/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210506.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 6, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 85
Headlines
300 "F" STREET: Mize Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
3D SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 8 Deadline
ADMIN RECOVERY: Rozario Appeals Ruling FDCPA Suit Dismissal
AFNI INC: Guessford Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
ALBERT KEMPERLE: Perry Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages, Commissions
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Machluf Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
AMERICARE INC: Seeks Review of Class Cert. Ruling in Guzman Case
APEX CLEARING: Prohibits Multiple Stock Purchase, Eisen Suit Says
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: July 19 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ASHLEY BLACK: Court Dismisses FasciaBlaster Class Action Lawsuit
BENI RUGS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLOCKFI INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOULANGER DRYWALL: Bozetta Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRIGHT HEALTH: Palmetto Pathology Sues Over Breach of Contract
BRONX FORD: Seeks Review of Order in Lopez Discrimination Suit
BUMBLE BEE: K&L Gates Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
CANOO INC: Berman Tabacco Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Ciccone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
COINIGY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COLT RESOURCES: July 5 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Brown Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
CRACKLE PLUS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Ciccone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CREDIT CONTROL: Sarich Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CRESCENT HOTELS: Cruz Files Suit in California Superior Court
CRUISE.COM INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CTI LLC: Wallis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
DAVITA DIALYSIS: Faces Class Action Over Loss of Medical Records
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 7 Deadline
FETCH! PET CARE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIBROGEN INC: Berman Tabacco Files Securities Class Action
FIBROGEN INC: Grazioli Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
FISHER INVESTMENTS: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
FIT SNACK: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
GAME TIME: Rivera Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
HAWAII: Loses Class Action Lawsuit Over Homestead Land Waitlist
HIDIVE LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces Tetley Suet Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KASHI SALES: Johnston Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
LASER EYE CARE: Tanis Files Suit in California Superior Court
LEGACY.COM INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIBERTY POWER: Faces Mendoza WARN Act Suit Over Unpaid Wages
LOGIX FEDERAL: Ketayi FCRA Suit Transferred to S.D. California
LOWES HOME: Molina Sues to Recover Overtime Compensations
MAJESTIC CARE: Wright Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MANTECA TRAILER: Bolton Files Suit in California Superior Court
MASON SCHILLING: Spillman Sues Over Improper Debt Collection
MAXIM HYGIENE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEDCURSOR INC: Casey Suit Removed to E.D. California
MERCHANTS' CREDIT: Root Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. West Virginia
MIDLAND CREDIT: Manzano Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MIDLAND CREDIT: Niyazov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Judge Approves $65MM Class Action Settlement
MYHERITAGE INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: J.T. Seeks Review of Decision in Kamco Suit
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
O'REILLY MEDIA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OREGON MUTUAL: Baker Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
ORIGINAL MOWBRAY'S: Huerta Files Suit in California Superior Court
PALUMBO: Court Tosses Nationwide TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Wilson Sues Over False & Misleading Statements
PERANI INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHYSICIANS CARE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PINTEREST INC: LeMoure Sues Over Decline in Securities Market Value
PLUG POWER: Pomerantz LLP Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
RAEL INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RIVERSIDE CO, CA: Restaurants File Class Action Over Permit Fees
ROOT INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
SACRAMENTO, CA: Alweiss Files Suit in E.D. California
SHOPIFY INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged 2020 Data Breach
SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Costeaux French Bakery Sues Over Business Fees
SPINDRIFT BEVERAGE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Wiggins Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
STEREOTAXIS INC: Barre Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
THERMAL STRUCTURES: Faces Valdez Suit Over Unpaid Compensations
UNITED STATES: Gilbert Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
UNITED STATES: Onosamba-Ohindo Appeals Ruling in Habeas Corpus Suit
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: July 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK: Students File Sexual Assault Lawsuit
USCB INC: Machluf Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
VIVINT SOLAR: Tsou Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
VROOM INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 21 Deadline
VROOM INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Class Action Over Odor Issues Dismissed
WESTBRAE NATURAL: Clark Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
WESTMONT NURSING: De Mesa Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
WHITEHOUSE ESTATES: Seeks Review of Order Entered in Casey Suit
WILLIAM HENRY GATES: Vaughn Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
XPO LOGISTICS: Labul Files Suit in U.S. Court of Appeals
ZINUS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Chandler's Mattresses
[*] Trump Judge Argues Class Actions Should Be Extremely Limited
*********
300 "F" STREET: Mize Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Candace Mize, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. 300 "F" STREET, INC. d/b/a THE RED CARPET LOUNGE, a
Domestic For-Profit Corporation and SCOTT B. JACKMORE,
Individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-00038-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., April 30,
2021), is brought to seek unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, back-pay, restitution, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, and all related penalties and damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants had a systemic company-wide policy, pattern, or
practice of misclassifying exotic dancer employees at Defendants'
Red Carpet Lounge gentlemen's club as "independent contractors."
The Defendants' pay practices and policies were in direct violation
of the FLSA. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation,
statutory liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment interest, and other damages permitted by applicable
law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an exotic dancer at the
Defendants' Red Carpet Lounge strip club located in Brunswick,
Georgia.
The Defendants operated the Red Carpet Lounge strip club located in
Brunswick, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Mew IV, Esq.
BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30308
Phone: (404) 781-1100
Email: TMew@BuckleyBeal.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
3D SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the
purchasers of the securities of 3D Systems Corp. (NYSE: DDD),
between May 6, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for 3D Systems
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the 3D Systems class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2049.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 3D Systems lacked proper internal controls over financial
reporting; and (2) as a result, 3D Systems' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 8,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2049.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ADMIN RECOVERY: Rozario Appeals Ruling FDCPA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sharon Rozario filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in her lawsuit entitled SHARON R. ROZARIO, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADMIN RECOVERY,
LLC; FRANK PARISI; ANGELO NATALE; TIMOTHY CIFFA; and JOHN DOES 1 to
10, Defendants, Case No. 3-20-cv-00801, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Plaintiff Rozario has filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants
Admin Recovery LLC, Frank Parisi, Angelo Natale, and Timothy Ciffa
violated the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Admin
is a company engaged in the purchase and collection of defaulted
consumer debts, Parisi and Natale are both managing members of
Admin, and Ciffa is the vice president of collections at Admin.
On Jan. 24, 2019, the Defendants allegedly mailed a debt collection
letter to the Plaintiff. However, according to the Plaintiff, at
the time the Defendants mailed the letter, the statute of
limitations had run on the debt. The collection letter stated that
Admin is offering you the opportunity to pay 50% of the Account
Balance to close the account. The letter further asserted that such
payment will be in the total amount of $3,412.81 to close the
account. It closed with the statement that she would like
additional time to respond to the offer, the Plaintiff may contact
them, and the Defendants are not obliged to renew the offer.
On Jan. 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
complaint alleging that the Defendants violated the FDCPA. More
specifically, she claims that the collection letter violates
Section 1692e, which provides, a debt collector may not use any
false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt, and Section 1692f,
which provides, a debt collector may not use unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.
The Plaintiff now seek a review of the Court's Order dated March
17, 2021, denying her motion to alter judgment; and Court's Opinion
and Order dated July 21, 2020, granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The appellate case is captioned as Sharon Rozario v. Admin Recovery
LLC, et al., Case No. 21-1765, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 26, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SHARON R. ROZARIO, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com
Defendants-Appellees ADMIN RECOVERY LLC, FRANK PARISI, ANGELO
NATALE, and TIMOTHY CIFFA are represented by:
Ryan E. Borneman, Esq.
Lynne E. Evans, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS
30 South 17th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 979-1105
E-mail: reborneman@duanemorris.com
leevans@duanemorris.com
AFNI INC: Guessford Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Afni, Inc. The case
is styled as Brenda Guessford, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Afni, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00148-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., April 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Afni, Inc. -- https://afni.com/ -- provides financial and
commercial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
SHEEHAN LAW FIRM, PLLC - Ocean Springs
429 Porter Avenue
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
Phone: ((228) 875-0572
Email: mike@sheehanramsey.com
ALBERT KEMPERLE: Perry Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages, Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Perry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALBERT KEMPERLE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02368
(E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021), arises from the Defendant's violations
of commission wage practices and policies under the New York Labor
Law, and seeks recovery of all unpaid wages and commissions,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorney's fees.
From 2015 to 2021 Plaintiff's earnings were based on 60% percent
sales commissions and 40% on base salary. The Defendant uniformly
failed and refused to enter into written contracts with any sales
representatives, setting forth the method by which sales
commissions were to be computed and paid, when and how commissions
are earned, what offsets against wages were to be computed, and
when commission payments ceased after termination of employment.
The Defendant uniformly minimized and understated the true
commissions earned by the Plaintiff and other sales representatives
and failed to pay them the true and correct amounts of commissions
they actually earned. The Defendant uniformly underpaid Plaintiff
and other sales representatives by fraudulently reducing their
commissions based upon enhanced, fictitious and/or fabricated
discounts, rebates, shipping charges, chargebacks, price
adjustments, uncollected accounts, and bad debts, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed at The Defendant from 2005 to January
20, 2021 as a commission sales representative.
The Defendant holds itself out as the leading professional
distributor of auto Paint, Body, and Equipment including automotive
finishes, supplies, tools, and equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
BLAU, LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
23 Green Street, Suite 105
Huntington, NY 11743
Phone: (631) 458-1010
Email: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com
- and -
Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
747 Stafford Avenue
Bristol, CT 0601
Phone: (860) 583-520
Fax: (860)589-5780
Email: bnewman@bpslawyers.com
ALLIED INTERNATIONAL: Machluf Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied International
Credit Corp., et al. The case is styled as Shimon Machluf,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Allied International Credit Corp., John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:21-cv-00840-CAB-AHG (S.D. Cal., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Allied International Credit Corp. -- https://www.aiccorp.com/ -- of
United States operates as an adjustment and collection services.
The Company offers debt collection, recovery, skip tracing, as well
as early arrears and pre-legal collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
AMERICARE INC: Seeks Review of Class Cert. Ruling in Guzman Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Americare, Inc. and Martin Kleinman filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LAURY VASQUEZ
GUZMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICARE, INC., MARTIN KLEINMAN and JOHN
DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 24877-2018E, in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, Bronx County.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay her and the
members of the putative class the statutory minimum wage for all
hours worked in violation of New York Labor Law; that the
Defendants failed to pay her and the members of the putative class
all wages due, including minimum wages and overtime wages, as well
as wages under the NY Home Care Worker Wage Parity Act, for the
hours they each worked for the Defendants, and that by withholding
wages and overtime payments for time worked after 40 hours in one
week from the Plaintiff and the members of the putative class,
pursuant to New York Labor Law, the Defendants made unlawful
deductions in wages owed to Plaintiffs; that the Defendants failed
to pay her and the members of the putative class compensation at
the required overtime compensation rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation of the Labor Law and
its regulations; that the Defendants failed to pay her and the
members of the putative class additional compensation of one hour's
pay at the basic New York minimum hourly wage rate for each day
that the interval between the beginning and end of their workday
was greater than 10 hours (spread-of-hours pay), as required by the
Labor Law and its implementing regulations; and that she and the
putative class members furnished labor to the Defendants in
furtherance of the Defendants' performance of government contracts,
but the Defendants willfully paid the Plaintiff and the putative
class members less than the prevailing rates of wages and benefits
to which the Plaintiff and the putative class members were entitled
pursuant to New York Public Health Law.
The Defendants now seek a review of the Decision and Order entered
by the Honorable Edgar G. Walker, J.S.C., of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, Bronx County, dated April 13, 2021, denying
their motion to dismiss and granting Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The appellate case is captioned as LAURY VASQUEZ GUZMAN,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. AMERICARE, Inc., MARTIN KLEINMAN, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Case No.
24877/2018E, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on April 27,
2021.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants AMERICARE, Inc., MARTIN KLEINMAN, and JOHN
DOES #1-10 are represented by:
Kevin J. O'Connor, Esq.
PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C.
1325 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 382-0909
Facsimile: (212) 382-3456
E-mail: koconnor@pecklaw.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees LAURY VASQUEZ GUZMAN, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by:
William C. Rand, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
501 Fifth Ave, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 286-1425
E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com
APEX CLEARING: Prohibits Multiple Stock Purchase, Eisen Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Eisen, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. APEX CLEARING CORPORATION, A New York Corporation, and
INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Corporation,
Case No. 1:21-cv-21661-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2021), is brought
against the Defendants for prohibiting their broker dealers and
investors from buying multiple publicly traded stock options,
including but not limited to AMC Entertainment, Blackberry Limited,
Express, GameStop, and Koss Corporation, during an unprecedented
rise in valuation of the aforementioned Stocks.
The Defendants' actions not only deprived its customers from taking
advantage of the rise of stocks valuation, but also manipulated the
free and open market: causing a substantial decrease in the stocks
valuation, in violation of the federal securities laws. The
Defendants violations have harmed the Plaintiff and the public at
large. The Plaintiff seeks to vindicate their rights, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is an investor who was subject to the Defendants'
federal securities violations.
The Defendant is a brokerage firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVCSHI LAW, PLLC
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Phone: (212) 884-4230
Fax: (212) 884-4230
Email: adrian@gucovdchi-law.com
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: July 19 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on April 12 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Armstrong
Flooring, Inc. common stock
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased the common
stock of Armstrong Flooring, Inc. ("Armstrong Flooring") on the
open market during the period from March 6, 2018 through March 3,
2020, and who were damaged thereby ("Settlement Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that the Court-appointed
Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all members of the
proposed Settlement Class, and Defendant Armstrong Flooring have
reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned
class action (the "Action") in the amount of $3,750,000 (the
"Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Christina A. Snyder, on
July 19, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., in United States District Court for
the Central District of California, First Street U.S. Courthouse,
350 W. 1st Street, Courtroom 8D, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012
(the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine
whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with
prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated January 15, 2021; (iii) approve the proposed Plan
of Allocation for distribution of the settlement funds available
for distribution to Settlement Class Members (the "Net Settlement
Fund"); and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense
Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement
Hearing, or hold it telephonically, without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive
a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. You may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release
("Claim Form") and review the Internet Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Internet Notice") on the
website https://www.strategicclaims.net/Armstrong/ or by contacting
the Claims Administrator at:
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
600 N. Jackson St., Suite 205
P.O. Box 230
Media, PA 19063
Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004
Fax: (610) 565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net
https://www.strategicclaims.net/Armstrong/
Inquiries, other than requests for the Internet Notice/Claim Form
or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to
Lead Counsel:
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
212-779-1414
armstronginfo@bernlieb.com
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than June 20,
2021 to the Claims Administrator. If you are a Settlement Class
Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders
entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable
or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Internet Notice such that it is received no later than June 28,
2021 by the Claims Administrator. If you properly exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments
or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether
favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Internet Notice, such that they are received no later than June 28,
2021.
