome." RA Medical Systems, Inc. designs, develops, and produces medical devices. The Company offers excimer lasers for the treatment of dermatologic and cardiovascular diseases. RA Medical Systems serves patients in the United States. The company is based in Carlsbad, California. REALREAL INC: N.D. California Dismisses Sanders' Rule 10b-5 Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MICHAEL SANDERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE REALREAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07737-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss on Rule 10b-5 claims and denies their motion to dismiss on Section 11 claims. The class action arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-k, and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. RealReal is an online marketplace that sells authenticated, consigned luxury goods. The website offers used clothing, jewelry, and accessories from "over 7,000 luxury and premium designers." The Company occupies a unique niche in the luxury goods marketplace. Lead Plaintiff, Michael Sanders, along with Nubia Lorelle and Garth Wakeford ("Plaintiffs") purchased securities in connection with The RealReal, Inc.'s June 2019 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The Plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws arising in two distinct time periods. First, they contend the Defendants made false and misleading statements in the company's registration documents prior to the IPO. Second, they allege these false and misleading statements continued in the months following the IPO, thereby artificially inflating the stock's market price. Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim the Defendants failed to disclose known trends or uncertainties during both time periods. The Complaint names multiple Defendants: (1) The RealReal, Inc.; (2) Individual Defendants Julie Wainwright (CEO), Matt Gustke (CFO), Steve Lo (Vice President and Corporate Controller), Chip Baird (Director), Maha Ibrahim (Director), Rob Krolik (Director), Michael Kumin (Director), Stefan Larsson (Director), Niki Leondakis (Director), and James Miller (Director); and (3) Underwriter Defendants Credit Suisse Securities LLC, Bank of America Securities, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Cowan and Company, LLC, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company. Defendant The RealReal, Inc. and Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that the Plaintiffs have not met the heightened pleading requirements applicable in securities fraud cases. Before turning to the substantive claims, Judge Davila addresses initial motions from the Defendants. A. Request for Judicial Notice & Incorporation by Reference The Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of six documents, which are attached as exhibits to the declaration of Jamie A. Bartlett. Specifically, they request the Court takes judicial notice of all six exhibits and treat Exhibits 1 to 2 and 4 to 6 as incorporated by reference. The Plaintiff does not challenge the judicial notice of such documents for their limited purpose of demonstrating the statements were made to the public. Judge Davila takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1 to 6, in accordance with the limited purpose of identifying what statements were available to the market. In addition, the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint incorporates by reference Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 because the Plaintiff explicitly and repeatedly refers to excerpts of these exhibits to support their claims. Accordingly, these five documents are properly considered on this motion to dismiss because they have been incorporated by reference. B. Request for Joinder The Underwriter Defendants seek to join The Company and Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs do not oppose these joinder motions. Thus, Judge Davila grants these joinder motions. The Judge now turns to the Plaintiffs' claims. A. The Plaintiffs' Section 10 and Section 20 Claims The Plaintiffs bring two claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. First, they allege the Company and its President, CEO, and Chairperson of the Board of Directors, Julie Wainwright, and CFO, Matt Gustke, ("Officer Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the Act via Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC. Second, they allege Individual Defendants (Julie Wainwright and Matt Gustke) violated Section 20(a) as "controlling persons" within the Company. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made 10 false, misleading, and/or incomplete statements regarding the Company's authentication process following the IPO. In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims by first arguing that the Plaintiffs' allegations do not demonstrate that any challenged statements were false or misleading and, in any event, represent corporate puffery. They next contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish scienter. Then, even if the Court finds falsity and scienter, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' loss causation claims are inadequate. Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled personal knowledge and reliability as to FEs 1, 3, 5, and 12 because those witnesses were not employed during the class period and the AC failed to provide a detailed employment description. However, the allegations as to FEs 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 meet the particularity requirement. The Judge also finds that (i) Statements 1 and 6, that reference the Company's "rigorous" authentication process, are actionable; (ii) the Plaintiffs have failed to show that Statement 8 (pertains to a statement made during the Company's third quarter earnings call) is misleading; (iii) the Plaintiffs allegations fail to raise a strong inference of scienter under the core operations theory; and (iv) the Plaintiffs failed to allege a viable Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 claim, therefore, they have likewise failed to adequately allege a claim under Section 20(a). B. Section 11 and 15 Claims The Plaintiffs allege 11 statements contained in the Company's Registration Statement violate Section 11 of the Securities Act. These misstatements and omissions can be classified into three categories: (i) statements concerning the Company's authentication process, (ii) statements concerning risk factors, and (iii) statements concerning the reporting of certain financial metrics. As an initial matter, Judge Davila must determine whether the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) applies to the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims. The Defendants argue this heightened pleading standard applies to thePlaintiffs' Section 11 claims "because their Securities Act and Exchange Act claims are premised on the same alleged misconduct." The Plaintiffs, however, counter that the claims are distinct because the "Section 11 claims are based on only those statements contained in the Prospectus whereas the Section 10(b) claims allege additional post-IPO false statements." Further, the Plaintiffs argue the Section 11 claims are not centered on knowledge or fraudulent concealment. Judge Davila denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims to the extent they are based on Statements 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (the corresponding Statements asserted by the Plaintiffs in the Section 10(b) context) because the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that these statements are material and misleading to a reasonable consumer in the Section 11 context. The Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims based on Statements 2 and 7 (pertain to the specific tasks involved in the Company's authentication process) because the Plaintiffs failed to meet the particularity requirement for these statements. The Judge also holds that Statement 8 that addresses the critical necessity of an accurate authentication process and the threat to the Company's reputation posed by the sale of counterfeit good, is a nonactionable omission. He further holds that the Plaintiffs' argument on Statement 12 (pertains to the potential impact of promotional pricing of new luxury goods on the Company's business model) falters when considered in its broader context. Accordingly, the Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Statements 8 and 12. Lastly, Section 15 establishes "control person" liability for violations of Section 11. To establish a claim under Section 15, the Plaintiffs must plead a predicate violation of Section 11. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have successfully pled a claim under Section 11, as discussed. Thus, he finds they have likewise stated a claim for a violation of Section 15. C. Item 303 Claim Item 303 requires the Offering Materials to disclose "any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations." The Plaintiffs argue the Defendants failed to disclose two trends: The trend of decreasing AOV for Q2 2019 and that the Company had been selling hundreds of counterfeit items through its authentication process. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants failed to disclose the Company's sale of "hundreds of counterfeit items" that made it through the authentication process. Aside from the conclusory allegation, Judge Davila holds that the Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts indicating that the Defendants knew of the alleged trend toward depressed pricing. Therefore, he finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a duty to disclose any trend related to the Company's decreasing AOV. And, because the Defendants did disclose the risk of selling counterfeit items on the website in its Registration Documents, the Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to show an Item 303 violation pertaining to authentication. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Judge Davila grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. He denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss in regard to the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. However, he grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss in regard to Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Although the Judge has determined that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, it is possible to cure their allegations by alleging more particular facts to support their scienter theory. Should the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so by April 30, 2021. Failure to do so, or failure to cure the deficiencies addressed in the Order, will result in dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/328cnucy from Leagle.com. RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Red River Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Aeron Averette v. Red River Bancshares. The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Aeron Averette v. Red River Bancshares, filed on August 28, 2020, in the 19th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana. The lawsuit alleges the Bank wrongfully imposed multiple non-sufficient funds fees on what the plaintiff describes as a single item presented for payment, thereby resulting in the Bank breaching its customer account agreement, abusing its rights, and being unjustly enriched. The plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of all account holders in Louisiana who incurred similar charges by the Bank within the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees, attorney's fees, and general and equitable relief for herself and the purported class. The Company and Bank deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend the matter. Red River said, "At this early stage of the lawsuit, we cannot determine the probability of a materially adverse result or reasonably estimate the potential exposure, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Red River Bancshares, Inc. is the bank holding company for Red River Bank, a Louisiana state-chartered bank established in 1999 that provides a fully integrated suite of banking products and services tailored to the needs of its commercial and retail customers. Red River Bank operates from a network of 25 banking centers throughout Louisiana and one combined loan and deposit production office in Lafayette, Louisiana. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of May 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood on March 16 disclosed that on March 2, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGI). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is May 3, 2018 through February 25, 2021. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-renewable-energy-group-inc/. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Renewable Energy Group, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, May 3, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN] RENEWABLE ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 16 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:REGI) between May 3, 2018 and February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 3, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased Renewable Energy Group securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Renewable Energy Group class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2048.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 3, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) due to failures in the diesel additive system, petroleum diesel was not periodically added to certain loads by the Company and was instead added by the Company's customers; (2) as a result, Renewable Energy Group was not the proper claimant for certain biodiesel tax credit (BTC) payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020; (3) a result, Renewable Energy Group's revenue and net income were overstated for certain periods; (4) there was a material weakness in the Company's internal control over financial reporting related to the purchase and use of the petroleum diesel gallons when blending with biodiesel; and (5) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Renewable Energy Group class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2048.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] RIVER CITY BANK: Faces Rodriguez Suit in California State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against River City Bank. The case is captioned as Kyle Rodriguez v. River City Bank and John Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00296612-CU-BC-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 16, 2021). The case type is breach of contract/warranty.[BN] The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. HAMMOND LAW Telephone: (310) 601-6766 Facsimile: (310) 295-2385 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krumenacker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JORDAN KRUMENACKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00838, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21343-CMA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, and the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by prohibiting their customers from buying multiple publicly traded stock options during an unprecedented rise in the stocks' valuation. Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a financial services company, with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and – Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ross Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled RYAN ZACHARY ROSS, ERIKA MERCADO, C. LOUIS BUNYA, and DREW HUNNICUTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION; THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; and WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00292, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21338-CMA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws by restricting their customers to purchase stocks from their trading platforms. Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its principal place of business in Illinois. TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. is a provider of brokerage services based in Omaha, Nebraska. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a financial services company based in Omaha, Nebraska. The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company, with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California. Webull Financial LLC is a financial services company, headquartered at 44 Wall Street, Ste 501, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. McDonald "Don" Worley, Esq. Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq. MCDONALD WORLEY, PC 1770 St. James St., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 523-5500 Facsimile: (713) 523-5501 E-mail: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com don@mcdonaldworley.com matt@mcdonaldworley.com - and – William R. Ogden, Esq. Mark D. Bankston, Esq. FARRAR & BALL LLP 1117 Herkimer St. Houston, TX 77008 Telephone: (713) 221-8300 Facsimile: (713) 221-8301 E-mail: bill@fbtrial.com mark@fbtrial.com ROOT INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: Root) ("Root") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired: (a) Root securities between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) Root Class A common stock issued in connection with Root's initial public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Root securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 18, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/root-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=root. Root provides insurance products and services in the United States. Root has historically focused on auto insurance and operates a direct-to-consumer model that serves customers primarily through mobile applications, as well as through Root's website. Leading up to and following the IPO, Root described itself as an innovator in the personal insurance space with a new data- and technology-driven business model that was ready to disrupt traditional insurance markets and capture disproportionate market share, in part because of Root's telematics-driven approach to insurance-i.e., the collection and transmission of vehicle-use data through devices. On October 28, 2020, Root conducted the IPO, selling 26.8 million shares of its Class A common stock to the public at $27.00 per share for total approximate proceeds of $724.43 million. On October 29, 2020, Root filed a prospectus on a Form 424B4 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). Throughout the Class Period, the defendants misrepresented Root's cash flow needs and auto-insurance business prospects. