/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210430.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 30, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 81 Headlines AARGON COLLECTION: Rizzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ACADIA PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 18 Deadline ACADIA PHARMA: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 18 Deadline ADDI KORI: Johnson Sues to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA ALLIANCE COAL: Prater Balks at Miscalculated Overtime Pay ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Tria WS Appeals Case Dismissal to Third Circuit ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Giacomantonio Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over E-Book Price Fixing AMDOCS LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 8 Deadline APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Marketing in iTunes Store ARCHER-DANIELS: Pinedo Files Suit in California Superior Court ARIZONA: Toomey's Bid to Compel Production of Documents Granted ASSET RECOVERY: Nakshin Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ATLANTA, GA: Parties' Joint Bid to Conditionally Certify Class OK'd AUSTRALIA: 501 Deportees to Take Class Action Against Government BANTA MANAGEMENT: FLSA Conditional Class Certification Sought BEER BARN: Court Approves Grove's Bid to Issue Notice to Dancers C & W FACILITY: Knecht FLSA Claim Certified as Collective Action CALVIN WILSON: Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Sought CANAAN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of June 14 Deadline CANOO INC: Berman Tabacco Reminds of June 1 Plaintiff Deadline CARL BAYNE: Reyes Files Suit in Eastern District of Arkansas CHATTEM INC: Faces Fuller Suit for Overpricing of Analgesic Patches COFIROUTE USA: Thakur Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Questions in Strack Gets Affirmative Answers D & A SERVICES: Rodriguez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York D&A SERVICES: Leszczynski FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice DONALD DUNCAN: Clark Sues Over Collection of Unlawful Loans ECHOSTAR CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 2 Deadline EMERGENT BIO: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 18 Deadline EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kahn Swick Reminds of June 18 Deadline EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 18 Deadline EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline ERIE INSURANCE: Main Street Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ESTATES LLC: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Second Bid to Certify Class FAIRSHARE VACATION: Amended Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert. Filed FANEUIL INC: Faces Harris Suit Over CSR's Unpaid Overtime Wages FBCS INC: Rodriguez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York FEDEX GROUND: Sandoval Files Suit in California Superior Court FIBROGEN INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 11 Deadline FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Schultz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York FPI MANAGEMENT: Petitions for Writ of Mandate in Campbell Suit OK'd FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Sonteboa Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York GEO GROUP: Garcia Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages GIGAMON INC: Dismissal of Golub Securities Class Suit Affirmed GIGAMON INC: Golub Fails to Allege Misstatements, 9th Cir. Opines GOOGLE LLC: Klotz Seeks to Recoup Money Lost to Illegal Gambling I.C. SYSTEM: Frankel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York J & M REALTY: Faces Arroyo Suit for Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages J&W GRADING: Court Tosses Brown Bid to Certify Class as Moot JAMES SQUARE: Settles for $5.5M; Former Residents to Collect Soon JONES NATURALS: Lazazzao Balks at Pet Products' False Ad KAISER PERMANENTE: To Pay $11.5M to Settle Discrimination Suit KROGER CO: Gammino Sues Over Misbranded Beverage Products LEVINE KELLOGG: New Class Action Targets Actor Zachary Horwitz LONGWOOD SECURITY: Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Deductions of Wages LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 8 Deadline MATRIX WARRANTY: Mey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. West Virginia MCA ELGIN: Montgomery Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Info MEDICAL SYNERGY: Cooperative Medical Seeks to Certify TCPA Class MERCER INVESTMENT: Lutz Suit Moved to S.D. New York NEW HORIZON: Tahirou Files Bid for Class Certification OHIO BUREAU: Ohio App. Affirms Decision & Judgment in Cirino Suit OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK PARADISE GRILLING: Prime Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime PG&E CORP: $10-Mil. Class Settlement in Vataj Suit Gets Prelim. Nod PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Kohn Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters PRESSLER FELT: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Marchese Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Consolidates Malriat, Gowda & Leo Suits RENEWABLE ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline ROMEO POWER: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline ROMEO POWER: Thornton Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit RPM WHOLESALE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Cardwell Claims S-L DISTRIBUTION: Maranzano Suit Seeks to Certify Class SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Deceptively Sold Defective Products, Lee Says SPECTRUM RESTAURANT: Underpays Delivery Staff, Jesus Suit Claims STATOIL USA: Bid for Expedited Briefing in Rescigno Suit Denied SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Kennedy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TEAMVIEWER US: C.D. California Refuses to Remand Gershfield Suit TELESIS CDE: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices TIKTOK INC: Faces Massive Lawsuit That Potentially Worth Billions TRANSPORT CORPORATION: Johnson Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages TRIBESMEN GROUP: Chavez Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid Overtime UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Claims in Smith Class Suit Narrowed VALLEY PROTEINS: Hollis Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class WALMART INC: St. Louis Judge Oks $5M Settlement Over Sales Tax Suit WAY FONG: Perez, et al. Sue for Unpaid Wages and Overtime WELLS FARGO: S.D. New York Grants Bids to Dismiss Reyes Class Suit WEST VIRGINIA: Summary Judgment in Wilkinson v. Governor Affirmed Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $180.2MM Accrued Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ideanomics to Post $8.0MM Remediation Bond ********* AARGON COLLECTION: Rizzo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aargon Collection Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Fran Rizzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aargon Collection Agency, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02246 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Aargon Collection Agency -- https://www.aargon.com/ -- is a nationally licensed debt collection agency headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC 445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 210-7272 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com ACADIA PHARMA: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("ACADIA" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ACAD) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired ACADIA securities between June 15, 2020 and April 4, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/acad. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin sNDA contained statistical and design deficiencies; (2) accordingly, the pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary support that the Company had led investors to believe it possessed; (3) the FDA was unlikely to approve the pimavanserin sNDA in its present form; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/acad or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in ACADIA you have until June 18, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] ACADIA PHARMA: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 18 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. Class Period: June 15, 2020 - Apr. 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ACAD Contact An Attorney Now: ACAD@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD) Securities Fraud Action: The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented facts concerning Acadia's supplemental new drug application ("sNDA") for NUPLAZID(R) (pimavanserin), which treats dementia-related psychosis ("DRP"). Specifically, on July 20, 2020, Acadia announced the FDA accepted for filing the sNDA and stated that its pivotal study for the drug showed a meaningful reduction of psychosis symptoms and a nearly 3X reduction in the risk of relapse for patients continuing on pimavanserin vs. placebo. Thereafter, the company repeatedly stated the FDA had not identified any potential review issues and reiterated the drug's efficacy. But the truth began to emerge on Mar. 8, 2021, when Acadia announced that on Mar. 3, 2021 the FDA informed the company that it had identified deficiencies in the sNDA. Then, on Apr. 5, 2021, Acadia announced the FDA had rejected the sNDA, citing a lack of statistical significance regarding some of the subgroups of dementia and inadequate numbers of patients with some less common dementia subtypes. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Acadia misled investors by concealing FDA-related review risks for the sNDA," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are an Acadia 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 Acadia 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 mailto:ACAD@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and 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] ADDI KORI: Johnson Sues to Recover Proper Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- ANTOINETTE JOHNSON, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. ADDI KORI, INC., BIG C INC., and CORY HEADEN, Case No. 3:21-cv-00181 (W.D.N.C., April 21, 2021) is brought against Headen and his gentlemen's club business operations Addi Kori, Inc. and Big C., Inc., seeking to recover damages arising out of Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA). Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendants as an exotic dancer at each of Headen's Clubs and has been employed in this capacity since about February 2019. During the period of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff has typically and customarily worked about 4-6 shifts per week. The complaint alleges that for her entire employment period, the Defendants have misclassified Plaintiff and all other similarly situated exotic dancers at Headen's Clubs as independent contractors and have taken the position that Plaintiff and the other exotic dancers should not be paid and are not owed or entitled to minimum wage compensation under Federal or North Carolina law. Instead of paying Plaintiff and the other similarly situated exotic dancers wages or compensation, for the entire period of Plaintiff's employment, Defendants have charged Plaintiff and the other similar situated exotic dancers a per-shift kickback or fee and other fines and surcharges as a condition of employment for each shift worked at each of Headen's Clubs, the complaint says. Each of Headen's Clubs is a corporation formed under the laws of the State of North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Krasner, Esq. Barrett Law Offices, PLLC 5 West Hargett Street, Suite 910 Raleigh, NC 27601 Tel:(919) 999-2799 E-mail: jkrasner@barrettlawoffices.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com ALLIANCE COAL: Prater Balks at Miscalculated Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN PRATER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC; ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P.; ALLIANCE RESOURCES OPERATING PARTNERS, L.P.; ALLIANCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GP, LLC; and GIBSON COUNTY COAL, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00066-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., April 13, 2021) arises from the Defendants' unlawful failure to pay for "off-the-clock work" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as Defendants' failure to pay all overtime, including by unlawfully excluding promised, non-discretionary bonuses in the calculation of the employees' "regular rate" for the purpose of determining the appropriate overtime rates of pay. These failures also resulted in the unjust enrichment of Defendants under Indiana common law. The Defendants' policies and practices deprived the Plaintiff and similarly situated coal miners for all pay that they were and are entitled to by law, the suit says. Brian Prater has been employed as a coal miner at the Gibson North and Gibson South mines since 2003. During the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint, he was employed by Defendants at the Gibson North mine from 2017 to 2018 and from 2018 to April 2020 at Gibson South. Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants. Alliance Coal, LLC produces and markets steam coal products. The Company supplies coal to power generation companies. Gibson County Coal is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alliance Coal, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq. MACEY SWANSON LLP 445 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Facsimile: (317) 637-2369 E-mail: jmacey@MaceyLaw.com ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Tria WS Appeals Case Dismissal to Third Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Tria WS LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Tria WS LLC, Tria TR, LLC, and Alaska Cafe LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS US INSURANCE COMPANY, AGCS MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLIANZ UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, ASSOCIATED INDEMNITY CORP., CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, NATIONAL SURETY CORP., and THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2-20-cv-04159, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants have wrongfully, capriciously and arbitrarily denied coverage and payments to the Plaintiffs and other small businesses. On April 27, 2019, Tria Alaska Cafe purchased a commercial policy of insurance issued by Defendant American Automobile Insurance Company ("AAIC") bearing policy number SAM 2003033-19. On July 2, 2019, Tria WS Cafe purchased a commercial policy of insurance issued by AAIC bearing policy number SAM 2003660-19. On November 1, 2019, Tria Taproom purchased a commercial policy of insurance issued by AAIC bearing policy number SAM 2003331-19. The Policies are each bilateral contracts: the Plaintiffs agreed to pay monthly premiums to AAIC in exchange for AAIC's promises of coverage for all risks of loss except those specifically and unambiguously excluded. The Plaintiffs say they reasonably expected that claims for loss of business income and extra expenses arising from the inability to use their physical locations would be paid unless specifically and unambiguously excluded. The Plaintiffs complied with their obligations under their respective Policies by timely paying all premiums required. Effective March 17, 2020, at 12:01 a.m., pursuant to the Order of the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Plaintiffs were forced to close their restaurants and wine and beer bars located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs are now seeking a review of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion and Order dated March 30, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is captioned as Tria WS LLC, et al. v. American Automobile Insurance, Case No. 21-1741, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 16, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TRIA WS LLC, TRIA TR LLC, ALASKA CAFE LLC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by: Adam J. Gomez, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER 123 Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7107 E-mail: agomez@gelaw.com - and - M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER One Market Street Spear Tower 36th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 789-4367 E-mail: egraham@gelaw.com Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. is represented by: Joseph Kernen, Esq. Brian M. Robinson, Esq. DLA PIPER 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, Suite 5000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3345 E-mail: joseph.kernen@dlapiper.com brian.robinson@dlapiper.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Giacomantonio Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is styled as Brigette J. Giacomantonio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, Case No. 2:21-cv-02247 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alltran Financial Services -- https://alltran.com/ -- is a leader in the Accounts Receivable Management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC 445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 210-7272 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over E-Book Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT ETTEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS L.L.C., SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., MACMILLAN PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC, HACHETTE BOOK GROUP and PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03341 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) alleges that Amazon has willfully acquired its monopoly power in the U.S. retail trade eBook market through anticompetitive conduct, fixing the retail prices of trade eBooks and causing supracompetitive prices for eBooks sold by or through Amazon's eBook retailer rivals through its conspiracy with other publishers. The complaint asserts that the Defendants agreed to restrain competition by controlling the prices paid for eBooks purchased from the Big Five publishers namely HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Simon & Schuster, Inc., Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC, Hachette Book Group, and Hachette Book Group, through retail platforms other than Amazon.com. This alleged conduct has caused Plaintiff and the class to overpay for eBooks in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. Amazon is an online retailer organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal headquarters in Seattle, Washington and with facilities and employees scattered throughout the United States. Big Five publishers are U.S. trade publishers, having their principal place of businesses in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD 332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com AMDOCS LIMITED: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 8 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 Amdocs Limited ("Amdocs" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DOX) from December 13, 2016, through March 30, 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 Amdocs securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit DOX Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and 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, Jehoshaphat Research published a report that was the result of a months-long investigation into a "massive financial deception taking place at Amdocs." The report alleged that Amdocs overstated its profit by "~40-50%, or as much as $200m." On this news, Amdocs's stock price fell $9.19 per share, or 11.58%, to close at $70.15 per share on March 31, 2021. 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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Amdocs securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/amdocslimited-dox-shareholder-class-action-litigation-stock-fraud-385/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. [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Marketing in iTunes Store -------------------------------------------------------------- hollywoodreporter.com reports that rejecting a motion to dismiss, a federal judge says it is plausible that consumers don't know that access to purchased content can be revoked. If possession is nine-tenths of the law, what happens when possession gets slippery? That's a question for a federal courtroom in Sacramento, California, where Apple is facing a putative class action over the way consumers can "buy" or "rent" movies, TV shows and other content in the iTunes Store. David Andino, the lead plaintiff in this case, argues the distinction is deceptive. He alleges Apple reserves the right to terminate access to what consumers have "purchased," and in fact, has done so on numerous occasions. U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez made clear he isn't ready to buy into Apple's view of consumer expectations in the digital marketplace. "Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely," writes Mendez. "But in common usage, the term 'buy' means to acquire possession over something. It seems plausible, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, that reasonable consumers would expect their access couldn't be revoked." Apple tried other ways to slip away from claims of false advertising and unfair competition. For example, it tried the time-tested approach of challenging Andino's "injury" to knock his potential standing as a plaintiff. "Apple argues that Plaintiff's alleged injury -- which it describes as the possibility that the purchased content may one day disappear -- is not concrete but rather speculative," sums Mendez, responding, "[T]he injury Plaintiff alleges is not, as Apple contends, that he may someday lose access to his purchased content. Rather, the injury is that at the time of purchase, he paid either too much for the product or spent money he would not have but for the misrepresentation. This economic injury is concrete and actual, not speculative as Apple contends, satisfying the injury in fact requirement of Article III." The lawsuit does lose its unjust enrichment claim, but Mendez does leave open the possibility of injunctive relief that could force Apple to change the way it sells content. We'll see if the suit really gets there or is settled. Meanwhile, Amazon is facing a similar lawsuit over Prime Video purchases.[GN] ARCHER-DANIELS: Pinedo Files Suit in California Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Archer-Daniels-Midland Company. The case is styled as Cristobal Pinedo on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00298654-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 13, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." The Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, commonly known as ADM -- https://www.adm.com/ -- is an American multinational food processing and commodities trading corporation founded in 1902 and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Crawford, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA, 92108 ARIZONA: Toomey's Bid to Compel Production of Documents Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Russell B. Toomey, Plaintiff v. State of Arizona; Arizona Board of Regents, d/b/a University of Arizona, a governmental body of the State of Arizona, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 19-0035-TUC-RM (LAB) (D. Ariz.), Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Plaintiff's motion, filed on March 18, 2021, to compel production of documents. The Plaintiff in the action, Toomey, is an associate professor employed at the University of Arizona. He receives health insurance from a self-funded health plan provided by the State of Arizona. The Plan generally provides coverage for medically necessary care. There are coverage exclusions, however, one of which is for "gender reassignment surgery." Mr. Toomey is a transgendered man. He has a male gender identity, but the sex assigned to him at birth was female. Toomey has been living as a male since 2003. His treating physicians have recommended that he receive a hysterectomy as a medically necessary treatment for his gender dysphoria. Toomey sought medical preauthorization for a total hysterectomy, but he was denied under the Plan's exclusion for "gender reassignment surgery." On Jan. 23, 2019, Toomey brought the pending class action in which he argues the Plan's exclusion is sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The action is currently in the discovery stage. On Dec. 8, 2020, Toomey served his First Request for Production on the State Defendants seeking documents calculated to reveal the reason why the Plan contains an exclusion for "gender reassignment surgery." The State Defendants produced some documents but withheld 135 documents "on the basis of the deliberative process privilege." In the pending motion, Toomey moves to compel the production of these documents pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.37(a)(3)(B)(iv). He asserts that the State Defendants failed to properly invoke the privilege. He further argues that the deliberative process privilege is generally inapplicable to his Request for Production given the issues involved. Magistrate Judge Bowman finds that the documents sought are highly relevant. Toomey claims that the gender surgery exclusion is intentional discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The documents sought bear directly on the thought processes and state of mind of the decision makers behind the exclusion. As such, they bear directly on the issue of intent. The document request, therefore, concerns an indispensable element of Toomey's causes of action and is directed at persons with direct knowledge of this element. Next, the Magistrate Judge recognizes that other evidence on the issue of intent exists. If the authors of the plan exclusion were to be deposed, the Plaintiff would have direct evidence on the issue of their intent. If, however, those authors acted in violation of the law, their testimony might be less candid than the Plaintiff would like. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge concludes that while other evidence might exist, the documents sought by the Plaintiff are likely to be the most reliable evidence on the issue. The Magistrate Judge also finds that disclosure of documents concerning the creation of the Plan and its exclusions will have only a minimal adverse effect on future healthcare coverage deliberations. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Bowman concludes that the motion for production should be granted. The Plaintiff's "need for the materials and the need for accurate fact-finding override the government's interest in non-disclosure." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is granted. The State of Arizona, Andy Tobin, and Paul Shannon (The State Defendants) will "produce all the documents currently withheld solely on the basis of Deliberative Process Privilege and listed on their most recent privilege log." The State Defendants will comply with this order within 21 days of service. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6hkda5m from Leagle.com. ASSET RECOVERY: Nakshin Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA NAKSHIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-02040-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff Nakshin asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, certifying three classes against the Defendant ARS. The proposed Class is defined as: "All individuals in Maryland who entered into a payment plan with the Defendant for a reduced debt balance and whom Defendant, thereafter and within one year preceding the filing of this Complaint, sent correspondence referencing the full balance as due and owing." The Plaintiff further move to be appointed as Class Representative, and moves that her counsel be appointed as Class Counsel. ARS is a debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ns1nI4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ingmar Goldson, Esq. THE GOLDSON LAW OFFICE 1 Research Court, Suite 450 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: 240-780-8829 E-mail: igoldson@goldsonlawoffice.com - and - Courtney L. Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com ATLANTA, GA: Parties' Joint Bid to Conditionally Certify Class OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREL LAWSON, JAMES CURTIS, and JAMES TURNER, on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated persons, v. CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, Case No. 1:18-cv-02484-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to conditionally certify class. The Plaintiffs are conditionally certified to represent the following class: "All persons with mobility impairments who have been denied equal access to pedestrian rights of way in the City of Atlanta as a result of the City’s policies and practices with regard to repair and maintenance of its pedestrian rights of way." The Court said, "This certification is conditional upon the plaintiffs demonstrating at a hearing to consider approval of settlement that all of the prerequisites to a class action set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) have been met and that this action is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2). The Parties have requested that all deadlines in this action be stayed for a 180 day period in order for the parties to work towards a settlement. This request is granted. During this time, the Parties may conduct discovery. If a settlement is not to be filed with the Court within this one-hundred and eighty day period, the Parties must contact the Court to request a status conference be had upon its expiration." A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e38XpL at no extra charge.[CC] AUSTRALIA: 501 Deportees to Take Class Action Against Government ---------------------------------------------------------------- stuff.co.nz reports that many of their lives were torn apart when they were deported to New Zealand under Australia's hard-line immigration policy. Now they're fighting back. A group of "501" deportees met at a church hall in Auckland. The group planned to resolve to take a class action lawsuit against the Australian Government over their treatment. The effort has been organised by Filipa Payne, founder of the Iwi n Aus and Route 501 groups, who advocates for the deportees. Tauranga lawyer Craig Tuck is understood to be on board with the action. The meeting of the support group began about 7pm. Shortly after, the meeting crossed to a man on Christmas Island, the site of a major Australia detention centre. Payne told the meeting while the plight of the deportees is becoming more widely known, there remained limited awareness of the conditions deportees faced while in detention prior to being sent across the Tasman. "That's the trauma New Zealand is not connecting with. "It's the responsibility of New Zealand society to step up and help fix this trauma." One deportee said he hoped the class action would help shut down detention centres, such as the one on Christmas Island. Another recent 501 said he lived on the streets of Christchurch after being deported and separated from his children. "It's a big shock coming back to nothing." LAWSUIT EMERGES AHEAD OF PM VISIT The meeting coincided with a visit to New Zealand by Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is also expected to visit New Zealand in about two weeks. The deportees are known as 501s, after the character section of the Australian Migration Act allowing their visas to be cancelled. Non-Australian citizens sentenced to 12 months in prison are subject to deportation - no matter how long since they completed their sentence. Most have criminal records and many have lived in Australia for most of their lives, and are uprooted, tearing families apart. The policy is believed to have led to a spike organised crime in New Zealand. The amendment to Australia's Migration Act took effect in 2014. More than 300 New Zealanders have been deported from Australia since international borders closed to stop the spread of Covid-19. The deportees included a 15-year-old boy, sent back under the hard line policy in March. [GN] BANTA MANAGEMENT: FLSA Conditional Class Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK IMBARRATO and NICK PRAINO on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANTA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., BANTA BWW MDT, LLC, BANTA NINE MALL, LLC, BANTA BWW ON, LLC, BANTA BWW NB, LLC, GEORGE E. BANTA, SR., and GEORGE E. BANTA, JR., Case No. 7:18-cv-05422-NSR-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court to enter an order granting conditional class certification, court-authorized notice, and expedited discovery, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), as well as such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the FLSA by violating the tip-credit provision and failing to pay tipped employees at the minimum wage for excessive amounts of non-tipped work and they now seek to certify their case as a collective case under the FLSA. Banta is a real estate development and management company specializing in lodging and dining properties. Buffalo Wild Wings (BWW) is a casual dining restaurant and sports bar franchise with approximately 600 locations throughout the United States. Banta Management owns and operates three Buffalo Wild Wings franchises in New York, one in Middletown (Banta BWW MDT, LLC), one in Wappingers Falls, (Banta BWW Nine Mall, LLC) and one in Oneonta (Banta BWW ON, LLC). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 20, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aIqYYb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 BEER BARN: Court Approves Grove's Bid to Issue Notice to Dancers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GROVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. BEER BARN CORPORATION, R & L B CORPORATION d/b/a IOWA PLAYHOUSE, RONALD BERGERON, MICHAEL BERGERON and LYNDA BERGERON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00027-SMR-CFB (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephanie M. Rose entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Issue Notice; 2. denying the Defendants' Motion to Compel; and 3. granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. The Plaintiffs are authorized to send the class notice to individuals who worked as an exotic dancer at Iowa Playhouse within the three years preceding the date of this Order. The Defendants shall post the approved notice in an area regularly accessible to its employees within 14 days of the date of this Order. The Defendants are further ordered to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the last known mailing address, email address, and phone numbers from any individual who worked as an exotic dancer at the Iowa Playhouse within the three years preceding the date of this Order, the Court says. Ms. Grove filed suit against Beer Barn Corporation, R & L B Corporation, Ronald Bergeron, Michael Bergeron, and Lynda Bergeron alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (IWPCL). Specifically, she alleges that when she worked as an exotic dancer at Iowa Playhouse, owned and managed by the Defendants, she was classified as an independent contractor when she was in fact an employee as defined by the FLSA and IWPCL. A copy of the Court's order dated April 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dUqGiW at no extra charge.[CC] C & W FACILITY: Knecht FLSA Claim Certified as Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chad Knecht, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. C & W Facility Services, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03899-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Watson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion certifying FLSA claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and the Ohio-law claims as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court limits conditional certification to employees of C&W. The Court is hesitant to include individuals in the putative class who worked for entities that are not named as defendants because such defendants were not served in this case and had no opportunity to be heard on the certification motion. Accordingly, the parties are directed to provide a joint list to the Court of anyone who has opted-in to this case who did not work for the Defendant. Their claims will be dismissed from the case sub judice without prejudice. The parties are ordered to confer and present to the Court a joint proposed definition, form of notice, and opt-in form. For the class definition, the Court proposes the following as a starting point in the discussion: "All current and former hourly, non-exempt maintenance employees of C&W Facility Services, Inc. who, from July 31, 2017, through the final Tne Court recognizes that Plaintiffs preference is to conditionally certify a class in this case that includes employees of multiple entities." However, the Court simply does not find it proper when those entities were not named as defendants. Plaintiff could have, but did not, name the additional defendants in the original Complaint and could have, but did not, move to amend the Complaint immediately after Defendant responded to the motion for certification. The Plaintiff sues C&W Facility under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (Ohio Wage Act), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act (COPPA) for failure to properly pay overtime wages and failure to maintain accurate records. The Defendant provides facility maintenance, cleaning, and related services for businesses and organizations throughout the United States. From 2016 to 2018, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant at Defendant's plant in Etna, Ohio, as an hourly Maintenance Technician, which was a non-exempt position. Thereafter, Plaintiff was promoted to Assistant Maintenance Manager, a salaried position, and remained in that position until 2020. A copy of the Court's order dated April 20, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aICTFz at no extra charge.[CC] CALVIN WILSON: Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEDRIC CATCHINGS et al., v. CALVIN WILSON et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00428-TSE (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Settlement Class and appointing their counsel as class counsel under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed Settlement Class is defined in the Settlement Agreement as follows: "All current and future detainees/residents at the Chesapeake Detention Facility and all current and future detainees/residents transferred from CDF to the Health Monitoring Facility at the Jail Industries Building, from the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement to the Termination Date of the Settlement Agreement." The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on February 22, 2021. In response to the Court's questions about the need for classes and a subclass, Plaintiffs filed their Supplemental Memorandum on March 24, 2021. The Defendants filed their Opposition on April 2, 2021. The parties entered into the Agreement on April 13, 2021.Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendants withdrew their Opposition on April 15, 2021. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 20, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sR5crj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alec W. Farr, Esq. Daniel C. Schwartz, Esq. Adam L. Shaw, Esq. Joscelyn T. Solomon, Esq. Brett R. Orren, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1155 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 508-6000 Facsimile: (202) 508-6200 E-mail: awfarr@bclplaw.com dcschwartz@bclplaw.com adam.shaw@bclplaw.com joscelyn.solomon@bclplaw.com brett.orren@bclplaw.com - and - Tianna Mays, Esq. Jon Greenbaum, Esq. Arthur Ago, Esq. John Fowler, Esq. Rochelle F. Swartz, Esq. LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K Street NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 662-8600 Facsimile: (202) 783-0857 E-mail: tmays@lawyerscommittee.org jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org aago@lawyerscommittee.org jfowler@lawyerscommittee.org rswartz@lawyerscommittee.org The Defendants are represented by: Brian E. Frosh, Esq. MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 St. Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202 E-mail: civil_service@oag.state.md.us - and - Laura Mullally, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 300 East Joppa Road, Suite 1000 Towson, MD 21286 E-mail: laura.mullally@maryland.gov CANAAN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of June 14 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 Southern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Canaan, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased the ADR's of Canaan, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of Canaan, Inc.., you may, no later than June 14, 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 ADR's of Canaan, Inc.. Canaan designs, manufactures and sells bitcoin mining machines, primarily in the Peoples Republic of China (the "PRC"). It is organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands, headquartered in Hangzhon PRC and its ADRs are listed and trade on the NASDAQ Global Market. April 12, 2021, Canaan issued a press release finally disclosing its actual 4Q20 and FY20 financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020, including a 93% year-over-year decrease in computing power sold and net revenues for the quarter. On this news, the market price of Canaan ADRs declined from their close of $18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021 to close at $13.14 per ADR on April 12, 2021, a decline of nearly 30%. 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] CANOO INC: Berman Tabacco Reminds of June 1 Plaintiff Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Berman Tabacco has filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws against Canoo Inc. ("Canoo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV) (NASDAQ: GOEVW), and certain of its current and former officers and directors, on behalf of persons and entities who 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"). The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec78j(b) and 78t(a). The case is captioned Blake v. Canoo Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-02873. A copy of the complaint is available on the firm's website. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff with the Court no later than June 1, 2021. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you have a significant loss from your purchases of Canoo securities during the Class Period and would like to learn more information about serving as a Lead Plaintiff, please visit: https://www.bermantabacco.com/case/canoo-inc/. Berman Tabacco is a national law firm representing institutions and individuals in lawsuits, seeking to recoup losses caused by corporate and board misconduct and violations of the securities and antitrust laws. The firm has offices in San Francisco, California and Boston, Massachusetts. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. Contact: Jeffrey Rocha, Esq. (800) 516-9926 Email: law@bermantabacco.com [GN] CARL BAYNE: Reyes Files Suit in Eastern District of Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayne, et al. The case is styled as Refugio Reyes, Juan Reyes, Francisco Ruiz, Javier Valadez, J. Carmen Cano Diaz, Efren Montano, Alvaro Cano Diaz, Individually, as owners or partial owners of corporate entities, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. Carl Bayne, David Pake, individually and in their official capacity as employees of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation; David Greenbaum, in his official capacity as the CEO of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission; Case No. 4:21-cv-00334-LPR (E.D. Ark., April 23, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Carl Bayne is the Director of Operations and Compliance for the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Anthony Vandiver, Esq. COX, STERLING, McCLURE & VANDIVER, PLLC 8712 Counts Massie Road North Little Rock, AR 72113 Phone: (501) 954-8073 Fax: (501) 954-7856 Email: bavandiver@csmfirm.com CHATTEM INC: Faces Fuller Suit for Overpricing of Analgesic Patches ------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Fuller, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Chattem, Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-03386 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) arises from Defendant's false, misleading and deceptive representation of its over-the-counter external analgesic patches to consumers including the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells OTC external analgesic patches with an active ingredient of lidocaine, under the IcyHot brand. The Defendant's Icy Hot Patches contain 4% lidocaine by weight and are marketed as compliant with the Food and Drug Administration regulations for Category I products, based on the numerous claims with respect to the product's functions. However, the product does not comply with the 1983 Tentative Final Monography for External Analgesic Drug Products for Over-the-Counter Human Use (TFM) requirements for Category I ingredients and has not undergone any review process for products containing Category III ingredients, that require agency review and approval of the product and its labeling through a New Drug Application or Abbreviated New Drug Application, the suit asserts. As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than $1.79 for 33.8 OZ, excluding tax, compared to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, the complaint adds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com COFIROUTE USA: Thakur Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Sanket Vinod Thakur filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Sanket Thakur v. Cofiroute USA, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-02233-ODW-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. Defendants Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are local public entities that share ownership of the 91 Express Lanes, a toll highway that employs an electronic toll collection system. OCTA and RCTC employ Cofiroute to collect tolls and operate the entire 91 Express Lanes. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants require a FasTrak account to use the 91 Express Lanes. On August 22, 2018, Thakur drove on the 91 Express Lanes without a FasTrak account. As a result, Cofiroute sent him a Notice of Toll Evasion Violation. Thakur alleges that the Notice improperly accused him of committing a criminal infraction of California Vehicle Code section 23302(b). However, Thakur claims that his actions constituted, at most, a civil violation of Vehicle Code section 23302.5. The crux of Thakur's claims is that Defendants, through their Notices, improperly solicited the putative class to become FasTrak customers after they drove on the 91 Express Lanes without a FasTrak account. Mr. Thakur seeks a review of the Court's Order dated April 6, 2021, denying his motion to alter or amend judgment; Court's Judgment dated February 1, 2021 wherein Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants on all of Plaintiffs claims and all dates and deadlines are vacated; and the Court's Order dated January 29, 2021, wherein Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice, and their motion to stay was denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned as Sanket Thakur v. Cofiroute USA, et al., Case No. 21-55364, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 16, 2021. The briefing scheduled in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Sanket Vinod Thakur Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 23, 2021; -- Appellant Sanket Vinod Thakur opening brief is due on June 14, 2021; -- Appellees Cofiroute USA, Orange County Transportation Authority and Riverside County Transportation Commission answering brief is due on July 14, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SANKET VINOD THAKUR, an individual person on behalf of himself and all other persons and entities similarly situated, is represented by: William N. McGrane, Esq. MCGRANE LLP 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 292-4807 Defendants-Appellees COFIROUTE USA, a Delaware limited liability company; ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a California governmental entity; and RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a California governmental entity, are represented by: Stephen H. Turner, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 E-mail: stephen.turner@lewisbrisbois.com - and - M. Lois Bobak, Esq. Patrick Michael Desmond, Esq. WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART 555 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 558-7000 E-mail: lbobak@wss-law.com pdesmond@wss-law.com - and - Scott W. Ditfurth, Esq. BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP 3390 University Avenue 5th Floor, P.O. Box 1028 Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 826-8209 E-mail: scott.ditfurth@bbklaw.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Questions in Strack Gets Affirmative Answers ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK STEPHEN STRACK, Sole Successor Trustee of the PATRICIA ANN STRACK REVOCABLE TRUST DTD 2/15/99 and the BILLY JOE STRACK REVOCABLE TRUST DTD 2/15/99, and DANIELA A. RENNER, Sole Successor Trustee of the PAUL ARIOLA LIVING TRUST and the HAZEL ARIOLA LIVING TRUST, for Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, and DANIEL M. McCLURE, Objector/Appellant, Case No. 117276 (Okla.), Judge James Winchester of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma answers these questions in the affirmative: (1) Whether Oklahoma's class action attorney fee statute, 12 O.S.Supp.2017, Section 2023(G), allows for the percentage-of-common-fund method in calculating attorney fees; (2) Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding 40% of the common fund to the class counsel, equaling over $19 million in attorney fees and a $2,500 hourly rate; and (3) Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding a $400,000 incentive award to the named class representatives. Class Representatives -- Billy J. Strack, as trustee for the Patricia Ann Strack Revocable Trust Dated 2/15/99 and the Billy Joe Strack Revocable Trust Dated 2/15/99, and Hazel Ariola, as trustee of the Paul Ariola Living Trust and the Hazel Ariola Living Trust -- filed the action against Continental for underpayment of oil and gas royalties. They sued on behalf of themselves and sought to certify a class of 33,890 Oklahoma royalty owners. Litigation lasted for over seven years without a trial until the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The district court approved the settlement agreement, requiring Continental to pay $49.8 million into a common fund for Period 1 claims, plus an estimated $7.5 million for Period 2 claims. The settlement further provided for an estimated $50 million for claims during the Future Production Period. The Class Representatives filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.2017, Section 2023(G), and requested a $400,000 incentive award to the Class Representatives from the common fund. The Class Representatives requested attorney's fees per a signed contingency fee contract wherein Representatives agreed that the class counsel would receive 40% of the gross recovery from the common fund. The Class Representatives asserted that using the lodestar method to calculate attorney's fees from Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659, was not required in a common fund case. In the alternative, the Class Representatives contended a lodestar calculation would yield approximately the same result as the requested 40% of the common fund; the calculation of attorney's fees under the lodestar method would be $6,288,831 with an enhancement of 317% yielding approximately the same result as 40% of the common fund for the Period 1 claims, or $19,920,000. The Class Representatives did not present detailed time records as part of their motion for attorney's fees. Instead, they submitted the time records to the district court for an in camera review. Daniel McClure, a class member with a small mineral interest, objected to the Class Representatives' requested attorney's fees and incentive award, arguing both requests were excessive and not consistent with Oklahoma law. McClure as a royalty owner also requested copies of his own counsel's time records. The Class Representatives provided 190 pages of billing records with nearly every description of the services rendered by the class counsel redacted, asserting the information was protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and the class counsel's mental impressions and litigation strategy. The district court would not allow McClure access to the detailed billing records thereby depriving a client -- standing in the shoes of the other 33,890 royalty owners -- to see what his own attorneys charged him. The district court held an evidentiary hearing pursuant to 12 O.S.Supp.2017, Section 2023(G)(4)(a);5 awarded attorney's fees from the common fund in the amount of $19.92 million, representing 40% of the settlement payment for the Period 1 claims; and awarded an additional 40% of the eventual settlement payment for Period 2 claims. The district court also granted a $400,000 incentive award to Class Representatives, amounting to $200,000 to each trustee. McClure appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) reversed the district court's attorney fee award, reasoning the express mandates of Burk were not met. COCA concluded that an attorney fee request in a common fund case is subject to the lodestar methodology even if a contingency fee agreement with class representatives exists. COCA further determined that the district court had not completed a proper lodestar analysis and held an enhancement of 317% was not based on the statutory criteria under 12 O.S.Supp.2017, Section 2023(G)(4)(e). COCA also reversed the amount of the incentive award to Class Representatives, reasoning the district court abused its discretion when it set the award amount. Class Representatives sought certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted. The three questions before the Court are (1) whether Oklahoma's class action attorney fee statute, 12 O.S.Supp.2017, Section 2023(G), allows for the percentage-of-common-fund method in calculating attorney fees, (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding 40% of the common fund to class counsel, equaling over $19 million in attorney fees and a $2,500 hourly rate, and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding a $400,000 incentive award to the named class representatives. The Supreme Court answers these questions in the affirmative. It opines that Oklahoma's class action attorney fee statute gives courts flexibility and discretion in calculating fee awards under the lodestar method or the percentage-of-common-fund method (percentage method). The named class representatives in the case requested attorney's fees per a signed contingency fee contract wherein they agreed that the class counsel would receive 40% from the common fund. The class representatives entered into this contingency fee agreement on behalf of a potential class of 33,890 Oklahoma royalty owners. The Class counsel contends that this type of agreement is customary in these types of cases. However, the class representatives and the class counsel must act in a fiduciary relationship on behalf of the silent class members in a class action. Oklahoma's class action attorney fee statute places the district court also in a fiduciary role to the class when awarding fees. In granting attorney's fees and incentive awards in the case, the district court failed to consider this role to the royalty owners whose mineral interests are at the heart of the litigation and to ensure that not only class counsel but also the royalty owners benefited from this litigation. The Supreme Court therefore holds that the district court abused its discretion when it calculated attorney's fees under the percentage method, awarding fees that totaled more than 300% of the actual hours worked and equaled a $2,500 hourly rate. The district court also abused its discretion in granting an incentive award not based on evidence of the actual work performed by the class representatives in the case. The Supreme Court remands for proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ytv87a3 from Leagle.com. Douglas E. Burns and Terry L. Stowers, Burns & Stowers, P.C., in Norman, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellees. Kerry W. Caywood -- kcaywood@pncj.com -- and Angela Caywood Jones -- ajones@pncj.com -- Park, Nelson, Caywood, Jones, LLP, in Chickasha, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellees. Harvey D. Ellis -- harvey.ellis@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Objector/Appellant. Daniel McClure, Objector/Appellant, in Houston, Texas. D & A SERVICES: Rodriguez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against D & A Services, LLC of IL, et al. The case is styled as Jovanni Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. D & A Services, LLC of IL, Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No 15, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02249 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. D&A Services, LLC -- https://dnasllc.com/ -- aims to provide all aspects of customer service and compliant collection remedies while providing a quality experience for all people that come in contact with the employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC 445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 210-7272 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com D&A SERVICES: Leszczynski FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAFAL LESZCZYNSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D&A SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 20-4387 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants D&A's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. The putative class action is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act stemming from a collection letter Leszczynski received from D&A. Leszczynski alleges D&A, a debt collector, sent him a letter pertaining to an obligation owed to non-party Bank of America N.A. for transactions "primarily for personal, family or household purposes." He contends D&A violated the FDCPA because it "deceptively and improperly advised him of the proper method for exercising his validation rights." The Plaintiff's claims arise from this statement in the letter: "if you dispute the debt, or any part thereof, or request the name and address of the original creditor in writing within the thirty-day period, the law requires our firm to suspend our efforts to collect the debt until we mail the requested information to you." He claims D&A's letter "falsely communicated" his FDCPA obligations because it "omitted the writing requirement" -- the Act's requirement that his "right to have collection efforts cease can only be triggered via a written dispute." He maintains he suffered "an informational injury" because the letter did not fully apprise him of what he needed to do "to properly exercise his options under Section 1692(g)." Mr. Leszczynski contends he was harmed "by believing he was asserting these rights by phone, when in reality this method was insufficient and would not work." He does not, however, allege he attempted to dispute any part of the debt or to request the name and address of the original creditor in any way -- by phone, in writing, or otherwise. D&A moves to dismiss Lezsczynski's Complaint. It argues Leszczynski has not alleged a concrete injury and lacks standing to pursue his claims. Judge Pappert finds that (i) Leszczynski has not alleged he ever attempted to dispute any part of the debt D&A sought to collect; (ii) Leszczynski has not sufficiently pled D&A's letter was deceptive; (iii) a "narrow focus" on just one sentence in the letter "neglects the duty of even the least sophisticated debtor to read collection notices in their entirety"; and (iv) Leszczynski's interpretation is not a reasonable alternative interpretation and his conclusory characterization of the letter as "deceptive and misleading" is not enough to show he suffered an "informational injury" that would confer standing. For these reasons, Judge Pappert dismisses Leszczynski's claims without prejudice because Leszczynski lacks standing to sue. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/3hph7jum from Leagle.com. DONALD DUNCAN: Clark Sues Over Collection of Unlawful Loans ----------------------------------------------------------- Richard Clark and Clairmont Morrison, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DONALD DUNCAN, VICE CHAIRPERSON AND ACTING SECRETARY OF THE GUIDIVILLE BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE GUIDIVILLE RANCHERIA, in his official and individual capacities; BRENDA JOYCE ESTVANDER, TREASURER OF THE GUIDIVILLE BAND OF POMO INDIANS OF THE GUIDIVILLE RANCHERIA, in her official and individual capacities; MICHAEL DERRY, in his individual capacity only; RYAN STOCK, in his individual capacity only; TAN OAK FINANCIAL; CLEARKLAKE HOLDINGS; and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-20, Case No. 3:21-cv-00242-HEH (E.D. Va., April 13, 2021), is brought with regard to the making and collection of unlawful loans by several "Tribal Lending Businesses" formed by the "Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Rancheria, a federally recognized Native American tribe. These loans carry triple-digit interest rates, often in excess of 700%, and are illegal in many states such as Virginia where the Plaintiffs reside. Predatory lenders target vulnerable borrowers and, left unregulated, can devastate borrowers and their communities. Consumers often renew the loans or take out new loans when they are unable to pay their original loans, creating a cycle of mounting debt. Although the Guidiville Tribe may be motivated by its intention of advancing its own community, its effort to advance the Tribe and its members exploits desperately poor people in other communities who, in their moment of despair, agree to take a small dollar loan with triple- digit interest rates. The excessive interest rates used by the Tribal Lending Businesses is far in excess of the interest rates permitted in the states where they make and collect on the loans, the complaint asserts. This lawsuit challenges the Defendants' and others' ongoing collection of unlawful debts in Virginia through its usurious lending enterprise. Based on the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Defendants and others collected millions of dollars in unlawful debts and conspired with each other and others to repeatedly violate state lending laws resulting in the collection of unlawful debts from Plaintiffs and the class members. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that borrowers are not obligated to pay any outstanding principal or interest on these illegal loans. The Plaintiffs also seek to hold all the Defendants liable in their individual capacities for monetary damages for violations of the Virginia Consumer Finance Act, Virginia's usury laws, for common law conspiracy to violate Virginia's usury laws, and for unjust enrichment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are natural persons residing in Virginia. The Defendant Donald Duncan is the Vice Chairperson and Acting Secretary of the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians of the Guidiville Rancheria.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com ECHOSTAR CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 2 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA CITY OF HALLANDALE BEACH POLICE OFFICERS' AND FIREFIGHTERS' PERSONNEL RETIREMENT TRUST, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES W. ERGEN, MICHAEL T. DUGAN, DAVID J. RAYNER, ECHOSTAR CORP., ECHOSTAR BSS CORP., HUGHES SATELLITE SYSTEMS CORP., DISH NETWORK CORP., and BSS MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants. Case No.: A-19-797799-B Dept. No.: XI SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION TO: ANY RECORD HOLDERS AND ALL BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF ECHOSTAR CORPORATION ("ECHOSTAR") WHO HELD OR OWNED SUCH STOCK ON AUGUST 19, 2019, AND RECEIVED SHARES OF CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF DISH NETWORK CORPORATION ("DISH") IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF ECHOSTAR'S SATELLITE SERVICES BUSINESS TO DISH, INCLUDING ANY AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, ESTATES, HEIRS, AND ANY PERSON ACTING FOR OR ON BEHALF OF, OR CLAIMING UNDER, ANY OF THEM (THE "CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the District Court of Nevada, Eighth Judicial District, Clark County, that the above-captioned action ("Action") against Charles W. Ergen, Michael T. Dugan, David J. Rayner, EchoStar, EchoStar BSS Corporation, Hughes Satellite Systems Corporation, DISH, and BSS Merger Sub (collectively, "Defendants") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities that are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Class Action ("Notice"). Plaintiff City of Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust has been appointed by the Court to represent the Class. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS LAWSUIT. The full printed Notice is currently being mailed to known Class Members. If you have not yet received a full printed Notice, you may obtain a copy from the website for the Action, www.echostarshareholderlitigation.com, or by contacting the Administrator: A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173058 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (877) 933-2890 info@echostarshareholderlitigation.com If you did not receive the Notice by mail and you are a member of the Class, please send your name and address to the Administrator so that if any future notices are disseminated in connection with the Action, you will receive them. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Court-appointed Class Counsel: Eric L. Zagar, Esq. J. Daniel Albert, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 www.ktmc.com If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than retain your documentation reflecting your holdings in EchoStar Class A common stock. You will automatically be included in the Class, and you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Class. If you timely and validly request to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, and you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than June 2, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice. [GN] EMERGENT BIO: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Emergent BioSolutions Inc. ("Emergent" or "the Company") (NYSE:EBS) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Emergent securities between July 6, 2020 and March 31, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ebs. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent BioSolution's Baltimore plant had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for massive contaminations; (2) these longstanding contamination risks and quality control issues at Emergent BioSolution's facility led to a string of FDA citations; (3) the Company previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated from manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements about Emergent BioSolution's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore manufacturing site were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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 review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/ebs or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Emergent you have until June 18, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kahn Swick Reminds of June 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until June 18, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS), if they purchased the Company's shares between July 6, 2020 and March 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Emergent and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ebs/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by June 18, 2021. About the Lawsuit Emergent and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On March 31, 2021, post-market, news media outlets reported that the Company's employees at its Bayview facility had conflated or "mixed up" ingredients for the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, ruining up to 15 million doses of the J&J vaccine, and that this occurrence was not an isolated event but was part of a history of manufacturing issues at the Company's plant. On this news, shares of Emergent plummeted over 15% over the next two trading days, from a closing price of $92.91 per share on March 31, 2021, to close at $78.62 on April 5, 2021. The case is Palm Tran, Inc. - Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan v. Emergent Biosolutions Inc. et al, 8:21cv955. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients - including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Emergent Biosolutions Inc. ("Emergent Bio") (NYSE: EBS) between July 6, 2020 and March 31, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=15007&wire=5 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Emergent's Baltimore plant had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for massive contaminations; (ii) these longstanding contamination risks and quality control issues at Emergent's facility led to a string of FDA citations; (iii) the Company previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated from manufacturing standards; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore manufacturing site were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in Emergent Bio you have until June 18, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. 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 www.zlk.com [GN] EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ -The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Emergent BioSolutions Inc. ("Emergent BioSolutions" or "the Company") (NYSE: EBS) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 6, 2020 and March 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 18, 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. Emergent BioSolution's Baltimore facility had a pattern of manufacturing problems resulting in an increased likelihood of product contamination. The company suffered from a string of FDA citations due to the poor quality of its Baltimore operations. The Company was forced to discard the equivalent of millions of COVID-19 vaccine doses after the plant deviated from standard procedures. 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 Emergent BioSolutions, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] ERIE INSURANCE: Main Street Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Erie Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Main Street Hospitality Corp. doing business as: Brasserie 292, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Erie Insurance Company, Erie Insurance Company of New York, Case No. 1:21-cv-00127-MRH (W.D. Pa., April 23, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. Erie Insurance -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- sells auto, home, business and life insurance through independent agents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com ESTATES LLC: Court Tosses Plaintiffs' Second Bid to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN C. WILLIAMS, MARICOL YUNAIRA TINEO DE LEON, JAIRO VENSRIQUE LEON DA COSTA, and others similarly situated, v. THE ESTATES LLC, THE ESTATES REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC, TIMBRA OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, VERSA PROPERTIES LLC, RED TREE HOLDINGS, LLC, MALDIVES, LLC, CAROLYN SOUTHER, et al., Case No. 1:19-CV-1076 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an order: 1. denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file declaration of DeForest McDuff; 2. denying the plaintiffs' second motion to certify class; and 3. directing the parties to meet, confer, and then file a joint submission on or before May 10, 2021, identifying which defendants are unrelated to the claims of the named plaintiffs and the best mechanism for dismissing the claims against them. The Court says that the plaintiffs have not offered a sufficient plan to provide a common method of proving antitrust impact at trial. Without a common method to prove impact at trial, an individual assessment of whether and how the defendants’ scheme affected each class member's foreclosure sale will be required – in addition to individual issues of damages. Given these individual issues, common questions of law and fact do not predominate, and the motion for class certification will be denied. The plaintiffs Brian Williams, Mike Gustafson, Maricol De Leon, and Jairo Da Costa, lost their homes in three separate foreclosure sales and allege they received lower prices because of a bid-rigging conspiracy organized by the defendants. They seek to certify a nationwide Sherman Act class and a North Carolina subclass of similarly situated individuals who lost their homes in foreclosure proceedings where a member of the defendant organization, The Estates, was the highest bidder. A copy of the Court's order:dated April 22, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3b2ZsVF at no extra charge.[CC] FAIRSHARE VACATION: Amended Bid for Rule 23 Class Cert. Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLYN NOLEN, WINDY KELLEY, CARA KELLEY and PAULA LITTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Case No. 6:20-cv-00330-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying -- under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and/or, in the alternative, 23(c)(4) -- the following class: "All persons and entities who are citizens of the United States of America and who on or after March 14, 2008: (1) purchased a timeshare with a Property Interest (or the Use Rights therein) subject to the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use Management Trust or (2) purchased (including upgrading or refinancing) a Property Interest (or the Use Rights therein) previously subject to the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use Management Trust." This case involves a timeshare exchange program. Consumers, such as Plaintiffs, purchase timeshare interests from WVR which are then placed into the Trust. Once subject to the Trust -- also known as Club Wyndham Plus or the Fairshare Program -- timeshare purchasers can use their points to book stays at other resort locations affiliated with the Fairshare Program, rather than just at their home resort. Arkansas law imposes significant duties on trustees. Despite this, the Defendant allegedly Fairshare Vacation Owners Association has adopted a business model that violates this rule, using one of its related entities -- Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. -- to serve as Plan Manager and administer the Trust, allowing it to collect per year in excessive fees and by failing to return any surplus Trust Fund balance to the beneficiaries of the Trust. In so doing, Fairshare has breached its fiduciary duties. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 22, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ezQdwZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - James M. Terrell, Esq. Rodney E. Miller, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. The Highland Building 2201 Arlington Ave. S Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: jterrell@mtattorneys.com Rem@mtattorneys.com - and - Bradford D. Barron, Esq. THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 369 Claremore, Ok 74018 Telephone: (918) 341-8402 Facsimile: (918) 515-4691 E-mail: bbarron@barronlawfirmok.com FANEUIL INC: Faces Harris Suit Over CSR's Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- LOIS HARRIS, individually and behalf of all similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. FANEUIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01539-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 18, 2021) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendant's failure to include nondiscretionary bonuses in the regular rate of pay when calculating the overtime rate for the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated persons. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated persons overtime wages at one-and-one-half their regular rate for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a call center agent and/or customer service representative since January 6, 2020. The Defendant provides business-processing outsourcing solutions to other organizations, including remote customer care and technical support.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Michael David Forrest, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com FBCS INC: Rodriguez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FBCS, Inc. The case is styled as Jovanni Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FBCS, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02248 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. FBCS, Inc. also known as Financial Business and Consumer Solutions -- https://www.fbcs-inc.com/ -- is a debt collection agency located in Hatboro, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC 445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 210-7272 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com FEDEX GROUND: Sandoval Files Suit in California Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FedEx Ground Package System Inc. The case is styled as Gabriel Sandoval, Chloe Danae Crank, Marisa Grae, Bryan L. Hailey, an individual each on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FedEx Ground Package System Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 34-2021-00298577-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 13, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. -- https://www.fedex.com/ -- provides package delivery services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and business addresses throughout North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Higday, Esq. WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW 7700 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 930 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 674-4922 Email: mhigday@jnwpc.com FIBROGEN INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 11 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against FibroGen, Inc. ("FibroGen" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FGEN) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2019 and April 6, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 11, 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. FibroGen's past disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the Phase 3 program of roxadustat included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors. The Company's analyses with the original stratification factors resulted in higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals. The Company could not demonstrate that roxadustat reduces the risk of or is a better treatment than MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa. The Company faced uncertainty over the approval of its NDA for Roxadustat by the FDA. 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 FibroGen, 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] FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Schultz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource Advantage, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lisa M. Schultz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02244 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. FirstSource Advantage -- http://www.firstsourceadvantage.com/-- is a large debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC 445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 210-7272 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com FPI MANAGEMENT: Petitions for Writ of Mandate in Campbell Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, grants the petitions for writ of mandate in the case, RUTH CAMPBELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FPI MANAGEMENT, Inc., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B302664 (Cal. App.). Ruth Campbell, Jair Campbell, Shelia Handy and Alexis Gray ("Campbell Plaintiffs"), former tenants of low-income housing units subject to the requirements of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (HOME Act) (42 U.S.C. Section 12701 et seq.), filed a putative class action against FPI alleging violations of the UCL, CLRA and a cause of action for wrongful termination of tenancy arising from FPI's failure to give at least 30 days' notice before terminating their tenancies. FPI manages low-income apartment buildings on behalf of property owners. When tenants in FPI-managed low-income housing units failed to pay their rent, FPI issued three-day notices to quit or pay rent pursuant to California law. If the rent was not paid within the three-day notice period, unlawful detainer proceedings were initiated; and the tenants, including the Campbell plaintiffs, lost possession of their low-income housing units. Some of the Campbell plaintiffs lost possession following an unlawful detainer judgment; others surrendered the premises in accordance with agreements entered after unlawful detainer proceedings were initiated. Several, including Ruth Campbell, became homeless. In December 2018, the Campbell Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of former tenants who had rented properties subject to the HOME Act requirements and who "during the period Dec. 28, 2011 to the present, were served by FPI with a notice of termination of tenancy term of less than 30 days" ("HOME class"), sought certification of three causes of action in their fourth amended complaint: violations of the UCL and CLRA and wrongful termination of tenancy. The trial court granted class certification of the former tenants' claims for wrongful termination of tenancy and violations of the unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200, et seq.) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, Section 1750, et seq.). Class notice was approved and provided to members of the HOME class. The former tenants then filed a fifth amended complaint asserting the same claims on behalf of two additional putative sister classes and moved for class certification of the new claims. After the case was transferred to a different judge, the court denied class certification of the new putative class claims and, upon reconsideration, vacated the prior order certifying the existing class claims. In the rulings class certification of the wrongful termination of tenancy claim was denied or vacated without prejudice. On appeal, the former tenants contend the trial court exceeded its authority in vacating the class certification order made by a different trial judge. As to the merits of the court's rulings, they contend (1) the court erred in finding the UCL claim inherently unmanageable as a class action; and (2) the court improperly considered the merits of the CLRA and wrongful termination of tenancy claims rather than their amenability to class treatment. The Court of Appeals opines that the trial court did not exceed its authority in reconsidering the certification ruling of a different judge. According to the Campbell Plaintiffs, the same claims and trial plan Judge Buckley found wanting had been presented to Judge Court; Judge Buckley simply disagreed with her findings as to their adequacy for class treatment, a review that violated In re Marriage of Oliverez (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1242. However, as acknowledged in Parisi's declaration, the parties had not briefed, and Judge Court had not considered, arguments relating to the legal cognizability of a wrongful termination of tenancy claim or the effect on manageability of equitable defenses with respect to the UCL claim. Consideration of these new issues was at the core of Judge Buckley's ruling. In this specific context Judge Buckley had the authority to consider FPI's decertification request. The Campbell Plaintiffs' assertion that decertification was unwarranted goes to the merits of that decision, not the court's authority to act. Next, the Court of Appeals opines that the trial court erred in decertifying (and denying certification of) the UCL class claims. It finds that the court's observation that the Campbell Plaintiffs' trial plan conflated damages, which are not authorized under the UCL, with a prayer for restitution, which is, may well be sound; but it is not sufficient to defeat class certification, particularly here, where the Campbell Plaintiffs also sought injunctive relief for this claim, an authorized remedy under the UCL. There is no manageability problem, nor did the court identify one, with granting or denying injunctive relief. Moreover, the court's focus on individual restitution remedies as a generalized problem of manageability is misplaced. It is well established that individual issues regarding remedies may be decided in a bifurcated proceeding without defeating class treatment. Accordingly, while manageability of the class action is an appropriate criterion for deciding class certification, there was no evidence to support the court's finding that the UCL claim was "uniquely unmanageable." The trial court also erred in denying Certification of (and decertifying) the CLRA and wrongful termination of tenancy claims based on a merits finding rather than class action criteria. In denying class certification, the trial court did not reject the Campbell Plaintiffs' contention, supported by declarations, that FPI's uniform policy of using three-day notices was subject to common proof, nor did it identify any individual issues that predominated over class issues. Instead, it focused on the dubious nature of the claim itself, both legally and factually. The Court of Appeals does not address, let alone take issue with, those observations. It holds only that those matters are properly considered through substantive motions directed to the merits of the cause of action, not in the context of class certification. It finds that it is not the type of "exceptional case" where a determination of legal sufficiency is necessary to deciding the question of class certification. Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appals dismissed the appeals. Deeming the appeals petitions for writ of mandate, the petitions are granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to (1) vacate its Jan. 16, 2020 order decertifying the HOME class claims; (2) vacate its Sept. 26, 2019 order denying class certification of the Section 8 and regulatory class claims; and (3) issue a new order certifying the Section 8 and regulatory class claims. The Campbell Plaintiffs are to recover their costs in this proceeding. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/cztr6444 from Leagle.com. he Law Offices of Alan Himmelfarb, Alan Himmelfarb; Parisi & Havens, David C. Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Suzanne Havens Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com; and Thomas W. Kielty -- tomkielty@twk-law.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffrey A. Miller, Lann G. McIntyre -- lann.mcintyre@lewisbrisbois.com -- Jon P. Kardassakis -- Jon.kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- Michael K. Grimaldi -- mgrimaldi@lbbslaw.com -- Jeffrey Scott Ranen -- ranen@lbbslaw.com -- and Joshua David Carlon -- joshua.carlon@lewisbrisbois.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Sonteboa Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Collection Service, Inc. The case is styled as Tatiana Sonteboa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02260 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Franklin Collection Service, Inc. -- https://franklinservice.com/ -- provides collection and adjustment services. The Company offers skiptracing, accounts receivable management, bad debt recovery, and billing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com GEO GROUP: Garcia Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- MIGDALIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-01867 (E.D. Pa., April 21, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from The Geo Group, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) for work they performed for Geo Group. According to the complaint, Garcia and other workers like her regularly worked for Geo Group in excess of 40 hours each week but they never received overtime pay. Instead of being paid overtime as required by the FLSA and PMWA, they were paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek (or "straight time for overtime"). Plaintiff Migdalia Garcia worked for Geo Group in Morgantown, Berks County, Pennsylvania. Geo Group conducts substantial business and manages and/or owns correctional facilities (private prisons and/or mental health facilities) in Thornton, Delaware County, Pennsylvania (George W. Hill Correctional Facility) as well as elsewhere in Pennsylvania (Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility in Philipsburg, PA) and across the United States. Geo Group also conducts substantial business in this District and Division by providing "rehabilitation programs to individuals while in-custody and post-release into the community."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: crodriguez@bm.net - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. Josephson Dunlap, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone : 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. Bruckner Burch PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com GIGAMON INC: Dismissal of Golub Securities Class Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN E. GOLUB, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and BRIAN CARPENTER, Plaintiff v. GIGAMON INC.; COREY M. MULLOY; PAUL A. HOOPER; ARTHUR W. COVIELLO, JR.; JOAN A. DEMPSEY; TED C. HO; JOHN H. KISPERT; PAUL E. MILBURY; MICHAEL C. RUETTGERS; ROBERT E. SWITZ; DARIO ZAMARIAN; ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P.; ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P.; EVERGREEN COAST CAPITAL CORPORATION; GINSBERG HOLDCO, INC.; GINSBERG MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-16975 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the putative securities class-action lawsuit. On Nov. 24, 2017, Gigamon filed a proxy statement urging its shareholders to vote in favor of a proposed sale of Gigamon. Among other things, the proxy statement laid out: The proposed terms of sale, the company's current and projected finances, and the decision-making process of Gigamon's Board of Directors and CEO in approving and recommending the sale of the company. Gigamon supplemented this proxy statement on December 12, 2017, making minor updates to the background and fairness sections of that document. Some of Gigamon's shareholders, however, believed that Gigamon's directors and officers had deliberately agreed to sell Gigamon at an undervalued price and that Gigamon had filed "a materially false and misleading Proxy Statement in order to secure shareholder support for" that sale. As a result, a wave of putative shareholder class-action lawsuits against Gigamon sprung up in the Northern District of California. The district court consolidated those lawsuits into the present dispute and appointed Golub as the lead plaintiff. In the main, Golub's initial and later-amended complaints assert that Gigamon, its CEO, and its Board of Directors violated SEC Rule 14a-9, promulgated under section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, U.S.C. Section 78n(a), when they released the proxy statement. His operative amended complaint specifically identified five alleged misrepresentations of fact and two alleged omissions in the proxy statement that purportedly rendered false or misleading certain statements of opinion also contained in the proxy statement. The Defendants moved to dismiss both Golub's initial and amended complaints for failure to state a claim. The district court granted both motions to dismiss, primarily on the alternative grounds that Golub had failed to plead (1) an actionably false misrepresentation or omission that (2) could overcome the safe-harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-5. Moreover, the second time around, the district judge dismissed the amended complaint without further leave to amend because of the futility of Golub's prior amendments. Court entered judgment against Golub, and Golub filed a timely notice of appeal. After hearing oral argument in the appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated submission pending its decision in Wochos v. Tesla,, 985 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2021), which addressed claims of falsity under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. With the benefit of that decision, it now decides the matter through its Opinion and the simultaneously filed memorandum disposition. The Ninth Circuit holds that only proxy statements that contain "false or misleading" statements of "material fact" or omit "material facts" that render statements in the proxy false or misleading can give rise to liability under Rule 14a-9. 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9(a). Like its siblings, then, Rule 14a-9 is concerned primarily with questions of "fact." Given the presence of this limitation on liability under Rule 14a-9, the Ninth Circuit concludes that Omnicare's elucidation of what "facts" a statement of opinion may convey and the possibility and manner of proving those "facts" false or misleading through an omission theory applies to the Rule 9 context. The Ninth Circuit applies these standards in the simultaneously filed memorandum disposition in the case, and, as explained in that memorandum, affirms the decision and judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/8fvc2cae from Leagle.com. Randall J. Baron (argued), David T. Wissbroecker, Danielle S. Myers -- dmyers@rgrdlaw.com -- and Maxwell R. Huffman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, California; Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, in San Francisco, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jerome F. Birn Jr. -- jbirn@wsgr.com -- (argued) and David J. Berger -- dberger@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, in Palo Alto, California, for Defendants-Appellees Gigamon Inc., Corey M. Mulloy, Paul A. Hooper, Arthur W. Coviello Jr., Joan A. Dempsey, Ted C. Ho, John H. Kispert, Paul E. Milbury, Michael C. Ruettgers, Robert E. Switz, and Dario Zamarian. Brian M. Lutz -- blutz@gibsondunn.com -- (argued) and Michael J. Kahn -- mjkahn@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco; Nathan L. Powell, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, in Palo Alto, California; for Defendants-Appellees Elliott Management Corporation, Elliott Associates L.P., Elliott International, L.P., Evergreen Coast Capital Corporation, Ginsberg Holdco Inc., Ginsberg Merger Sub Inc. GIGAMON INC: Golub Fails to Allege Misstatements, 9th Cir. Opines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN E. GOLUB, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, and BRIAN CARPENTER, Plaintiff v. GIGAMON INC.; COREY M. MULLOY; PAUL A. HOOPER; ARTHUR W. COVIELLO, Jr.; JOAN A. DEMPSEY; TED C. HO; JOHN H. KISPERT; PAUL E. MILBURY; MICHAEL C. RUETTGERS; ROBERT E. SWITZ; DARIO ZAMARIAN; ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; ELLIOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P.; ELLIOTT INTERNATIONAL, L.P.; EVERGREEN COAST CAPITAL CORPORATION; GINSBERG HOLDCO, INC.; GINSBERG MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-16975 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming the district court's dismissal of the securities lawsuit for various reasons, including failure to allege plausible misstatements. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-5, required Golub's amended complaint to "specify each statement alleged to have been misleading," in Gigamon's proxy statement and "the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading." To that end, the Ninth Circuit reads Golub's amended complaint to allege: (1) five misrepresentations in connection with statements of opinion and two omissions in connection with statements of opinion. It examines these individual allegations in order to benchmark whether they are actionable," but "consider the allegations collectively and examine the complaint as a whole." The Ninth Circuit begins with the five alleged misrepresentations of the opinion of the Board of Directors that Golub identified in his complaint. With regard to the first theory, the complaint fails to allege plausible "misstatements of the psychological fact of the speaker's belief." The allegations in Golub's complaint admit of "two possible explanations" for the proxy's statements regarding the Board's opinions -- "only one of which can be true and only one of which results in liability." On the one hand, these allegations are consistent with the possibility that Gigamon's Board held very positive views of the company's long-term future, but conveyed the opposite impression in the proxy statement to effect the sale of the company by whatever means necessary. On the other hand, these allegations are also consistent with Gigamon having received two consecutive quarters of disappointing and unexpected results, which affected the directors' views of the company's present value and long-term success. Golub accordingly was required to plead "something more, such as facts tending to exclude the possibility that the alternative explanation is true." Like the district court, the Ninth Circuit concludes that Golub has not done so. His allegations that Gigamon and its directors suspiciously strayed from their previous "long-term" view of Gigamon's prospects -- suddenly adopting a "quarter-on-quarter" perspective -- is betrayed by his own allegations that the Gigamon directors revised their opinions regarding the company's prospects only after two consecutive quarters of disappointing results. Meanwhile, the May and July 2018 press statements that his complaint identifies lend no support on this front. The positive figures listed in these press statements are not inconsistent with the Board's professed determination in the proxy statement that Gigamon remained on a growth trajectory, albeit a more gradual one than the Board had expected before FY 2017's Q2 and Q3 results. Thus, they do not support the inference that the Board believed one thing, yet said another. Alternatively, interpreting Golub's complaint as challenging certain misrepresentations of embedded facts within these five statements of opinion, the Ninth Circuit concludes that such a challenge cannot succeed. At most, three of these alleged misrepresentations contain embedded statements of fact. And most of those embedded statements cannot evade the PSLRA's safe-harbor provision, as they are in and of themselves forward-looking statements regarding the company's future financial performance, accompanied by adequate cautionary language. Indeed, the only embedded fact that surmounts the PSLRA safe harbor is the statement that "the Company was currently performing at levels even below the Case C projections" when the directors decided to rely on the Case C projections on Oct. 24, 2017. But Golub has made no other allegations relating to the company's performance at that specific moment in time. He thus "pleaded no facts that would establish falsity in this sense." As for the alleged omissions in connection with statements of opinion, the Ninth Circuit concludes that Golub has again failed to allege falsity or to overcome the PSLRA's safe harbor. Such a claim required Golub to "identify particular (and material) facts going to the basis for Gigamon's and the Board's opinion whose omission makes the opinion statement at issue misleading to a reasonable person reading the statement fairly and in context." "That is no small task." And "whether an omission makes an expression of opinion misleading always depends on context," because "investors take into account the customs and practices of the relevant industry." Accordingly, Gigamon's alleged non-disclosure of partial FY 2017 Q4 earnings in advance of the Dec. 22, 2017 shareholder vote did not render false or misleading the Board's opinion that Gigamon would face "continued challenges to grow top-line revenue and accurately predict its quarterly results." Public companies generally release quarterly earnings only after a given quarter has ended. Moreover, one quarter of positive results -- following two quarters of unexpectedly poor numbers -- does not render misleading the Board's opinion (as of Dec. 22, 2017) that these particular challenges would continue. The Ninth Circuit holds that Golub failed to plead facts sufficient to show that the omission of the Updated Case B Projections rendered materially false or misleading the Board's opinion that those projections were "overstated." Moreover, the Board stated that it endorsed the proposed sale based on the Updated Case C Projections and disclosed those projections to its shareholders. Given this context, Golub failed to plead facts showing that the omission of details about the Updated Case B Projections made the Board's "expression of opinion misleading." In addition, both statements allegedly rendered misleading by this omission, are entirely forward-looking and accompanied by adequate cautionary language in the proxy statement. The PSLRA thus bars any claim based on these omissions. Because Golub has failed to state an actionable claim under Section 14(a), the Ninth Circuit also affirms the dismissal of his Section 20(a) claims against all the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/2edku6x2 from Leagle.com. GOOGLE LLC: Klotz Seeks to Recoup Money Lost to Illegal Gambling ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA KLOTZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 5:21-cv-00833-JRA (N.D. Ohio, April 21, 2021) seeks to recover money lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 3763.02 of the Ohio Revised Code. The complaint alleges that Google promotes, enables, and profits from games downloaded from the Google Play Store and played by numerous Ohio residents that constitute illegal gambling under the statutory law and the strong public policy of the state of Ohio. There are numerous gambling games that Google makes available in the Google Play Store, and there is very little variation on how they work. When a customer downloads the game and opens it for the first time, the customer has a set number of free starting "coins," for example, 100,000 or 1,000,000, to play the slots. The games themselves work precisely like a casino slot machine or other games in Las Vegas. In addition to slots, customers can play blackjack, roulette, poker, keno, bingo, and other card and gambling games. A loss results in a loss of "coins," but the customer has the chance to win more coins. Eventually a customer runs out of coins, and is prompted to use real money to buy more coins for the opportunity to keep playing the game. Hundreds of such games exist, the complaint says. Plaintiff Klotz downloaded and played several of these casino style gambling games. Beginning Dec. 30, 2020, she began purchasing coins through these apps so she could continue to play for a chance to win free coins that would enable her to enjoy the games for a longer period of time. Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Google LLC is the primary operating subsidiary of the publicly traded holding company Alphabet Inc. Google Payment Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Google LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Breen, Esq. BREEN LAW, LLC 7761 Chetwood Close, Ste. 100 Columbus, OH 43054 Telephone: (614) 374-3324 E-mail: john@breenlegal.com - and - Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. Dargan Ware, Esq. Davis & Norris, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com I.C. SYSTEM: Frankel Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The case is styled as Dov Frankel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-03199-PMH (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- is the leader in accounts receivable management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com J & M REALTY: Faces Arroyo Suit for Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY ARROYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J & M REALTY SERVICES CORP., 219 E. 27TH ST. CORP., 68 PERRY STREET LLC, BRA REAL ESTATE INC., and JERRY EDELMAN, DAVID EDELMAN, and JESSICA EDELMAN, in their individual capacities, Case No.1:21-cv-03611 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021) seeks relief for Defendants' unlawful actions, including compensation for unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory civil damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and and the New York Labor Law. In his capacity as a janitor/super, Plaintiff performed varied manual tasks necessary to maintain the upkeep and operation of the properties managed by J & M and owned, operated, and/or controlled by the other Corporate Defendants. The tasks performed by Plaintiff during his employment with Defendants included, but were not limited to: cleaning apartments, installing appliances and sheet rock, and repairing plumbing, electrical, and heating and cooling systems. Plaintiff was also required to purchase all materials necessary to perform his job duties, to the extent Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with the required materials, the complaint relates. The complaint alleges that Defendants maintained a pattern and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated, non-exempt employees, including supers, repair persons, cleaning staff, and employees providing other janitorial services, the minimum wage for all hours worked, the overtime rate of one-and-one half times the regular hourly/applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and spread-of-hours pay for each workday their shift or shifts exceeded 10 hours per day. Defendants regularly paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees a flat salary by check either twice monthly or monthly, apportioned among the entities for whom the employees performed, for all hours worked, including hours over 40. This payroll scheme is an obvious and willful avoidance of Defendants' obligation to pay minimum and overtime wages, as required under state and federal law, asserts the complaint. J & M operates as a property management company, providing property management services for residential, multi-unit apartment buildings throughout the New York City metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Ames, Esq. AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 825-1400 J&W GRADING: Court Tosses Brown Bid to Certify Class as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown, et al., v. J&W Grading, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01263 (D.P.R.), the Hon. Judge William G Young entered an order: 1. finding as moot the motion to certify class; 2. finding as moot the motion for sanctions; 3. finding as moot the motion for disclosure; 4. finding as moot the motion to amend/correct; 5. finding as moot the motion for protective order; 6. finding as moot the motion for Joinder. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. J&W Grading is a construction company.[CC] JAMES SQUARE: Settles for $5.5M; Former Residents to Collect Soon ----------------------------------------------------------------- James T. Mulder at syracuse.com reports that some former residents of the James Square nursing home will be getting checks in the mail soon now that a judge has approved a $5.5 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against the troubled facility's owners. The settlement was approved in Onondaga County Supreme Court. The lawsuit, filed 3 ½ years ago, claimed that short-staffing at the nursing home harmed residents, some of whom were left lying in their own feces and urine for hours. "It's a good measure of justice for the families," said Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, a lawyer who filed the suit. "Although nothing can compensate some people for the losses they have suffered, I'm hopeful it gives closure to the community." The state Attorney General's Office raided James Square in 2017 and seized records as part of an investigation of patient care problems at the 440-bed facility at 918 James St. The facility was sold in December 2017 to a new owner who changed its name to Bishop Rehabilitation and Nursing Center. The former owners who agreed to settle the class action suit are Abraham Gutnicki of Illinois, Judy Kushner of New Jersey and Eliezer Friedman of New Jersey. James Square had a history of horrible care, according to inspection reports. A resident in severe pain screamed and cried for nearly two days before she was sent to a hospital for treatment of a fractured leg bone in 2017. Not only did the nursing home's staff take too long to address the woman's problem, but they also failed to give her enough pain medication after the fracture was identified in an X-ray. That same year the nursing home accidentally locked out a resident who then crossed a busy street at night using a walker, fell and hit his head on the sidewalk and ended up in an emergency room. Nursing home staff responsible for the man's care did not know where he was for an entire shift. James Square is the place where a drugged intruder in 2016 barged into nursing home residents' rooms in the middle of the night, a nurse tried to unclog a man's feeding tube with a paper clip and a resident with dementia wandered out for a few beers. A class action suit is one in which a group of people who have suffered similar harm sue as a group and potentially share in any settlement. There are more than 2,000 former James Square residents and their relatives who are members of the class entitled to payments. To be members of the class and receive money, individuals had to fill out and submit claim forms. Frei-Pearson said $1.8 million of the settlement is for people with catastrophic claims. A claims administrator and medical experts will determine how much money people in that category will get. Those payments will probably not go out until later this year, Frei-Pearson said. Payments to other members of the class will be based on how many days they lived in James Square between Aug. 15, 2014 and Dec. 14, 2017. Those payments should start going out in about 30 days. Payments to those individuals will average about $1,000, but could be as high as $6,000, he said. Frei-Pearson's firm will collect $1.83 million in legal fees. The parties in the case reached a proposed settlement on Sept. 12, 2019. It took longer than usual to finalize it because it had to be approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Court and county court. James Square's owners filed for bankruptcy after the class action lawsuit was filed against them. Approval also was delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic which shut down courts for months.[GN] JONES NATURALS: Lazazzao Balks at Pet Products' False Ad -------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Lazazzao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jones Naturals, LLC, Case No. 604672/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., April 16, 2021) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the marketing and sales of its pet products, The Country Butcher and Jones Natural Chews, throughout the state of New York and throughout the U.S. According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the products using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to consumers who want to keep their pets healthy by using natural pet products, i.e., products that are "Natural" and/or "All Natural;" however, the Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the products contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients. The Defendant's conduct allegedly violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. The Plaintiff is an individual consumer who was a citizen of Nassau County, New York. The Plaintiff purchased the Products during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. Daniel Markowitz, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com KAISER PERMANENTE: To Pay $11.5M to Settle Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- beckershospitalreview.com reports that Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente has agreed to pay $11.