URL: http://bernlieb.com
Contact Information:
BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
212-779-1414
armstronginfo@bernlieb.com [GN]
ASHLEY BLACK: Court Dismisses FasciaBlaster Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 2, 2021, the United States District Court in Texas
declared in Elson vs Black that the "class and subclass are struck"
ending a 3-year rigorous defense of baseless class action suits
brought against Ashley Black. The Class Actions were based on
warranty claims that insisted Black's medical device /
biotechnology, the FasciaBlaster(R) and similar devices, fail to
work and had a breach of warranty.
Disguised as a FasciaBlaster warranty claim, the suits were loaded
with unverified fabricated injuries designed to confuse the public
and damage Black's brand and reputation by feeding the media with
the baseless claims recited in the court filings and encouraging
media outlets to publish the unverified claims and controversy.
Ashley Black solved the warranty claim before it was ever filed
with the court because the company offers a 1000-day money back
guarantee on all FasciaBlaster tools. In addition, since filing the
case, the claims made by the company have been peer reviewed and
published in Cogent Medical Journal.
"We believe the claims were falsified because the women first wrote
to the company and posted pictures on social media of their amazing
results, but then the lawsuits were filed with opposite
statements," said Gary Solomon, a legal representative for the
company. "We have videos of members of the lawsuit praising Ashley
Black and the FasciaBlaster device. It seems ironic that they went
from telling the world about their health benefits from the use of
the FasciaBlaster to then participating in a class action suit.
Even after being presented with irrefutable evidence that his
clients were lying, they refused to drop the case."
Despite evidence of social media posts, emails, and video with
statements of success stories made by many of the class members
presented to the Plaintiffs' attorneys, the lawsuit continued. Two
class members voluntarily participated in a third-party clinical
study of the FasciaBlaster tools. Each saw positive results (one
participant lost 3 inches in each leg but then later disputed that
statement) and were loyal to Black, the brand and FasciaBlaster
products, even attending her book tour as special guests.
The lawsuits are presumed to be just one aspect of various attacks
on Black and her companies. Black believes that several members
participating in the class action suits organized troller groups
and used the FDA's anonymous reporting system to make false and
misleading injury claims from use of the FasciaBlaster. With the
FDA's anonymous reporting system, anyone could sit at a computer
and file multiple FDA reports, abusing the reporting system and
using it as a weapon. For even the most illegitimate and
unrealistic reports, companies are still required to investigate
and run through medical review.
Ashley Black has gone through medical reviews for all reports and
not one of the seemingly false injury claims was ever validated,
despite numerous attempts by Black to obtain real medical records
in order to report findings to the Federal Drug Administration
(FDA), as required, being that the FasciaBlaster is FDA registered
as a Class I medical device. To date, neither the FDA nor Black's
companies have received a single verifiable injury report.
"I personally go looking for any possible side effect or problem
with my products. We investigate every comment on social media and
in reviews. If there was any legitimate concern with my products, I
would be the first to warn everyone," said Ashley Black. I created
these products to dramatically help people with their health. If my
products hurt people or didn't work, I wouldn't be doing this. What
I would like to see is change in our courts that don't allow class
actions to be filed without merit and that our FDA, that is
designed to protect consumers, cannot be used as part of internet
troller's games. This is why I will not settle; I have to stand up
for what's right, and this is why I did not and will not settle. "
For more information on Ashley Black and the FasciaBlaster tools,
visit www.AshleyBlackGuru.com.
About Ashley Black:
Ashley Black is the 2020 American Business Awards Entrepreneur of
the Year, a #1 National Bestselling Author, Co- author of the
scientific paper "The Effects of Fascia manipulation with Fascia
Devices on Myofascial Tissue, Subcutaneous Fat and Cellulite in
Adult Women" and Inventor of the FasciaBlaster(R). After suffering
from Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis, a bone eating infection and a
total hip replacement, she had no choice but to look for answers
that would defy her medical prognosis of a life of pain management
and debilitation. She discovered that limitations and pain in her
body were due to thickening and scarring of fascia, the "sheets" of
connective tissue that connect, penetrate, envelope, and surround
every organ, joint, muscle, and system of the body. This
contributed to the creation of a new field of science:
Fasciology(TM) -- the study of fascia. Since 1999 Ashley forged a
career as a fascia authority with personal clients in pro sports
and Hollywood. The results with her personal clients inspired her
to invent the FasciaBlaster(R) tools in 2014. Many versions of the
FasciaBlaster and complimentary products have followed and Ashley
is dedicated to helping the masses. Her mission in life is to bring
evidence based body hacks to reverse aging and improve health
naturally to market. Her motto is "if it doesn't exist, invent it"
which has led to her creating products that empower users take care
of themselves and teach her knowledge to progressive health care
practitioners and healers. The world is listening and responding,
and Ashley couldn't be more thrilled about the shift. [GN]
BENI RUGS: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beni Rugs, Inc. The
case is styled as Lynnette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Beni Rugs, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-03433-KPF (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beni Rugs -- https://www.benirugs.com/ -- offers handmade Beni
Moroccan rugs that are customizable by size and color.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
BLOCKFI INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blockfi Inc. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Blockfi Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03803
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BlockFi Inc. -- https://blockfi.com/ -- provides consumer financing
services. The Company offers loans to cryptoasset owners who
collateralize the loan with their cryptoassets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BOULANGER DRYWALL: Bozetta Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
PERCY BOZETTA v. BOULANGER DRYWALL CORP. and JOCELYN BOULANGER,
Case No. 21-008264 (17th Judicial Court, Broward County, Fla.,
April 23, 2021) is a class action seeking to recover money damages
that exceeds $30,000 exclusive of interest, attorney's fees and
costs for unpaid overtime wages for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Florida Statutes Section 440.205.
The complaint notes that while employed by the Defendant, Plaintiff
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being
compensated at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate at which he was employed. Plaintiff's schedule, on
average, was from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., six days per week. In other
words, Plaintiff, on average, worked 54 hours per week for the
Defendant. Plaintiff was paid $140 per day, $150 per day, and $155
per day. Plaintiff's latest salary was approximately $900 - $930
per week.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant paid only straight wages
to Plaintiff. It did not pay Plaintiff any overtime. It also did
not keep records of hours worked by Plaintiff as required by the
FLSA.
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a construction worker.
Boulanger Drywall Corp. is a Florida profit corporation duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with
offices in Broward and conducting business in Broward County,
Florida and in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAE Z & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-Mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
BRIGHT HEALTH: Palmetto Pathology Sues Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palmetto Pathology Services, P.A., on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated v. BRIGHT HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY OF
FLORIDA, Case No. 125291597 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Judicial,
Miami-Dade Cty., April 20, 2021), is brought for declaratory decree
and supplemental relief pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 86,
breach of contract implied in law, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, and quantum meruit.
Bright Health has had an implied in fact and/or other contractual
arrangement with Plaintiff and class members under which Plaintiff
and class members provided covered pathology services to commercial
non Medicare members/subscribers of Bright Health and under which
Bright Health was required to have paid Plaintiff and class members
for said pathology related services.
Prior to the institution of this action, the Plaintiff, class
members, and Bright Health had a course of dealings wherein the
Plaintiff and class members provided covered pathology services to
commercial non-Medicare members/subscribers of Bright Health and,
with the exceptions noted in this complaint, Bright Health has made
payment to Plaintiff and class members for the pathology services
in question.
According to the complaint, Bright Health has failed to pay, in
whole or in part, the submitted covered claims for professional
pathology services provided by Plaintiff and class members. Without
exception, the professional component of clinical pathology
services that Plaintiff and class members provided to Bright Health
commercial non-Medicare members/subscribers consisted of covered
physician care services, including but not limited to clinical
laboratory examinations as set forth in Florida Statutes including
the oversight and interpretation thereof to Bright Health's
commercial non-Medicare members/subscribers provided or supervised
by Plaintiff and class members.
Bright Health knew that a reasonable fee would be charged for the
professional component of clinical pathology services provided to
its commercial non-Medicare members/subscribers, and that Plaintiff
and class members, as the providers of the pathology related
services, expected to be paid for said services. Moreover, Bright
Health did not object to the services being rendered, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff Palmetto Pathology was a Florida professional
association and a provider of professional clinical pathology
laboratory services to the commercial non-Medicare
members/subscribers of the Defendant at hospitals, including,
Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida, and Coral Gables
Hospital in Coral Gables, Florida.
Bright Health was a licensed health insurer offering insurance
plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick S. Montoya, Esq.
Markus N. Kamberger, Esq.
Thomas A. Kroeger, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, PH
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: 305-476-7400
Facsimile: 305-476-7444
BRONX FORD: Seeks Review of Order in Lopez Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants HAROLD BENDELL, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE LOPEZ, Plaintiff
v. HAROLD BENDELL, individually, and BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD
ACQUISITION GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD
ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and/or any other entities affiliated
with or controlled by BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION
GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO
HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 156292/2017, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Count of New York.
The action seeks to recover damages based on allegations of race
and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment,
retaliation, and "unlawful termination" under the New York State
Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law
(NYCHRL). The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a car
sales person from 2008 to the beginning of 2010, and again from the
end of 2010 to the end of 2013, and again from approximately
mid-2014 to March 2017. Shortly, after the action was commenced in
2017, the alleged harasser, Defendant Alan Yuzuk died, the action
was discontinued against him, and amended complaint was filed.
Following the filing of the first amended answer, discovery
proceeded, including Plaintiffs deposition which was taken on
February 14, 2020 and completed on July 8, 2020. According to the
Plaintiff, she is no longer seeking damages for front or back pay.
The Defendants moved to compel the following discovery: (i)
plaintiffs appearance for an independent medical examination; (ii)
tax materials; (iii) government benefit applications; (iv) diaries,
logs, tapes, memoranda, communications, and social media; (v)
plaintiffs home addresses since she stopped working for defendants
and all vehicles leased and purchased since 2009; (vi) information
regarding attorneys' fees and costs, including her retainer
agreement and counsel's contemporaneous bills; (vii) job
application sent to plaintiffs current employer and the name of her
current employer; (viii) criminal background and arrest
information; and (ix) certain statements in response to defendants'
interrogatories.
The Defendants are now seeking a review of the Court's Decision and
Order dated March 4, 2021, wherein the motion to compel was granted
to the extent of requiring Plaintiff, within 30 days of e-filing of
the Order, to provide her social media posts related to the
workplace during her period of employment (2011-2017) by Defendants
and for six months following her termination, to the extent the
posts concern the impact of her employment at the Defendant
dealership had on her mental or physical well-being, including
stress or anxiety arising out of her employment, and her
satisfaction or lack of satisfaction with her employment.
The appellate case is captioned as STEPHANIE LOPEZ v. HAROLD
BENDELL, individually, and BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION
GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO
HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and/or any other entities affiliated with or
controlled by BRONX FORD, INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC.,
CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C.,
Case No. 2021-01325, in the Appellate Division of the New York
Supreme Court in and for the First Judicial Department.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants HAROLD BENDELL, individually, and BRONX FORD,
INC., CITY WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS,
L.L.C., CITY WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by BRONX FORD, INC., CITY
WORLD ACQUISITION GROUP, INC., CITY WORLD MOTORS, L.L.C., CITY
WORLD ESTATE AUTO HOLDINGS, L.L.C. are represented by:
Emanuel Kataev, Esq.
MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP PLLC
3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8
Lake Success, NY 11042-1073
Telephone: (516) 328-8899
Direct Dial: (516) 303-1395
Facsimile: (516) 328-0082
E-mail: emanuel@mllaborlaw.com
BUMBLE BEE: K&L Gates Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Sparkes, III, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that over the past several years, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appeared poised to
sanction a generous approach to certifying proposed classes under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 Recently,
however, the 9th Circuit has taken steps to tighten up the rigor of
the required analysis that district courts must conduct when
evaluating motions for class certification.2 The 9th Circuit
appears to have taken another step in that direction in Olean
Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC.3
In Bumble Bee Foods, the 9th Circuit sharpened the standards
governing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement,
which mandates that common issues predominate over individual
issues. Specifically, the Court provided much-needed teeth to the
district courts' obligations to resolve factual and legal disputes
bearing on predominance -- including conflicting expert testimony
-- before certifying a class and, for the first time, held that a
proposed class containing more than a de minimis number of
uninjured members cannot satisfy predominance and should not be
certified.
The District Court Proceedings
The Bumble Bee Foods decision arose from a multidistrict litigation
alleging a price-fixing conspiracy by producers of packaged tuna in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws. Specifically, plaintiffs (various
purchasers of tuna products) accused the defendants (entities that
"account for over 80% of all branded packaged tuna sales in the
[United States]") of conspiring "to artificially inflate the prices
of their tuna products" through various anticompetitive means.4 The
plaintiffs moved to certify three classes of similarly situated
tuna purchasers under Rule 23(b)(3).