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents and the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, Root would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages, several of Root's established industry peers in fact possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. Root investors may, no later than May 18, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Judge Certifies Lawsuit Challenging Funding ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Taketa at San Diego Union Tribune reports that lawsuit by three San Diego County charter school networks that said they were wrongfully denied state funding now represents all 308 of California's charter schools that provide online, home school and other nontraditional learning. Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Arguelles granted the plaintiffs in Reyes v. State of California class-action status in a recent court order. Attorneys for the charter school plaintiffs say this is the first class-action lawsuit involving charter schools in California's history. The 308 charter schools are called non-classroom-based charter schools because at least 20 percent of the learning occurs off campus. The schools often provide a range of virtual, at-home and in-person instruction. The schools enroll 195,000 students throughout the state and make up 29 percent of the state's charter schools. About half their students are low-income, the schools' attorneys said. California funds district and charter schools based on their enrollment. Charter schools are public schools run independently of districts. Last fall three charter school networks based in San Diego County -- The Classical Academies, The Learning Choice Academy and Springs Charter Schools -- along with 13 charter school students sued the state for refusing to give the schools funding for new students they enrolled this school year. As the pandemic forced many traditional schools to close and go online last year, thousands of families switched or tried to switch their students out of traditional public schools to these non-classroom-based charters, which have years of experience providing distance learning. Meanwhile many school districts were struggling to adapt to distance learning and faced losing students. The state decided to freeze school funding statewide, so districts and charter schools would keep the same funding they received the year before, regardless of whether they gained or lost students during the pandemic. The freeze was meant to protect schools from financial ruin during the pandemic. Later the state passed a budget amendment that gave some funding to district schools and classroom-based charter schools for their new students, but not to non-classroom-based charter schools. The three San Diego-area charter networks argued the freeze illegally denied them fair and full funding for students and it denied students their right to a publicly-funded education. "Every child in California deserves to have their public education funded," said Jerry Simmons, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "It is unacceptable, particularly during a pandemic, that the state's leaders would pick winners and losers among children - that some children's educations matter and some are worth exactly zero." The charter school networks said they were forced to turn away thousands of students because they could not afford to serve them, and some schools said they stretched their budgets thin by enrolling hundreds of new students they weren't getting paid for. The three San Diego charter networks together enrolled 2,000 new students but didn't receive about $20.9 million in state funding for them, the schools said when they filed the lawsuit last year. The lawsuit named as defendants Gov. Gavin Newsom, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, State Controller Betty Yee and the State of California. Newsom's office did not respond to a request for comment. The California Department of Education has said it does not comment on litigation. California non-classroom-based charter schools can choose to opt out of the class-action suit by April 16, Simmons said. A court hearing for the case is scheduled for July 2. [GN] SAN DIEGO HOUSE: Cal. App. Tosses Appeal in Miliate Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One, dismissed the lawsuit entitled BLAKE MILIATE, Plaintiff and Respondent v. SAN DIEGO HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. D077104 (Cal. App.). Defendant San Diego House of Motorcycles, Inc. ("SDHM"), a motorcycle dealership, moved to compel arbitration of a customer's individual claims and to stay the court action pending completion of the arbitration. The trial court granted the motion, sending the Plaintiff's individual claims to arbitration. The parties subsequently entered a stipulation to stay the court proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. SDHM appealed, arguing the court erred in applying California law to the dispute. Although an order granting a motion to compel arbitration is not appealable, SDHM contends it has standing to appeal because (1) the trial court denied its motion to compel arbitration by retaining jurisdiction over claims for public injunctive relief, which SDHM maintains Plaintiff Blake Miliate did not actually seek; (2) SDHM received relief different from the relief it sought; and (3) the court failed to affirmatively enforce the arbitration agreement's class action waiver. SDHM further contends that the trial court erred by retaining jurisdiction over the request for public injunctive relief by applying California law, McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945 (McGill), when Utah law applies under a choice of law provision, that the arbitration clause is not unenforceable under McGill because the provision does not prevent a plaintiff from seeking public injunctive relief in every forum, and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts McGill and requires enforcement of the arbitration agreement in its entirety. The Motorcycle Purchase In February 2018, Miliate purchased a Yamaha motorcycle from SDHM in California. Miliate agreed to pay $14,168.87 for the motorcycle. He paid $300 in cash. He financed the remainder through a WebBank-Yamaha credit card that he obtained through SDHM. The sales slip referenced the credit card agreement. Mr. Miliate signed a credit application acknowledging that he received and read WebBank's Yamaha Credit Card Account Customer Agreement (the credit card agreement), which contained an arbitration provision. The arbitration provision was contained in Section 36 of the credit card agreement. The credit card agreement also contained a choice of law clause in Section 32, separate from the arbitration provision, which stated, "This Agreement is governed by applicable federal law and by Utah law. If any part of this Agreement is unenforceable, the remaining parts will remain in effect." The Lawsuit In July 2018, Miliate filed a complaint against SDHM on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated consumers. In it, he alleged SDHM had violated and was continuing to violate the Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act by failing to provide customers with a single document containing all the financing terms for the vehicle purchased made with a conditional sales contract. Miliate alleged SDHM was required to provide consumers with a single document containing statutorily mandated disclosures relating to the purchase and financing of any motor vehicle, and was violating Rees-Levering, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (the Unfair Competition Law, or the UCL) by failing to provide buyers with a single document setting forth terms of closed-end financing for retail installment sales of motorcycles. The complaint essentially alleges that SDHM induces customers to finance motorcycles with a WebBank credit card, which is an open-ended credit arrangement that increases the customer's cost substantially over time. Miliate also alleges that SDHM makes the transaction look like a "cash transaction," which is exempt from Rees-Levering, when the financing arrangement is really a conditional sales contract in which WebBank takes a security interest in the motorcycle that does not vest in the customer until after the customer makes all the payments due to WebBank. As a result, the purchase agreement is governed by Rees-Levering. Miliate alleges that SDHM's business practices offend public policy, and that a successful outcome of the suit will enforce rights that affect the public interest and will protect the general public from unlawful and unfair practices. Among the relief requested, Miliate seeks an injunction prohibiting SDHM from selling the motor vehicles "without first providing the consumer with a single document containing all of the agreement of SDHM and the consumer with respect to the total cost and the terms of payment for the motor vehicle, including any promissory notes or other evidence of indebtedness in accordance with Civil Code Section2981.9." It also seeks an injunction preventing SDHM from selling motor vehicles "without first providing the consumer with all disclosures mandated by Civil Code Section2982 in a single document." In May 2019, SDHM moved to compel arbitration of the claims arising out of the purchase of the Yamaha motorcycle pursuant to the WebBank-Yamaha credit card "on an individual, non-class basis, and for the imposition of a stay of the litigation as between Miliate and SDHM pending completion of the arbitration." The corresponding memorandum of points and authorities sought arbitration "on an individual, non-class basis." The motion did not ask the court to compel Miliate's class allegations and claims to arbitration or to rule on the enforceability of the class action waiver. Mr. Militate opposed the motion, contending its complaint challenged only the purchase agreement with SDHM and not the credit card agreement with WebBank, and SDHM was not a third party beneficiary to the credit card agreement's arbitration provision. He also argued California law applied, and the arbitration agreement violated California law because it waived his rights to obtain a public injunction in violation of McGill. Following a hearing in October 2019, the court granted SDHM's motion to compel arbitration of the individual claims. The court concluded SDHM was an intended third party beneficiary of the credit card agreement. It followed California's approach to analyzing conflicts of law and concluded there was no substantial relationship to Utah law, so California law applied. It also explained that the predispute waiver of the right to seek public injunctive relief under the UCL and the CLRA was invalid and unenforceable under California law, and it concluded California had a greater material interest in protecting consumers than any interests held by Utah. Later that month, the parties stipulated that individual claims would be arbitrated, class claims would remain in court, the claims for public injunctive relief would remain in court, and all claims not ordered to arbitration would be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court stayed the action pending the arbitration. SDHM timely appealed. Recognizing that ordinarily an order granting a motion to compel arbitration is not appealable, the Appellate Court requested the parties submit letter briefs explaining why the order is appealable. Because SDHM maintained the trial court order effectively denied a portion of its motion to compel, and orders denying motions to compel are appealable, the Appellate Court permitted the appeal to proceed, alerting the parties that appealability could be addressed in the appellate briefing and could be subject to the Court's further consideration. Discussion Judge Richard D. Huffman, writing for the Panel, notes that the trial court sent Miliate's individual causes of action to arbitration and delegated to the arbitrator determination of whether any of the issues should be arbitrated. The trial court did not issue a stay of the litigation pending completion of the arbitration. However, the parties subsequently entered a stipulation to stay court proceedings pending the completion of arbitration. Judge Huffman finds that SDHM ultimately received all the relief it requested. It asked the trial court to compel arbitration of Miliate's individual, non-class claims, and the court ordered "plaintiff's individual causes of action" to arbitration. SDHM also requested a stay of litigation pending completion of arbitration, which, although not granted by the court, was stipulated to post-order. The stipulation mooted the issue regarding the specific relief that was denied. Moreover, the relief SDHM requests in its appeal, that the Appellate Court "remand with directions to enter a new order compelling arbitration of Miliate's individual claims and staying court proceedings on any public injunction claim he may assert until after arbitration is completed," is the current procedural posture of the case. Accordingly, there is no requested relief, which the Appellate Court can grant that has not already been provided to SDHM, and the matter must be dismissed. Judge Huffman also concludes, among other things, ultimately, SDHM has received all the relief it requested because the individual claims were sent to arbitration and the remaining claims are stayed pending the completion of arbitration. Thus, SDHM lacks standing, and the Appellate Court will dismiss the matter. Disposition The matter is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs on appeal. HALLER, J., concurs. AARON, J., Concurring in the result. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 5, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/sey9ee6f from Leagle.com. Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, Bryan Kemnitzer -- bryan@kbklegal.com -- Mark A. Chavez -- mark@kbklegal.com -- Adam J. McNeile -- adam@kbklegal.com -- and Kristin Kemnitzer -- kristin@kbklegal.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent. Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton -- jtc@severson.com -- John B. Sullivan -- jbs@severson.com -- and Erik Kemp -- ek@severson.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Question in Pearson Suit Certified to SJC --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KELLIE PEARSON, ROGER BURRELL, BRIAN GIVENS, and THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK BOOKER, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THOMAS M. HODGSON, individually and his official capacity as Sheriff of Bristol County, and SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-11130-IT (D. Mass.), Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacates a judgment in favor of the Defendants, and certifies question to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Plaintiffs to the action sought declaratory relief stating that Thomas Hodgson, the Sheriff of Bristol County, Massachusetts, violated Massachusetts law when he procured an inmate calling system to raise revenues for the office of the Sheriff. They also alleged that the vendor of the inmate calling system, Securus, engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Massachusetts' consumer protection laws, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. In a Memorandum and Order, the Court granted the Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings. In so ruling, it found that two different provisions of Massachusetts law -- an uncodified section of a 2009 Session Law and Mass. Gen Laws. Ch. 127, Section 3 -- provided the necessary legislative authority for the inmate calling system used by Sheriff Hodgson. Importantly, the Court found that neither statute was necessarily plain on its face and instead the court read the two provisions together to find that the Legislature knew that county sheriffs were using inmate calling systems to generate revenues and approved this practice. Accordingly, it entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. However, the Court's finding that one of those two statutes, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, Section 3, was critical for interpreting the meaning of the 2009 Session Law was not an argument advanced by either party. Indeed, no party cited to, or relied upon, that statute in their briefs. And, at oral argument, despite the Court's inquiry, neither side agreed that the statute was relevant to the question presented. Nevertheless, the Court's Memorandum and Order concluded that the statute was critical for understanding the broader statutory scheme and for contextualizing the 2009 Session Law. Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and Certify the Question of Law to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court's analysis of ch. 127, Section 3 ("statute") was factually and legally flawed. Namely, they contend, inter alia, that (1) the statute only applies to the revenues generated from goods and services sold to inmates whereas the inmate calling system at question did not charge inmates, but instead charged those receiving the calls; (2) the statute is inapplicable to the commission-based contract between the Sheriff and Securus; (3) the Court interpreted the statute in a manner inconsistent with the Supreme Judicial Court's interpretation of the same provision; (4) the court failed to interpret the statute in the context of other provisions contained in the enacting statute; (5) the statute did not intrinsically provide the sheriffs with any authority to sell goods and services to inmates; (6) the Court's interpretation of the statute was in conflict with the 2009 Session Law; (7) the Court's interpretation of the statute was inconsistent with the Massachusetts Department of Correction's interpretation of the same statute; and (8) the statute should be read only to apply to the sale of goods and services by prisoners to other prisoners. The Defendants do not wrestle with the merits of the Plaintiffs' arguments, but contend instead that the Court addressed and rejected these points in its Memorandum and Order and must first conclude that the June 2020 Memorandum and Order constitutes a "manifest error of law" before granting reconsideration. However, Judge Talwani notes taht the Court's authority to set aside a judgment under Rule 59(e) is not as constrained as the Defendants contend. Relief under Rule 59(e) constitutes "an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." In the case, the Court reached a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties. It relied extensively on ch. 127, Section 3, despite no party having briefed the proper construction and relevance of that statute. Now that the Plaintiffs have articulated their contrary argument, Judge Talwani concludes that these issues should be analyzed and addressed with the benefit of the adversarial process for justice to be done. Accordingly, she sets aside the June 22, 2020 Memorandum and Order and Judgment. The Judge next turns to the Plaintiffs' request that the Court certifies the determinative question of law presented by the Defendants' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC"). They argue that the requirements for certification under the SJC's rules are met and that other considerations militate strongly in favor of certification. Judge Talwani agrees. She says, the Court may certify questions to the SJC where there are questions of law that: (1) "may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court," and (2) are not subject to "controlling precedent" from the decisions of the SJC. Both elements are met in the case. As to the first element, the question of law presented -- whether the Sheriff may collect revenue using inmate calling services -- is the central question presented by the case. Securus' lead argument in its Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is the alleged legality of the Sheriff's collection of revenue from inmate calling services. As to the second element, the Judge finds that there is no "controlling precedent" from decisions of the SJC. The First Circuit has interpreted the "no controlling precedent" element to "to prevent certification in cases when `the course the state court would take is reasonably clear.'" Although the Plaintiffs have argued throughout that this case is controlled by Souza v. Sheriff of Bristol County, 455 Mass. 573 (2010), the Court and the parties have struggled with this question throughout the course of the litigation. In addition, Judge Talwani finds that the specific question presented by the case not only meets the requirements for certification, but also should be certified considering the overwhelming local interest and the principles of federalism at play. The dispositive motions focused on an uncodified session law enacted in connection with the transfer of county sheriffs to the Commonwealth, a law of such local interest that counsel for neither party had even noted the existence of the law in connection with the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Defendants argue finally that certification is improper since the Plaintiffs only sought certification after receiving an adverse ruling. Judge Talwani holds they are correct that, as a general matter, "the practice of requesting certification after an adverse judgment has been entered should be discouraged." However, she has concluded that the adverse ruling and judgment must be set aside independent of the certification question, and therefore this concern is no longer present. For the reasons she set forth, Judge Talwani will, by separate order, certify the following question of Massachusetts law to the SJC: Did the Massachusetts Legislature, through the provisions of 2009 Mass. Legis. Serv. Ch. 61 (S.B. 2119) Sections 12(a), 12(c), 15, or M. G. L. ch. 127, Section 3, taken separately or together, authorize the Bristol County Sheriff's Office to raise revenues for the Office of the Sheriff through inmate calling service contracts? A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/n363rwn4 from Leagle.com. SERVICE KING: Hearing on Class Status Bid Rescheduled to April 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA MONIZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SERVICE KING, INC., a California Corporation; SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 5:18-cv-07372-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule as follows: Event Current Deadline New Proposed Date Defendant's Opposition Jan. 29, 2021 Feb. 19, 2021 to Class Certification Plaintiffs' Reply to March 5, 2021 March 26, 2021 Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification Hearing on Motion for April 22, 2021 April 22, 2021 Class Certification Case Management May 17, 2021 May 17, 2021 Statement Case Management May 27, 2021 May 27, 2021 Conference Service King is a national automotive collision repair company. It was founded in 1976 by Eddie Lennox in Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d3vFNU at no extra charge.[CC] SIERRA INCOME: Fee Motion in Anderson Putative Class Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Income Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the fee motion filed in Roger Anderson et al. v. Stephen R. Byers et al., Index No. 652006/2019, has been denied. On August 4, 2020, the court approved a stipulation of dismissal of a purported class action pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned Roger Anderson et al. v. Stephen R. Byers et al., Index No. 652006/2019. Named as defendants were Stephen R. Byers, Oliver T. Kane, Valerie Lancaster-Beal, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, the Company, and Sierra Management, Inc.. The complaint alleged that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders of the Company in connection with the proposed mergers of Medley Capital Corporation (MCC) with and into the Company and of Medley Management Inc. (MDLY) with and into Sierra Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts were sought. The defendants vigorously denied any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the facts and claims which were asserted, or which could have been asserted, in the Anderson Action. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of dismissal, on August 14, 2020, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $1 million (the "Fee Motion"). Defendants opposed the Fee Motion in a brief filed on September 11, 2020, and the plaintiffs filed a reply brief in further support of the Fee Motion on October 1, 2020. The Court heard oral argument on the Fee Motion on January 27, 2021, and stated at the conclusion of the hearing that the motion would be denied. The Court filed a written order denying the Fee Motion on February 8, 2021. Sierra Income Corporation operates as an investment company. The Company invests in automotive, insurance, real estate, construction, energy, and other retail sectors. Sierra Income serves customers in the United States. The company is based in New York, New York. SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: '33 Federal Action Settlement Granted Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sonim Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court presiding over the '33 Act Federal Action granted final approval of the settlement. On September 20, 2019, a purported Sonim stockholder who allegedly purchased stock registered in Sonim's initial public offering IPO filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned Pearson v. Sonim Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CIV05564, on behalf of himself and others who purchased shares of Sonim registered in the IPO, or the "Pearson Action". On October 4 and 16, 2019, two additional purported class action complaints substantially similar to the Pearson Action were filed on behalf of different plaintiffs yet the same putative class of Sonim stockholders, in the same court as the Pearson Action, or the '33 Act State Court Actions. The defendants asked the Superior Court to dismiss the '33 Act State Court Actions based on the provision in the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation requiring stockholders to file and litigate in federal court any claims under the Securities Act of 1933. On December 7, 2020, the Superior Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 7, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California or the "33 Act Federal Action. All four complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by Sonim and certain of its current and former officers and directors for, among other things, alleged false or misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement issued in connection with the IPO, relating primarily to an alleged failure to disclose software defects in Sonim's phones and alleged misstatements about performance characteristics of Sonim's phones. In July 2020, the Company entered into an agreement with the Lead Plaintiff in '33 Act Federal Action to settle that case on a class wide basis for $2.0 million. As a result, the Company has paid out the $2.0 million settlement as of December 31, 2020. On March 5, 2021, the court presiding over the '33 Act Federal Action granted final approval of the settlement. Sonim Technologies, Inc. provides ruggedized mobile phones and accessories for task workers. It offers ruggedized mobile phones, such as Sonim XP8, Sonim XP5s, and Sonim XP3 based on the Android platform that are capable of attaching to public and private wireless networks; industrial-grade accessories, including remote speaker microphones, multi-bay charging accessories, and in-vehicle free voice communications solutions; and cloud-based software and application services. Sonim Technologies, Inc. sells its mobile phones and accessories primarily to wireless carriers in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as NaviSpin.com, Inc. and changed its name to Sonim Technologies, Inc. in December 2001. Sonim Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California. SOS LIMITED: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against SOS Limited ("SOS" or "the Company") (NYSE: SOS) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 22, 2020 and February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 1, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. SOS misrepresented in its SEC filings the location and/or existence of one of its principal executive offices. Both HY International Group New York Inc. and FXK Technology Corporation were either entities created by the Company or undisclosed related parties. The Company misrepresented the nature of mining rigs it claimed to have purchased. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about SOS, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Judge OKs Class Action Lawsuit Against Police ----------------------------------------------------------------- wshu.org reports that a federal judge has granted class-action status to Latinos accusing Suffolk County Police of racial discrimination. This opens the door to additional outside oversight of the department. The advocacy group LatinoJustice has had a six-year civil rights lawsuit against Suffolk Police for what they call biased policing. Police data shows that Latinos are stopped and searched more often than white drivers. The department recently banned officers from searching drivers without probable cause. However, that doesn't go far enough, according to Atara Miller, a lawyer representing several of the plaintiffs. She said an independent monitor is necessary. "Something that is going to be able to have access to the data and ensure that this is continued compliance and steps toward progress," Miller said. Miller said while much of the scrutiny is on Suffolk, she doesn't think Nassau County is any better. However, unlike Suffolk, she said, getting data from the Nassau County police is much more difficult. [GN] T-MOBILE USA: Seeks Transfer of Class Action to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that T-Mobile USA Inc. removed a proposed privacy class action from state court to federal court, arguing the Southern District of Florida is the proper venue under the Class Action Fairness Act. The case should be dealt with there because the proposed classes contain at least 100 members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, T-Mobile argued in a notice of removal filed March 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Because those criteria are met, and because minimal diversity exists—plaintiff Jason Goldstein is from Florida, whereas T-Mobile is a citizen of Delaware and Washington—state. [GN] TGM PIZZA: Leiting Files Suit to Recover Unreimbursed Expenses -------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Leiting individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. TGM Pizza Inc. and Paul Gritz, Case No. 0:21-cv-00926 (D. Minn., April 5, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by the Defendants at their Domino's stores, and unreimbursed expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing them for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provide an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. Specifically, the Defendant's delivery reimbursement policy reimburses drivers on a per-mile basis, but the per-mile reimbursement equates to rates substantially below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate or any other approximation of the cost to own and operate a motor vehicle, says the complaint. Mr. Leiting was employed by the Defendant from approximately January 2018 to February 2021 as a delivery driver at one of the Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores. TGM Pizza Inc. is a retail-pizza restaurant operating numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. Paul Fritz owns the business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart L. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG LAW, PLLC 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-4662 Fax: (612) 367-8107 E-mail: slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com - and - Meredith Black-Matthews, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MA: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Baez Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUANA BAEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, CRUZ SANABRIA Individually and on behalf of all other similarly, ROGELIO RODAS, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, DEMETRIUS OVIEDO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, JOSE ALBERTO NUNEZ-GUERRERO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS, BROOKLINE POLICE COMMISSIONERS, NEIL WISHINSKY, In his Individual and Official Capacities, NANCY DALY, In her Individual and Official Capacities, BEN FRANCO, In his Individual and Official Capacities, NANCY HELLER, In her Individual and Official Capacities, BERNARD GREENE, In his Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-10661-GAO (D. Mass.), Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Town and Individual's Motion for Summary Judgment. The case is a civil rights suit brought by the Plaintiffs Juana Baez, Jose Alberto Nunez-Guerrero, Cruz Sanabria, Rogelio Rodas and Demetrius Oviedo as a purported class action against the Town of Brookline, the Town's Select Board, and individual Board members Neil Wishinsky, Nancy Daly, Ben Franco, Nancy Heller and Bernard Greene in both their official and individual capacities. The Plaintiffs claim that Brookline had and has a custom, policy, or practice of unconstitutionally targeting and discriminating against Black and Hispanic people in policing while failing to investigate and enforce the criminal law equally against white people. The claims are asserted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and relevant case law. Each of the Plaintiffs claims to have had at least one interaction with Brookline police officers that included racially discriminatory conduct on the part of the police. Two were arrested, two were summoned to a clerk magistrate's hearing. Others complain of interactions with the police where they were unfairly targeted although no enforcement action was taken against them. Several filed Citizen Complaints against Brookline police officers. All the Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the claims asserted against them. Judge O'Toole holds that the factual summary judgment record does not support a claim of deliberate indifference by the present defendants to the demographic effect of the Town's policing strategies. It tends, rather, to support the opposite conclusion. The Town's Rule 56.1 statement and exhibits indicate that from at least 2012, the Brookline police department has published an annual statistical report that included data concerning, among other things, the race and sex of persons engaged in encounters with police officers. As noted, the Town instituted a Civilian Complaint process to allow persons who felt unfairly treated by police to have an accessible means of presenting grievances. The department's annual report summarized Citizen Complaints made to the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, identifying the race and sex of the complainant. The record reflects that the Town sought outside advice concerning the promotion of non-discriminatory practices, including from the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. These uncontradicted facts by themselves refute a claim of deliberate indifference to the racial or ethnic impact of police interactions with members of the public. In contrast, the Plaintiffs' proffered evidence is mostly anecdotal. On the record presented, Judge O'Toole concludes that a factfinder would not be warranted in finding that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to either the demographic impact of policing practices or the need to promote nondiscriminatory policing practices. For the cause of action alleged, that suffices to support the grant of summary judgment in favor of all the Defendants. For the foregoing reasons, Judge O'Toole granted the Town and Individual's Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment will be entered in their favor. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vhezhxeu from Leagle.com. TRAVEL GUARD: Gustafson Suit Stayed Pending Order on Bid to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL and DEBRA GUSTAFSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRAVEL GUARD GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-2272-KHV-KGG (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Determination of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and Strike. The Plaintiffs filed the present class action on May 29, 2020. Their Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 13, 2020. The case seeks restitution, declaratory relief and statutory damages against the Defendants arising from the uniform practice and policy of Defendants in refusing to refund and return unearned insurance premiums and other amounts to their policyholders when planned travel that Defendants insured under separate coverages is canceled before departure, and thus, will not occur. The Plaintiffs allege the District of Kansas has original jurisdiction over their claims, both individually and on behalf of the policyholder Class as hereinafter defined pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. They allege that subject matter jurisdiction is proper because (1) the matter in controversy is reasonably expected to exceed the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs; (2) there are more than 100 members of the Class; (3) at least one member of the Class is diverse from Defendants; and (4) no Defendant is a government entity. The Plaintiffs further allege that personal jurisdiction is proper because the Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within the state of Kansas and have each submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state for the claims for relief that the Plaintiffs are asserting because the stated claims for relief arise from the acts of the Defendants, individually or through an agent or instrumentality. The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 17, 2020. The motion argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Article III and their claims are moot because there is no injury as the Plaintiff's premiums have been refunded. The Defendants argue that the dismissal should be with prejudice. They also argue that the Plaintiff's have failed to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Concurrently with the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants also filed a Motion to Strike the class allegations in the Amended Complaint. That motion generally argues that 1) the Plaintiff's cannot satisfy the typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and 2) the "individualized issues" in the causes of action dictate that class-wide resolution is improper. The Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike are ripe and currently pending before the District Court. The Defendants bring the present Motion to Stay pending a decision on their Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. It is well-established in the District of Kansas that a discovery should not be stayed merely because a dispositive motion has been filed. However, there are recognized exceptions to this policy. A stay pending a ruling on a dispositive motion is appropriate where the case is likely to be finally concluded as a result of the ruling, where the facts sought through the remaining discovery would not affect the ruling on the pending motion, or where discovery on all issues in the case would be wasteful and burdensome. If one of these circumstances is present, a stay may be appropriate. The Defendants argue that all three of these circumstances are present -- (1) their motions are dispositive if granted; (2) resolution of the motions would not be affected by the discovery sought by the Plaintiffs; and (3) discovery would be burdensome and wasteful. As to the first circumstance, the Plaintiffs concede that the case theoretically could end if the Court grants the Defendants' motions, but argue that the issues are such that that the Court may fairly resolve this basis for a stay order in their favor. The Court does not and need not state an opinion as to the validity of the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Rather, it must merely be satisfied that the case would likely be concluded should the Defendants prevail on their dispositive motion. Judge Gale says it is not in dispute. If the District Court concludes that the case lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the lawsuit must be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants failed to show that such discovery would be wasteful and burdensome, but rather the Defendants have offered "generalization and conclusory arguments are insufficient to support the extraordinary relief they seek." The fact remains, however, that the Defendants' dispositive motion is fully briefed and pending before the District Court. In deciding a motion to dismiss, the "court should consider no evidence beyond the pleadings." Because it is uncontested that the case could be resolved through the dispositive motion -- for which no evidence beyond the pleadings will be considered -- Judge Gale finds that discovery at this stage would be burdensome and wasteful. The Plaintiffs also argue that the fact that the Defendants did not move to stay the case earlier in the process indicates that the Defendants' motivations for the stay are improper. Judge Gale finds the argument to be unpersuasive. He says the Defendants requested the stay approximately five weeks after their Motion to Dismiss became ripe. He sees nothing suspicious or nefarious about the timing of the filing of the present motion. As such, the Defendants' Motion to Stay is granted until the District Court rules on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion to Strike. In reaching this determination, Judge Gale makes no inference or findings as to the potential validity of the arguments raised in the Defendants' motions. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/maau5pn3 from Leagle.com. TRIPLE V HOME: Faces Lymbertos Wage-and-Hour Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLAOS LYMBERTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIPLE V HOME CARE AND ADULT SERVICES INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV13334 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as driver from in or about August 2018 until on or about March 16, 2020. Triple V Home Care and Adult Services Inc. is a home care and adult services provider based in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin Crough, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Discrimination Suit Over Background Checks ------------------------------------------------------------------- lawstreetmedia.com reports that an individual filed a class-action complaint in the Southern District of New York against Uber Technologies Inc. alleging that its use of Checkr Inc. background checks discriminates against drivers by using their criminal history reports to determine workability. According to the complaint, the lawsuit "challenges Uber's unlawful use of criminal history to discriminate against its drivers in New York City as well as its brazen noncompliance with human rights and fair credit laws." The plaintiff alleged that consumer reporting agency Checkr, which Uber used "to obtain drivers' criminal history through background checks," was Uber's "willing partner in this unlawful conduct." The plaintiff claimed that "Uber's criminal history discrimination has fueled and continues to fuel significant racial disparities in New York City and nationwide." The plaintiff noted that the New York City Human Rights Law includes the Fair Chance Act, "which, inter alia, requires employers to evaluate job seekers and current workers with criminal histories fairly and on a case-by-case basis." The plaintiff stated that this is important for "reducing barriers to opportunity." According to the complaint, the plaintiff has been licensed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission since 2014 as a for-hire vehicle driver and has driven for Uber since 2014. However, in August 2020, "Uber used Checkr to obtain (the plaintiff's) background check, which revealed a 2013 speeding ticket in Virginia characterized as a misdemeanor." Reportedly, if the plaintiff "had received the same speeding ticket in New York, it would not have been characterized as a misdemeanor." The plaintiff proffered that he was deactivated from Uber's platform "(o)ne day later, due to the results of this background check, and without any notice, process, or further communication." Consequently, the plaintiff claimed he has been deprived of the ability to drive for Uber and earn an income because Uber used the results of the plaintiff's background check for employment purposes purportedly "without engaging at all in the Fair Chance Act process." In particular, the Fair Chance Act process "requires individualized analysis under Article 23-A (of the New York State Corrections Law) and its multi-part factors, the provision of required documents and disclosures, and a waiting period in which the employer must keep the position open for the applicant or current worker to respond to the employer's concerns about any criminal history that appears on the background check." However, Uber allegedly did not follow this process. The plaintiff contended that it was only after he complained about this incident that Checkr provided him "with information about why Uber had barred him from the platform, specifically citing the 2013 Virginia misdemeanor." The plaintiff averred that Uber's policy "of using criminal history to summarily deactivate current drivers from its labor platform or reject new drivers without" complying with the Fair Chance Act "disparately impacts hundreds of Black and Latinx individuals" because of the "racial disparities in the criminal justice system," according to the complaint. The two putative classes are the criminal history and discrimination class and the disparate impact class. The defendants are accused of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment in his favor, a preliminary and permanent injunction, class certification and for the plaintiff and his counsel to represent the classes, an order preventing the defendants unlawful conduct, an award for damages, costs and fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief. The plaintiff is represented by Mobilization for Justice Inc. and Towards Justice.[GN] UNITED AIRLINES: USERRA Class Action Lawsuit Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Arevalo, Esq., and Molly Arranz, Esq., of SmithAmundsen LLC, in an article for JDSupra, report that commercial air pilot and Air Force reservist Eric White filed a class action against United Airlines under the United Services Employee and Reemployment Right Act (USERRA) claiming United violated USERRA by not providing paid military leave to the same extent as other paid leave. The district court dismissed White's lawsuit, but in February the 7th Circuit ruled that paid leave falls within the definition of "rights and benefits" employees are entitled to pursuant to USERRA. The case has been sent back to district court. Generally, USERRA provides that any person who is absent from work as a result of military service is deemed to be on a leave of absence and is "entitled to such other rights and benefits" provided to other employees under contract, policies and practices. In the lawsuit, White argued that the phrase "rights and benefits" is to be applied broadly and should include "paid leave." Of significance, White also alleged that United not only deprived him of paid leave but also prevented him and others in his putative class, from fully participating in United's profit sharing plan. United maintained that USERRA does not mandate paid leave. In its decision, the 7th Circuit found that rights and benefits "captures all ‘terms, conditions, or privileges' with no express limitation" and an employer's policy of paying employees during a leave of absence is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Insofar as Congress chose not to include an exception to this rule, it should be applied broadly. The court also rejected United's arguments that "Congress did not realize that it was opening the door to this kind of paid leave . . . and that [the Court's] reading would effect a costly sea-change for public and private employers." The court focused on the specific language of the statute and noted that "USERRA mandates only equality of treatment; and does not specify how generous or how parsimonious an employer's paid leave policies must be." A number of district courts are dealing with similar cases and this 7th Circuit decision, a matter of first impression at the federal appellate level, will be leading the way. Employers should be reviewing policies as well as collective bargaining agreements and practices to ensure they have a handle on paid leave rights and benefits. You can and should evaluate any common policy or practice that is not on all fours with the legal requisites, as a common question of fact or law as to the employees could form the cornerstone of what could become a new wave of class action litigation. Employers should also be mindful of parallel state statutes that, in some instances, supplement and complement USERRA "rights and benefits." [GN] UNITED CEREBRAL: Trapani Suit Alleges Improper Payment of Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- KALIE TRAPANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY/SPASTIC CHILDREN'S FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES AND VENTURA COUNTIES and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV13297 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a direct support professional from on or about October 22, 2019 until on or about July 28, 2020. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children's Foundation of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties is a social services organization in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin Crough, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com UNITED STATES: Commonwealth Seeks to Stop Bond Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Mcarthur at Financial Standards reports that orders have been made in a case brought against the Commonwealth by a 23-year-old student over climate change risk as it relates to government bonds, as the government attempts to stop the class action. Katta O'Donnell is seeking to hold the Australian government to account over climate change risks, through a class action filed in the Federal Court last year. The court made orders setting out how the case will proceed. The court heard the Commonwealth wants to essentially strike out the part of the claim referring to the class action proceedings, requesting interlocutory relief. Interlocutory relief refers to a court order to compel or prevent a party from doing certain acts pending the final determination of the case - in this case, the Commonwealth is seeking relief from the class action portion of O'Donnell's claim. There will be a hearing to decide whether interlocutory relief is granted, scheduled for July 28. O'Donnell, who is being represented by Equity Generation Lawyers principal David Barnden, has until July 2 to file and serve any evidence she wishes to rely on in relation to the application for interlocutory relief. Secretary to the Australian Treasury, Steven Kennedy, and Australian Office of Financial Management chief executive, Rob Nicholl, have both been named as respondents in this case. O'Donnell's case and the class action will not be seeking any dollar amount in damages, rather seeking to effect change in the government's handling of climate change. O'Donnell made an investment of approximately $1000 in exchange traded Australian government bonds through the CommSec app in 2020. Her investment came after meeting Barnden when he delivered a guest lecture at La Trobe University in July 2019, where O'Donnell is studying law. Barnden is the same lawyer who represented Mark McVeigh in his landmark case against industry fund Rest, which settled out of court but saw the fund change its policies around climate change. [GN] UNITED STATES: Conservation Appraisers Strike Back at IRS With Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter J Reilly at Forbes.com reports that finally the syndicated conservation easement (SCE) empire strikes back. Battered in Tax Court by the IRS, hounded by the Department of Justice seeking criminal charges and injunctions and beleaguered by class action attorneys SCE appraisers are fighting back with a class action lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury along with some individually named IRS agents. I don't suppose the latter want to be more famous so you will have to go to the complaint in Benson et al. v IRS et al for their names. The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The most mysterious defendant is the IRS employee