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused it of discriminating against employees based on race, the company said April 22. The settlement was reached after more than two years of negotiations and covers about 2,225 Black employees in administrative support and consulting services. The lawsuit accused Kaiser Permanente of failing to provide the same career advancement opportunities for Black employees as other races and not having fair and equitable compensation for its Black employees. In addition to the monetary relief, Kaiser agreed to retain an independent consultant to develop and manage a job analysis review to create additional equitable opportunities in the organization. In addition, Kaiser will conduct an annual pay review, invest in more leadership development initiatives for historically underrepresented groups and educate employees and management about racial bias and equity. "As a mission-driven organization -- and a nationally recognized equity, inclusion and diversity leader -- we hold ourselves accountable for living our values by strengthening our inclusive culture and expanding our work to address any disparities and their root causes," Kaiser Permanente told Becker's Hospital Review. "Across Kaiser Permanente we are increasing our efforts to advocate for fair and just treatment, opportunity and advancement as well as embedding accountability for equity at all levels of the organization. Kaiser Permanente will continue to promote positive change, equity and total health for all -- inside our organization and within our communities." [GN] KROGER CO: Gammino Sues Over Misbranded Beverage Products --------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GAMMINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. Case 5:21-cv-02933 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2021) seeks an order compelling Defendant to, inter alia: (1) cease packaging, distributing, advertising, and selling their fruit-flavored sparkling water beverage products (the Products) for violation of U.S. FDA regulations and state consumer protection laws; (2) inform consumers regarding the products' misbranding; (3) award Plaintiff and the other Class-members restitution, actual damages, and punitive damages; and (4) pay all costs of suit, expenses, and attorney fees. Kroger manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets, and sells a variety of fruit-flavored sparkling water beverage products which include "Black Cherry," "Strawberry," "Black and Blueberry," "White Grape," "Mixed Berry," "Kiwi Strawberry," "Peach," "Blueberry Pomegranate," and "Pineapple Coconut," the complaint says. The complaint alleges that these fruit or berry flavors are advertised without any label notice disclosing that the Products are artificially flavored. All of the Products contain artificial flavoring chemicals that simulate the advertised fruit flavors, but Defendant conceals this fact from consumers. Accordingly, labeling is false and misleading, and the Products are misbranded under Federal and state law. By operation of federal and state law, all of the Product labels are fraudulent and all of the Products are misbranded and unlawful to sell in the United States. Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme for these Products is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium, all-natural product instead of a product that is artificially flavored, the complaint adds. Plaintiff Michael Gammino is a resident and citizen of Santa Cruz County, California, who purchased the Products multiple times in Santa Cruz County and Monterey County for personal and household consumption. The Kroger Co. is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. Kroger manufactures, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells the Products in Ohio, in California, and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com - and - David Elliot, Esq. ELLIOT LAW OFFICE, PC 2028 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 468-4865 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 LEVINE KELLOGG: New Class Action Targets Actor Zachary Horwitz -------------------------------------------------------------- In the wake of a $690 million Ponzi Scheme engineered by actor Zachary J. Horwitz against investors nationwide, Miami-based law firm Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman (LKLSG) filed a class action complaint on April 20, 2021, against Horwitz, his company 1inMM LLC and their bank, City National Bank. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of four investors who allege that Horwitz offered promissory notes with guaranteed returns of between 35% and 45%, telling investors that he would use the proceeds from the notes to acquire movie distribution rights and license them to media companies for a profit. Horwitz allegedly told investors that he had longstanding relationships with executives at HBO and Netflix. In truth, Horwitz had no such relationships and 1inMM had no distr1ibution deals. Instead, Horwitz allegedly used new investor funds to pay principal and interest to previous investors in a classic Ponzi scheme. He allegedly used some of the funds for personal use, including a multimillion-dollar residence, lavish gambling trips, chartered jets and luxury cars. The lawsuit also alleges that City National Bank knew about the alleged fraud and assisted it. City National held all of Horwitz's business and personal accounts, and allegedly knew about the fraud from a series of red flags associated with those accounts, including a series of transfers of money from investor accounts to Horwitz's personal account. When the accounts were nearly depleted, City National loaned Horwitz $1.4 million on a personal line of credit. LKLSG filed the case with San Francisco-based law firm Girard Sharp. More information is available at www.horwitzponzi.com. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP (www.lklsg.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to future matters. Opportunities to discuss your particular case are welcomed. All communications are treated confidentially. About Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman LLP LKLSG is a Miami-based commercial law firm providing focused, efficient, and hands-on representation in high-stakes legal proceedings including complex commercial litigation, class actions, bankruptcy and receiverships, lender/borrower litigation and workouts and labor and employment litigation. [GN] LONGWOOD SECURITY: Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Deductions of Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rafael Gonzalez, and Saint-Gerard Charlestin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LONGWOOD SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2184CV00860C (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 13, 2021), is brought on behalf of people who work or worked for the Defendant in Massachusetts for violations of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter which establish a private right of action for employees who believe they are victims of certain violations of the state wage laws. The Defendant deducted money from Plaintiffs' weekly paycheck to be deposited into their 40IK accounts with Fidelity Investments. Since September, 2020, monies that were deducted from employees' paychecks were not deposited into their respective 401k accounts with Fidelity investments. The Plaintiffs were scheduled to and did work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were not compensated the proper hourly wage for all hours worked over 40 hours per week The Plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief, statutory trebling of all damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, as provided for by law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant, working in Boston, Massachusetts. Longwood Security Services, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business located in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacey Klein Verde, Esq. RESERVITZ McCLUSKEY, P.C. 1325 Belmont Street Brockton, MA 02301 Phone: (508) 588-5010 Email: stacey@rmlawma.com LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 8 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown" or the "Company") (formerly known as DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and docketed under 21-cv-00760, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown securities between August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec 240.10b-5. If you are a shareholder who purchased Lordstown securities 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. According to its website, Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers. The Company's purported flagship vehicle is the "Endurance," an electric full-size pickup truck. On August 3, 2020, Lordstown and DiamondPeak announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement through which, upon closing, the combined company would remain listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the new ticker symbol "RIDE." DiamondPeak was setup as a special purpose acquisition company (also known as a SPAC). DiamondPeak's shares traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol "DPHC." The August 3, 2020 release provided, in relevant part, that the transaction valued Lordstown "at an implied $1.6 billion pro forma equity value," and that the transaction was expected to deliver approximately $675 million in gross proceeds. The release announced that the transaction was expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2020. On October 22, 2020, Lordstown and DiamondPeak announced that DiamondPeak shareholders had approved the merger. On October 23, 2020, Lordstown announced that it had completed the business combination with DiamondPeak, and that beginning on October 26, 2020, Lordstown's Class A shares would begin trading on the NASDAQ Global Select market under the ticker symbol "RIDE," and that its warrants would trade on NASDAQ under the symbol "RIDEW." The complaint alleges 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 Company's purported pre-orders were non-binding; (ii) many of the would-be customers who made these purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such purchases and/or would not have credible demand for Lordstown's Endurance; (iii) Lordstown is not and has not been "on track" to commence production of the Endurance in September 2021; (iv) the first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10 minutes; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Before the markets opened on March 12, 2021, analyst Hindenburg Research published a scathing report on Lordstown entitled: "The Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno." As alleged in greater detail below, in this report, Hindenburg noted that Lordstown has "no revenue and no sellable product," and wrote that the Company "has misled investors on both its demand and production capabilities." The Hindenburg report concluded that Lordstown's "orders are largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer legitimacy," and that a former employee "explained how the company is experiencing delays and making 'drastic' design modifications, putting [Lordstown] an estimated 3-4 years away from production," rather than the Company being "on track" for a September 2021 production start. On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell approximately 16.5% in one day, down from its March 11, 2021 closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of just $14.78. This represents hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market capitalization. Then on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held an earnings call on which Defendant Burns disclosed that Lordstown had received an inquiry from the SEC. Remarkably, although Lordstown also issued a press release and a Form 8-K announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results after trading closed on March 17, 2021, the Company failed to disclose the existence of the SEC inquiry in those filings.[1] On this news, the stock fell approximately another 9% in aftermarket trading. 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] MATRIX WARRANTY: Mey Files TCPA Suit in N.D. West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Diana Mey, on behalf of herself and a class of others similarly situated v. Matrix Warranty Solutions, Inc., Matrix Financial Services, LLC, SING for Service, LLC, Hard Tack, LLC, John Doe Defendants 1-5, Case No. 5:21-cv-00062-JPB (N.D.W. Va., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Matrix Warranty Solutions -- https://www.matrixwarrantysolutions.com/ -- was founded in 2006 and is one of America's premier providers of underwritten aftermarket service plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Robey, Esq. Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq. HISSAM FORMAN DONOVAN RITCHIE PLLC 707 Virginia Street, East, Suite 260 Post Office Box 3983 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (681) 265-3802 Fax: (304) 982-8056 Email: arobey@hfdrlaw.com rdonovan@hfdrlaw.com MCA ELGIN: Montgomery Sues Over Illegal Use of Biometric Info ------------------------------------------------------------- DYLAN MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCA ELGIN INC., Case No. 2021L000457 (18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Ill., April 22, 2021) seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in collecting, storing and using his and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The complaint alleges that the Defendant collected, stored and used -- without first providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention policies -- the fingerprints and associated personally identifying information of hundreds of its employees (and former employees), who are being required to "clock in" with their fingerprints. This practice of requiring employees to "clock in" using their fingerprints was in place at least since approximately December 2017. If Defendant's database of digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff left Defendant's employ in approximately April 2019 and was "clocking in" using his fingerprints during his tenure of employment with Defendant. MCA Elgin Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Itasca, Illinois. Defendant owns and operates franchises of various restaurant chains, including the McAlister's Deli franchise location where Plaintiff was employed. Defendant operates these brands throughout Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com MEDICAL SYNERGY: Cooperative Medical Seeks to Certify TCPA Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COORPERATIVE MEDICAL CARE CORPORATION, P.A. On behalf of itself and all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL SYNERGY, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00046-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a putative class defined as follows, or such other class or subclasses as may be appropriate: "All persons in the United States who received a facsimile from or on behalf of Defendant advertising its services and who had no ongoing business relationship with Defendant and had not given consent to receive facsimiles from defendant, within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint until the class is certified." The Plaintiff brings this action to secure redress from the Defendant Medical Synergy practice of sending unsolicited promotional faxes consent of the recipient in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Medical Synergy is a national medical marketing and promotion firm. To promote its products and services, Medical Synergy sends marketing facsimiles to medical offices. On February 20, 2020, Medical Synergy sent a marketing facsimile to Cooperative Medical. Cooperative Medical had no business relationship with Medical Synergy and had not given Medical Synergy its number or consented to receiving the Fax. Medical Synergy's action of sending this unsolicited facsimile caused both monetary and nonmonetary damage to Cooperative Medical, including the costs of paper, ink and toner, employee time to review the Fax, invasion of privacy, nuisance, stress, aggravation, interruption of work, trespass to chattel by interfering with the office facsimile used to aid patients, and the violation of Cooperative Medical's rights under the TCPA, the suit says. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Pspzxq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald I. Frederick, Esq. Michael L. Berler, Esq. Michael L. Fine, Esq. FREDERICK & BERLER LLC 767 E. 185 th Street Cleveland, OH 44119 Telephone: (216) 502-1055 Facsimile: (216) 781-1749 E-mail: ronf@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com mikeb@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com michaelf@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com MERCER INVESTMENT: Lutz Suit Moved to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Ellen Lutz, Lea Shurmatz, Kristin Schwartz, Linda Spring, Alexia Christodoulides, individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Plans, Movants v. Mercer Investment Consulting, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-1112 was moved from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 23, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-mc-00415 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Compel. Mercer Investment Consulting LLC -- https://www.mercer.com/ -- provides investment management services.[BN] The Movants are represented by: Michael James Lingle, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: (585) 272-0540 Web: www.theemploymentattorneys.com NEW HORIZON: Tahirou Files Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDOUL MALIK TAHIROU, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. NEW HORIZON ENTERPRISES, LLC; ELIZABETH JOHNSON; JANELLE LESINKSY; JOYCE MICHELLE CARSWELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-00281-MPS (D. Conn.), Plaintiff Tahirou files the instant motion for class certification pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 23. The Plaintiff seeks an Order from this Court for: (1) certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2) appointing Plaintiff Abdoul Malik Tahirou as class representative; (3) appointing Carey & Associates, P.C. as class counsel; (4) permitting Plaintiff to circulate a class action notice to the class members by the method(s) laid out in the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law; and (5) granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. New Horizons provides environment consulting services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 20, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tYhmQv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Carey, Esq. CAREY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 71 Old Post Road, Suite One Southport, CT 06890 Telephone: (203) 255-4150 Facsimile: (203) 255-0380 E-mail: mcarey@capclaw.com OHIO BUREAU: Ohio App. Affirms Decision & Judgment in Cirino Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Michael Cirino, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20AP-187 (Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County, affirms the Feb. 28, 2020 Decision and Judgment Entry issued by the Court of Claims of Ohio. The Decision granted the motion of Defendant-Appellee Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") for summary judgment, denying the motion of the Appellant for partial summary judgment, and rendering judgment in favor of BWC. The case began in 2010, when Cirino sued BWC in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, challenging the legality of fees incurred by certain BWC benefits recipients. BWC filed a motion to dismiss Cirino's suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The common pleas court denied the motion to dismiss and, on appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. On motion of BWC, the Supreme Court of Ohio granted discretionary review. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that Cirino's suit against BWC in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and not within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the common pleas court ("Cirino I"). The Supreme Court came to this conclusion after finding that Cirino's claims were legal claims, not equitable claims, regardless of how they were characterized by Cirino. It vacated all orders issued by the common pleas court, including an order certifying a class, and remanded the case to the common pleas court for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Thereafter, on Aug. 1, 2018, Cirino filed a "class action complaint" in the Court of Claims that was based on the identical circumstances as those underlying the lawsuit in Cirino I. In discussing those circumstances and the evidence in Cirino I, the Supreme Court stated that Cirino's own testimony demonstrates he chose to incur the $5 fee charged by Chase in exchange for the convenience of a teller transaction, despite that he could have chosen to use several other methods for accessing his funds without incurring any such fee. In the case, Cirino again asserts that BWC acted unlawfully in permitting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to charge fees associated with a BWC-authorized "debit card program," which, according to Cirino's claim, resulted in BWC shifting administrative costs to BWC claimants in violation of R.C. 4123.341. He also asserts that BWC violated its duties as set forth in R.C. 4123.67 by providing Cirino and other members of a proposed class of similarly situated individuals "with a method or mode of payment that was subject to monthly withholding of transaction fees, charges, costs, or expenses." He seeks legal, declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. On Nov. 29, 2018, BWC filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). On Jan. 10, 2019, the trial court granted the motion in favor of BWC on all of Cirino's equitable claims except his claims for declaratory relief and injunctive relief. On Dec. 18, 2018, Cirino moved for class certification, and on Dec. 19, 2018, he moved for partial summary judgment on liability. On Jan. 17, 2019, BWC moved: (1) for an extension of time to file responses to Cirino's motions for class certification and partial summary judgment; and (2) to stay any ruling on class certification until after the court issued a ruling on Cirino's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. On Feb. 8, 2019, the trial court granted BWC's motions, thereby staying consideration of Cirino's motion for class certification until all summary judgment proceedings had been determined and permitting BWC to file responses to Cirino's motions for class certification and partial summary judgment within 120 days of the court's entry. Subsequently, on June 10, 2019, BWC filed a document titled "Defendant's Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability." In response, Cirino moved (1) for an extension of time until July 1, 2019, to submit a response to BWC's combined motion for summary judgment and memorandum in opposition, and (2) for leave to file a reply in support of Cirino's motion for class certification. On June 21, 2019, the trial court granted Cirino's motions in two separate entries. On July 2, 2019, Cirino filed a response to BWC's cross-motion for summary judgment and a reply in support of Cirino's motion for class certification, and also moved for leave to file a reply instanter. That same day, BWC moved to strike Cirino's response and reply because Cirino failed to timely file them. On July 3, 2019, Cirino filed a response opposing BWC's motion to strike and also moved for leave to file a memorandum and reply instanter. The trial court determined that, notwithstanding Cirino's response and reply filed on July 2, 2019 were untimely, both filings should be accepted in the interest of justice and BWC's motion to strike should be denied. It further denied as moot both Cirino's motion of July 2, 2019 for leave to file a reply instanter and Cirino's motion of July 3, 2019 for leave to file a memorandum and reply instanter Thereafter, on Feb. 28, 2020, the trial court issued a decision and concurrent judgment entry in which it denied Cirino's motion for partial summary judgment on liability filed on Dec. 19, 2018; denied as moot Cirino's motion for class certification filed on Dec. 18, 2018; granted BWC's motion for summary judgment filed on June 10, 2019 on all remaining claims; and rendered judgment in favor of BWC. The timely appeal followed. The Appellant assigns three errors for the Court of Appeals' review: (1.) The Court of Claims erred, as a matter of law, by dismissing Plaintiff-Appellant's Claims for Equitable Relief upon the pleadings through Civ.R. 12(C). (2.) Given the undisputed factual record, the Court of Claims further erred as a matter of law by denying Plaintiff-Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment upon liability and instead granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee. (3.) Because a meritorious claim for monetary damages has been established in the evidentiary record, the Court of Claims also possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. A. Appellant's First Assignment of Error In his first assignment of error, the Appellant asserts the Court of Claims erred, as a matter of law, by granting the motion of BWC for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) and dismissing his claims for equitable relief. The Court of Appeals disagrees. It finds that the claim seeks compensatory relief -- a classic form of legal relief. Thus, the Supreme Court has already determined that all of Cirino's claims are legal claims, not equitable claims. It follows, then, that Cirino has failed to state claims for equitable relief, and BWC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these claims. Accordingly, the Court of Claims did not err in granting the motion of BWC for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) and dismissing the Appellant's claims for equitable relief, and the Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. B. Appellant's Second Assignment of Error In his second assignment of error, the Appellant asserts the Court of Claims erred as a matter of law by denying his motion for partial summary judgment on liability and granting summary judgment in favor of BWC. The Court of Appeals finds no merit in this assignment of error. It holds that because neither of the statutes relied on by Cirino for his claims of entitlement to monetary compensation provides a private cause of action, his claims fail as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court of Appeals finds that the trial court neither erred in denying Cirnio's motion for partial summary judgment on liability nor erred in granting BWC's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, it overrules Cirino's second assignment of error. C. Appellant's Third Assignment of Error In Cirino's third assignment of error, he contends that a meritorious claim for monetary damages has been established by the evidentiary record and therefore the Court of Claims has subject-matter jurisdiction over Cirino's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. This assignment of error is premised on the trial court's finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief in light of its finding that Cirino's claims failed as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals has previously found that the trial court correctly determined that Cirino's claims fail as a matter of law in overruling his second assignment of error; accordingly, this assignment of error is moot. Disposition For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court did not err in granting BWC's motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C), the trial court did not err in denying Cirino's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and the trial court did not err in granting BWC's motion for summary judgment. Having overruled Cirino' first and second assignments of error and having found Cirino's third assignment of error moot, it affirms the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/4buzs7yz from Leagle.com. On brief: Bashein & Bashein Co., L.P.A., and W. Craig Bashein -- cbashein@basheinlaw.com -- and John P. Hurst -- jhurst@basheinlaw.com; Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers -- pwf@pwfco.com -- and Louis E. Grube -- leg@pwfco.com; Charles J. Gallo Co., L.P.A., and Charles J. Gallo -- cjgallo@gallolawfirm.com -- for appellant. Argued: Paul W. Flowers. On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Christopher P. Conomy, and Randall W. Knutti, for appellee. Argued: Christopher P. Conomy. OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARIM KHOJA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS, INC., JOSEPH P. HAGAN, MICHAEL A. NARACHI, and PRESTON KLASSEN, Case No. 3:15-cv-00540-JLS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order: 1. vacating hearing; 2. granting preliminary approval of class action settlement; 3. provisionally certifying settlement class; 4. approving notice and notice plan; 5. appointing class counsel and class representative; 6. appointing settlement administrator; and 7. setting schedule for final approval process. The Proposed Settlement provides for a $4,800,000 Settlement Amount. The Settlement Amount will be applied as follows: to pay the reasonable costs and expenses of the Claims Administrator incurred in connection with providing notice and administrating the settlement (not to exceed $250,000); to pay certain taxes and tax expenses; to pay Class Counsel's fees (not to exceed thirty-three percent of the Settlement Amount); and to pay Class Counsel's and Lead Plaintiff's expenses (not to 19 exceed $185,000); with the balance (the "Net Settlement Fund") to be distributed to Authorized Claimants. Each Settlement Class Member who wishes to receive a portion of the Net Settlement Fund must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form by the date provided in the Proposed Notice. This litigation commenced on March 10, 2015, when Lisa Colley filed a complaint alleging that Defendant Orexigen Therapeutics made materially misleading statements when it disclosed confidential 25% interim data from a large-scale clinical trial of its weight loss drug, Contrave, on March 3, 2015. A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aKpUTQ at no extra charge.