In support of their motion, the plaintiffs relied "primarily" on
statistical analysis performed by expert witnesses, who opined that
approximately 94.5 percent of the putative class members suffered
an injury from defendants' price-fixing conspiracy.5 The defendants
presented their own expert witness who challenged the reliability
of plaintiffs' analysis and opined that approximately 28 percent of
the putative class members "suffered no injury at all."6 The
district court certified the classes, reasoning that resolution of
the dueling expert analyses was for the jury, not the court, and
that, despite the serious and potentially persuasive criticisms,
the plaintiffs' expert's model was "capable of showing impact on
all or nearly all class members."7 The defendants appealed.
The 9th Circuit Reverses Certification of the Classes
On appeal, the 9th Circuit addressed several important class
certification issues regarding predominance, including the
appropriate standard of review, the applicable burden of proof, the
role of statistical, or "representative" evidence, and the impact
of uninjured members of a putative class on the certification
analysis.
First, the 9th Circuit strengthened the "rigorous analysis" that
district courts must bring to bear on a motion for class
certification. It held that "[c]ourts must resolve all factual and
legal disputes relevant to class certification, even if doing so
overlaps with the merits[,]" including "judging the persuasiveness
of the evidence presented for and against certification."8 A
district court, in fact, abuses its discretion if it merely glosses
over or seeks to avoid such disputed issues. Similarly, the 9th
Circuit adopted the preponderance of the evidence standard to
govern the district court's predominance analysis. Accordingly, a
plaintiff must establish that common issues predominate over
individual issues by a preponderance of the evidence before the
court may certify a class.9 In doing so, the 9th Circuit fell in
line with the majority of circuit courts of appeal that have
considered the issue and further emphasized the importance of the
district court's "role as the gatekeeper of Rule 23's
requirements."10
Second, the Court considered the role of statistical evidence in
establishing predominance. Hewing closely to the U.S. Supreme
Court's guidance, the 9th Circuit found that such evidence may
suffice, in some cases, to show class-wide injury, and thus to
support predominance, but that its use "'will depend on the purpose
for which the sample is being introduced and on the underlying
causes of action.'"11 When considered, however, the 9th Circuit
made clear that district courts must scrutinize statistical
evidence "with care and vigor" to ensure "actual, not presumed,
conformance" with the Rule 23 requirements.12 According to the
Court, "[s]tatistical evidence is not a talisman," and, as such,
the 9th Circuit instructed courts to "rigorously analyze the use of
such evidence to test its reliability and to see if the statistical
modeling does in fact mask individualized differences."13
Finally, the 9th Circuit considered the thorny question of whether
a district court may certify a class that contains absent class
members that have not suffered any injury. Because the district
court refused to resolve the conflicting expert testimony, it had
certified a class of individuals, more than one-quarter of which
may not have suffered any injury from the alleged price-fixing
conspiracy. Or, if the plaintiffs' expert was correct, the class
might consist of 94.5 percent injured and only 5.5 percent
uninjured members. The 9th Circuit held that the district court
abused its discretion by finding predominance satisfied and
certifying a class before resolving this open issue, which it
described as an "essential component of predominance."14
Following on the wings of its instructions for district courts to
carefully scrutinize statistical evidence, the 9th Circuit
explained that "a key factual determination courts must make is
whether the plaintiffs' statistical evidence sweeps in uninjured
class members."15 That is because "[i]f a substantial number of
class members 'in fact suffered no injury,' the 'need to identify
those individuals will predominate.'"16 Thus, the 9th Circuit
described this inquiry as "of paramount importance to certification
of the class."17
The 9th Circuit's analysis leads directly to the obvious next
question: How many uninjured class members is too many?18 According
to the 9th Circuit, a class containing uninjured class members may
be certified only where the number of such members is de minimis.19
What, then, constitutes a de minimis number of uninjured class
members? Although the 9th Circuit did not provide a specific
numerical threshold to answer that question, it did suggest certain
boundaries to guide courts in the future. Specifically, the Court
cited, with approval, to decisions from other circuit courts
suggesting that 5 percent to 6 percent of a class "'constitutes the
outer limits of a de minimis number'"20 and that "'around 10%'" of
uninjured members warranted reversal of certification.21 The Court
also definitively held that a class in which 28 percent of the
members suffered no injury, like the class in Bumble Bee Foods, is
easily "out-of-bounds."22
For that reason, the 9th Circuit reversed the certification of the
plaintiffs' proposed classes and remanded the case to the district
court "with instructions to resolve the factual disputes concerning
the number of uninjured parties in each proposed class before
determining predominance."23
Judge Hurwitz and his Partial Dissent
It is worth noting that one of the three judges on the Bumble Bee
Foods panel, Judge Hurwitz, dissented in part from the 9th
Circuit's decision. Judge Hurwitz agreed with the majority that:
(1) "the district court, not a jury, must resolve factual disputes
bearing on predominance"; (2) "a district court's 'rigorous
analysis' of whether a putative class has satisfied Rule 23's
requirements should proceed by a preponderance of the evidence
standard"; and (3) "the question for the district court is not
whether common issues could predominate at trial; the court must
determine they do predominate before certifying the class."24 Judge
Hurwitz, however, disagreed that a "district court must find that
only a 'de minimis' number of class members are uninjured" before
it certifies a class.25 On that point, Judge Hurwitz reasoned that
neither Rule 23 nor the 9th Circuit's precedent supported a de
minimis rule and that such a rule sacrifices the broad discretion
otherwise vested in a district court to evaluate all evidence
presented at the class certification stage.26
Conclusion
The final destination of the 9th Circuit's class certification
jurisprudence remains uncertain. The Court appears to sit at a fork
in the road -- will it follow the flight of Bumble Bee Foods and
demand truly rigorous enforcement of the Rule 23 requirements, or
will it turn back down the path leading to a looser, certify-first,
worry-later, standard? Only time will tell. The positive news,
however, is that the 9th Circuit's latest precedential decision
points to a reinvigorated certification standard -- one that is
more in line with Supreme Court guidance and the caselaw in other
circuit courts. The 9th Circuit, in fact, may have actually jumped
ahead of several of its sister circuits in directly addressing the
implications of uninjured class members and adopting a de minimis
standard. In any event, the Bumble Bee Foods decision makes clear
that the 9th Circuit will not sanction the certification of classes
unless the district court truly and rigorously evaluates all of the
evidence presented and is satisfied that the plaintiff has actually
satisfied its burden to establish each requirement of Rule 23.
1 For example, in 2018, the 9th Circuit held that a district court
may consider inadmissible evidence when evaluating a motion for
class certification. See Sali v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 909 F.3d
996, 1005-06 (9th Cir. 2018). For a further discussion of this
issue, see Robert W. Sparkes, III, Curious Case Of The Class Cert.
Evidentiary Standard (part 1 & part 2) LAW 360 (June 13, 2018), LAW
360 (June 14, 2018).
2 See Robert W. Sparkes, III, 9th Circuit Gets Tougher On Experts
At Class Certification, LAW 360 (Jan. 11, 2021).
https://www.law360.com/articles/1342758
3 Olean Wholesale Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, -- F.3d --,
No. 19-56514, 2021 WL 1257845 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2021).
4 Id. at *2.
5 See id. at *2-3.
6 Id. at *2.
7 Id. at *3.
8 Id. at *4 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
9 Id.
10 Id. at *4-5.
11 Id. at *5 (quoting Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S.
422, 460 (2016)).
12 Id. at *5-6 (internal quotation marks and formatting omitted).
13 Id. at *10 (emphasis in original).
14 See id. at *11-12. The 9th Circuit also criticized the district
court's decision to defer the resolution of the dueling expert
opinions until trial, reasoning that this effectively created a
rule whereby plaintiffs "can obtain class certification just by
hiring a competent expert." Id. at *11.
15 Id. at *11 (emphasis added).
16 Id. (quoting In re Asacol Antitrust Litig., 907 F.3d 42, 53 (1st
Cir. 2018)).
17 Id.
18 The panel majority also noted, without deciding, the "serious"
implications to Article III standing posed by "[t]he presence of
uninjured parties in a certified class." Id. at *10 n.7. Citing to
a recent 5th Circuit decision, the majority expressed skepticism
"that Article III permits certification of a class where
'[c]ountless unnamed class members lack standing.'" Id. (quoting
Flecha v. Medicredit, Inc., 946 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2020)).
19 Id. at *11.
20 Id. (quoting In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.,
934 F.3d 619, 624-25 (D.C. Cir. 2019)).
21 Id. (quoting In re Asacol, 907 F.3d at 47, 51-58).
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id. at *12 (Hurwitz, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part) (emphasis in original).
25 Id. at *13.
26 See id. at *13-15. [GN]
CANOO INC: Berman Tabacco Reminds Investors of June 1 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. §§78j(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://bit.ly/3fJaeDl.
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]
CANOO INC: Gross Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Canoo Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares of GOEV during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/canoo-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=14611&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: August 18, 2020 to March 29, 2021
ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class
period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
engineering services was not a viable business, would not provide
meaningful revenue in 2021, and would not reduce operational risk;
(ii) the Company would no longer be focused on its
subscription-based business model; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Ciccone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joseph Ciccone,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02428 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC --
https://www.cavalryportfolioservices.com/ -- provides financial
resolution services. Its services cover various areas, such as
collection account and debt control.[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
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Champignon Brands Inc. ("Champignon" or
the "Company") (OTC: SHRMF) to determine whether the Company
engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices.
On April 10, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in United
States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of
Champignon investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired,
Champignon securities between March 27, 2020 and February 17, 2021,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
According to the class action complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Champignon Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Champignon had
undisclosed material weaknesses and insufficient financial
controls; (2) Champignon's previously issued financial statements
were false and unreliable; (3) Champignon's earlier reported
financial statements would need to be restated; (4) Champignon's
acquisitions involved an undisclosed related party; (5) as a result
of the foregoing and subsequent reporting delays and issues, the
British Columbia Securities Commission would suspend Champignon
from trading; and (6) as a result, the Champignon Defendants'
statements about Champignon's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, THE COMPANY'S
SECURITIES DURING THE CLASS PERIOD AND SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT LOSSES
ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPLETE KEHOE LAW FIRM'S SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
QUESTIONNAIRE OR CONTACT KEVIN CAULEY, DIRECTOR, CLIENT RELATIONS,
(215) 792-6676, EXT. 802, KCAULEY@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM,
SECURITIES@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE
SECURITIES CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.
This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]
COINIGY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coinigy, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Coinigy, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03804
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Coinigy -- https://www.coinigy.com/ -- is the most comprehensive
bitcoin and cryptocurrency trading and portfolio tool
available.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
COLT RESOURCES: July 5 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Litigation Group at Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers
P.C. f/k/a Morganti & Co., P.C., on April 12 disclosed that the
settlement reached in the class action against Colt Resources Inc.,
("Colt"), Nikolas Perrault, Shahab Jaffrey, Joe Kin Foon Tai, and
Paul Yeou, alleging misrepresentation in connection with Colt's
investment in a Turkish company in July of 2016, has been approved
by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court").
The settlement provides for the payment by the Defendants of the
total amount of CDN$950,000, to resolve those claims (the
"Settlement"). The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims
and is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any of the
Defendants.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Colt's securities on any
stock exchange, over-the-counter, or directly from Colt, either:
(i) on or after March 15, 2015, and held them until the close of
trading on July 13, 2016, or (ii) after July 13, 2016 and held them
until the close of trading on November 29, 2016, December 20, 2016,
or January 30, 2017, you may be entitled to participate in the
settlement.
Class Members seeking to file a claim must do so by completing a
claim form and providing supporting documentation online at
www.morgantico.com/colt-resources-inc by 5:00pm EST on July 5,
2021.
Contacts:
Joe Wahba
Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers P.C.
1200 Bay Street, Suite 1203
Toronto, ON M5R 2A5
T. 416-596-1414 F. 416-598-0601
jw@complexlaw.ca l www.complexlaw.ca [GN]
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Brown Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Casualty
Company. The case is styled as Damian B. Brown, James Mueksch,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Continental Casualty Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-02349
(N.D. Ill., April 30, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Continental Casualty Company also known as CNA --
https://www.cna.com/ -- offers a broad portfolio of property and
casualty business insurance solutions that allow you to better
manage your risks and grow profitably.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
CRACKLE PLUS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crackle Plus, LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Crackle Plus, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03806 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Crackle Plus -- https://www.crackle.com/ -- is a video-on-demand
(VOD) joint venture formed by Sony Pictures Television and Chicken
Soup for the Soul Entertainment, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Ciccone Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Ciccone, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credence Resource
Management, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02429 (E.D.N.Y., April 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Credence Resource Management, LLC -- https://credencerm.com/ -- is
a debt collection agency that was founded in Nevada in 2013, with
its current headquarters in Dallas, Texas.[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
CREDIT CONTROL: Sarich Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Kristina Sarich, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control
Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Case No.
7:21-cv-03423-NSR (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a secure
and fully-compliant agency made up of skilled and experienced
teams.[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
CRESCENT HOTELS: Cruz Files Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crescent Hotels &
Resorts, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Fidel Cruz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crescent Hotels &
Resorts, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00299126-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 20, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
Crescent -- https://www.crescenthotels.com/ -- is an award winning
management firm and one of the few elite management companies
approved to operate luxury and upper upscale full service hotels
under Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt, IHG and premier soft brand
affiliations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen Feghali, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
CRUISE.COM INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cruise.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Cruise.com, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03810 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Cruise.com, Inc. -- https://www.cruise.com/ -- was launched in 1998
and is the largest web site specializing in cruises on the
Internet. Cruise.com sells more cruises due to their advanced
search and booking technology, greater content and discount
prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
CTI LLC: Wallis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Wallis, Tianna Neal, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CTI, LLC d.b.a CUSTOMER TRAAC, LLC,
and CSS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00290 (W.D. Wis., April 29,
2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
Wisconsin's wage laws, Minnesota's wage laws, for the purpose of
obtaining relief under the FLSA for unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such other
relief the Court may deem appropriate.