known as "Campaign Executive Champion" (CEC) of the "Conservation Tax Force" (CTF). If those named IRS agents are like the Avengers, then CEC is Nick Fury. A Conspiracy Representing the appraisers is S. Fenn Little Jr of the Conservation Defense Group Inc. Mr. Little was one of the lawyers representing Nancy Zak in a DOJ injunction lawsuit. His website describes his practice as concentrated in the areas of criminal defense, constitutional law and personal injury litigation. He is an allied attorney of the Alliance Defense Fund. His practice involves allegations of police misconduct, government restrictions on the free exercise of religion, and other civil and constitutional rights violations. He had nothing to say about Nancy Zak, but gave me the heads up on this case. The complaint alleges a conspiracy by CTF under the direction of CEC. The goal was to audit every syndicated easement from 2016 to the present. The IRS has been conducting the audits at great expense to the plaintiffs and requesting an extension to continue the audit over an extended period of time. I have to say that back in the day, the general thinking was to accommodate the IRS when they asked for an extension, but my view shifted on that a few years ago. After all that work, according to the complaint, the "universal and preordained result" is a zero valuation for the donation and penalties for the appraiser. Mr. Little gets a little disingenuous stating that in court 87% of the cases settle without penalty and 80% of the deductions allowed. That statement is based on an "empirical study"- a Tax Notes article by Jenny L. Johnson Ware that I reviewed here. The most recent case in the study concerned deductions from 2005-2007. One decision was about a 2011 deduction. The rest were earlier. The study is in effect ancient history well before the present day SCE frenzy commenced and none of the cases in the study were syndicated deals. The Great Value Of Trees The complaint insists that the IRS push contradicts Congressional intent, since it would deny the conservation deduction to anyone other than a handful of wealthy owners. Current congressional intent seems to be more supportive of the IRS cracking down at least as it is reflected in the Senate Finance Committee investigation. The complaint, in a footnote, has an interesting view as to what a good thing easements can be. It reference the National Tree Benefit Calculator, which is a really cool tool that you should check out. It tells you how much benefit to society (in terms of things like carbon sequestration, storm water retention, energy saving from the shade and air quality) a particular tree provides. The pine tree by the mailbox in my condo project is cranking out $109 per year. Anyway 1,000 acres of 10" pine trees at 100 per acre will in Georgia create $4.3 million in public benefit. According to the note the IRS is challenging a 1,500 acre parcel that had a deduction of less than 1/3 of the thirty year public benefit. I would like to have the actual numbers, but based on what we have the benefit could be north of $150 million. So the IRS may be challenging a $45 million deduction or so. For what it is worth I did some online shopping for forest land in Georgia. Even without dickering you could probably put together 1,500 acres for $3,000 per acre which works out to $4.5 million. And remember the deduction is for the easement. You still have the forest after you give the easement away. Nasty Penalty At any rate the complaint gets into how nasty the IRS is being to the appraisers. And the penalty they are assessing is pretty nasty. Code Section 6695A covers "Substantial and gross valuation misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals". The penalty is triggered when the value is 150 percent of the actual value that is finally determined. Since the IRS is taking the position that the value of the easements is zero that is an easy hurdle. The amount of the penalty is 125% of the gross income that the appraiser received. Being a penalty and all that would not be deductible. The only way for the appraiser to recover the penalty is through a suit in district court, which is an expensive proposition. The Complaint What the complaint alleges is that the IRS has taken all the brakes off in assessing the penalty, by amending the Internal Revenue Manual. And the assessment of the penalty has a kind of cascade effect as it raises issue about the value of an appraiser's testimony. The complaint alleges that the IRS goes easy on donations by the very wealthy, but that when middle to upper income individual taxpayers get together and vote to give away an easement they are cracking down. According to the complaint the IRS has been seeking information that it does not really need for purposes of harassment. The complaint alleges violation of the administrative procedures act, violation of statutory rights, intimidation of witnesses, violation of constitutional rights and eighth amendment violations. Relief The plaintiffs are seeking damages and an injunction to prevent further action not consistent with the mandates of Executive Orders 13981 and 13982 of the Administrative Procedures Act, an injunction against expansion of regulatory powers regarding administrative review of the donation of qualified real property interests for conservation purposes. They also seek an injunction against 6695A penalties until such time as a court determines the penalties to be valid. Comment My legal brain trust did not have a lot to say on this. One of them asked how this action would not be totally barred by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act - Code Section 7421. Mr. Fenn is aware of the problem. It seems that he is staking his hopes on the Supreme Court ruling favorably in CIC Services, which was argued on December 1, 2020. For whatever it is worth Partnership For Conservation, the industry trade association, filed an amicus brief in CIC Services. I have to say that the "Campaign Executive Champion" sounds like a really great job to have at the IRS. If it were me here is what I would have as background when you go my voicemail. I would also look into having a super hero suit made. Other Coverage Joshua Rosenberg has Appraisers Claim IRS Harassment In Easement Crackdown on Law360. Kristin A. Parillo has IRS Easement Campaign Is Harassment, Say Appraisers on Tax Notes. [GN] UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Final OKs Over Navy Federal's $16M -------------------------------------------------------------- cutimes.com reports that U.S. District Court Judge Liam O'Grady in Alexandria, Va., granted final approval for a $16 million class action settlement over a non-sufficient funds fee lawsuit that affected an estimated 700,000 current and former members. The lawsuit was brought by Navy Federal Credit Union member Ruby Lambert in January 2019 after writing a $96 check to pay an insurance bill. The Vienna, Va.-based Navy Federal rejected the payment because of insufficient funds in her account and charged Lambert a $29 NSF fee. When the insurance company resubmitted her check for payment a second time, Navy Federal charged Lambert a second $29 NSF fee. Although Lambert acknowledged that Navy Federal could charge her a single NSF fee, she argued in court documents that the credit union breached terms of member account agreements when it charged her a second NSF fee for the same insurance check payment. In August 2019, Judge O'Grady granted Navy Federal's request to dismiss Lambert's lawsuit because the terms of the member account agreements "unambiguously give Navy Federal the contractual right to impose fees in the way it did." Shortly after this ruling, however, Lambert filed an appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. During the appeals process, her lawyers and Navy Federal agreed to settle the lawsuit. The $16 million settlement cash fund will pay for $5.3 million in attorney fees and $26,571 in costs, a $5,000 "service award" for Lambert, and millions in NSF fee reimbursements for an estimated 700,000 current and former Navy Federal members who were assessed a second or third NSF fee for a single payment transaction that was rejected because of insufficient funds in their accounts from Jan. 28, 2014 to Oct. 27, 2020. What's more, Navy Federal will separately pay all settlement administration costs, which was described in court documents as "a substantial expense." In another separate class action complaint over Navy Federal's international transaction fees, a California federal judge ordered its dismissal last month. The lawsuit was dismissed after Navy Federal member Siobhan Morrow of San Diego filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, meaning the lawsuit can be brought back before the court. As a result of that dismissal, U.S. District Court Judge Todd W. Robinson in San Diego also "denied as moot" Navy Federal's motion to dismiss Morrow's lawsuit, which alleged the credit union unlawfully charged her a 1% international transaction fee when she bought a product from an overseas retailer using her checking account. While Navy Federal charges members a 1% International Service Assessment Fee for purchases made overseas, the issue is that Morrow bought the product while she was at her San Diego home, and she did not know the merchant was based in Cyprus. One of the lawsuit's main issues centered on the contract term "made in foreign countries," which Morrow argued is ambiguous because Navy Federal does not define what it means for credit union members to engage in transactions made in foreign countries. However, Navy Federal argued that its international fee is authorized for all transactions carried out in foreign countries and that any transaction takes place wherever the merchant is located. As a matter of general practice and common usage, it is the location of the merchant who consummates the transaction that triggers the international fee because that location is where the transaction is legally performed. And because Morrow authorized the transaction to occur in Cyprus, the international fee was applied, Navy Federal said in court documents. [GN] UNITED STATES: Marshals Service Seeks Dismissal of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that the U.S. Marshals Service wants to end a class action seeking to bar U.S. marshals from facilitating immigration arrests, arguing that as the "oldest law enforcement agency in the country," it has wide-ranging police powers that authorize cooperating with immigration officials. [GN] UNITI GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, In re UNITI GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 4:19-CV-00756-BSM (E.D. Ark.). The case is a securities class action. The Plaintiffs purchased or acquired Uniti's publicly-traded securities during the April 24, 2015, to June 24, 2019 class period. They allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10-b. Windstream Holdings is a telecommunications provider that owns wireless telecommunications networks. In 2013, Windstream's advisors consulted with Kenny Gunderman, a financial advisor at Stephens, Inc., about how to come up with cash needed for an investment. Gunderman and the advisors devised the following "spin-off" transaction proposal: Windstream Holdings would create a real estate investment trust ("REIT," eventually Defendant Uniti), sell the REIT its telecommunications assets, and then lease them back--allowing Windstream to still use and operate those assets, with the benefit of receiving significant cash. Windstream, however, had an indenture that governed unsecured notes. It prohibited Windstream Services or its subsidiaries from selling network assets to an entity and then leasing them back. If the indenture was breached, note holders could seek to accelerate payment on the notes, potentially triggering bankruptcy. Internal emails, documents, and board minutes indicate that Windstream knew that it had to obtain approvals from certain regulatory agencies, as well as ensure that the Master Lease it entered into with Uniti appeared to be a "true lease" and not disguised financing. Windstream Services Executives created Windstream Holdings, a holding company, which would be the entity to technically "lease" the spun-off telecommunications assets from Uniti. The Master Lease, structured with the indenture's restrictions in mind, was not negotiated at arms-length. Upon the Master Lease's April 24, 2015 signing, Windstream became Uniti's largest customer. Several parties, including defendants Gunderman and Fletcher, operated on both sides of the transaction. Windstream's and Uniti's Management adopted a public relations strategy to conceal the known risk that the spin-off violated the indenture. Internal documents show that Gunderman and Wallace were advised to "hide the truth if ever asked why Windstream Holdings -- rather than Windstream Services -- signed the Master Lease." When Windstream eliminated its dividends in August 2017, a series of disclosures exposed the spin-off information. On Sept. 25, 2017, Windstream filed an 8-K report disclosing that it had received a "purported notice of default" from a noteholder, Aurelius Capital, "alleging that the transfer of certain assets and the subsequent lease of those assets in connection with the spin-off" violated the indenture. Id. Litigation with Aurelius followed. Between Aug. 3, 2017 and Sept. 27, 2019, Uniti's stock price fell 40%. At an investor conference, Uniti executive Gunderman said of a Windstream default: "We've looked very, very closely at the legal claim, and we're very confident that the legal arguments are on Windstream's side. So we think that that's going to resolve itself." In February 2019, however, a federal court ruled in the Aurelius litigation that the spin-off and Master Lease violated the indenture, and entered a $300 million judgment. Uniti's stock price plummeted. Windstream Holdings filed for bankruptcy. Since then, Uniti executives have publicly stated that Uniti was seeing no impact on business due to Windstream's bankruptcy. On June 24, 2019, after the market closed, Uniti announced a $300 million notes offering, and its stock price declined more than 10% the following day. The Defendants moved to dismiss. A. False Statement Liability: Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5(b) The Defendants argue that (i) the Plaintiffs do not allege an actionable misrepresentation or omission; (ii) the Plaintiffs' allegations of "affirmatively false statements" fail under the PLSRA's safe harbor because the statements were forward-looking; (iii) the Plaintiffs fail to plead scienter; and (iv) the Plaintiffs fail to plead the loss causation element of a Section 10(b) claim. Judge Miller denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on the Plaintiffs' false statement liability claims under Section10(b)-5(b) because they have sufficiently pleaded misrepresentation, scienter, and loss causation. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged material misrepresentations because they have pleaded that the Defendants failed to disclose the prohibited structure of the spin-off transaction and Master Lease; (ii) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded scienter because at this stage, competing inferences are drawn in their favor; and (iii) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded loss causation because they have alleged that defendants could have foreseen their economic loss, and they actually suffered economic loss. B. Scheme Liability Section10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) The Defendants argue that the spin-off was "effectuated by Windstream" and "not Defendants," so the Plaintiffs' scheme liability claim fails. The Plaintiffs respond that they have explicitly pleaded the Defendants' conduct beyond misrepresentations and omissions. Judge Miller denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' scheme liability claim because the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded the Defendants' conduct beyond misrepresentations and omissions. He finds that the Defendants do not contest that "the involved Windstream executives were simultaneously Uniti executives" when the spin-off was conceived, through the regulatory approval process, and during negotiations. The Plaintiffs allege that Uniti and Gunderman worked to obtain the necessary approvals from state regulators for the spin-off. They allege that the Defendants negotiated and finalized the Master Lease and back-filled financial terms in the Master Lease. The Plaintiffs argue that while the Defendants' actions may have resulted in public misstatements, their conduct with respect to the spin-off and Master Lease "amounts to more than making a false statement." C. Control-Person Liability Section 20(a) of 1934 Act Judge Miller denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' control-person liability claims because the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded their false statement and scheme liability claims. The Plaintiffs allege control-person liability under Section 20(a) against Gunderman and Wallace. The purpose of the control-person statute, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a), is to "prevent people and entities from using agents acting on their behalf of accomplish ends that would be forbidden directly by securities laws." The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' control-person liability claims fail because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege underlying securities laws violations. As explained, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded their underlying claims, so the Defendants' motion is denied. For the foregoing reasons he described, Judge Miller denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/e5m6fpc6 from Leagle.com. UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Boley to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Universal Health Services Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MARY K. BOLEY, et al., v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2-20-cv-02644, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class action against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the Universal Health Services, Inc.'s Retirement Savings Plan, allege that the Defendants breached the duties they owed to them, to the Plan, and to the other participants of the Plan by failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or materially similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. Moreover, Universal and the Board Defendants failed to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Committee Defendants which led to their failure to remove Committee members whose performance was inadequate in that they continued to maintain imprudent, excessively costly, and poorly performing investments within the Plan, and caused the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, all to the detriment of the Plan and Plan participants' retirement savings. On March 8, 2021, the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "All participants and beneficiaries in the Universal Health Services, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan at any time on or after June 5, 2014 to the present, including a beneficiary of a deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class Period;" 2. appointing Mary K. Boley, Kandie Sutter, and Phyllis Johnson as Class representatives; 3. certifying the Plaintiffs' counsel Capozzi Adler. P.C. (led by Mark K. Gyandoh, Donald R. Reavey and Gabrielle P. Kelerchian) and Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP (led by James E. Miller, James C. Shah, Eric L. Young, and Laurie Rubinow) as class counsel; and 4. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to submit a joint motion to approve a form and protocol for Notice to the Class to satisfy the terms and due process obligations under Rule 23 and, if necessary, including describing both parties' position on any remaining irreconcilable objection to the negotiated Notice. The Defendants seek a review of the Order entered by Judge Kearney. The appellate case is captioned as Mary Boley, et al. v. Universal Health Services Inc, et al., Case No. 21-8014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 22, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC. and UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC RETIREMENT PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE are represented by: Deborah S. Davidson, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 324-1159 E-mail: ddavidson@morganlewis.com - and - Stephen K. Dixon, Esq. Sean K. McMahan, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 North Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 739-3000 E-mail: stephen.dixon@morganlewis.com sean.mcmahan@morganlewis.com - and - Brian T. Ortelere, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5150 E-mail: bortelere@morganlewis.com Plaintiffs-Respondents MARY K. BOLEY, KANDIE SUTTER, and PHYLLIS JOHNSON, Individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, on behalf of the Universal Health Services, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, are represented by: Lisa W. Basial, Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 E-mail: lisawb@capozziadler.com markg@capozziadler.com donr@capozziadler.com - and - Alec Berin, Esq. Michael P. Ols, Esq. James C. Shah, Esq. MILLER SHAH 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 E-mail: aberin@sfmslaw.com mols@sfmslaw.com jshah@sfmslaw.com - and - Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (215) 669-8687 E-mail: Gabriellek@capozziadler.com - and - James E. Miller, Esq. Laurie Rubinow, Esq. MILLER SHAH 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com lrubinow@sfmslaw.com - and - Kolin Tang, Esq. MILLER SHAH 1401 Dove Street, Suite 540 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (323) 510-4066 E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court Allows 401k Class Action Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Wallace, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that on March 8, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted class action status to plaintiffs in Boley v. Universal Health Services. The ERISA lawsuit claims that fiduciaries of the Universal Health Services Inc. Retirement Savings Plan mismanaged the 401k plan in violation of ERISA. Federal Court Okays Class Action Status for 401k Mismanagement LawsuitThe latest decision does not reach the merits of the plan participants' claims. It simply permits the participants to proceed as a class of similarly situated individuals. Without that procedural green light, however, the lawsuit might have ended without their claims ever having been heard. TALES OF BAD MANAGEMENT As of 2018, the UHS 401k plan included 41,872 participants with assets totaling over $1.9 billion, making the 401k plan among the largest defined contribution retirement plans in the country. The plan's investment options consisted of mutual funds and a collective investment trust. Participants' investment choices included several actively managed funds, which charge higher fees than passively managed funds, and mutual funds, which charge higher fees than other investment vehicles like collective trusts. In 2018, at least nineteen of the 401k plan's funds cost the participants more money than comparable funds found in similarly-sized plans. Plan participants each paid annual recordkeeping fees of $44, although the managers should, allegedly, have been able to obtain these services at much lower costs. In June 2020, former Universal Health employees Mary Boley, Kandie Sutter, and Phyllis Johnson, sued Universal Health and its Investment Committee, claiming that they had breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by: * retaining a suite of thirteen expensive and underperforming actively managed target date funds despite the availability of lower cost, passively managed index funds; * failing to monitor the excessive recordkeeping fees and administrative costs charged to plan participants relative to other similarly large plans; * offering an excessively expensive menu of investment options; and failing to monitor the Committee's appointees. * These failures allegedly lost the 401k plan millions of dollars and, they argue, amounted to violations of ERISA Sections 409 and 502. Read together, these sections require fiduciaries to act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. It is important to appreciatethat in fiduciary breach lawsuits, like Boley, the harm at the center of the the action is damage to the retirement plan, rather than just damage to the individual plaintiffs. This is one reason that they are frequently brought as class action ERISA lawsuits, rather than as individual cases. The other reason, of course, is practical. Individuals often find it simply too difficult and expensive to mount a lawsuit, for what might be a very small return. The three named plaintiffs moved to certify and represent a class of over 60,000 active participants. The fiduciaries opposed class certification, arguing individualized defenses, potentially differing statutes of limitation periods, and participants' investments in different funds made the lawsuit unsuitable for resolution on a class-wide basis. CLASS ACTION STANDARDS The question of whether a federal lawsuit can proceed as a class action is generally decided using the criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and (b). Briefly, the plaintiffs must show that: * the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; * there are questions of law or fact common to the class; * the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and * the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. If the plaintiffs meet that burden, a court may certify a class if separate lawsuits would create a risk of: * inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or * decisions with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would dispose of or impair the interests of the other individuals not part of the initial lawsuit. The Eastern District's opinion chews methodically through the checklist. COMMONALITY AND TYPICALITY The Court concluded that the class was sufficiently numerous and that the plaintiffs would adequately represent the class. The commonality requirement was satisfied because all 401k plan participants chose from the same menu of investment options and paid the same administrative and recordkeeping fees. The only serious sticking point seems to have arisen from the fact that the 60,000 potential members of the class had made different investment choices from their menu of options. Nonetheless, the Court ultimately concluded that the essence of the plan participants' claims is that the fiduciaries' conduct harmed the 401k plan as a whole. Their individual losses, however different, simply function as evidence of this plan-wide harm. Boley had previously survived a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing. If this challenge to class certification is the last procedural hurdle, the plaintiffs may finally get the chance to have the substance of their claims decided by a court. [GN] UTGR INC: Final Approval of Settlement in Ramer Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN RAMER and JULIE MORALES individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. UTGR, INC., d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO, alias, Case No. 1:19-cv-00218-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J. Mcconnell, Jr entered an order granting motion to certify class and final approval of settlement. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. UTGR Inc. UTGR, Inc. was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard A. Sinapi, Esq. Chloe A. Davis, Esq. SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD. 2374 Post Road Suite 201 Warwick, RI 02886 Telephone: (401) 739-9690 Facsimile: (401) 739-9040 E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com cad@sinapilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael D. Chittick, Esq. Ali Khorsand, Esq. ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C. One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 274-7200 Facsimile: (401) 351-4607 E-mail: mchittick@apslaw.com akhorsand@apslaw.com VELODYNE LIDAR: Case Management Conference Set for May 26 --------------------------------------------------------- Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court has scheduled a Case Management Conference for May 26, 2021 in the class action suit initiated by a former employee alleging failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks. On June 8, 2020, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the company failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks. The plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated plaintiffs who have not been identified and is seeking to certify the action as a class action. The plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint that adds a claim pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General Act. The First Amended Complaint does not specify the amount the plaintiff seeks to recover. Velodyne's response to the First Amended Complaint was filed on November 16, 2020 and the parties are in the process of beginning discovery concerning class certification issues. The court has scheduled a Case Management Conference for May 26, 2021. Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company. The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California. VELODYNE LIDAR: Facing Putative Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a putative class action suit filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 21-cv-01486. On March 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of Velodyne filed a complaint for a putative class action against Velodyne, Anand Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 21-cv-01486. The complaint alleges purported violations of the federal securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the company's business, operations and prospects. The complaint alleges that purported class members have suffered losses. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of compensatory damages. Velodyne said, "We believe the claim is without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously." Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company. The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California. VELODYNE LIDAR: Facing Reese Putative Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a putative class action suit initiated by Robert Reese. On March 12, 2021, Reese, a purported shareholder of Velodyne, filed a putative class action lawsuit entitled Reese v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01736, against Velodyne and two of its current officers, CEO Anand Gopalan and CFO Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements in our filings with the SEC. The company and the Officers intend to deny all liability in this action and to defend against the lawsuit vigorously. Velodyne said, "This lawsuit mirrors the allegations asserted in the previously-filed case entitled Moradpour v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01482, which was filed in the same judicial district on March 2, 2021. The two cases are likely to be consolidated and effectively proceed as a single litigation." Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company. The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California. VELODYNE LIDAR: Graf Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Graf Industrial Corp., continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by a purported shareholder. On August 4, 2020, a purported shareholder of Graf commenced a putative class action against Graf and its directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The plaintiff alleges that the Board members, aided and abetted by Graf Graf Industrial Corp., breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger Agreement with Velodyne. The plaintiff alleges that the Merger Agreement undervalues Graf, was the result of an improper process and that Graf's disclosure concerning the proposed Merger is inadequate. As a result of these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of rescissory damages. Velodyne said, "We believe the claim is without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously." Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company. The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California. VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR, VLDRW) ("Velodyne") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Velodyne securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Velodyne securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 3, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/velodyne-lidar-inc-securities-fraud-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=velodyne The Class Period commences on November 9, 2020, when Velodyne filed its quarterly report on a Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended September 30, 2020. The report stated "[b]ased on the evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level." However, the truth began to be revealed on February 22, 2021, before the market opened, when Velodyne announced that its Board of Directors had "removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with [Velodyne] officers and directors." In addition, Velodyne's Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but they would remain directors of Velodyne. Following this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately 15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22, 2021. Velodyne investors may, no later than May 3, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com http://www.ktmc.com[GN] VELODYNE LIDAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on March 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR; VLDRW) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-01736, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Velodyne securities during the Class Period, you have until May 3, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Velodyne provides solutions to develop safe automated systems including real-time surround view lidar sensors. The Company became a public entity on or about September 29, 2020 when it merged with Graf Industrial Corp., a special purpose acquisition company. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2) that the Company was investigating the foregoing matters; 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 February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had "removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would remain directors of Velodyne. On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately 15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Putative Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit initiated by Isaiah Potter, has been dismissed. On July 14, 2020, plaintiff Isaiah Potter, or Potter, filed a putative class action complaint captioned Potter v. Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of its executive officers, or the Defendants. The complaint alleged that Defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, failing to disclose certain supposed safety risks attendant to the VP-102 drug-device and likely delays to regulatory approval of VP-102. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of Potter and all other persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between September 16, 2019 and June 29, 2020. On December 14, 2020, Potter voluntarily sought to dismiss this case and the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, which the court granted on December 21, 2020. The case was dismissed with prejudice as to Potter and without prejudice as to the unnamed class members. Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a dermatology therapeutics company committed to the development and commercialization of novel treatments that provide meaningful benefit for people living with skin diseases. The company is based in West Chester, Pennsylvania. VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Launch Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reports that legal action has begun on behalf of junior doctors, who say they have been deliberately underpaid after working overtime in Victoria's public health system. A class action has been filed in the Federal Court against Peninsula Health, alleging the underpayment of a junior doctor. Lawyers are planning to bring other class actions, amid claims of systemic underpayment by other health services in the public system. Lawyer Hayden Stephens said some junior doctors were working up to 25 hours a week beyond their rostered hours, and many of those hours were unpaid. "That, in combination with their own genuine concern that this will impact their care and ability to look after patients, together with their own mental health . . . are issues in which we are calling Victorian health services to address," he said. Mr Stephens said the legal action could ultimately affect more than 10,000 junior doctors in Victoria. "This is a claim for unpaid entitlements, it's not a claim seeking additional wages." "It's nothing more than junior doctors employed in the Victorian health system being paid for their hours work and their fair entitlements, entitlements that have been agreed to by their very own employers." In a statement, Peninsula Health's Chief Medical Officer, Shyaman Menon, said the organisation "respects the rights of all staff, including the receipt of any payments to which they are entitled." "Our junior doctors are the future of our organisation and we acknowledge the important contribution they make across all our hospitals and healthcare sites," Dr Menon said. Doctors reluctant to complain about overtime Doctor Karla Villafana-Soto said she had been so exhausted after working overtime on shifts that she had made mistakes with medication and doses, that had luckily been caught by other staff. She claims the underpayment of junior doctors for overtime they've worked is widespread in the public hospital system in Victoria. "This is now my eighth year of being a junior doctor and I've worked at several health services in Victoria, and I can tell you this is happening everywhere," she said. "The class action has come up really as a point of last resort after, for many years, many of us have tried to get this issue addressed, and it just hasn't been." Dr Villafana-Soto claims junior medical staff are reluctant to raise concerns about underpayment for fear of getting their superiors offside. "You learn very quickly that upsetting supervisors or hospital administration will possibly result in you possibly not getting a job the following year, because most of us are employed for 12 months at a time," she said. The Victorian President of the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation, Roderick McRae, said it was impossible to estimate the true cost of properly paying junior medical staff in Victoria's public health system. "Everybody understands they're in the game to look after patients, so they're not going to down tools," he said. "At the same time, there needs to be a reasonable balance and appropriate compensation when those events occur." The legal action is being supported by AMA Victoria, which is calling for more doctors to come forward and join the class action. An AMA Victoria survey conducted last year found junior doctors were working on average 16 hours of overtime a week, mostly without pay. [GN] WEBULL FINANCIAL: Williams Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROYAL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00799, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 7, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21335-CMA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty by restricting the ability of its customers to purchase stocks from its trading platform, but allowing them to sell stocks. Webull Financial LLC is an online brokerage firm, headquartered at 44 Wall Street, Ste 501, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Siri, Esq. Mason Barney, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com mbarney@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com WEHOCOIFFEUR LLC: Faces Waters Employment Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wehocoiffeur, LLC. The case is captioned as Alexandria J. Waters v. Wehocoiffeur, LLC, Case No. 34-2021-00296618-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Sacramento Cty., March 16, 2021). The suit arises from employment-related issues. The Defendants include Does 1-100 and Jeremy Shieh.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com WELLS FARGO: Pension Fund Tapped to Lead Lawsuit Over Risky Loans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Hawaii pension fund on March 15 was tapped to lead a proposed class action suit accusing Wells Fargo of making billions of dollars worth of risky commercial loans, though the federal judge overseeing the case ordered that the fund must consider applications by law firms to serve as class counsel. [GN] XL FLEET: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on March 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or the "Company") (NYSE: XL) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-02171, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired XL Fleet securities between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased XL Fleet securities during the Class Period, you have until May 7, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. XL Fleet provides vehicle electrification solutions for commercial and municipal fleets in North America. The Company offers hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric drive systems. XL Fleet formed via merger of XL Hybrids, Inc. and Pivotal Investment Corporation II ("Pivotal"), which closed on or about December 22, 2020. Pivotal was a special purpose acquisition company incorporated for the purpose of entering into a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, recapitalization, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses or entities. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported sales and backlog; (ii) at least eighteen of the thirty-three customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (iii) XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (iv) XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines; and (v) 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 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research ("Muddy Waters") published a report entitled "XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash," alleging, among other things, that salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors" and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite low" due to "poor performance and regulatory issues." Citing interviews with former employees, the report alleged that "at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed that XL Fleet has "weak technology" and that "XL's announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional" because the task is "too technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised timeline." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.09 per share, or 13%, to close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $2.69 per share, or 19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $11.17 per share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] YAZAKI CORP: June 10 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP; and Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. ("Settlement Class Counsel") on March 15 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division ("Court") has approved the following announcement of proposed class action settlements with the Yazaki and DENSO Defendants. The lawsuit claimed that Defendants conspired to raise, fix, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the supply of Fuel Senders sold in the United States, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The settlements affect those who purchased Fuel Senders in the United States between January 1, 2001 and December 27, 2016 directly from any of the following entities (or depending on the specific settlement agreements, their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates and joint ventures): DENSO Corporation; DENSO International America, Inc.; Yazaki Corporation; and Yazaki North America, Inc. A hearing will be held on June 10, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Sean F. Cox, United States District Judge, at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 817, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlements with Yazaki and DENSO Defendants totaling $320,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; and (2) whether the Court should approve the proposed plan of distribution of Yazaki and DENSO settlement proceeds to members of the settlement classes. A Notice of Proposed Settlements and Claim Form (the "Notice") was mailed to potential Settlement Class members on or about March 4, 2021. The Notice describes the litigation and options available to Settlement Class members with respect to the Yazaki and DENSO settlements in more detail. The Notice also explains what steps a Class Member must take to (1) remain in the settlement classes and file a Claim Form to share in the settlement proceeds, (2) object to the settlements, or (3) request exclusion from the settlement classes. The Notice and other important documents related to the settlements can be accessed at www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/FuelSenders, or by calling 1-800-416-8107, or writing to Fuel Senders Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 5053, Portland, OR 97208-5053. Those who believe they may be a member of either of the Yazaki or DENSO settlement classes, are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice. URL: www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/FuelSenders SOURCE United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division [GN] [*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Continue to Rise --------------------------------------------------------------- cpapracticeadvisor.com reports that against the backdrop of a worldwide pandemic and a decline in overall securities class action filing activity, the number of securities class action filings involving accounting allegations increased in 2020 for the third consecutive year, according to a report released by Cornerstone Research. The report, Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements -- 2020 Review and Analysis, found that accounting allegations continue to have a substantial impact on securities class actions. Accounting allegations were present in more than 30% of all federal securities class action filings, and accounting cases made up 84% of total settlement dollars in 2020. Plaintiffs filed 70 securities class action lawsuits involving accounting allegations in 2020, up from 67 the previous year and the second-highest number in the last 10 years. There were 38 accounting case settlements in 2020, more than the 34 settlements in the previous year but still lower than in the peak years of 2015 to 2017. The number of accounting case settlements represented almost 50% of all securities class action settlements in 2020. Total accounting case settlement dollars rose to $3.5 billion in 2020, more than triple the total of $932 million in 2019. This increase was driven by a small number of mega settlements (those valued at $100 million or higher). The median accounting case settlement value was $10.8 million, comparable to the median settlement value of $10.6 million in 2019. For defendant companies named in accounting case filings, the Disclosure Dollar Loss Index(R) (DDL Index(R), a measure of market capitalization losses, reached its highest level in the last 10 years. Market capitalization losses for accounting case filings were 77% higher than the 2011–2019 annual average DDL for accounting cases.[GN] [*] Federal Judge Dismisses RESPA Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- RESPA News reports that a federal judge has dismissed a class action RESPA lawsuit filed by an Ohio woman who claimed her servicer failed to timely and properly respond to her requests for information (RFI) and notices of error (NOE). The servicer argued the claims should be dismissed because the purported RFIs and NOEs did not relate to "servicing" of the loan and the plaintiff failed to allege damages. [GN] [*] Global Corporate Exposure to Rule 10b-5 Suit Amounts to $37.8BB ------------------------------------------------------------------- Global exposure of publicly traded companies to stock-drop securities class action (SCA) lawsuits that allege violations of the federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, amounts to $37.8 billion in 1Q'21 – a decline of 78.7% relative to 4Q'20. U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure of U.S. issuers amounts to $33.6 billion in 1Q'21, a material decline of 65.7% relative to 4Q'20. ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure of non-U.S. issuers that trade via American Depository Receipts (ADRs) on U.S. exchanges amounts to $4.3 billion in 1Q'21, a material decline of 94.6% relative to 4Q'20. According to the SAR Securities Class Action Rule 10b-5 Exposure Report – 1Q 2021, the U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate of U.S. issuers declined to 0.08% in 1Q'21 from 0.25% in 4Q'20. The U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate declined by 3 basis points to 0.94% in 1Q'21. In 1Q'21 the ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate of non-U.S. issuers fell to 0.01% from 0.27% in 4Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased by 15 basis points to 0.20%. "Record-breaking U.S. equity markets combined with focused judicial scrutiny of securities class actions filed in federal courts led to a material decline in Rule 10b-5 exposure this past quarter," said Nessim Mezrahi, CEO of SAR. 1Q 2021 Securities Class Action Landscape: -- 34 U.S. issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. Based on allegations presented in the first-filed SCA complaint against each defendant corporation, U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $33.6 billion. Quarterly frequency remained steady, and exposure declined materially by 65.7% relative to 4Q'20. -- 11 U.S. large cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $22.8 billion, a material decline of 75.6% relative to 4Q'20. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate decreased by 19 basis points to 0.06%. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased to 1.06% from 1.96% in 4Q'20. -- 4 U.S. mid cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $2.4 billion, an increase of $228 million, or 10.6% relative to 4Q'20. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate remained the same at 0.15%. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased by 3 basis points to 0.62% in 1Q'21. -- 19 U.S. small cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $8.4 billion, a material increase of $6 billion, or 245.7% relative to 4Q'20 and the highest exposure during the preceding four quarters. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased by 79 basis points to 1.15%, also the highest during the preceding four quarters. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate increased to 0.97% from 0.64% in 4Q'20. -- 4 Non-U.S. issuers that trade via ADRs in the U.S. public markets were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure decreased materially by $75 billion to $4.3 billion, or 94.6% relative to 4Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate amounts to 0.01%, a material decline of 26 basis points relative to 4Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate declined to 0.20%, 15 basis points lower relative to 4Q'20. Media Contact: Carolina M. Doherty, VP of Business Development, carolina@sarlit.com [GN] [*] Healthcare Data Privacy, Data Breach Class Action to Rise ------------------------------------------------------------- Vildan Altuglu, Maria Salgado, Omur Celmanbet, Rezwan Haque and Lucia Yanguas of Cornerstone Research report that the COVID-19 pandemic, which has generated a surge in telehealth and introduced the concept of contact tracing into our daily lives, is likely to expose businesses and governments to an increased risk of data privacy and data breach class actions related to health and other personal data. This article discusses potential economic approaches and challenges to valuing, in class action settings, alleged unconsented use or misappropriation of health and other private data generated during this health crisis. Class action litigation related to data privacy and data breaches in the healthcare industry is expected to trend upward in the COVID-19 era The spike in the use of telehealth has been one of the dramatic changes in healthcare delivery since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Telehealth includes, among others, the practice of doctors caring for patients remotely through the use of tools such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing. The ability to receive care without having to travel to healthcare facilities has increased the appeal of telehealth, including telemedicine visits, for many patients during the pandemic. According to an April 2020 study, there is a strong correlation between the U.S. population's interest in telehealth and the number of COVID-19 cases.[1] Similarly, an analysis published by the Commonwealth Fund shows that the share of physician visits conducted via telehealth was practically nonexistent in the first two months of 2020 and rose to nearly 14 percent by mid-April, as shown in Figure 1.