[CC] PARADISE GRILLING: Prime Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDE PRIME, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARADISE GRILLING SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-00648 (M.D. Fla., April 13, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged intentional and willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Tile Cutter from approximately September 2019 to present. The Plaintiff asserts that although he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. Paradise Grilling Systems, Inc. manufactures and sells outdoor kitchens and grills. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Hall, Esq. Bruce A. Mount, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Tel: (407) 574-4999 ext. 412 Fax: (833) 813-7512 E-mail: ahall@theleachfirm.com bmount@theleachfirm.com yhernandez@theleachfirm.com PG&E CORP: $10-Mil. Class Settlement in Vataj Suit Gets Prelim. Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER VATAJ, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM D. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06996-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement filed by Co-Lead Plaintiffs Ironworkers Local 580 Joint Funds, Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds and Robert Allustiarti. The Plaintiffs bring the securities class action against Defendants PG&E and certain of its officers and directors regarding representations that the Defendants made about PG&E's safety protocols following PG&E's bankruptcy and in the wake of several California wildfires caused by PG&E equipment. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E securities on the New York Stock Exchange between Dec. 13, 2018, and Oct. 28, 2019. The Plaintiffs allege that following the devastating California wildfires between 2015 and 2018, PG&E initiated three measures in an effort to reduce the risk of future wildfires: (1) temporary power shutoffs when high winds and low humidity made wildfires particularly likely (what the Plaintiffs refer to as "de-energization"); (2) visual inspections of all of its poles located in high fire threat areas; and (3) inspection for and removal of vegetation overhanging or abutting its power lines. The complaint further alleges that the Defendants, individual officers at PG&E, made materially false and misleading statements regarding the scope of and protection offered by these safety measure. In particular, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) PG&E's new wildfire prevention and safety protocols were inadequate and missed dangerous conditions; and (ii) PG&E was unprepared for the rolling power outages. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs assert causes of action for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act on 1934, and Rule 10b-5, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78b-1, 78t(a). Plaintiff Vataj initially filed the action on Dec. 25, 2019. Three movants then filed timely motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA") and Civil Local Rule 3-7(b): (1) Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds and Ironworkers Locals 40, 361 & 417 Union Security Funds ("Iron Workers Funds"); (2) Robert Allustiarti; and (3) Bob Vavl. On Jan. 6, 2020, Mr. Vavla filed a notice of withdrawal of his motion. Iron Workers Funds and Mr. Allustiarti subsequently filed a stipulation agreeing to be co-lead plaintiffs, and selected and retained Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. to serve as the co-lead counsel. On Feb. 3, 2020, the Court granted the stipulation appointing the Plaintiffs as the Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended class action complaint on April 17, 2020. The individual Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Before briefing was complete, the parties mediated the action before the Hon. Layn R. Phillips (ret.) on April 23, 2020. Although the parties did not reach a settlement that day, they continued discussions with the mediator's assistance. After exchanging numerous offers and counteroffers, the mediator proposed that the parties settle the claims asserted in the action for $10 million. The parties accepted the mediator's proposal, and filed a notice that they had reached a settlement in principle. They then worked to finalize the settlement. Following the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval, and in response to the Court's concerns about the scope of the release, the parties filed a supplemental brief in support of their motion, which included revised language. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, fully executed on March 9, 2021. The key terms are as follows: a. Class Definition: All persons and entities who purchased the common stock of PG&E on the New York Stock Exchange between Dec. 13, 2018, and Oct. 28, 2019, both dates inclusive. b. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant will make a $10 million non-reversionary payment. The gross Settlement Fund also includes Court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration fees, any additional payment to the Plaintiffs as class representative, and payments to the class members. The cash payments to the class will be based on a "recognized loss formula" for each share of PG&E common stock, which will account for factors including when the PG&E common stock was purchased or otherwise acquired during the class period; the amount of stock acquired; and whether such stock was sold, and if so, the timing and proceeds of the sales. Each class member must submit a Proof of Claim to the settlement administrator to be eligible for a payment from the Settlement Fund. c. The Settlement Fund will be distributed in the following way: attorneys' Fees: $2.5 million (25% of the Settlement Fund); attorneys' Litigation Costs: $100,000; Notice Administration and Claims Processing: $265,000; Award to Co-Lead Plaintiffs: $5,000 each ($15,000 total); and Amount of Distribution to Class Members: $7.12 million. The parties have estimated that after the deductions identified, individual class members will receive approximately $.014 per share of PG&E common stock. d. Cy Pres Distribution: If six months after the initial distribution of funds any funds remain in the Settlement Fund by reason of uncashed checks or otherwise, such funds will be re-distributed to class members who have cashed their checks and who would receive at least $20 from such re-distribution. If any funds still remain in the Settlement Fund six months after such re-distribution, then the balance will be contributed to the University of San Francisco School of Law's Investor Justice Clinic. e. Release: Under the settlement agreement, all class members will release: Any and all claims, including Unknown Claims, damages, actions, obligations, attorneys' fees, indemnities, subrogations, duties, demands, controversies, and liabilities of every nature, at law or in equity (including, without limitation, claims under federal and state securities laws, and at common law), suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, matured or unmatured, whether arising out of or relating to the period prior to or after the date of the Initial Complaint that any Releasing Persons in their capacity as a shareholder of PG&E (a) asserted in the Initial Complaint, the Complaint, or the Action; or (b) could have been asserted in any forum that arise out of, are based upon, or are related in any way directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, to the allegations, transactions, facts, matters or occurrences, representations or omissions involved, set forth, or referred to in the Initial Complaint, the Complaint, or the Action and that relate to the purchase, acquisition, sale, disposition or holding of PG&E common stock during the Class Period. f. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will mail class notices within 14 days of the Court's order granting preliminary approval to all class members who can be identified with reasonable effort by the Claims Administrator, advising them of the Settlement and of the availability of documentation on the settlement website. The settlement administrator will also publish a summary notice via a newswire with national distribution, within 21 days of the Court's order granting preliminary approval. And finally, the settlement administrator will post the key case and settlement materials on the following website: www.pgesecuritiessettlement.com. g. Incentive Award: The named Plaintiffs may apply for an incentive award of no more than $5,000. h. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Class Counsel will file an application for attorneys' fees not to exceed 25% of the gross settlement fund, or $2.5 million, as well as costs not to exceed $100,000. The parties also reference a confidential supplemental agreement as part of the class action settlement for which they seek preliminary approval. The supplemental agreement details the conditions under which the Defendants may terminate the settlement if the number of requests for exclusion from the settlement class exceed a certain amount. Pending before the Court is the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement filed by the Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Judge Gilliam held a telephonic hearing on March 11, 2021. During the preliminary approval hearing, Judge Gilliam directed the parties to file the supplemental agreement for the Court's review. The parties did so, and filed the document provisionally under seal. However, the parties failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5, and did not explain why the supplemental agreement should be sealed in its entirety or confirm that their request is "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." The Judge therefore directs the parties to file a motion to seal the supplemental agreement that comports with Civil L.R. 79-5. Next, Judge Gilliam finds that (i) numerosity is satisfied because joinder of the thousands of estimated class members would be impracticable, (ii) although the amount to which each class member is entitled will differ, the issues described are common to the proposed Settlement Class; (iii) the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' claims are both factually and legally similar to those of the putative class; and (iv) the Co-Lead Counsel and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have prosecuted the action vigorously on behalf of the class to date, and will continue to do so. The Plaintiffs therefore have met the Rule 23(a) Certification requirements. The Judge also finds that the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are met. He concludes that (i) for purposes of settlement, common questions predominate because the same operative facts apply to each proposed class member and (ii) a class action enables the most efficient use of Court and attorney resources and reduces costs to the class members by allocating costs among them. Because he finds that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs meet the commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), the Judge appoints the Co-Lead Plaintiffs as the class representatives. In addition, the Co-Lead Counsel has efficiently investigated and litigated the case. As the Judge explained in the order appointing the law firms of Pomerantz and Rosen Law to serve as the co-lead counsel, both firms have extensive experience as the lead counsel in securities class actions. Finding that provisional class certification is appropriate, Judge Gilliam considers whether it should preliminarily approve the parties' class action settlement. Having weighed the relevant factors, he preliminarily finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and grants preliminary approval. He directs the parties to include both a joint proposed order and a joint proposed judgment when submitting their motion for final approval. The Judge also preliminarily approves the Plan of Allocation. He finds that the Plan of Allocation here uses a "recognized loss" value that tailors the recovery of each class member to the timing of any sales or purchases of PG&E common stock relative to periods of alleged artificial inflation and corrective disclosures, as well as the number of shares at issue in each class member's claim. Thus, the Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis according to each class member's recognized loss. Lastly, the Judge finds that the content of the proposed notice provides sufficient information about the case and conforms with due process requirements. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval. The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event listed, which will be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of the Order: a. Deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all the putative Class Members; b. Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion; c. Filing deadline for incentive payment motion; d. Deadline for the Class Members to opt-out or object to settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payment, at least 45 days after the filing of the motion for attorneys' fees and incentive payments; e. Filing deadline for final approval motion; and g. Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions. The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class notice plan with the edits identified. The Order terminates Dkt. No. 98. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/j4a8wrmk from Leagle.com. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Kohn Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters --------------------------------------------------------------- USHER KOHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01975 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendants for their alleged abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices in violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Synchrony Bank primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The Defendant purportedly purchased the alleged debt from Synchrony Bank. Synchrony Bank contracts of sale for defaulted debt provide specific limitation on the ability of its debt purchasers to make any collection attempts while alleged debtors are in disaster areas as determined by Federal Emergency Management Agency. Subsequently on or about April 14, 2020, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter in an attempt to collect the alleged debt despite the fact that the Plaintiff clearly resided in a disaster area in April 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic. By sending collection letters given the express conditions of sale, the Defendant misrepresented its ability to collect the Plaintiff's alleged debt, thereby violating the FDCPA, the suit says. As a result of the Defendant PRA's alleged unlawful collection practices, the Plaintiff has incurred injury. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com PRESSLER FELT: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, L.L.P., et al. The case is styled as Yakov Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, L.L.P., John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:21-cv-10118 (D.N.J., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pressler, Felt & Warshaw -- https://pfwattorneys.com/ -- offers a unique debt collection approach that balances the need to protect the rights of our clients with the need to provide a respectful consumer centered collection experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Marchese Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Marchese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02263 (E.D.N.Y., April 23, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ -- provides healthcare revenue cycle management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Barshay, Esq. BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC 445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 210-7272 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Court Consolidates Malriat, Gowda & Leo Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned JOSEPH MALRIAT, Plaintiff v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants; ASHA GOWDA, Plaintiff v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants; and CHRISTOPHER LEO, Plaintiff v. QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION F/K/A KENSINGTON CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP., et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 3:21-cv-00058-WHO, 3:21-cv-00150-WHO, 3:21-cv-00070-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order: a. consolidating the three captioned suits; and b. appointing putative class member and movant Frank Fish as the Lead Plaintiff and his choice of lead counsel. Defendant QuantumScape makes battery technology for electric vehicles. It went public on Nov. 25, 2020. The case stems from an article published on Jan. 4, 2021, in "Seeking Alpha," which stated that QuantumScape's solid-state batteries had risks that made them "completely unacceptable for real world field electric vehicles." In particular, it reported that the batteries "will only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of aggressive driving" and "the power and cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above would have been significantly worse if run even a few degrees lower." QuantumScape's stock price then fell by roughly 41%, or $34.49 "on unusually heavy trading volume." The suit is about statements by QuantumScape and its executives that are alleged to be false or misleading and its alleged failure to disclose adverse facts to investors. Those statements and omissions are to the effect that QuantumScape overstated the capabilities of the batteries and withheld that it would be unable to "scale" its technology to the extent necessary to power electric vehicles. On Jan. 5, 2021, Joseph Malriat filed a class action complaint in the District. Two other such complaints followed: one by Asha Gowda on January 6 and one by Christopher Leo on January 8. Judge Orrick ordered those cases related to the Malriat matter. The counsel for Malriat published a notice on Business Wire on January 6 announcing the action as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Pursuant to the PSLRA, 12 movants filed motions to consolidate the three cases and be appointed the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel on March 8, 2021. After reviewing the competing motions, eight of the movants either withdrew their motions or filed statements of non-opposition to others being appointed lead plaintiff. Four prospective lead plaintiffs remain: Frank Fish, Bala Mullur, Richard Hedreen, and Matthew Palucci. Judge Orrick held a hearing on all of the motions on April 14, 2021. I. Consoidation Every movant seeks consolidation of the three actions before the Court, the Defendants agree they should be consolidated, and no party opposes consolidation. Because these three cases concern fundamentally the same alleged misrepresentations about the same company's stocks made by the same Defendants on the same theory of liability, they "involve common questions of law or fact." Accordingly, as is the norm in securities class actions, Judge Orrick consolidates the Malriat, Leo, and Gowda actions under FRCP 42(a). II. Appointment of Lead Counsel As noted, four competing movants still vie for appointment as lead plaintiff. Judge Orrick finds that Fish is adequate to represent the class and is typical of it. Fish purchased stock during the class period. He has adopted the allegations in the complaint. He lost money when the stock value dropped. He has previously been the lead plaintiff in a securities class action (albeit one that was unsuccessful). He states that he has invested in securities for 35 years. He says he "routinely oversees attorneys" related to his real estate business. In short, he seems able to prosecute the action and is representative of the class. Fish has shown he is adequate and typical. No other competing movant has produced sufficient proof to rebut that showing. Judge Orrick appoints Fish to be the Lead Plaintiff. III. Selection of Class Counsel Fish has selected Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as his counsel. That selection is entitled to substantial deference. The firm has been appointed lead counsel or co-lead counsel in dozens of securities class actions, including in this District. A number of courts have found the firm qualified to conduct these actions. No one argues that the firm is inadequate or unqualified, other than the attack on their past representation of a different movant in a different case in which Fish was a competing movant. Fish's selection is approved. As he mentioned , Judge Orrick expects the firm to exert special care in safeguarding against errors in its filings. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, Judge Orrick consolidated the the three captioned suits. Malriat v. QuantumScape Corporation, et al., 3:21-cv-00058-WHO, will be treated as the main file and all filings in the case will be placed on that docket. The case will be redesignated "In re QuantumScape Securities Class Action Litigation" and all filings will bear that name. Frank Fish is appointed the Lead Pplaintiff under the PSLRA. His selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as the Lead Counsel is approved. Fish and the Defendants will adhere to the stipulated order at Dkt. No. 15 requiring them to confer within 10 days of the Order and submit a stipulated proposed schedule for (1) filing an amended complaint or designating an operative complaint and (2) briefing the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. A related derivative action about substantially the same subject matter is also proceeding in front of Judge Orrick -- In re QuantumScape Corporation Derivative Litigation, 3:21-cv-00989-WHO. The Judge intends to address dispositive motions in both matters on the same timeline to the extent it maximizes efficiency and ensures that all parties can weigh in on each common issue before he rules in either case. He will set initial case management conferences in both matters for the same date and time after he receives the stipulated proposed schedule in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3mtbtwnm from Leagle.com. RENEWABLE ENERGY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces 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. REGI Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/renewable-energy-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=15056&wire=1 Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:REGI) REGI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 3, 2018 - February 25, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/renewable-energy-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=15056&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Renewable Energy Group, Inc. made materially 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 was not the proper claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020; (3) as a result, Renewable Energy'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) 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. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] ROMEO POWER: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Romeo Power, Inc. ("Romeo") (NYSE: RMO; RMO.WT) f/k/a RMG Acquisition Corp. ("RMG") (NYSE: RMG; RMG.U; RMG.WS) investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Romeo securities between October 5, 2020 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Romeo securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 15, 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/romeo-powerclass-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=romeo Romeo is an energy technology company focused on designing and manufacturing lithium-ion battery modules and packs for commercial electric vehicles. RMG, a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, was formed for the purpose of entering into a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses in the diversified resources and industrial materials sectors. On October 5, 2020, RMG announced a definitive agreement for a business combination with Romeo. On December 29, 2020, Romeo announced that it completed its business combination with RMG. The business combination was approved by RMG stockholders in a special meeting held on December 28, 2020 and consummated on December 29, 2020. During the Class Period, the defendants represented that for 2020 Romeo estimated revenue of $11 million, and for 2021 Romeo estimated revenue of $140 million. The defendants further represented that Romeo had the capacity and supply to meet end-user demand for Romeo's products, that Romeo was not beholden "to any level of the value chain," that its supply was hedged, and that it did not see any material challenges that would hamper growth. The truth was revealed on March 30, 2021 when, after the market closed, Romeo issued a press release and filed a report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on a Form 8-K that disclosed its financial results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2020, and conducted a conference call with investors and analysts. The defendants shocked investors by disclosing that Romeo's production had been hampered by a shortage in supply of battery cells and that its estimated 2021 revenue would therefore be reduced by approximately 71-87%. On March 31, 2021, Morgan Stanley issued a research report in which it downgraded Romeo's target price per share from $12 to $7. Following this news, Romeo shares declined from a closing price on March 30, 2021 of $10.37 per share to close at $8.33 per share, a decline of $2.04 per share, or almost 20%. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants concealed that: (1) Romeo had only two battery cell suppliers, not four; (2) the future potential risks that the defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage had already occurred and were already negatively affecting Romeo's business, operations and prospects; (3) Romeo did not have the battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up production in 2021; (4) Romeo's supply constraint was a material hindrance to Romeo's revenue growth; and (5) Romeo's supply chain for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market for their 2021 inventory. Romeo investors may, no later than June 15, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN] ROMEO POWER: Thornton Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE:RMO). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased RMO stock or other securities between October 5, 2020 and March 30, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/RomeoPower to submit their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. The case alleges that Romeo Power and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i) Romeo Power had only two battery cell suppliers, not four; (ii) the future potential risks that defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage had already occurred and were already negatively affecting Romeo Power's business, operations, and prospects; (iii) Romeo Power did not have the battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up production in 2021; (iv) Romeo Power's supply constraint was a material hindrance to Romeo Power's revenue growth; and (v) Romeo Power's supply chain for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market for their 2021 inventory. It is alleged that given the supply constraint Romeo Power had no reasonable basis to represent that it had the ability to meet customer demand and that it would support growth in revenue in 2021. Interested Romeo Power investors have until June 15, 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/RomeoPower [GN] RPM WHOLESALE: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Cardwell Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- KYLER CARDWELL, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RPM WHOLESALE & PARTS, INC., and GUY A. PARSONS, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-10831-LVP-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 13, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a laborer and receiving clerk. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff often worked approximately 54 hours or more for 5 consecutive days during a workweek. However, the Defendants did not properly pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times for hours worked in excess of 40. Instead, the Defendants paid them straight-time rate in a separate cash envelope for hours worked over 40, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover damages from the Defendants for unpaid overtime compensation plus liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be allowed by law. RPM Wholesale & Parts, Inc. operates as an automotive salvage company. Guy A. Parsons is the owner and principal of Defendant RPM. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Goodman, Esq. PHILIP J. GOODMAN, P.C. 280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 407 Birmingham, MI 48009 Tel: (248) 647-9300 E-mail: pjgoodman1@aol.com - and – Robert W. Cowan, Esq. BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC 5555 San Felipe St., Suite 900 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 425-7100 E-mail: rcowan@bchlaw.com S-L DISTRIBUTION: Maranzano Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN MARANZANO v. S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-01997-JEJ (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff Maranzano asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, certifying a class of: "all similarly situated individuals who performed work for the Defendant as an IBO in New Jersey during the relevant statutory period. As will be fully discussed in a brief to be filed within 14 days per Civil Rule 7.5, class certification is appropriate because the class satisfies all requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and the questions relating to liability and damages for the class members' New Jersey wage claims will be resolved based on common evidence." SL is a whole distributor of various snack food products manufactured by subsidiaries and affiliates of SL. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2R0jmt4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. Zach Rubin, Esq. Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 - and - Chad Hatmaker, Esq. J. Keith Coates, Esq. WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC Post Office Box 900 Knoxville, TN 37901 Telephone: (865) 215-1000 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Deceptively Sold Defective Products, Lee Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Lee, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-01321 (S.D. Tex., April 21, 2021) arises from the harm caused by the Defendant to its consumers in connection with the design, manufacture, advertising, sale and performance of Samsung-branded kitchen appliances with a "black stainless steel" finish. The complaint alleges that Defendant sells the Black Stainless Steel Appliances with a "black stainless steel" finish that it advertised as a premium, durable, luxury finish, while concealing and omitting that the finish was a thin plastic coating -- rather than a sturdy metal finish -- and that the finish was prone to peel, chip, flake, and prematurely degrade through the ordinary use of the Black Stainless Steel Appliances. The Black Stainless Steel Appliances are, thus, defectively designed. Owners of Black Stainless Steel Appliances risk, through regular use, having the defect contaminate the food cooked or cleaned in the appliances, and potentially cause related harm resulting from the ingestion of the "black stainless steel" finish, the complaint adds. Plaintiff is a natural person who at relevant times resided in Katy, Texas. Plaintiff purchased the defective Black Stainless Steel Appliances based on his reasonable expectation that the Appliances would work and be reliable as advertised and impliedly warranted, and without knowledge of the defect. Samsung Electronics is a New York corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. It manufacturers and markets consumer goods, including household cooking appliances under the Samsung brand name, encompassing, among other things, ovens, electric and gas cooktops, dishwashers, microwaves, and clothes washers and dryers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. Alexander D. Kruzyk , Esq. Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC 400 Congress, Ave., Ste. 1540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com SPECTRUM RESTAURANT: Underpays Delivery Staff, Jesus Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL DE JESUS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. SPECTRUM RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a MANHATTAN VALLEY, and BHUPINDER KUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03197 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful employment policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a delivery person on or around August 17, 2020 until he was terminated on or around October 18, 2020. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated delivery persons were paid by the Defendants at a base hourly rate of $10.00 per hour. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Defendants required him to perform substantial off-the-clock works prior and after his scheduled hours, about one hour and 15 minutes per workday, without being compensated. The Defendants purportedly paid him and other similarly situated delivery persons below the minimum wage at an invalid "tip credit" minimum wage, the suit says. The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants failed to properly provide tip credit notice at hiring and annually thereafter, provide proper wage statements clearly indicating tip credit allowance for each payment period, and accurately keep track of daily tips earned and maintain records thereof. The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking an injunction against the Defendants and their officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concern with them as provided by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, and patterns. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover unpaid wages, including those due to off-the-clock work and invalid tip credit, as well as statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses, reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Spectrum Restaurant LLC d/b/a Manhattan Valley is a domestic limited liability company operating as a restaurant. Bhupinder Khumar exercises operational control of the company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 STATOIL USA: Bid for Expedited Briefing in Rescigno Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANGELO R. RESCIGNO, SR., AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHERYL B. CANFIELD, Plaintiff v. STATOIL USA ONSHORE PROPERTIES INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-85 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the Objectors' motion for discovery and request for an expedited briefing schedule. The Objectors are Alan and Carol Marbaker, Jerry L. Cavalier, and Frank K. Holdren. The Objectors have made their disagreement with the settlement in the case clear through their brief in opposition to the motion for preliminary approval, their motions to consolidate, to intervene, to stay the proceedings, and finally through their formal objections to the Plaintiff's motion for final approval. In the present motion, the Objectors move for leave to take discovery as well as for an expedited briefing schedule. Both the Plaintiff Angelo Rescigno, Sr. and Defendant Statoil USA Onshore Properties, Inc. ("SOP") filed briefs in opposition. The Objectors filed a reply brief. Since the Objectors' motion, Rescigno filed a motion for final approval as well as a motion for attorneys' fees. The Objectors filed their objections. Rescigno and SOP filed reply briefs. The Objectors seek 11 exceptionally broad categories of documents, many of which are overlap, including: (1) all documents, data and information exchanged between the settling parties; (2) expert opinions and analysis any party relied upon in negotiating the settlement or expects to introduce to support final approval; (3) all the discovery Objectors previously obtained during their two-year period of mediation with SOP but were subsequently required to destroy when negotiations broke down; (4) the Stine's lease; (5) the Stine's retention agreement and documentation showing when and how they became involved in the case; (6) all of the documents either party intends to rely on or might rely on at the final fairness hearing (emphasis added); (7) any witnesses either party intends to present or might present at the final fairness hearing (emphasis added); (8) documents and dates showing all forms of leases within the settlement class and information about damages calculations and the allocation of the monetary portion of the settlement among the lease forms; (9) information and communications between the parties concerning settlement terms, the Marbaker case, and the Marbaker mediation--in particular class counsel's failure to respond to Objectors' July 2017 offer to assist class counsel to prevent SOP from taking advantage of them; (10) documents showing dates and substances of all communications with the court concerning settlement, scheduling of settlement, scheduling of settlement proceedings, or settlement negotiations; and (11) documents sufficient to show terms of other settlement agreements between SOP and any other person regarding disputes about royalty terms of lease forms included within the class. The overarching reason the Objectors provide for seeking these items revolves around their desire to gauge whether the settlement amount is a fair compromise of the class's claims. In response, SOP asserts that this is yet another attempt by Objectors to "gain control of the Rescigno litigation and settlement through every procedural contrivance available." SOP states that, while it is not opposed to producing limited discovery, Objectors' discovery greatly exceeds the breadth and volume of discovery available to them per Third Circuit precent and, as such, suggests that Objectors are yet again attempting to relitigate this matter in its entirety. Thus, SOP proposes that the Court holds the motion in abeyance until the parties have filed their papers in support of final approval after which the parties can evaluate whether Objectors should be afforded additional discovery. Judge Mannion agrees. Judge Mannion concludes that the Objectors are in a far better position than most to ascertain the fairness of the settlement and as a result they should have, at a minimum, been able to describe with some specificity the documents they require to prove their claims of unfairness. Accordingly, because the Objectors have produced no evidence of collusion, because they have not demonstrated lead counsel did not engage in adequate discovery or that the record available is inadequate for them to raise objections, and because they have not been and will not be denied meaningful participation in the determination of the fairness of the settlement, the motion discovery and expedited briefing is denied. An appropriate order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/6kzcuj5a from Leagle.com. SUBCONTRACTING CONCEPTS: Kennedy Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Kennedy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Subcontracting Concepts, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Smyth Automotive, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, and John Doe Corporations I-XX, Case No. 1:21-cv-00287-MWM (S.D. Ohio, April 21, 2021) sues the Defendants for unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes; and Ohio Revised Code Ann. for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff all earned overtime wages. According to the complaint, Defendants, in their sole discretion, agreed to compensate Plaintiff at a rate of $12.78 per hour. Plaintiff was compensated this rate by Defendants regardless of how many hours he worked in a given workweek. Plaintiff, in his work for Defendants, typically worked 45 hours or more per week. The complaint alleges that rather than classify Plaintiff as an employee, Defendants classified him as an independent contractor. As a matter of common policy and practice, Defendants misclassify all of their delivery drivers as independent contractors. Consistent with this common policy and practice, Plaintiff and others similarly situated individuals have been intentionally misclassified by Defendants as independent contractors. As a result of Defendants' common misclassification policy, Defendants have not paid overtime pay to Plaintiffs and others similarly situated. Plaintiff Larry Kennedy was hired and worked for Defendants as a delivery driver from approximately May 2019 through approximately March 2020. SCI is a Delaware limited liability company licensed to transact business in the State of Kentucky and the State of Ohio. Smyth Automotive is an Ohio corporation licensed to transact business in the State of Kentucky and State of Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone AZ: (480) 382-5176 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON 6000 Freedom Square Dr. Independence, OH 44131 Telephone:(216) 525-8890 Facsimile:(216) 642-5814 E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com TEAMVIEWER US: C.D. California Refuses to Remand Gershfield Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JACK GERSHFIELD, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TEAMVIEWER US, INC., and DOES 1-100, Defendant, Case No. SACV 21-00058-CJC (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand based on his First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Gershfield brings the putative class action against Defendant Teamviewer US and unnamed Does, alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and California's Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"). The Plaintiff initially filed his claims in state court but the Defendant removed the case, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). On Sept. 19, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased a year-long subscription to the Defendant's remote-access software. To complete the purchase, the Plaintiff was required to provide his name as well as his credit card number, expiration date, and verification code. A year later, in September 2020, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant renewed his subscription without his authorization by disclosing his private credit card information to the Defendant's credit card processor. The Plaintiff alleges that the unauthorized exfiltration and disclosure of his personal information to a third party violated the CCPA. He also alleges that the Defendant violated the UCL by, among other things, unlawfully charging him for services that he did not authorize, need, or want. The Plaintiff brings his claims on behalf of all similarly situated individuals. His original Complaint defined his UCL subclass as all of the Defendant's California customers "on and after Dec. 1, 2016, who were charged for the Defendant's software subscription [and] did not want, need or use said software." It also defined his CCPA subclass to include all of the Defendant's California customers "on and after Jan. 1, 2020, whose accounts, credit or debit cards were charged without their affirmative, explicit and unequivocal authorization." However, after the Court denied the Plaintiff's previous motion to remand -- concluding that the preponderance of the evidence showed that the amount in controversy met CAFA's $5 million requirement -- the Plaintiff narrowed the definition of both subclasses. The class definitions now include only customers who were charged for the Defendant's software and "communicated that they did not want, need, or use said software by requesting a refund. Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand based on his First Amended Complaint. He seeks to remand the case based on the narrowed class definition contained in his First Amended Complaint. He argues that because the class members now include only the Defendant's customers who "disputed the charge and/or requested a refund," the Defendant cannot show that the amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's $5 million requirement. The Plaintiff's argument is flawed, however, because the Court cannot consider his amended class definition when determining jurisdiction over a removed action. The Plaintiff contends that the Court may consider his amended class definition based on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Benko v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 789 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2015). Judge Carney disagrees. In Benko, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the local controversy exception required remand of a case removed under CAFA. The court held "that plaintiffs should be permitted to amend a complaint after removal to clarify issues pertaining to federal jurisdiction under CAFA." It reasoned that because complaints filed in state court "may not address CAFA-specific issues, such as the local controversy exception," plaintiffs may need to amend their complaint to "provide a federal court with the information required to determine whether a suit is within the court's jurisdiction under CAFA." Unlike the amendment in Benko, which clarified a CAFA-specific issue that would not ordinarily be addressed in a state court complaint, Judge Carney finds that the amendment in the instant case changed the class definition -- an issue central to the case whether it is filed in state or federal court. As the Ninth Circuit stated in Broadway Grill, "Benko did not strike a new path to permit plaintiffs to amend their class definition, add or remove defendants, or add or remove claims in such a way that would alter the essential jurisdictional analysis." Allowing such amendment would permit "what CAFA was intended to prevent: An amendment changing the nature of the class to divest the federal court of jurisdiction." Accordingly, Judge Carney may not consider the Plaintiff's amended class definition in determining whether remand is appropriate. For the foregoing reasons, he denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mtycev8r from Leagle.com. TELESIS CDE: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Jane Doe, individually, on behalf of the general public and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Telesis CDE Corporation, Carver Terrace LP, Neighborhood Partners, LLC and CT Group, LLC, Case No. CV 496 (D.C. Super., April 22, 2021) seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Consumer Protection Procedures Act for unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by the Defendants related to their ownership and management of the Carver Terrace apartments located at 2026 Maryland Ave NE, Washington DC 20002. The complaint alleges that the Carver Terrace Apartments suffer from a widespread unsanitary and unsafe rodent infestation that Defendants have consistently failed to resolve in violation of District of Columbia law and leasing agreements. Plaintiff and her neighbors have spent considerable time and money attempting to make their residences safe and sanitary in light of the Defendants repeated failures. Their traps, cats, and other self-help remedies have not been able to solve the pervasive and extreme rodent infestation--but those strategies have mitigated some of the harm, and the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by Plaintiff and the Class' efforts, the complaint says. Plaintiff currently resides at the Carver Terrace Apartments. Telesis CDE Corp. is an owner of the Carver Terrace Apartments. According to their website, the company "plans, finances, and creates" urban communities that livable, beautiful, civil, and safe. The company has a registered business address of 1101 30th St. NW, Fourth Floor, Washington, D.C., 20007. Carver Terrace LP is a limited partnership with the same registered business address as Telesis CDE. Neighborhood Partners, LLC limited liability company has the same registered address as Telesis CDE. CT Group is a collection of affiliated management entities which specializes in managing affordable and low-income properties, including the Carver Terrace. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H. St. NE Washington, DC 20002 Tel: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com TIKTOK INC: Faces Massive Lawsuit That Potentially Worth Billions ----------------------------------------------------------------- gamerant.com reports that TikTok, the popular video app, is facing a billion-pound class-action lawsuit over its processing of children's information inside the United Kingdom and European Union. The legal claim has been brought against TikTok and parent company ByteDance Ltd. by former Children's Commissioner for England Anne Longfield. TikTok and ByteDance Ltd. have been caught in various controversies over data gathering in the last few years. In recent memory, TikTok's Musical.ly received a $5.7 million fine by the United States Federal Trade Commission for that app's handling of children's data. The claim was filed in the High Court of England and Wales in December of 2020 and is currently in a holding pattern pending the outcome of the Lloyd v Google case. This lawsuit claims that the app is in violation of UK and EU child protection law and does not have consent to take and process children's data. On top of this, the lawsuit claims that the data is being gathered without sufficient warning as well. Longfield is supporting a claim made by law firm Scott + Scott that wants TikTok to delete children's information it has gathered from UK and EU users and pay compensation as well. Details contained within the alleged gathered information include children's phone numbers, videos, pictures, and location and, if the case is successful, these child users could be entitled to thousands of pounds. According to the lawsuit, every child user within the United Kingdom and European Union that has used the app since May 25, 2018 has been affected by this data gathering. The claimants put the number of affected children at around 3.5 million in the United Kingdom. The core of the case hinges on the argument that TikTok has failed to be transparent about the extent to which it gathers children's data and why it has been gathered. Whether or not the case leads to another TikTok fine or reveals the company's lack of guilt, it seems unlikely it will greatly affect the app's popularity. It has reached over 2 billion downloads worldwide and has reported 800 million monthly active users worldwide as of July 2020. What makes these numbers especially noteworthy is the fact that the app has only been around for four years. But the international lawsuits and bans must have had some effect on the company's bottom line. It seems unlikely that the waves of bad press for TikTok would have had no impact and perhaps it is only a matter of time before the TikTok trend begins to slow its pace. For now, the case awaits the results of Lloyd v Google before the matter can be settled and its impact measured. [GN] TRANSPORT CORPORATION: Johnson Sues Over Drivers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. and MINNWEST BANK, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-01003-DWF-ECW (D. Minn., April 16, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff against Transport America for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking to recover additional wages as necessary to satisfy minimum wage, plus interest, damages, penalties, and attorney fees. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other leasing drivers' wages routinely and consistently fall below the FLSA minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and the Minnesota minimum wage of $9.86 per hour in 2019 and $10.08 per hour in 2021. Transport America offers long-haul ground cargo transportation services using combination tractor-trailer trucks. As part of its overall driver workforce, Transport America retains drivers to provide long-haul ground freight transportation services for its customers and/or third-party shipping brokers. Minnwest is a Minnesota Chartered Bank with its primary place of business at 300 South Washington Street, Redwood Falls, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. Scott A. Moriarity, Esq. BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 252-3570 E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com samoriarity@baillonthome.com TRIBESMEN GROUP: Chavez Sues Over Carpenters' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MIKE S. CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. TRIBESMEN GROUP, INC., and ENDY LALLY, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01981 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter from on or around November 1, 2015 until October 22, 2020. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the Defendants required him to work in excess of 40 hours virtually each week. However, the Defendants willfully failed to pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, the Defendants paid him on an hourly basis at his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked, including those hours worked in excess of 40, the suit says. In addition, the Defendants allegedly failed to provide him with any wage notice upon his hire, as well as with any wage statement on each payday from November 1, 2015 through September 30, 2018 or an accurate wage statement on each payday from October 1, 2018 through October 22, 2020. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated carpenters, the Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover all damages they have sustained as a result of the Defendants' unlawful pay practices, including all unpaid wages, liquidated damages and any other statutory penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs and disbursements, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court finds necessary and proper. Tribesmen Group, Inc. operates a Brooklyn-based construction company specializing in carpentry. Endy Lally owns, operates, and manages Defendant Tribesmen. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Ave., Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Claims in Smith Class Suit Narrowed --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, ASHA SMITH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Civil Action No. 20-2086 (E.D. Pa.). Like many students at colleges and universities across the country, Plaintiffs Asha Smith and Emma Nedley were forced to leave their dormitories and continue coursework online in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They and other students at the University of Pennsylvania ("Penn") demanded partial refunds for the second half of the spring 2020 semester, claiming they received a materially different educational experience of lesser value than what they had been promised. Penn refused. The Plaintiffs then brought the putative class action asserting claims for breach of contract. They contend that Penn breached its promise of in-person classes and an on-campus experience when it moved classes online, ordered students to leave campus, canceled events and activities, and closed most campus facilities. The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion on behalf of themselves and members of two classes: (1) the Tuition Class, consisting of all persons who paid tuition for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes for the spring 2020 semester; and (2) the Fees Class, consisting of all persons who paid fees for or on behalf of students enrolled in classes for the spring 2020 semester. They seek a pro-rated refund of the tuition and fees for the second half of the spring 2020 semester. Penn has moved to dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not and cannot identify an express promise that Penn breached. Judge Savage grants Penn's motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part. He concludes that the alleged facts do not establish that Penn breached its contract with the Plaintiffs regarding tuition payments. However, the Plaintiffs have stated a breach of contract claim regarding the fee payments. The unjust enrichment claim is barred by the parties' contract. The conversion claim is barred by the gist of the action doctrine. Therefore, the Judge dismisses only Counts I, II, IV and V. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/2a68njf8 from Leagle.com. VALLEY PROTEINS: Hollis Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HOLLIS, HERMAN PURVIS, and VERAKA STURDIVANT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VALLEY PROTEINS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00112-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting conditional certification of this action and for court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 3. directing the Defendants a production of names, last known mailing addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and 4. directing the Plaintiffs to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via first class mail, email, and text message to all putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs. Valley Proteins provides rendering and recycling of animal by-products. The Company offers animal fats and oils, feed fat, yellow grease, poultry fat, and biofuel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 20, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xqEOIv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Charlotte Smith, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Henson, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 1001 Haxall Point, Suite 1500 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 697-1390 Facsimile: (804) 697-1339 E-mail: ndrew.henson@troutman.com - and - Ashley Z. Hager, Esq. Emily E. Schifter, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP Bank of America Plaza 700 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 885-3000 Facsimile: (404) 885-3900 E-mail: ashley.hager@troutman.com emily.schifer@troutman.com WALMART INC: St. Louis Judge Oks $5M Settlement Over Sales Tax Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- stltoday.com reports that a federal judge approved the settlement of a lawsuit that claimed Walmart was bilking customers by not refunding sales tax on returned items. The original lawsuit, which sought class-action status, said Scott Pearlstone returned salsa, vitamins and a can of green beans that he'd bought in 2017 at the Walmart in Manchester, but didn't get back all of the sales taxes he paid. An employee told him the store doesn't refund sales taxes on certain items, the suit says. Under the terms of the settlement, shoppers who filed a claim by April 1 will split $5 million, minus attorneys' fees and other costs. Those fees and costs were projected in the settlement to eat up about half of the money. More than 230,000 claims had been filed by March. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey in St. Louis granted preliminary approval in November and final approval of the settlement. [GN] WAY FONG: Perez, et al. Sue for Unpaid Wages and Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO PEREZ, JOSE GUAMAN, and JULIO GUAMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WAY FONG LLC, WAY FONG WHOLESALE, INC., WAY FONG HOLDING, INC., and WALLY POON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01984 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation and spread of hours pay, according to proof, including Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law liquidated damages, and interest, to be paid by the Defendants. Plaintiff Perez was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt driver and maintenance person from approximately 2012 until February 3, 2021. Plaintiff Jose Guaman was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly helper on Defendants' trucks from approximately May 2012, until the end of April 2020. From 2012 until early 2018, Plaintiff Julio Guaman was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly helper on Defendants' trucks. From early 2018 until his termination at the end of April, 2020, Plaintiff Julio Guaman was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt hourly warehouse worker. Defendants Way Fong LLC, Way Fong Wholesale, and Way Fong Holding, together operate a meat and poultry processing plant, a Chinese food production plant, and also manufacture and distribute meat, poultry and food to wholesale and retail customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 110 State Highway 35, Suite 10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (718) 799-9111 E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com WELLS FARGO: S.D. New York Grants Bids to Dismiss Reyes Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re JUSTO REYES, In re KAREN JACKSON, Chapter 13, Debtors. JUSTO REYES and KAREN JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case Nos. 16-22556 (SHL) (Reyes), 16-23514 (SHL) (Jackson), Adv. No. 19-08248 (SHL) (Reyes), 19-08249 (SHL) (Jackson) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Sean H. Lane of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York grants Wells Fargo's motions to dismiss. The motions are brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which is made applicable to these adversary proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012(b). In 2008, the Federal Government created several programs to provide eligible homeowners with an opportunity to modify the terms of their mortgage to make their mortgages more affordable. Under the applicable guidelines for these programs, mortgage servicers like Wells Fargo evaluate the eligibility of borrowers for loan modifications. Before any final modification, a borrower may first be placed in a Trial Period Plan ("TPP"). If a borrower makes all required trial payments under a TPP and experiences no change relative to the other eligibility requirements, then the borrower should be approved for a permanent loan modification. On April 12, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed these adversary proceedings as a putative class action against the Defendant on behalf of similarly situated individuals. The proposed Class includes: "All loan borrowers in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York who (1) filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York; (2) owed amounts to Wells Fargo, as servicer and/or holder, on debt secured by real property; (3) entered into a TPP with Wells Fargo; (4) whose TPP did not contain an express provision stating that they could be refused a permanent Loan Modification in the event that a subordinate lienholder refused to subordinate its existing lien to their modified mortgage; (5) made all required payments pursuant to the terms of that TPP; and (6) were denied a permanent Loan Modification because a subordinate lienholder refused to subordinate its existing lien to his or her modified mortgage." The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant -- under the guise of participating in the government-sponsored Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP") -- misled the Plaintiffs into making additional loan payments by the promise of a permanent loan modification as offered in the TPP Letters. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant improperly implied in the Denial Letters that the rejection of their request for permanent loan modifications resulted solely from their own actions. They argue that they were only alerted to the Defendant's fraud relating to the denials when it sent each Plaintiff the 2019 Letters. The Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action against the Defendant: (1) fraudulent misrepresentation ("Count I"); (2) unjust enrichment ("Count II"); (3) declaratory judgment ("Count III"); and (4) violation of New York General Business Law Section 349 ("Count IV"). In Count I of the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that Wells Fargo fraudulently misrepresented that they would be offered permanent loan modifications if the Plaintiffs successfully made all required TPP Payments. The Plaintiffs note that the Defendant never explicitly stated that a permanent loan modification was contingent upon the Defendant obtaining agreement from third parties to subordinate any existing liens on their properties. They assert that not only did the Defendant fail to obtain an agreement to subordinate the existing liens, but also that the Defendant implied in the Denial Letters that it was the Plaintiffs' responsibility to ensure that the modified mortgage retained its priority over the existing liens. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendant's actions were part of a scheme to extract additional payments from its customers. These payments, they contend, would never have been made if they were aware of the requirement that existing liens be subordinated, and that the loan modification would be denied if an agreement to subordinate existing liens could not be accomplished. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendant knew that no one seeking to preserve their home would agree to a TPP when forewarned that there was a possibility that the existing lienholders might not agree to subordinate their liens to Wells Fargo's security interest, thus scuttling the permanent loan modification. They argue that knowledge of this potential outcome was a material fact that was not disclosed and would have led Plaintiffs to not engage in the TPP process. In Count II of the Amended Complaint alleging unjust enrichment, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant's behavior created an inequitable situation where Wells Fargo unjustly obtained additional payments from its customers that otherwise would not have been submitted. They contend that Wells Fargo's customers would not have entered into a TPP if the permanent modifications were not guaranteed. In Count III of the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 et. seq. As a result of making the TPP Payments, the collectability of the Plaintiffs' mortgage debt is reset to the date of their last TPP Payment. The Plaintiffs seek to have the Court declare that the collectability of their debt is reset to accrue as if they did not make TPP Payments. In Count IV of the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's actions violated N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349, which makes it unlawful for a business to deceptively market and sell consumer goods in New York State including -- the Plaintiffs contend -- loan modifications. In its Motion, the Defendant argues that all the Plaintiffs' claims are untimely. It notes that the relevant statute of limitations is a maximum of six years for any of the Plaintiffs' four counts. It argues that the Plaintiffs' claims accrued on July 3, 2012 for Reyes and Feb. 15, 2013 for Jackson -- the dates of the respective Denial Letters -- triggering the statute of limitations. As this adversary proceeding was not filed until April 12, 2019, the Defendant argues that the statute of limitations on all of Plaintiffs' claims has elapsed. In the alternative, it argues that dismissal is appropriate because each of the claims fails to state a claim that is cognizable under applicable law. In response to the Motion, the Plaintiffs argue that the statute of limitations should be tolled under New York's discovery rule or, in the alternative, that the Defendant should be equitably estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense because of its purported concealment of its fraudulent activities. They contend that the Defendant's fraud was not discoverable until the Defendant sent each Plaintiff the 2019 Letter. The Plaintiffs also contend that all their claims are viable as alleged. A. Count I for Fraudulent Misrepresentation Judge Lane holds that (i) rather than concealing the alleged fraud, the Denial Letters highlighted that something was amiss; (ii) it is impossible to conclude that the Plaintiffs could have interpreted the Denial Letters as an expected event consistent with their understanding; (iii) the Plaintiffs cannot simultaneously argue that they were essentially guaranteed a loan modification and then maintain they were lulled into inaction when they were denied that same loan modification; (iv) all that was necessary was for the Plaintiffs to learn of their denial -- despite the Defendant's purported earlier promise of a loan modification -- and not the exact reason for the Defendant's apparent change of heart; (v) the law is clear that the Plaintiffs are charged with knowledge of the fraud; (vi) the Denial Letters did not lull the Plaintiffs to sleep as to their rights; they alerted them of their injury; and (vii) the Plaintiffs cannot argue that the same Denial Letters induced them into delaying legal action. B. The Remaining Counts For related reasons, Judge Lane holds that the Plaintiffs' three remaining causes of action must also be dismissed. He says like the fraudulent misrepresentation count, the Plaintiffs' second count for unjust enrichment is outside the applicable statute of limitations. In New York, a cause of action for unjust enrichment has a statute of limitations period of six years. As the alleged wrongful act leading to the claim was the Defendant's retention of the Plaintiffs' TPP payments notwithstanding the issuance of the Denial Letters, the Plaintiffs are time-barred from pleading a claim of unjust enrichment. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' fourth count under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 is outside the statute of limitations. As established in the fraudulent misrepresentation count, the Plaintiffs' alleged injury occurred with the Denial Letters, which was the completion of the alleged deception and took place over six years prior to the filing of this adversary proceeding. This claim must be dismissed as time barred consistent with the Court's rulings. Finally, the Judge dismisses the Plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment. He holds that a declaratory judgment is a procedural device that is used to vindicate substantive rights. As such, the statute of limitations on a request for declaratory judgment matches that of the underlying substantive right being litigated. Given the Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' underlying substantive claims, the request for declaratory judgment must also be dismissed as time barred. Conclusion For the reasons he set forth, Judge Lane grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Defendant will settle an order on three days' notice. The proposed order must be submitted by filing a notice of the proposed order on the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing docket, with a copy of the proposed order attached as an exhibit to the notice. A copy of the notice and proposed order will also be served upon the opposing counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Memorandum of Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/4m63kras from Leagle.com. THE DANN LAW FIRM CO. LPA. Javier L. Marino, Marc E. Dann, Brian D. Flick, in Westwood, New Jersey, Counsel for the Plaintiffs Justo Reyes & Karen Jackson. TIRELLI LAW GROUP, LLC. Linda M. Tirelli, in White Plains, New York, Counsel for the Plaintiffs Justo Reyes & Karen Jackson. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- Mathew C. De Re, in Chicago, Illinois, Counsel for the Plaintiffs Justo Reyes & Karen Jackson. LOCKE LORD LLP Casey B. Howard -- choward@lockelord.com -- Aileen McTierman -- aileen.mctiernan@lockelord.com -- in New York City, Counsel for the Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. WEST VIRGINIA: Summary Judgment in Wilkinson v. Governor Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LISA WILKINSON, HEATHER MORRIS, KATHRYN A. BRADLEY, PAMELA STUMPF, and LULA V. DICKERSON, Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR and JIM JUSTICE, in his official capacity as Governor, WEST VIRGINIA STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE and JOHN B. McCUSKEY, in his official capacity as State Auditor, WEST VIRGINIA STATE TREASURER'S OFFICE and RILEY MOORE, in his official capacity as State Treasurer, WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE and MAC WARNER, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL and PATRICK MORRISEY, in his official capacity as Attorney General, SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA and CHIEF JUSTICE ELIZABETH D. WALKER, in her official capacity as Chief Justice, Defendants-Respondents, Case No. 20-0295 (W. Va.), Judge William R. Wooton of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirms the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment to the Respondents. Petitioners Wilkinson, Morris, Bradley, Stumpf, and Dickerson appeal from the circuit court's grant of summary judgment on all claims contained in their Second Amended Complaint, which Complaint sought class certification, relief in mandamus, lost wages, and other monetary damages against six State Offices and their respective officeholders. All of the Petitioners are state employees who are paid one pay cycle in arrears pursuant to the provisions of West Virginia Code Section 6-7-1 (2019). The Petitioners' overarching claims are that when the Legislature amended the statute in 2014, changing the pay cycle for state employees from a semi-monthly to a bi-weekly basis, the result was a constitutional taking of five days of salary from every state employee in violation of article III, section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution, or, alternatively, the imposition of a "second arrearage" beyond that authorized by the statute. The Petitioners characterize the Legislature's action, and the actions of the respondents in implementing the bi-weekly pay cycle and setting it into motion, as a "pay grab" done for the specific purpose of having five days of unpaid employee wages which could be used to create a budget surplus. The Petitioners alleged that as a result of the transition, the State owed $30 million to its employees. The Respondents filed motions to dismiss based on claims of immunity, and motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part that "the judgment sought will be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." The Petitioners filed their response, and the circuit court held a hearing on the motions. Thereafter, in a comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion, the court granted summary judgment for the Respondents on all of the Petitioners' claims. The appeal followed. At the outset, Judge Wooton resolves whether there are disputed issues of material fact which would preclude summary judgment in the case. He agrees with the reasoning of the circuit court and concludes that there was no dispute of material fact with respect to the one-time payment to elected officials: They did not receive one penny beyond their statutorily established salaries in 2017, although unlike petitioners, who are paid one pay cycle in arrears, the officials received the entirety of their salaries within the calendar year. Judge Wooton turns now to the three assignments of error raised by the petitioners on appeal, which they frame as follows: First, that the circuit court erred in not permitting discovery on the amount of the alleged "second arrearage" that resulted from the transition to a bi-weekly pay schedule; second, that the court erred in making a factual finding that state employees are paid 10 days, rather than fifteen days, in arrears, when this is an issue of disputed material fact; and third, that the court erred in its legal conclusion that the payment of what petitioners call a "bonus" or a "gap payment" to elected officials violated the equal protection guarantee enshrined in article III, section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution. Regarding the first assignment of error, the Judge holds that the Petitioners cannot claim on appeal that the circuit court erred in failing to permit discovery on the amount of the alleged "second arrearage" when no request for such discovery was ever made to the court. Accordingly, he declines to address the merits of this assignment of error. As to the second assignment of error, the Judge finds that it is readily apparent that the circuit court was correct in its conclusion that at all times, both before and after the transition from a semi-monthly to a bi-weekly pay cycle, state employees were paid at least twice a month and one pay cycle in arrears, which is exactly what is authorized by the clear and unambiguous language of West Virginia Code Section 6-7-1. He says the number of days included within the old and new pay cycles -- whether 10 days, 14 days, 15 days, or any other number of days -- is wholly immaterial to the issue of whether the new pay system is lawful under the statute. With respect to the third assignment of error, the Judge finds that the salary of an elected official may be paid on a current basis without the need for any accounting, whereas there is a practical need for some time lag to account for the multiple factors affecting state employees' pay and leave status. As the circuit court found, payment in arrears is a practical way to "have the benefit of a look back at the pay period which allows for adjustments and the prevention of errors in accounting or, for that matter, in counting." In light of the foregoing, Judge Wooton concludes that there is a rational basis for the differing treatment of elected officials and other state employees with respect to the timing of their paychecks. The critical fact in the case -- an undisputed material fact -- is that both elected officials and state employees received every penny of salary they earned in 2017. To quote the circuit court once more, "Everyone is being paid. It is just a question of timing -- a few days difference." Because there is a rational basis for paying elected officials on a current basis while paying all other state employees in arrears, and because any inequality of treatment is so minor as to constitute, at best, an annoyance, the Judge finds that the Petitioners have failed to sustain their equal protection claim. For these reasons, he affirms the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. A full-text copy of the Court's April 20, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/k6uzs7f2 from Leagle.com. J. Michael Ranson, Esq., Cynthia M. Ranson, Esq. -- cmr@ransonlaw.com -- Ranson Law Offices, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, G. Patrick Jacobs, Esq. -- pjacobs@bjblaw.com -- Jacobs Law Office, in Charleston, West Virginia. Teresa C. Toriseva, Esq. -- tct@torisevalaw.com -- Toriseva Law, in Wheeling, West Virginia, Robert McCoid, Esq., McCoid Law Offices, PLLC, in Wheeling, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioners. Charles R. Bailey, Esq. -- cbailey@baileywyant.com -- Michael W. Taylor, Esq., Adam K. Strider, Esq., Bailey & Wyant, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for West Virginia State Treasurer's Office and Riley Moore, State Treasurer. William Slicer, Esq. -- wslicer@shumanlaw.com -- Philip B. Sword, Esq. -- psword@shumanlaw.com -- Shuman McCuskey & Slicer, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for West Virginia Office of the Attorney General and Patrick, Morissey, Attorney General., Anna F. Ballard, Esq., Evan S. Olds, Esq., Kelly G. Pawlowski, Esq., Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown, & Poe, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for West Virginia Office of the, Governor and Jim Justice, Governor. John L. MacCorkle, Esq., David P. Cook, Jr., Esq., MacCorkle Lavender, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for West Virginia State Auditor's Office and John B. McCuskey, State Auditor. William E. Murray, Esq. -- wmurray@anspachlaw.com -- Anspach Law, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for West Virginia Office of, the Secretary of State and, Mac Warner, Secretary of State. Bryan R. Cokeley, Esq. -- bryan.cokeley@steptoe-johnson.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia and Chief Justice Elizabeth D. Walker. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $180.2MM Accrued Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has accrued asbestos liabilities of $180.2 million ($22.0 million current and $158.2 million long-term) and recorded asbestos-related insurance receivables of $117.9 million ($16.0 million current and $101.9 million noncurrent) as of December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These liabilities and insurance receivables relate to claims that have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in certain products manufactured by predecessors of the Corporation's Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. The Corporation utilizes third-party experts to assist in developing (i) an estimate for the asbestos liability for the probable pending and future claims over the period that the Corporation believes it can reasonably estimate such claims and (ii) an estimate for the insurance receivable for the insurance proceeds expected to be received under existing policies and the related settlement agreements associated with the asbestos liabilities. Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid (the "Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3gOf0jA ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ideanomics to Post $8.0MM Remediation Bond ----------------------------------------------------------- Ideanomics, Inc., has agreed to assume responsibility for completing environmental remediation which was previously initiated by the prior owner and was required to post an $8.0 million surety bond, the approximate cost of previous remediation costs, as part of the acquisition of the Fintech Village property, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "This relates to the cleanup of asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") from building materials on the property and any contamination of soil and groundwater on the land, an existing condition cited by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection for the State of Connecticut ("DEEP"). The surety bond will serve either serve as collateral to the state if we do not complete the environmental remediation to state and federal requirements or be returned to us in full if remediation efforts are successful and completed. "On January 28, 2021, the Company's Board of Directors accepted an offer of $2.75 million for Fintech Village, and subsequently signed a non-binding sale contract on March 15, 2021. The Company is required to remove or renovate the contaminated buildings on the property. If we elect to sell, transfer or change the use of the facility, additional environmental testing may be required. We cannot assure that we will not discover further environmental contamination, that any planned timeline for remediation will not be delayed, that we would not be required by DEEP or the EPA to incur significant expenditures for environmental remediation in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3vqQU2h ********* 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 ***