The Defendants have had common policies and practices of failing to
pay employees for all breaks of less than 30 minutes, during their
respective shifts. As a result of these policies and practices, the
Defendants have denied the Plaintiffs of pay for all hours worked
in excess of forty in given workweeks at the applicable overtime
premium rate mandated by the FLSA, Wisconsin law, and Minnesota
law. In addition, the Defendants have violated Wisconsin law for
the Plaintiff Wallis, the Wisconsin Class, the Plaintiff Neal, and
the Minnesota Class by failing to pay them at their agreed-upon
wages for all hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked as hourly customer service representatives at
Defendants' Call Center.
Customer Traac is a business development company, specializing in
inbound and outbound call management, with call centers located
throughout the country, including in Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL S.C.
222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
PO Box 442
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
Phone: 414-271-8650
Fax: 414-271-8442
Email: smurshid@hq-law.com
tmaynard@hq-law.com
ljohnson@hq-law.com
DAVITA DIALYSIS: Faces Class Action Over Loss of Medical Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
PJ Randhawa, writing for KSDK.com, report that a popular Florissant
dialysis clinic is the subject of a class-action lawsuit after an
I-Team report uncovered the facility "lost" the medical records of
up to 60 patients.
In July, the I-Team found dozens of private medical records for
DaVita Dialysis patients dumped behind an abandoned building in
north St. Louis.
We traced them back to a DaVita Dialysis location at 10887 W.
Florissant Ave.
"It's 14 years of information, personal information," said one
patient, who we notified about the breach. She had received
treatment at the facility for several years. Her medical history
was among the dozens we found abandoned.
"I feel like I [have] totally been violated now, just open up to
whoever," the patient told us.
DaVita eventually admitted some of its files had been "lost or
stolen."
Investigators for the Missouri health department initially took on
the case. However, they declined to cite the facility over the
abandoned files. A federal investigation into the breach is
ongoing.
Class-action lawsuit
"When these sorts of places are not appropriately held accountable,
we can come in to make sure that they get the slap on the wrist
that they deserve -- to make sure that our clients are compensated
for what happened to them as well," said Alex Wolff, attorney with
Wolff Trial Lawyers in St. Louis.
Attorneys Maureen Brady and Wolff recently filed the class-action
lawsuit against DaVita on behalf of all 60 other patients who had
their medical files dumped. In the lawsuit, they claim people
who've had private medical information exposed are approximately
9.5 times more likely than the general public to suffer identity
fraud and/or identity theft.
"Unfortunately, it happens more often than you think," said Brady,
an attorney with McShane & Brady in Kansas City. "If someone's
identity is stolen, there are stopgaps to help that situation,
whereas in a medical information [case] once it's gone, it's gone.
You can't put it back. You can't undo what you know."
"Somebody knows that those records were supposed to go. Absolutely.
Somebody knows. And to me, DaVita is that somebody, and they need
to be held accountable for that," said one DaVita patient said.
In a statement from DaVita Kidney Care, they stated, "While we are
not discussing the pending litigation at this point, as a health
care company we take the privacy and security of patient
information extremely seriously."
If you received a letter from DaVita Dialysis last fall saying your
records were lost or stolen, you can join this class-action
lawsuit. Contact attorneys Alex Wolff or Maureen Brady:
alex@wolfftriallawyers.com, 314-584-4105
mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com, 816-888-8010 [GN]
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Kirby McInerney Reminds of June 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Ebang
International Holdings, Inc. ("Ebang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
EBON) securities from June 26, 2020 through April 5, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 7, 2021
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the proceeds from Ebang's public offerings had
been directed to an low yield, long term bonds to an underwriter
and to related parties rather than used to develop the Company's
operations; (2) that Ebang's sales were declining and the Company
had inflated reported sales, including through the sale of
defective units; (3) that Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong
Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and
inflated sales figures; (4) that Ebang's purported cryptocurrency
exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
exchange; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On April 6, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report alleging, among other things, that Ebang is
directing proceeds from its IPO last year into a "series of opaque
deals with insiders and questionable counterparties." According to
the report, Ebang raised $21 million in November 2020, claiming the
proceeds would be used "primarily for development," and that
instead the funds were directed to repay related-party loans to a
relative of Ebang's Chief Executive Officer, Dong Hu. The report
also noted that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong
Kong Stock Exchange had failed due to widespread media coverage of
a sales inflation scheme with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online
lending platform that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018,
with $655 million "vanish[ing] into thin air."
On this news, the Company's share price declined by $0.82 per
share, or approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per share on April
6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a statement
stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed] many
errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate interpretations of
events," the "Board, together with its Audit Committee, intends to
further review and examine the allegations and misinformation
therein and will take whatever necessary and appropriate actions
may be required to protect the interest of its shareholders."
On this news, the Company's share price declined by $0.12 per
share, or 2.17%, to close at $5.41 per share on April 7, 2021. The
stock price continued to decline over the next trading session by
$0.38 per share, or 7%, to close at $5.03 per share on April 8,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ebang securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Ebang
International Holdings Inc. ("Ebang" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
EBON) 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 June 26,
2020 and April 5, 2021, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 7, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Ebang directed the proceeds of its public
offerings into low yield, long-term bonds and to related parties
instead of developing its operations and infrastructure. The
Company inflated its declining sales through schemes such as
selling defective units. The Company's prior attempts to go public
in Hong Kong failed due to allegations of embezzlement and
inflating sales figures. The Company's purported cryptocurrency
exchange was actually the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
solution. 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 Ebang, 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]
FETCH! PET CARE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fetch! Pet Care, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Fetch! Pet Care, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03805 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fetch! Pet Care -- https://www.fetchpetcare.com/ -- is the nation's
largest and most trusted provider of professional pet sitting and
dog walking services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
FIBROGEN INC: Berman Tabacco Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On April 12, 2021, Berman Tabacco's California office filed a class
action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws
against FibroGen, Inc. ("FibroGen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
FGEN), and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, on behalf of all other persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired FibroGen securities and/or sold put
options from November 8, 2019, through and including April 6, 2021
(the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of California and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§78j(b)
and 78t(a). The case is captioned Xu v. FibroGen, Inc., et al., No.
3:21-cv-02623. A copy of the complaint is available on the firm's
website https://bit.ly/3uXOY1l.
The complaint alleges that, on August 18, 2019, the Company issued
a press release announcing, "Positive Phase 3 Pooled Roxadustat
Safety and Efficacy Results" and that shortly thereafter on
December 23, 2019, FibroGen announced that it had submitted a New
Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration for
roxadustat.
The complaint further alleges that on April 6, 2021, the Company
revealed that its previously disclosed safety data included
undisclosed post-hoc changes to the stratification factors and did
not include analyses based on the pre-specified stratification
factors. As a result of these changes, the complaint alleges,
FibroGen was forced to concede that roxadustat, contrary to prior
representations, did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events
or hospitalization as compared to a currently approved anemia
injection used as a control based on pre-specified stratification
factors. On this news, the Company's share price fell $14.90, or
43%, to close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021, on heavy
volume.
The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (i) that the Company's prior disclosures of U.S. primary
cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat Phase 3 program
for the treatment of anemia of CKD included post-hoc changes to the
stratification factors; (ii) that FibroGen's analyses with the
pre-specified stratification factors result in higher hazard ratios
(point estimates of relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals;
(iii) that, based on these analyses, the Company could not conclude
that roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior to) MACE+ in
dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to
epoetin-alfa; (iv) that, as a result, the Company faced significant
uncertainty that its NDA for roxadustat as a treatment for anemia
of CKD would be approved by the FDA; and (v) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
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
sixty (60) days from the date of this notice. Any member of the
proposed Class may either move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or choose to do nothing and remain
a member of the proposed Class.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please visit:
https://www.bermantabacco.com/case/fibrogen-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 Miles, Esq.
(800) 516-9926
Email: law@bermantabacco.com [GN]
FIBROGEN INC: Grazioli Sues Over False and Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesare Grazioli, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FIBROGEN, INC., ENRIQUE CONTERNO, JAMES SCHOENECK, and
K. PEONY YU, Case No. 3:21-cv-03212 (N.D. Cal., April 30, 2021), is
brought on behalf of all other persons and entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired FibroGen securities and/or sold put options
from November 8, 2019, through and including April 6, 2021, seeking
to recover damages pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
due to materially false and misleading statements made, which
resulted in the decline of the price of stock.
FibroGen's most advanced product is roxadustat, an oral small
molecule inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase
("HIF-PH") activity that acts by stimulating the body's natural
pathway for red cell production. In 2019, the Company filed its New
Drug Application ("NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for the approval of roxadustat for the treatment of anemia
due to chronic kidney disease ("CKD"). Anemia is particularly
prevalent in patients with CKD. The prevalence of CKD in the adult
population is estimated at 10-12% globally and is generally a
progressive disease characterized by gradual loss of kidney
function that may eventually lead to kidney failure, or end stage
renal disease, requiring dialysis or kidney transplant to survive.
Blood transfusion is used for treating life-threatening severe
anemia. However, blood transfusions reduce the patient's
opportunity for kidney transplant, and increase the risk of
infections and the risk of complications such as heart failure and
allergic reactions.
Roxadustat (FG-4592) purports to be an orally administered small
molecule HIFPH inhibitor that promotes erythropoiesis through
increasing endogenous production of erythropoietin, improving iron
regulation, and overcoming the negative impact of inflammation on
hemoglobin syntheses and red blood cell production by down
regulating hepcidin. The Company states that administration of
roxadustat has been shown to induce coordinated erythropoiesis,
increasing red blood cell count while maintaining plasma
erythropoietin levels within or near normal physiologic range in
multiple subpopulations of CKD patients, including in the presence
of inflammation and without a need for supplemental intravenous
iron.
The Class Period begins on November 8, 2019, when FibroGen issued a
press release announcing "Positive Phase 3 Pooled Roxadustat Safety
and Efficacy Results". According to the complaint, the statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (i) that the Company's prior disclosures of U.S. primary
cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat Phase 3 program
for the treatment of anemia submitted in connection with CKD
included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors; (ii) that
FibroGen's analyses with the pre-specified stratification factors
result in higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative risk)
and 95% confidence intervals; (iii) that, based on these analyses,
the Company could not conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of
(or is superior to) MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in
incident dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa; (iv) that, as a result,
the Company faced significant uncertainty that its NDA for
roxadustat as a treatment for anemia of CKD would be approved by
the FDA; and (v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, FibroGen issued a press
release providing additional information on Roxadustat. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $14.90, or 43%, to close at
$19.74 per share on April 7, 2021, on heavy volume. FibroGen's
shares continued to fall on April 8, 2021, to close at $18.81 per
share, a decline of $0.93 per share, or 4.7%, on heavy volume. On
April 6, 2021, STAT+ published an article entitled "Fibrogen admits
false heart-safety data for experimental anemia pill shared with
FDA, investors."
The Individual Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded the
falsity and misleading nature of the information that they caused
to be disseminated to the investing public. The ongoing fraudulent
scheme described herein could not have been perpetrated over a
substantial period of time without the knowledge and complicity of
the personnel at the highest level of the Company, including the
Individual Defendants. The Individual Defendants were motivated to
materially misrepresent the true nature of the Company's business,
operations, and financial affairs to the public and regulators to
keep the Company's share price artificially high, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired FibroGen securities
during the Class Period.
FibroGen is a biopharmaceutical company that develops medicines for
the treatment of anemia, fibrotic disease, and cancer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
FISHER INVESTMENTS: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Martin, writing for Advisor Hub, report that billionaire Ken
Fisher's registered investment advisory firm faces a class action
for allegedly using an automatic telephone dialing system to make
unsolicited calls to thousands of prospective clients.
Mark Bryant of North Carolina filed a suit on April 9 against
Camas, Wash.-based Fisher Investments, Inc., with the U.S. District
Court of Western Washington, claiming the RIA used an automatic
dialer to call him around 15 times without his consent, violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and National Do Not
Call Registry rules.
Bryant is seeking injunctive relief to halt Fisher's conduct, which
he claimed has "resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals."
He's also seeking unspecified statutory damages on behalf of
himself and other members of the class, which includes individuals
in the U.S. who were not Fisher clients and were on do-not-call
lists but also received multiple marketing calls from the company
over the last four years.
The complaint said Bryant and the other members are each entitled
to a minimum of $500 in damages for each TCPA violation and up to
$500 for each do-not-call violation.
"The allegations in this frivolous lawsuit are completely false,"
Fisher Investments spokesman John Dillard said in a statement. "We
fully comply with the law."
Bryant, who said he has been registered with the FTC's do-not-call
list since 2009, claimed that Fisher in the fall of 2020 began
making unsolicited calls to his personal cell phone from numerous
numbers and that there was a "noticeable" pause before being
greeted by a live person, which he said was indicative of an
automated dialing system.
The TCPA specifically prohibits telemarketers from using an
automated dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice
without the recipient's prior express consent, according to the
suit.
Brady Hermann, a Boston-based lawyer not involved in the case, said
that it's likely an uphill battle for Bryant, particularly given
the Supreme Court's ruling on April 1 in Facebook v. Duguid, which
granted wider latitude to telemarketers using automatic telephone
dialing systems.
"Plaintiff will have to prove that Fisher Investments used a random
or sequential number generator to call him," Hermann wrote in a
LinkedIn post. "A lot of telephone systems used by businesses today
do not, so plaintiff may have an uphill battle."
Fisher's RIA, which is known for its aggressive marketing,
including calls, mailings and prevalent television advertising
slamming annuities, has faced other complaints over its sales
tactics.
According to a 2019 report, the FTC had fielded at least 125
grievances from individuals about Fisher Investments' cold-calling
since 2016, although the complaints did not result in any
regulatory action.
Fisher's firm at the time denied the allegations about cold-calling
and said it adds individuals to its contact suppression list when
they ask not to be contacted in the future.
Fisher Investments, which faced backlash in 2019 over sexist
remarks its founder made at an industry conference, managed over
$159 billion as of the end of 2020, according to its Form ADV filed
on March 26 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, up more
than 30% from the $121 billion it had reported at the end of 2019.
Cold-calling was a popular way for brokers to build a client book
but has largely fallen out of favor over the past decade amid
concerns over inefficiency and do-not-call violations. Firms have
cracked down as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and
state regulators have also imposed penalties related to the
practice.