[2] To facilitate the expansion of telehealth during the pandemic, in March 2020 the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lifted certain privacy and security compliance penalties and enforcement actions against providers, allowing them to use audio or video communication technologies, such as Facebook Messenger video chat, Google Hangouts video, Zoom, and Skype, to provide remote healthcare services.[3] Given the sensitive nature of the data exchanged during telehealth visits and stored by telehealth providers, the use of such communication technologies raises concerns about susceptibility of health and other personal data to unauthorized disclosures, uses, or misappropriation by unauthorized third parties (e.g., hackers). These privacy and security concerns also extend to devices patients use to communicate and exchange data with their telehealth providers, including smartphones, tablets, and computers as well as in-home patient monitors or other remote-care devices. Unauthorized third parties may obtain personal information (including health data and payment information) or infiltrate the larger networks of patient data in the event they are able to gain access to these connected devices.[4] Contact tracing is another change facilitated by the pandemic that has led to an increase in exchange of personal data among individuals, companies, and governments. Contact tracing is a public health management tool and involves identifying and monitoring individuals who had contact with infected individuals and notifying them of their potential exposure. While there is no compulsory digital COVID-19 contact tracing program in the U.S., multiple voluntary mobile apps developed by private companies exist.[5] With contact tracing initiatives, the COVID-19 status and geolocation of individuals are collected, stored, and also sometimes shared with various entities, raising data privacy and data breach concerns.[6] For example, geolocation data collected from smartphones with contact tracing apps may be used in isolation or in combination with other data to uncover a variety of information about individuals, including their routine activities (e.g., medical intake), interests (e.g., gym membership), and affiliations (e.g., religious affiliation). Beyond concerns about public disclosure of this personal information, there are also concerns that hackers can create "fake" contact tracing apps, or send fake messages pretending to be contact tracers to initiate a malware attack or a phishing scam to extract credit card and other personal data.[7] Accordingly, such changes instituted during the pandemic with regard to healthcare delivery and public health management are expected to increase class action litigation related to data privacy and data breaches in the healthcare industry. Potential economic approaches and challenges to valuing alleged unconsented use or misappropriation of health and other personal data generated during the COVID-19 pandemic Broadly, there are two types of consumer class actions related to personal data: (i) data privacy class actions where the data at issue were allegedly misused by the parties that received the data, and (ii) data breach class actions where the data at issue were exposed and improperly accessed by unrelated third parties. An example of the former is a federal lawsuit filed in 2018 against CVS Health due to its alleged exposure of the personal health information of over 6,000 individuals via clear-windowed mailings revealing their names, addresses, and HIV status.[8] An example of the latter involves lawsuits against Anthem following a data breach incident that allegedly exposed personal data on 80 million individuals, including names, birth dates, medical identification numbers, and Social Security numbers.[9] In data privacy class actions, damages pursued are often based on alleged loss of intrinsic value of privacy and alleged unjust enrichment of the party that has misused the data. In data breach class actions, on the other hand, damages pursued are often based on actual fraud costs, future risk of identity theft, and identity theft monitoring and prevention costs.[10] The economic approaches related to these theories of harm for telehealth, contact tracing, and other personal data are discussed next. Loss of intrinsic value of privacy This theory is traditionally built on the premise that keeping information private has a uniform economic value that is common to all individuals (e.g., a societal value), and unauthorized access to this information by a third party would result in the loss of that value.[11] Such a common, uniform value to privacy implies that the alleged injury is not specific to the individual or the infringing party, rendering an identical quantum of damages for each putative class member, regardless of their individual circumstances. For example, under this theory, unauthorized use of geolocation or health data exchanged as part of COVID-19 contact tracing initiatives would generate the same amount of damages for each putative class member regardless of the extent of information provided by a given individual. Similarly, unauthorized use of geolocation data accessed by means unrelated to the alleged misconduct would generate identical damages (e.g., damages due to unauthorized use of geolocation data would be identical whether the data were accessed via a gaming app or via a contact tracing app). Further, public disclosure of the at-issue information in other contexts (e.g., an infected individual posting COVID-19 status in a public Facebook profile) is unlikely to matter under the loss of "intrinsic" value of privacy theory. Survey-based, quantitative approaches such as contingent valuation surveys and conjoint analysis have been proposed as suitable methods to estimate invasion of privacy damages in data privacy class actions.[12] In contingent valuation surveys, respondents are typically asked directly about their value for the conduct at issue. In the data privacy context, this could include questions such as "how much would you pay to protect privacy of your data?". In conjoint analysis, respondents are typically asked to make choices from a small set of products and services in a series of survey questions. In the data privacy context, each product or service shown to respondents (e.g., a new online video gaming service) would be described on the basis of the same set of features including a feature that relates to the use or sharing of personal data (e.g., type of game, number of players, whether the service shares players' personal data with advertisers) and a set of prices. Respondents' product choices that involve different feature combinations and prices are then used to estimate an average value for data privacy. These approaches have been subject to a number of critiques. First, both contingent valuation and conjoint analysis are "stated preference methods" in that they rely on what people say or imply they will do (i.e., based on their choices in a survey setting), and not on what they actually do.[13] Second, in the privacy context, survey methods are subject to the so-called privacy paradox, the well-documented discrepancy between consumers' stated preferences for privacy and their privacy-related behaviors.[14] Third, both methods have been shown to generate inflated values for privacy due to certain biases these surveys are susceptible to (e.g., conjoint surveys may artificially focus survey respondents on privacy).[15] Further, reliably extrapolating the estimated average value of privacy beyond the survey samples (e.g., to the putative class as a whole) is challenging due to the extent of heterogeneity in consumers' privacy expectations and preferences.[16] Unjust enrichment An alternative theory of harm put forward in data privacy class actions is based on the allegation that the infringing third party generated revenues and profits by using private data without authorization. Generating reliable estimates of privacy value based on this theory requires distinguishing and isolating the portion of the infringer's valuation, revenues, or profits that is directly attributable to the alleged misuse of private data. This can be a challenging exercise, as numerous factors may influence a firm's valuation, revenues, and profits. For example, determining the value to companies involved in an alleged unauthorized use of geolocation and other private data shared with contact tracing apps would require controlling for all factors that influence these companies' valuation, revenues, and profits. Actual fraud costs In data breach class actions, one of the most commonly pursued type of damages involves actual fraud costs. In the case of breach of payment card data, for instance, this often involves determining fraudulent transactions and associated amounts on exposed accounts. However, because consumers typically share the same types of data with multiple parties and because concurrent data breach incidents have become increasingly common, it can be difficult to establish causality, or a nexus between fraudulent activity and a particular data breach incident. According to a 2019 industry study, for example, there were 1,473 data breaches in the U.S. in 2019 alone, and over 164 million personally identifiable records were exposed in those breaches.[17] Similarly, a 2016 study showed that roughly 36 million U.S. adults received more than one notification of data breach between June 2014 and June 2015 alone.[18] Risk of future identity theft Harm arising from the risk of future identity theft is also commonly pursued in data breach class actions. This theory of harm is based on the premise that the identity theft or other negative consequences of a data breach may not occur immediately. As such, it is argued that individuals whose information was breached should be compensated for the expected "long term" impact of the data breach. Historical evidence and academic literature, however, suggest that only a small number of individuals will experience any type of identity theft as a result of a data breach incident.[19] Moreover, it is difficult to predict who will be impacted: the probability that an individual will be subject to future identity theft can vary across individuals based on prior incidence of identity theft, number of companies that have access to the data at issue, and the type of data that was compromised. Further, any methods proposed to calculate this type of damages would need to be able to isolate the incremental risk associated with the data breach for each individual in the future. Identity theft monitoring and prevention costs Yet another common type of damages asserted in data breach class actions is based on what consumers allegedly already paid or would likely pay for credit and identity theft monitoring and prevention services. These may include a range of services such as "credit freezes" with credit reporting agencies, identity theft insurance, and credit monitoring services. Since not everyone would sign up for these types of services, determining which members of a proposed class incurred or would likely incur such costs is central to quantifying these damages. Survey methods soliciting self-reported measures from a sample of putative class members on the costs already incurred and the probability of signing up for credit monitoring or identity theft insurance services may be used. The validity of these methods will in part depend on the reliability of the self-reported measures and on the representativeness of the survey respondents. Additionally, real-world data may provide insight about the rate at which affected individuals are likely to sign up for credit and identity theft monitoring and prevention services. For example, many companies in the U.S. offer free credit monitoring services to individuals whose data were potentially exposed in a data breach incident. The share of individuals who sign up for these free services, which is typically low, can be informative of the share of individuals who would ultimately sign up and pay a fee for such services. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors, who are responsible for the content, and do not necessarily represent the views of Cornerstone Research. This article was first published in Law360. [1] Young-Rock Hong et al., "Population-Level Interest and Telehealth Capacity of US Hospitals in Response to COVID-19: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Google Search and National Hospital Survey Data," JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 6, no. 2 (2020): e18961. [2] Ateev Mehrotra et al., "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Outpatient Visits: A Rebound Emerges," The Commonwealth Fund, May 19, 2020. [3] "Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote Communications during the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health Emergency," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available at https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/emergency-preparedness/notification-enforcement-discretion-telehealth/index.html, last accessed March 27, 2020. [4]See, e.g., Joseph L. Hall and Deven McGraw, "For Telehealth to Succeed, Privacy and Security Risks Must Be Identified and Addressed," Health Affairs 33, no. 2 (2014): 216–221. See also Lily Hay Newman, "Medical Devices Are the Next Security Nightmare," Wired, March 2, 2017. [5]See "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Contact Tracing," Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, August 4, 2020, available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/contact-tracing.html. [6]See Paige M. Boshell, "The Power of Place: Geolocation Tracking and Privacy," American Bar Association Business Law Section, March 25, 2019. [7] See Stephen Silver, "Fake Contact Tracing Apps Could Install Malware on Your Smartphone," The National Interest, June 12, 2020. See also Lily Hay Newman, "Don't Be Fooled by Covid-19 Contact-Tracing Scams," Wired, May 25, 2020. [8] Class Action Complaint, John Doe One et al. v. CVS Health Corp. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 21, 2018). [9] Class Action Complaint, Brown v. Anthem Inc., No. 5:15-md-02617 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2015). [10]See Vildan Altuglu, Lorin M. Hitt, S. Hussain, and M. Li Bergolis, "Valuation of Privacy: Assessing Potential Harm from Unauthorized Access and Misuse of Private Information in Consumer Class Actions," forthcoming in Legal Applications of Marketing Theory, eds. Professors Jacob Gersen and Joel Steckel. [11] See Vildan Altuglu, Lorin M. Hitt, S. Hussain, and M. Li Bergolis, "Valuation of Privacy: Assessing Potential Harm from Unauthorized Access and Misuse of Private Information in Consumer Class Actions," forthcoming in Legal Applications of Marketing Theory, eds. Professors Jacob Gersen and Joel Steckel. [12]See Vildan Altuglu, Lorin M. Hitt, S. Hussain, and M. Li Bergolis, "Valuation of Privacy: Assessing Potential Harm from Unauthorized Access and Misuse of Private Information in Consumer Class Actions," forthcoming in Legal Applications of Marketing Theory, eds. Professors Jacob Gersen and Joel Steckel. [13]See, e.g., Jerry Hausman, "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 4 (2012): 43–56. [14]See, e.g., Sarah Spiekermann, Jens Grossklags, and Bettina Berendt, "E-Privacy in 2nd Generation E-commerce: Privacy Preferences versus Actual Behavior," in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (2001): 38–47; Patricia A. Norberg, Daniel R. Horne, and David A. Horne, "The Privacy Paradox: Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors," Journal of Consumer Affairs 41, no. 1 (2007): 100–126; Idris Adjerid, Eyal Peer, and Alessandro Acquisti, "Beyond the Privacy Paradox: Objective Versus Relative Risk in Privacy Decision Making," MIS Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2018): 465–488; Alessandro Acquisti, Laura Brandimarte, and George Loewenstein, "Privacy and Human Behavior in the Age of Information," Science 347, no. 6221 (2015): 509–514 at 510. [15]See, e.g., Jerry Hausman, "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 4 (2012): 43–56. [16] Academic research demonstrates that consumers differ in their privacy preferences and expectations and that consumers' privacy preferences and expectations can be context-dependent. See, e.g., Alessandro Acquisti, Laura Brandimarte, and George Loewenstein, "Privacy and Human Behavior in the Age of Information," Science 347, no. 6221 (2015): 509–514; Kirsten Martin and Katie Shilton, "Why Experience Matters to Privacy: How Context‐Based Experience Moderates Consumer Privacy Expectations for Mobile Applications," Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, no. 8 (2016): 1871–1882; Helen Nissenbaum, "Privacy as Contextual Integrity," Washington Law Review 79, no. 1 (2004): 119–157. [17] "2019 End-Of-Year Data Breach Report," Identity Theft Resource Center, 2020, available at https://notified.idtheftcenter.org/s/resource. [18] Lillian Ablon et al., "Consumer Attitudes toward Data Breach Notifications and Loss of Personal Information," Rand Corporation, 2016. The actual number of data breaches is likely to be higher: a recent study estimated the number of unreported data breaches may be equal to 25 percent to 85 percent of the number of reported breaches. See James T. Graves, Alessandro Acquisti, and Nicolas Christin, "Should Credit Card Issuers Reissue Cards in Response to a Data Breach? Uncertainty and Transparency in Metrics for Data Security Policymaking," ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 18, no. 4 (2018): 1–19.1847, no. 6221 (2015): 509-514. [19]See, e.g., "Personal Information: Data Breaches Are Frequent, but Evidence of Resulting Identity Theft Is Limited; However, the Full Extent Is Unknown," U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-07-737, June 2007. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***