In one example, Merrill Lynch in 2019 ousted three veteran advisors
for alleged cold-calling misconduct, and last year hit pause on
cold-calling in its training program. A senior executive said in
January it would revise its training program to move away from cold
calling prospects. [GN]
FIT SNACK: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fit Snack, LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Fit Snack, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03812
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fit Snack -- https://www.fitsnack.com/ -- strives to promote health
and wellness by offering healthier snack options to everyone.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
GAME TIME: Rivera Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------
Misma Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GAME TIME SUPPLEMENTS, LLC, Case No. CACE-21-008819
(Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 30, 2021), is
brought against the Defendant for violations under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards
prospective customers with no regard for consumers' privacy rights.
The Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other
legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant in transmitting advertising and telemarketing text
messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone and the cellular
telephones of numerous other similarly situated persons using an
automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and without anyone's
prior express written consent, in violation of the TCPA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.
The Defendant sells nutritional and fitness products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954.400.4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33301
Phone: 954.533.4092
Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
HAWAII: Loses Class Action Lawsuit Over Homestead Land Waitlist
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the state of Hawaii could pay
over $370,000 in lawyer fees after losing a class-action lawsuit
filed on behalf of more than 2,700 Native Hawaiians who spent years
on the waitlist for homestead land.
The $370,418 payment is pending approval from the state Legislature
and covers only attorneys fees during an appeal that stretched from
2017 to 2020, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported on April 11.
The amount is just a portion of what the state is expected to pay
after the full costs for lawyer fees are determined and damages are
awarded to those waitlisted.
"The state is well aware that it is going to be a very significant
amount and that's a consequence of its decision to fight this
lawsuit for 20 years," said attorney Carl Varady, who has
represented the plaintiffs in the case, known as Kalima v. State.
The Hawaii Supreme Court last year voted unanimously to allow the
class-action lawsuit to continue and for damages to be awarded to
plaintiffs, some of whom have waited for decades for leases on the
state's 203,000 acre (about 82,151 hectare) land trust.
The land trust was created by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of
1920 to improve the lives of Native Hawaiians, who are defined as
having at least 50% Hawaiian ancestry.
Native Hawaiians are eligible to apply for 99-year leases at $1 per
year for residential, ranching or farming leases on a land trust of
317 square miles (821 square kilometers) overseen by the agency.
There are currently about 23,000 Native Hawaiian applicants on the
waitlist.
Cedric Duarte, a spokesperson for the Hawaii Department of Home
lands, did not immediately respond to a request for comment made by
The Associated Press on April 11. [GN]
HIDIVE LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HiDive LLC. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. HiDive LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03807-LJL
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
HiDive -- https://www.hidive.com/ -- is an independent anime
streaming company based out of Houston, Texas that just came into
being in 2017.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces Tetley Suet Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Tetley, Thomas R. Seiler, George Nunez, Brian E. McCrossin,
and Thomas W. Seiler, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION LP d/b/a
JOHNSON CONTROLS, Case No. 1:21-cv-03800 (S.D.N.Y., April 29,
2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law to remedy violations of the wage and hour
provisions of the FLSA and the NYLL that have deprived the
Plaintiffs of their lawful wages, including overtime for all hours
worked in excess of forty in a week.
The Plaintiffs frequently worked more than 40 hours per week and
were not paid time-and-one-half their regular rate of pay for the
hours they worked over 40 in a week. The Plaintiffs were not paid
the total amount of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits for
the occupation "Steam Fitter" in New York City according to the New
York City Prevailing Wage Schedules, as required by statutorily
required contractual terms set forth in the FLSA and the NYLL, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are construction workers currently or formerly
employed by the Defendant who performed sprinkler service work on
private and public job sites throughout the City of New York.
Johnson Controls is one of the leading companies that provide fire
suppression services to private and public customers. It
manufactures, configures, installs, services and maintains various
fire suppression systems including sprinklers and valves,
extinguishers and agents, special hazards systems, related
components and fittings.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
80 Pine Street, 33nd Floor
New York, NY 10005
Office: 212-509-1616
Cellular: 973-432-1122
KASHI SALES: Johnston Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kashi Sales, L.L.C., Case No. 3:21-cv-00441-RJD (S.D.
Ill., May 2, 2021), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the
Defendant's false and misleading marketing practices with regards
to its Soft Baked Breakfast Bars ("cereal bars") labeled as "Ripe
Strawberry" under the Kashi brand.
The front label contains a picture of the bar with red filling on a
red background, and the statements, Ripe Strawberry, 3g Fiber, Made
with Wildflower Honey, and 10g Whole Grains. According to the
complaint, the representations are misleading because they give
consumers the impression the fruit filling contains more
strawberries than it does. The Defendant promotes the strawberry
content of the Product on its website and in its marketing, by only
mentioning strawberries, through pictures and statements. However,
the Product's "strawberry filling" is mostly made up of pear and
apple ingredients, instead of the highlighted strawberries. The
front label promotes the presence of honey - "Made with Wildflower
Honey." The Defendant knows consumers prefer honey to sugar for
numerous reasons including health. However, the Product has more
sugar than honey, which is misleading.
The Defendant misrepresented the Product through affirmative
statements, half-truths, and omissions. The Defendant sold more of
the Product and at a higher prices than it would have in absence of
this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of
consumers. Had the Plaintiff and proposed class members known the
truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid
less for it. The Plaintiff paid more for the Product based on the
representations than she would have otherwise paid. As a result of
the false and misleading representations, the Product is sold at a
premium price, approximately no less than no less than $4.59 for
six 1.2 OZ (35g) bars, excluding tax, higher than similar products
represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it would be
sold for absent the misleading representations and omissions, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on at least one occasion within
the statutes of limitations for each cause of action.
Kashi Sales, L.L.C. manufactures, markets and sells Soft Baked
Breakfast Bars labeled as "Ripe Strawberry" under the Kashi
brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LASER EYE CARE: Tanis Files Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laser Eye Care of
California, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Susan Tanis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Laser Eye Care of California, LLC, Gabriel Jacob, M.D., a Medical
Corporation, Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2021-00299140-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 19, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Civil Unlimited."
Laser Eye Care Of California LLC is a Ophthalmology Clinic in
Laguna Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq.
CASTLE LAW: CA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL, PC
2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180
Roseville, CA 95661-4219
Phone: 916-245-0122
Email: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com
LEGACY.COM INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legacy.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Legacy.com, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03824
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Legacy.com -- https://www.legacy.com/ -- is a global network of
online obituaries that provides timely news of death and allows
users to pay respect and celebrate life.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
LIBERTY POWER: Faces Mendoza WARN Act Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LIBERTY POWER CORP., LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-60928-RAR
(S.D. Fla., April 30, 2021), is brought for collection of unpaid
wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the "WARN
Act").
The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant until he was
terminated as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant
closing ordered by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable
under the WARN Act for the failure to provide the Plaintiff and the
other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance
written notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act. The
Plaintiff also brings this action against the Defendant on behalf
of himself and the other similarly situated former employees
seeking accrued but unused vacation time and commission pay, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff Jason Mendoza was an employee who was employed by the
Defendant and worked at or reported to the Facility until his
termination without cause on or about April 18, 2021.
The Defendant was a Delaware corporation which maintained a
facility at 2100 W Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Main Number: 813-224-0431
Facsimile: 813-229-8712
Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
gnichols@wfclaw.com
- and -
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
Johnathan Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
100 Church Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 581-5005
Fax: (212) 581-2122
- and -
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
Mobile, AL 36602
Phone: (251) 433-8100
Fax: (251) 433-8181
LOGIX FEDERAL: Ketayi FCRA Suit Transferred to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Miryam Ketayi, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Logix Federal Credit Union, Case No.
2:21-cv-00190 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 30, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00846-CAB-MSB to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Logix Federal Credit Union -- https://www.logixmortgage.com/ -- is
the only complete mortgage lending solution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexandria Kimberly Hobson, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO
251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 750
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 683-1100
Fax: (626) 683-1113
Email: hobson@litchfieldcavo.com
- and -
Mark Kenneth Worthge, Esq.
LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP
2 North Lake Avenue Suite 400
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone: (626) 683-1100
Fax: (626) 683-1113
LOWES HOME: Molina Sues to Recover Overtime Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------
Candice Molina and Christiana Baxter, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LOWES HOME CENTERS, L.L.C., Case
No. 1:21-cv-00403 (D.N.M., April 29, 2021), is brought pursuant the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, and the
Indiana Labor and Safety Code, to recover overtime wages and
liquidated damages and to recover unpaid straight-time wages, and
other applicable penalties.
According to the complaint, the Defendant enforced a uniform
company-wide policy wherein it improperly required its hourly
call-center employees—Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members-to perform work "off-the-clock" and without pay. The
Defendant's illegal company-wide policy has caused (and continues
to cause) the Plaintiffs to work compensable hours for which they
have not been compensated and further created a miscalculation of
their regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their
overtime compensation each workweek.
Although the Plaintiffs have routinely worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, the Plaintiffs have not been paid overtime of at
least one and one-half their regular rates for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate the Plaintiffs for all hours
worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine
and regular basis during the relevant time periods, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant.
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC operates a chain of home improvement
stores across the country.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
MAJESTIC CARE: Wright Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Wright, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
v. Majestic Care Staff LLC, Majestic Care Staff Holdings LLC,
Majestic Care Ohio Management LLC, and Majestic Care Ohio HG
Operations Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02129-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio,
April 29, 2021), is brought for the Defendants failure to pay
employees overtime wages seeking all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and common law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked, or they were
scheduled to work, more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks.
During their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was not
fully and properly paid for all overtime wages because the
Defendants applied a 30-minute meal break deduction to their
compensable hours worked even when the Plaintiff was unable to take
a full, uninterrupted 30-minute meal break. The Defendants knew or
should have been aware that the Plaintiff had a 30-minute meal
deduction applied to their daily hours worked when they were unable
to take a meal break, took a shortened meal break, and/or had their
meal break interrupted with job duties.
As a result of the Defendants' aforementioned meal break policies
and/or practices, the Plaintiff was not paid one-and-one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in
a workweek. Further, the Defendants knew or should have been aware
that the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and
were entitled to be paid an overtime rate based on their regular
rates of pay, as that phrase is defined under the FLSA, but the
Defendants willfully elected not to fully compensate their
employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was jointly employed by the Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt Nursing Assistant from approximately 2018 to the
present.
The Defendants provide community-based skilled nursing throughout
the states of Indiana and Ohio, specializing in clinical services,
such as short-term rehabilitation, long-term care, and memory
care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Phone: 614-949-1181
Fax: 614-386-9964
Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
MANTECA TRAILER: Bolton Files Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manteca Trailer &
Motorhome, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Ray Bolton,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Manteca Trailer & Motorhome, LLC, a limited liability company, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0003861 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
April 29, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Manteca Trailer & Motorhome, LLC -- https://www.mantecatrailer.com/
-- is a premier California RV dealership featuring Jayco, Newmar,
Coachmen, Sylvansport, Thor, Winnebago and much more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Fax: (213) 232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
MASON SCHILLING: Spillman Sues Over Improper Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Spillman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MASON, SCHILLING & MASON CO. LPA, and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-00269-DJH (W.D. Ky., April 29, 2021),
is brought to seek damages and declaratory relief under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act over failure to provide proper
initial communication letter.
Prior to August 11, 2017, an obligation was allegedly incurred to
PROSCAN IMAGING. The PROSCAN IMAGING obligation arose out of
transactions in which money, property, insurance or services were
the subject of the transactions. Specifically, this is a medical
bill and Plaintiff received these medical services primarily for
personal, family or household items. The Defendants collect and
attempt to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred
for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors
using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.
On August 27, 2020, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial
contact notice. According to the complaint, the letter states "Our
client has referred the above matter to our office. Please note
that our client has already authorized us to file a lawsuit to
collect the balance due. We will wait until the expiration of the
30 day period below, before considering whether we should file a
lawsuit. If a lawsuit is filed, you may be held liable for interest
and court costs, which would increase the balance due indicated
herein." This language threatens the consumer's thirty-day
validation rights by making threats of a lawsuit during the initial
thirty-day period. This language further threatens the consumer's
validation rights by threatening the imposition of interest, and
court costs "which would increase the balance due." These threats
only serve to coerce Plaintiff into paying immediately to avoid the
threat of legal action and increasing costs in lieu of exercising
her right to validate or dispute the debt provided him under the
"G-Notice."
The Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff, a consumer, with a
proper initial communication letter which overshadowed the
Plaintiff's rights under the FDCPA. This overshadowing subjected
the Plaintiff to an informational injury as she was not able to
fully ascertain her statutory rights. As a result of the
Defendants' deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection
practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Kentucky.
The Defendant MSM is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: 201-282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MAXIM HYGIENE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxim Hygiene
Products, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Maxim Hygiene
Products, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03825 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Maxim -- https://maximhy.com/ -- is a family owned and managed
company with over 40 years of experience in Menstrual and Personal
Care products manufacturing and distribution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MEDCURSOR INC: Casey Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Chad Casey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Medcursor, Inc., Case No. 21CECG00507,
was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 30,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00711-DAD-SAB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Medcursor -- https://www.medcursor.com/ -- aims to provide
affordable, comfortable and reliable massage products that utilize
modern technologies and support healthier lifestyles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adib Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Phone: (949) 688-6009
Fax: (800) 500-0301
Email: adib@blackoaklaw.com
- and -
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GORUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alan King Steinbrecher, Esq.
STEINBRECHER & SPAN LLP
445 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2350
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 891-1400
Email: asteinbrecher@steinbrecherspan.com
MERCHANTS' CREDIT: Root Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants' Credit
Guide Co. The case is styled as Eric Root and Marian Root, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Merchants'
Credit Guide Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-00273 (S.D.W. Va., April 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Merchant's Credit Guide Co. -- https://merchantscreditguide.com/ --
is a debt collection agency in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Davidson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew P. Stapleton, Esq.
STAPLETON LAW OFFICE
400 Fifth Avenue
Huntington, WV 25701
Phone: (304) 529-1130
Fax: (304) 529-0103
Email: stapletonlawoffices@gmail.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Manzano Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Wilma Manzano, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-09787-CCC-JSA
(D.N.J., April 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Muhlstock, Esq.
THE MUHLSTOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 974-9400
Fax: (516) 345-1635
Phone: todd@MuhlstockLaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dana Brett Bruganti, Esq.
Ellen Beth Silverman, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 471-6200
Fax: (212) 935-1166
Phone: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com
esilverman@hinshawlaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Niyazov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Niyazov, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02384 (E.D.N.Y., April 29,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Judge Approves $65MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
WBOC reports that a judge has approved a $65 million dollar
settlement between Mountaire Farms and Millsboro area residents
over groundwater contamination.
According to lawyers representing those residents, the total
settlement is $205 million dollars; $65 million for residents who
were affected, $140 million that Mountaire will spend on a new
waste water treatment plant. Attorneys for the residents believe it
is the largest nitrate groundwater contamination settlement in
history.
"This is we believe it's the single largest settlement in a nitrate
ground water contamination case, and we think certainly, this sends
a message to really all corporations who are polluting the
environment that if they don't comply, they'll be held
accountable," said Phillip Federico, of Schochor, Federico, and
Statin, P.A., one of the law firms on the case.
For those who live in neighborhoods around the Millsboro plant,
this has been years in the making. A few years ago, residents
noticed something was not right, complaining of water that smelled
and was discolored.
"It had this yellowish color and everything but . . . the reason
being because, coming out of New Jersey and looking at that water,
that water was a whole lot different," said Joyce Logan of when she
began to notice something wrong.
The lawsuit began in 2018, after Gary Cuppels and his wife were
given bottled water by Mountaire to drink instead of their own tap
water.
The class action lawsuit swelled to over 700 members, and perhaps
thousands more. Logan says the air and ground pollution led to
terrible sinus infections, and believes it also played a role in
the death of family members.
"With what I heard from what caused it, and all the chemicals and
things from the pollution, it's impacted pretty heavy, especially
in the last 5 years -- losing my husband, and my dog, and my
nephew. And those three gone away, and then my own personal health
problems," she told us.
Four years ago, David Neal's daughter was pregnant with his
granddaughter. He says they had to bathe the baby in bottled water
to keep her safe once she was born, and that his daughter remains
plagued with conditions he blames on the water pollution.
"She's got ulcerative colitis, she's got hyperactive thyroid, a
high heart rate. And she has to take medication for all of that
stuff for the rest of her life I guess. It's been crazy," said
Neal, who said his family was stuck. "We hated it. But we can't
afford to go no where else. We've been there since August of 84,
and we just cant afford to up and move anywhere."
Logan says she would give anything to have her family back, but
that this settlement gives her hope.
"Maybe these next kids can live through a better life than what we
got and we had through this. And that's the most important thing in
the world to me -- is that it will help the future of our kids as
well."
In a statement, Mountaire says "While Mountaire does not believe
that it caused any damage to any of the plaintiffs, it chose to
settle the case in order to achieve a final resolution and to allow
construction of a new wastewater treatment plant to proceed. As
part of the agreement, Mountaire has agreed to create a fund to be
used for payments to those in the Millsboro vicinity claiming
damages as a result of Mountaire's wastewater treatment practices.
The settlement resolves all outstanding class action claims for
injuries, damages, or nuisance."
If you believe you have a claim that falls into this class action
lawsuit, you can find more information here. [GN]
MYHERITAGE INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MyHeritage (USA) Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. MyHeritage (USA) Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03819 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MyHeritage -- https://www.myheritage.com/ -- is a genetic testing
service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: J.T. Seeks Review of Decision in Kamco Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants J. T. Magen & Company, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled KAMCO SUPPLY CORP., on behalf of itself and all other
persons similarly situated as trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law
trusts of which NASTASI & Associates, Inc., is a trustee, Plaintiff
v. NASTASI & ASSOCIATES, INC., J.T. MAGEN & COMPANY, INC., LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ANTHONY J. NASTASI and "JOHN DOE ONE"
THROUGH "JOHN DOE TEN," Defendants, Case No. 651725/2015, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Kamco provided
acoustical tiles to N&A, a subcontractor to a project at 150 East
42nd Street for which JTM was the general contractor; N&A allegedly
failed to pay Kamco $939,301.88 for those materials, and Kamco
filed a mechanic's lien for that non-payment. Kamco sought to
recover the $939,301.88 unpaid balance, plus interest, from N&A and
its principal, Nastasi (together, Nastasi Defendants); Kamco also
sought to foreclose on the lien, which has been substituted by a
lien discharge bond purchased by JTM from Liberty.
Kamco also provided materials to N&A for 20 building construction
projects with which N&A was involved since November 1, 2015, and
asserted Lien Law trust-diversion class action claims against the
Nastasi Defendants. Kamco requested an accounting of all Lien Law
trust funds for each of the 20 projects, including one or more
projects for which JTM was the general contractor, to identify the
beneficiaries of the Lien Law funds and ascertain the amounts paid
and owed to N&A for each project. Kamco sought to recover, on
behalf of itself and the class, damages sustained due to the
Nastasi Defendants' alleged misappropriation or diversion of such
funds.
The Defendants seek a review of the Decision and Order entered by
Hon. Andrea Masley, J.S.C. on April 9, 2021, in favor of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendants in the amount of $939,301.88,
together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
April 29, 2015, until the date of the decision and order, and
thereafter at the statutory rate, as calculated by the Clerk,
together with costs and disbursements to be taxed by the Clerk upon
submission of an appropriate bill of cost.
The appellate case is captioned as KAMCO SUPPLY CORP., on behalf of
itself and all other persons similarly situated as trust fund
beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts of which NASTASI & Associates,
Inc., is a trustee v. NASTASI & ASSOCIATES, INC., J.T. MAGEN &
COMPANY, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ANTHONY J. NASTASI
and "JOHN DOE ONE" THROUGH "JOHN DOE TEN," Case No. 2021-01306, in
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, First Judicial Department, filed on April 15, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants J.T. Magen & Company, Inc. & Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company are represented by:
Manny A. Frade, Esq.
MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN & BREITSTONE, LLP
190 Willis Avenue
Mineola, NY 11501
Telephone: (516) 747-0300 Ext. 137
Facsimile: (516) 747-0653
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Neptune Wellness Solutions Inc.
(NASDAQ: NEPT) between July 24, 2019 and February 16, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 17, 2021 lead
plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Neptune securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Neptune class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2059.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 17, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the cost of Neptune's
integration of the assets and operations acquired in the SugarLeaf
Acquisition would be larger than Neptune had acknowledged, placing
significant strain on Neptune's capital reserves; (2) accordingly,
it was reasonably foreseeable that Neptune would need to conduct
additional stock offerings to raise more capital; and (3) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Neptune class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2059.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
O'REILLY MEDIA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Reilly Media, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. O'Reilly Media, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03818 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
O'Reilly Media -- https://www.oreilly.com/ -- is an American
learning company established by Tim O'Reilly that publishes books,
produces tech conferences, and provides an online learning
platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
OREGON MUTUAL: Baker Appeals Insurance Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Steven Baker, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Steven Baker, Melania Kang,
doing business as: Chloe's Cafe D/B/A Chloe's Cafe, a California
general partnership, individually and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company,
an Oregon Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05467-LB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have a restaurant in San
Francisco called Chloe's Cafe. In response to the COVID-19
pandemic, San Francisco prohibited indoor dining, and the
plaintiffs lost money as a result. They submitted a claim for their
business losses to their insurer, Oregon Mutual Insurance Company.
Oregon Mutual denied the claim on the ground that the policy
covered only business losses resulting from "direct physical
losses" causing "direct physical loss of or damage to the insured
property." The Plaintiffs then sued -- on behalf of themselves and
a nationwide class -- for a declaratory judgment on the issue of
coverage. The court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint
on the ground that the complaint's allegations -- that the virus
caused physical losses by attaching to surfaces for a prolonged
period of time -- did not plausibly plead a direct physical loss of
or damage to the property and that the policy thus did not cover
the business losses. To cure this deficiency, the amended complaint
added allegations that "hazardous human respiratory droplets"
damaged the property and "posed an immediate danger to any
person(s) physically present on the premises." The new allegations
do not plausibly plead direct physical loss either, the Court held.
The Court, therefore, granted Oregon Mutual's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint because the policy does not cover the losses.
The Plaintiff now seek a review of the said Order granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Steven Baker, et al v. Oregon
Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 21-15716, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 23, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Steven Baker and Melania Kang Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 30, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 24, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on June 22, 2021;
-- Appellants Steven Baker and Melania Kang opening brief is due
on August 2, 2021;
-- Appellee Oregon Mutual Insurance Company answering brief is
due on September 1, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants STEVEN BAKER, DBA Chloe's Cafe; and MELANIA
KANG, a California general partnership, individually and on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, DBA Chloe's Café,
are represented by:
Daniel Jack Veroff, Esq.
MERLIN LAW GROUP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 851-2300
E-mail: dveroff@merlinlawgroup.com
Defendant-Appellee OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon
Corporation, is represented by:
Andrew P. Collier, Esq.
David B.A. Demo, Esq.
LHB PACIFIC LAW PARTNERS, LLP
5858 Horton St.
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (510) 841-7777
E-mail: acollier@plawp.com
ddemo@plawp.com
- and -
Clarke Benbow Holland, Esq.
PACIFIC LAW PARTNERS, LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 950
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (510) 841-7777
E-mail: cholland@plawp.com
- and -
Lind Stapley, Esq.
SOHA & LANG, PS
1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 624-1800
E-mail: stapley@sohalang.com
ORIGINAL MOWBRAY'S: Huerta Files Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Original
Mowbray's Tree Service, Inc. The case is styled as Jose De Jesus
Sandoval Huerta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Original Mowbray's Tree Service, Inc., Does 1-10,
Case No. 34-2021-00298933-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., April 19, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Civil Unlimited."
The Original Mowbray's Tree Service Inc. --
https://www.mowbrays.com/ -- is located in San Bernardino,
California and is part of the Landscaping Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St Ste 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Fax: (213) 232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
PALUMBO: Court Tosses Nationwide TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Brent Owen, writing for TCPAWorld, reports that a plaintiff must
allege his injury with some plausibility to move forward with TCPA
claims, even for claims against a TCPA scofflaw. That is the lesson
from a recent opinion out of Eastern District of New York granting
defendants' motion to dismiss a nationwide TCPA class action.
Zeitlin v. Palumbo, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66512, *1 (E.D.N.Y. April
6, 2021).
The lawsuit here related to a criminal complaint filed by the DOJ.
The DOJ alleged that the Defendants participated in illegal
robocalling schemes:
Based abroad, fraudsters use robocalling technology to send
millions of calls with the same prerecorded message. It purports to
arrive from a government agency -- such as the Social Security
Administration or the Internal Revenue Service -- using 'spoofing'
technology to mask its true origin. The prerecorded message claims
that the recipient has been implicated in criminal activity. The
vulnerable, gullible, and frightened often respond to these calls,
and fraudsters say that the only way to address the problem is to
send money or personal information.
In that related criminal case, the DOJ seeks to hold Defendants
responsible for wire fraud, and it has already obtained a
preliminary injunction.
One day after the DOJ filed its remarkable complaint, Plaintiff
filed a TCPA class action against the same Defendants. Plaintiff's
piggyback complaint had one glaring problem: he "did not allege
that he actually received a call from" either of the Defendants.
Instead, he alleged only that the "likelihood is high that
[Defendants] were involved with calls received by Plaintiff."
Carefully applying Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, the
Court concluded that the allegations did not state a claim:
"Plaintiff offers virtually no information that would connect
Defendants to the calls he received. Instead, he suggests that if
Defendants facilitated millions of robocalls, and he received
robocalls, then he may allege 'upon information and belief,' that
he received robocalls that 'were made, carried, processed,
connected, placed, routed, and/or facilitated by [Defendants]
and/or their agents[.]"
The Court explained that Plaintiff's request for "discovery to
connect Defendants to the calls [is an admission] that he cannot
satisfy the Twomby/Iqbal standard." And, moreover, "discovery is
authorized solely for parties to develop the facts in a lawsuit in
which a plaintiff has stated a legally cognizable claim, not in
order to permit a plaintiff to find out whether he has such a
claim." On balance, the Court must guard against "the danger of
'fishing expeditions,'" including a proliferation of "barebones
complaints" against defendants with "little or no evidence of
statutory violations[.]"
In a pyrrhic victory for Plaintiff, the Court denied Defendants'
request for Rule 11 sanctions. The Court noted that Plaintiff "at
least has been candid that he needs discovery to connect Defendants
to the robocalls he received."
This is likely not the last time we hear about this case. But it
provides an important reminder that the current pleading standard
requires a nexus to the harm -- even when the defendants may be
involved in an extensive and fraudulent robocall fraud. [GN]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Wilson Sues Over False & Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., JOHN FOLEY, AND JILL
WOODWORTH, Case No. 1:21-cv-02369 (E.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021), is
brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Peloton
between September 11, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive, and to
seek recovery of compensable damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of the Defendants' materially
false and/or misleading statements.
According to the complaint, Peloton launched the Tread+ treadmill
in 2018. At that time, it was called the "Tread." The Company
renamed its signature treadmill in September 2020 to "Tread +." On
September 11, 2020, Peloton filed its annual report on Form 10-K
with the SEC for the year ended June 30, 2020. The 2020 10-K was
signed by Defendants Foley and Woodworth. Attached to the 2020 10-K
were certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
("SOX") signed by the Defendants Foley and Woodworth attesting to
the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud.
The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial
results, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in
addition to the tragic death of a child, Peloton's Tread+ had
caused a serious safety threat to children and pets as there were
multiple incidents of injury to both; (2) safety was not a priority
to Peloton as the Defendants were aware of serious injuries and
death resulting from the Tread+ yet did not recall or suggest a
halt of the use of the Tread+; (3) as a result of the safety
concerns, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission declared the
Tread+ posed a serious risk to public health and safety resulting
in its urgent recommendation for consumers with small children to
cease using the Tread+; (4) the CPSC also found a safety threat to
Tread+ users if they lost their balance; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' statements about Peloton's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On April 18, 2021, a day the market was closed, Defendant Foley
wrote a letter emailed to Tread+ owners and published on the
Company's website stating that Peloton had "no intention" to stop
selling or to recall the Tread+. On this news, Peloton's stock
price fell $16.28 per share, or more than 14%, over the next three
trading days to close at $99.93 per share on April 21, 2021,
damaging investors. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Peloton securities during the Class
Period.
Peloton provides interactive fitness products such as the Peloton
Bike and the Peloton Tread+ and Tread, which include touchscreens
that stream live and on-demand classes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
PERANI INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Perani, Inc. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Perani, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03808-JPC
(S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Perani & Partners -- https://www.perani.com/en/ -- is a major
Italian consulting firm specialized in Intellectual Property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PHYSICIANS CARE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Physicians Care
Alliance, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Physicians Care
Alliance, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03822 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Physician's Care Alliance d/b/a PCA Skin --
https://www.pcaskin.com/ -- was founded in 2006. The company's line
of business includes home health care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
PINTEREST INC: LeMoure Sues Over Decline in Securities Market Value
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward LeMoure, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PINTEREST, INC., BENJAMIN SILBERMANN, and TODD
MORGENFELD, Case No. 3:21-cv-03181 (N.S. Cal., April 29, 2021), is
brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Pinterest securities between February 4, 2021
and April 27, 2021, and pursues claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with regard to the Defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in
securities market value.
The complaint states that on April 27, 2021, after the market
closed, Pinterest announced its first quarter 2021 financial
results and reported that global monthly active users grew only 30%
year-over-year to 478 million, a decline from the prior quarter's
37% year-over-year growth. During the conference call held the same
day, Pinterest's Chief Executive Officer stated that "as pandemic
lockdowns were eased in some parts of the world during mid-March,
we began to see signs of less engagement and user growth on
Pinterest." On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.25, or
14.5%, to close at $66.33 per share on April 28, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that user growth
was already slowing; (2) that, as a result, the Company expected
user engagement to slow in the second quarter of 2021; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result
of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Pinterest securities during the Class
Period.
Pinterest operates a platform that purports to provide inspiration
for its users' lives.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
PLUG POWER: Pomerantz LLP Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Plug Power Inc. ("Plug Power" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PLUG) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-02402, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Plug securities between November 9,
2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Plug Power securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 7, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Plug provides comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions
focused on systems used to power electric motors in the electric
mobility and stationary power markets.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company would be
unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related
to the review of classification of certain costs and the
recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; (2)
that the Company was reasonably likely to report material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 7, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The share price continued to decline by $9.48, or 19.4%,
over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $39.30 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
RAEL INC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rael, Inc. The case
is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Rael, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03828 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rael -- https://www.getrael.com/ -- is LA-based menstrual care and
feminine wellness company that provides comfortable, high-quality
products made of natural and organic ingredients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
RIVERSIDE CO, CA: Restaurants File Class Action Over Permit Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patch reports that multiple restaurants forced to close their doors
during the coronavirus public health lockdowns, even while paying
government fees to maintain their operating permits without
generating revenue, are suing Riverside County and the state.
The Old Spaghetti Factory of Rancho Mirage, the Old Spaghetti
Factory of Riverside and other establishments included in the class
action argue that the county Department of Environmental Health and
the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control should have
suspended or refunded fee collections while the lockdowns were
underway.
Restaurants can now provide both indoor and outdoor dining, with
health safeguards and capacity limitations, under the orange tier
of the governor's "Blueprint for a Safer Economy" framework.
The civil action points to the economic harm wrought by former
county Public Health Officer Cameron Kaiser's orders barring public
gatherings in March 2020, and following that, Gov. Gavin Newsom's
string of executive orders mandating that eateries -- deemed
"non-essential" -- remain closed.
Some restaurants never recovered financially and are now
permanently out of business, according to the suit.
"We view this as significant government overreach," plaintiffs'
attorney Brian Kabateck said. "The defendants collected fees at a
time during the pandemic when officials were ordering the business
to shut down, or drastically limit operations."
Kabateck characterized the county and state charges imposed on
restaurants as "offensive" because they were demanding "fees for
licenses and permits that these businesses couldn't use."
The county Executive Office didn't immediately respond to a request
for comment, nor did representatives from the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Along with Riverside County and the state, the suit also targets
health regulators in Contra Costa, Monterey, Placer, Santa Clara
and Sonoma counties.
Similar class actions were filed at the end of last year in Los
Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego and San Francisco counties.
There are close to 60,000 restaurants statewide, employing nearly
1.5 million people, according to the California Restaurant
Association.
"For more than a year, restaurants have modified business
operations, reduced hours, and temporarily or permanently closed
down," association CEO Jot Condie said. "Still, restaurateurs are
expected to pay burdensome state and local fees as if they were not
forced to shut down or eliminate in- person dining.
"This (legal) action delivers a clear message about the willingness
of restaurants to go the distance to recover fees," he said. "We
expect thousands of restaurants will be willing to join the class
action in their respective counties with the aim of total
reimbursement for the fees and taxes that were inappropriately
levied."
The National Restaurant Association reported that, as of last fall,
three million restaurant workers had been displaced, and the
industry was staring at revenue losses totaling $250 billion.
Even with limited reopenings in the last several months, the suit
notes that almost "70 percent of California's restaurant owners are
at risk of being evicted ... as the bills pile up, including fees,
taxes and other charges levied by the same government entities
restricting restaurants' ability to fully operate."
The plaintiffs acknowledge that health protocols and safeguards
were necessary when COVID-19 reached the U.S., but state and local
governments ought to be willing to "return the fees, taxes and
charges" that should never have been collected in the first place.
[GN]
ROOT INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROOT) who: (1)
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Root securities
between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired Root Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering documents
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"),
of the important May 18, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Root securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Root class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2061.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than May 18, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Offering
documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Root would foreseeably fail to
generate positive cash flow for at least several years following
the IPO; (2) accordingly, Root would foreseeably require
significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (3)
notwithstanding the defendants' touting of Root's purportedly
unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's
established industry peers in fact possessed significant
competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia,
telematics data and data engagement; and (4) as a result, the
Offering documents and defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Root class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2061.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SACRAMENTO, CA: Alweiss Files Suit in E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Sacramento,
et al. The case is styled as Daniel Alweiss, individually and as
class representative for all similarly situated permit applicants
who are class members v. City of Sacramento, Thomas Pace, Teresa
Haenggi, Case No. 2:21-cv-00784-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal., April 30,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.
Sacramento -- https://www.cityofsacramento.org/ -- is the capital
city of the U.S. state of California and the seat and largest city
of Sacramento County.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Evan C. Nelson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF EVAN C. NELSON
1261 Locust St. #191
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4509
Phone: (925) 247-8992
Email: evancnelson.law@gmail.com
SHOPIFY INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged 2020 Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isabelle Kirkwood, writing for betakit, reports that Shopify and
cryptocurrency hard wallet company Ledger have been hit with a
class-action lawsuit in relation to a 2020 data breach that
impacted a number of Shopify merchants.
A suit was filed in a Northern California court on April 6, by two
plaintiffs, John Chu and Edward Baton. Shopify Inc., Shopify USA
Inc., Ledger SAS, and Ledger Technologies Inc. are named as
defendants.
The plaintiffs claim several users lost their cryptocurrency in
phishing campaigns due to their personal data being leaked. The
suit also alleges Shopify and Ledger "negligently allowed,
recklessly ignored, and then intentionally sought to cover up" the
2020 breach. Shopify first revealed the breach in September, and
according to Ledger, Ledger was informed by Shopify of its
involvement on December 23.
"Ledger's and Shopify's misconduct has made targets of Ledger
customers, with their identities known or available to every hacker
in the world," the suit states.
Shopify revealed in September that two employees were behind a data
breach that had affected some of the merchants on its platform. At
the time, the company stated "less than 200 merchants" were
affected.
The plaintiffs allege that the hackers involved in the breach
posted Ledger's customer list, including "email addresses and other
contact information," onto the online "black market." The suit also
claims between June and December 2020, at least one of the hackers
published the acquired data online, exposing names, physical
addresses, phone numbers, and order information.
In January, Ledger revealed it was part of the breach, as one of a
"small number" of additional Shopify merchants that were found to
have been affected by the data breach.
According to Ledger, 292,000 of its own customers were affected.
Ledger said data exposed in the breach included emails, names,
postal addresses, products ordered, and phone numbers.
In September, Shopify stated that two "rogue members" of its
support team were engaged in the plot to obtain the customer
transactional records of specific merchants following an internal
investigation. Shopify said contact information such as emails,
names, and addresses, as well as order details, such as products
and services purchased, were affected.
Shopify declined to comment on the lawsuit to BetaKit, noting that
litigation is pending. In January, a spokesperson for the company
told BetaKit, "merchant trust and data security remain a top
priority at Shopify, and we are committed to protecting our
platform, our merchants, and their customers." [GN]
SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Costeaux French Bakery Sues Over Business Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Graham, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that
Costeaux French Bakery, one of Sonoma County's most prominent food
brands, sued the county and the state on April 12 seeking
reimbursement of business fees paid while public health orders
meant to curb COVID-19's spread constrained or closed the operation
and others across the state.
The lawsuit seeks repayment of public health permit and business
licensing fees, and the state's liquor control fees. It was one of
seven similar class-action lawsuits filed in recent days against
counties and the state over pandemic public health orders
plaintiffs contend were overly intrusive on businesses.
"It's offensive and tone-deaf for these entities to enforce these
rules and charge fees for licenses and permits these businesses
couldn't use," Brian Kabateck, a Southern California attorney
representing Costeaux French Bakery and other restaurants around
the state, said in a press statement accompanying the lawsuit.
The Healdsburg bakery has roots in town going back to the early
1920s. Will Seppi, a second-generation family owner, agreed to
serve as a lead plaintiff in the local case. He has not returned
calls for comment, but has previously been outspoken about the
damage the pandemic has wrought on his business, spurring dozens of
staff layoffs.
Costeaux French Bakery opens to-go cafe at Sonoma County airport
The bakery is represented by Kabateck's Los Angeles-based firm,
which filed similar lawsuits in six other counties -- Contra Costa,
Santa Clara, Monterey, San Bernardino, Riverside and Placer -- in
recent days. The wave of suits follows similar cases in San Diego,
Orange, San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles counties filed in
January.
"We view this as significant government overreach," Kabateck said
in the statement.
The lawsuit itself may spur the counties to reimburse business
owners for fees without going to court, Kabateck said in an
interview. "We're still hoping these counties do the right thing,"
he said.
The bakery is seeking unspecified damages of more than $25,000,
according to the lawsuit. In total among the various lawsuits,
plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement of fees that are in the tens
of millions of dollars, if not more than $100 million, Kabateck
said.
Sonoma County's lawyers have been aware of the pending lawsuit
since Costeaux bakery filed a claims notice with the county in
December. "We have not found any merits to the claims," Paul
Gullixson, the county's communications manager, said on April 12.
The county's Department of Health Services has offered permitting
extensions and a wide range of other services to minimize the
impact on local businesses, including restaurants, during the
pandemic, he said.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors in January directed the
county to use a $2.8 million fund to support businesses that paid
operating fees but haven't been able to fully open or operate at
all during the pandemic, Gullixson said. Officials have been
working on criteria for administering that money and are scheduled
to report to the board again on April 29.
But the lawsuit cites widespread harm to the restaurant industry.
Food and beverage service industries are generally considered one
of the hardest hit sectors of the state's economy, hampered by
strict restrictions designed to slow the contagion by keeping
people apart from each other, in particular indoors.
"California's restaurant owners are struggling to pay their bills
and keep workers employed," according to the 20-page complaint,
filed April 9 in Sonoma County County Superior Court. "Nearly 70%
of California's restaurant owners are at risk of being evicted from
their property as the bills pile up, including fees, taxes, and
other charges levied by the same government entities that are
restricting the restaurants' ability to fully operate."
Supervisor James Gore, who represents Healdsburg, said he pushed
for that measure in response to frustrations like those put forward
in the lawsuit.
"One of the reasons I fought to get those fees either canceled or
back filled with county funds is because I do believe that its
bothersome in the least that you charge people with fees while
they're closed down," Gore said.
Gore declined to answer questions about the lawsuit itself. The
Board of Supervisors discussed the bakery's claims behind closed
doors.
"I know the owner very well," Gore said of Seppi, and "I know his
frustration."
In January, Costeaux French Bakery and Seppi, the company's
president and CEO, were among a group of 50 restaurants, wineries
and hotels in Sonoma and Napa counties to sue Gov. Gavin Newsom
over his public health orders, and specifically over restrictions
against outdoor dining. The group, which called itself the Wine
Country Coalition for Safe Reopening, is not involved in the new
lawsuit.
Seppi's latest crusade puts the bakery in the middle of touchy
pandemic-era debate in Sonoma County, where public health orders
have had solid support but also plenty of critics.
But Kabateck sought to distinguish his many lawsuits from the
political tug-of-war over public health orders.
"Our case isn't political," he said. The government should not have
charged fees at a time that it constricted businesses' ability to
operate, Kabateck said. "That's really all that it's about," he
said.
The class action lawsuit is likely to draw allies among the
business community who stand to benefit from the return of the
fees.
"I do think the state should have forgiven a lot of things and
[fees are] one of them or they at least should've been
reconsidered," Cynthia Ariosta, the owner of Pizzeria Tra Vigne in
St. Helena and a spokesperson for the Wine County Coalition, said
in an interview.
The group's original lawsuit against Newsom has been paused since
business restrictions were lifted early this year. It could be
refiled if the governor reverses that course in the face of the
persistent pandemic, she said.
Costeaux French Bakery operates four retail shops and a wholesale
bread business. In January, Seppi told The Press Democrat that he
had lost millions of dollars over the 10 months of limited
operations and shutdowns because of the virus. Earlier in the
pandemic, he laid off more than 60% of his 125-person workforce.
Restored jobs have left him with about 80 employees, many working
only part time while outdoor dining is prohibited, he said in
January.
The Cousteaux Bakery lawsuit name names as defendants the County of
Sonoma, its Department of Health Services and the California
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. [GN]
SPINDRIFT BEVERAGE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spindrift Beverage
Co., Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Spindrift Beverage Co., Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03826 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Spindrift -- https://drinkspindrift.com/ -- is an American soda and
seltzer company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Wiggins Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Statebridge Company,
LLC. The case is styled as Charles D. Wiggins, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Statebridge Company,
LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-10975-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Statebridge -- https://www.statebridgecompany.com/ -- is a servicer
of debt servicing residential and commercial mortgages as well as
consumer, construction and automobile debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
STEREOTAXIS INC: Barre Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Barre, directly on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of STEREOTAXIS, INC. v.
STEREOTAXIS, INC., DAVID BENFER, DAVID L. FISCHEL, NATHAN FISCHEL,
JOE KIANI, ARUN S. MENAWAT, ROBERT J. MESSEY, and ROSS B. LEVIN,
Case No. 2021-0377- (Del. Chancery Ct., April 29, 2021), is brought
against Stereotaxis and the Company's board of directors for
breaches of fiduciary duty, arising from the Board's failure to
disclose patently material information in connection with the
stockholder vote on the Company's new compensation package for its
chief executive officer Daniel Fischel, which could provide D.
Fischel with up to 10% of the Company's shares outstanding if the
Award's market capitalization milestones are satisfied.
According to the complaint, the Board is asking stockholders to
bestow on the Company's CEO a compensation package potentially
worth over half-a-billion dollars but withholding information
necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision thereon,
including information sufficient for stockholders to glean any
sense of the Award's expected value.
On February 23, 2021, the Stereotaxis Board granted D. Fischel the
performance share unit Award. The Award consists of ten tranches
that vest upon the satisfaction of certain market capitalization
milestones so long as D. Fischel remains employed by the Company in
a "significant role." The ten tranches collectively provide D.
Fischel the opportunity to receive up to 13 million shares of
Stereotaxis common stock. New York Stock Exchange listing rules
require Stereotaxis to obtain stockholder approval of the Award. On
April 9, 2021, Stereotaxis filed a definitive proxy statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission soliciting the
requisite stockholder approval of the Award at the Company's May
20, 2021 annual meeting of stockholders.
The Proxy omits patently material information necessary to allow
stockholders to make an informed decision on whether to support the
unorthodox and outsized Award. Among other things, the Proxy fails
to disclose (a) the Award's grant date fair value (i.e., the
probability adjusted value of the Award at the time of the grant)
and (b) a fair summary of the analysis performed on the
Compensation Committee's behalf by its compensation consultant
Compensia, Inc. and valuation expert Globalview Advisors. Through
this Action, Plaintiff seeks an order preventing the Company from
convening the stockholder vote on the Award unless and until the
Board discloses to public stockholders all information necessary
for them to make an informed decision regarding whether to support
the Award, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Stereotaxis and has owned
Stereotaxis common stock.
The Defendant Stereotaxis is a medical device company and the
global leader in innovative robotic technologies designed to
enhance the treatment of arrhythmias and performance of
endovascular procedures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 364-3601
- and -
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Joseph W. Caputo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
David Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Phone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Phone: (484) 258-1585
THERMAL STRUCTURES: Faces Valdez Suit Over Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rocha Valdez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THERMAL STRUCTURES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2101779
(Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty., April 19, 2021), is brought
against the Defendants for California Labor Code violations: unfair
business practices stemming from the Defendants' failure to pay
minimum and regular rate wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked
and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.
Despite the requirements, throughout the statutory period the
Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and
practice of: Failing to pay employees for all hours worked,
including all minimum wages, overtime wages, in compliance with the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders; Failing to maintain
accurate records of the hours employees worked; Failing to provide
employees with timely and duty- free meal periods in compliance
with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, failing to
maintain accurate records of all meal periods taken or missed, and
failing to pay an additional hour' s pay for each workday a meal
period violation occurred; Failing to authorize and permit
employees to take timely and duty-free rest periods in compliance
with the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, and failing to
pay an additional hour' s pay for each workday a rest period
violation occurred; Willfully failing to pay employees all minimum
wages, overtime wages, meal period premium wages, and rest period
premium wages due within the time period specified by California
law when employment terminates; and Failing to provide employees
with accurate, itemized wage statements containing all the
information required by the California Labor Code and IWC Wage
Orders, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in Riverside County,
California as an assembler.
The Defendants own/owned and operate/operated an industry,
business, and establishment within the State of California,
including Riverside County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seung Yang, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
Brett Gunther, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com
allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
brett.gunther@moonyanglaw.com
UNITED STATES: Gilbert Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Donna M. Gilbert, et al. filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Donna M. Gilbert, Julie Mohney, Charmaine White Face,
Petitioners v. READM Michael D. Weahke, Director of the Indian
Health Service (IHS); James Driving Hawk, Great Plains IHS Area
Director; and William P. Barr, Attorney General, Respondents, Case
No. 20-1487.
Response is due on May 24, 2021.
Petitioners filed for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit in the
case titled DONNA M. GILBERT, JULIE MOHNEY, CHARMAINE WHITE FACE,
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. RADM
MICHAEL D. WEAHKEE, Principal Deputy Director of Indian Health
Service (IHS); JAMES DRIVING HAWK, Great Plains IHS Area Director;
and WILLIAM BARR, United States Attorney General,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-1484, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court of Appeals denied the
Petitioners' petition for rehearing en banc and rehearing by the
panel on January 26, 2021.
The question presented is whether a federal agency is allowed to
enter into a contract with a state non-profit corporation when the
state non-profit corporation was established by the federal agency
and does not meet the lawful eligibility requirements in violation
of federal law and the due process rights of the Petitioners.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25, 2020, Judge
Jeffrey L. Viken of the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Dakota, Western Division, (a) granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss; and (b) denied as moot (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and motion for summary judgment, and (ii) the
Defendants' motions to strike.
The Plaintiffs, Native Americans residing in Rapid City, South
Dakota, commenced the action challenging the decision of the Indian
Health Service ("IHS") to enter into a self-determination contract
with the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Health Board. The contract
permits the Health Board to operate portions of IHS' facilities in
Rapid City, including the Sioux San hospital, now known as the
Oyate Health Center.
The Plaintiffs assert the contract violates the Fort Laramie Treaty
of 1868 between the United States and the Great Sioux Nation and
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(ISDEAA). They ask the court to enjoin the contract and reinstate
IHS control over the Rapid City facilities. Also pending before
the court are the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and
summary judgment.
The Petitioners urge the Supreme Court to grant this petition for a
Writ of Certiorari to ensure that federal agencies are not allowed
to establish their own non-profit corporations with the intent of
illegally diverting millions of dollars of federal funds to their
own corporations. These particular federal funds under the ISDEAA
can only be allocated to a Tribe or a Tribal Organization, not a
state non-profit corporation established by the funding agency, in
this case the HIS, the Petitioners assert.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners DONNA M. GILBERT, JULIE MOHNEY,
and CHARMAINE WHITE FACE, of Rapid City, South Dakota, appear pro
se.
UNITED STATES: Onosamba-Ohindo Appeals Ruling in Habeas Corpus Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Junior Onosamba-Ohindo filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr,
Case No. 20-cv-290, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York (Buffalo).
The Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. section 2241 and complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief, purportedly on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated. At the time the Petition was filed, the
Plaintiffs were both civil immigration detainees held under 8
U.S.C. section 1226(a) pending their removal proceedings.
The Plaintiffs sought class certification; a declaratory judgment
that the "actions, practices, policies, and/or omissions" of
defendants/respondents William Barr, the United States Department
of Justice, James McHenry, the Executive Office for Immigration
Review, Matthew Albence, Chad F. Wolf, and Jeffrey Searls violate
the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing
regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; a declaratory judgment that
each class member is entitled to a custody hearing at which the
government bears the burden to justify continued detention by
proving by clear and convincing evidence that the detained
individual is a danger to others or a flight risk; and an order
stating that each class member must be released unless provided
with such a custody hearing.
Mr. Onosamba-Ohindo now seeks a review of the Decision and Order
dated September 2, 2020, wherein the Court granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss; granted in part,
denied in part, and reserved decision in part on Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification; and granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
The appellate case is captioned as Onosamba-Ohindo v. Barr, Case
No. 21-1044, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on April 27, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Junior Onosamba-Ohindo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Amy Belsher, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 607-3342
E-mail: abelsher@nyclu.org
Defendant-Appellee Jeffrey Searls, in his official capacity as the
Acting Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, is
represented by:
Tiffany H. Lee, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
138 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: July 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 456 PENSION
FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:17-cv-02817-JHS
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION; (II)
SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who or which, during the period from
March 2, 2015, through July 25, 2017 inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired Universal Health Services, Inc. ("UHS") common
stock, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class as set forth in
the full printed Notice Of (I) Pendency Of Class Action,
Certification Of Settlement Class, And Proposed Settlement of Class
Action; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion For An Award Of
Attorneys' Fees And Reimbursement Of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $17,500,000.00 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims
in the Action.
A hearing will be held on July 15, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Joel H. Slomsky at the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne United States
Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, or by
telephonic, video conferencing or other electronic means, as posted
on the website of the Claims Administrator. The hearing will
determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at UHS Securities
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173119, Milwaukee, WI
53217, or calling 800-547-4406. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form
can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.uhssecuritieslitigation.com (the "Settlement
Website").
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted to
the Settlement Website no later than July 8, 2021. If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than June 24, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to representatives of Lead Counsel and Defendants'
Counsel such that they are received no later than June 24, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, UHS, or
Defendants' counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
UHS Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173119
Milwaukee, WI 53217
800-547-4406
www.uhssecuritieslitigation.com
info@uhssecuritieslitigation.com
Dated: April 12, 2021
By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK: Students File Sexual Assault Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hadeel Ibrahim, writing for CBC News, reports that a Fredericton
law firm has filed a class-action application against the
University of New Brunswick after multiple students said a
psychiatrist at the student health centre sexually assaulted them.
Dr. Manoj Bhargava, who worked part time at the Student Health
Centre at UNB, was suspended by the College of Physicians and
Surgeons last year after the college received several misconduct
complaints against him.
Since the suspension in November, the college has received a total
of 18 sexual assault complaints against Bhargava from individual
patients, most of them students, according to college registrar Dr.
Ed Schollenberg.
Bhargava and UNB were both named in the class-action lawsuit
application filed on April 12 by the plaintiff Morgan Jean Wilcox.
Erika Hachey, injury and insurance law partner at Moss Hachey Law,
said the application is filed against Bhargava for sexual assault
of various students who attended UNB, and against UNB "for the
systemic failures to protect their students from Dr. Bhargava and
his behaviour."
She called the victims a "particularly vulnerable group of
students."
Wilcox filed the suit under her own name, which is not under a
publication ban because this is not a criminal matter. Hachey said
that in a class action, only the representative plaintiff is named
unless other plaintiffs choose to share their names publicly. In
criminal cases involving sexual assault, the complainant's name is
protected under law and not published.
She said her firm decided to spearhead the class-action suit after
Wilcox contacted them and asked to be the representative of the
suit.
"She was a very recent victim of Dr. Bhargava at the Student Health
Centre and speaking with her, she was very adamant she wanted to
start a class action on behalf of all of the students that were
affected by this," Hachey said.
The statement of claim alleges Bhargava prescribed medication he
said would affect the patient's heart rate and blood pressure. Then
he would frequently ask her to remove articles of underwear and
clothing so he could take her blood pressure and heart rate and
used "non-consensual sexual contact" to do so.
Hachey said the alleged sexual abuse was reported to UNB various
times, but the details of when and how have not been outlined in
the statement of claim.
Schollenberg said the complaints the college received contain
almost identical allegations, where patients describe Bhargava
asking them to remove under garments and then touching their
breasts while checking their heartbeats or taking their blood
pressure.
"More or less, slight variations, but generally all are pretty much
the same thing," he said.
The allegations have not been proven in court, and a date is yet to
be set to hear the case. UNB has not yet filed a statement of
defence.
Hachey said that once a statement of defence is filed, the court
can have a certification hearing. Only if the case has been
certified can it proceed as a class-action suit.
Referring complaints to police
Schollenberg said the college involved the police recently, after
suspending Bhargava.
"It became apparent that there may be more to this," he said.
He said the college asked some of the 18 complainants if they were
interested in speaking to the police and passed on their
information to the Fredericton Police Force if they said yes.
Alycia Bartlett, spokesperson for the Fredericton Police Force,
would not confirm whether the police are investigating Bhargava.
"In general, we would not confirm whether a specific individual was
the subject of a police investigation until such time as charges
are laid in court, or there are operational reasons otherwise," she
said in an email.
One complainant on the record
Hachey said Wilcox is the only person whose allegations are
detailed in the statement of claim, but the class action has been
filed on behalf of everyone who's experienced sexual assault by
Bhargava. She said the firm is still trying to contact people
affected.
"We have currently our representative plaintiff, but that's all you
need to start a class action," she said.
Hachey said the plaintiff is "looking for action be taken on behalf
of the students who had this happen to them and … for UNB to
recognize the failures of the Dr. Bhargava and of themselves that
led to the sexual assault of all these students."
Hachey said the timeline has not been outlined yet.
CBC did not get a response from UNB or Bhargava by publication
time. [GN]
USCB INC: Machluf Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USCB, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Shimon Machluf, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. USCB, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00839-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal., April 29, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
USCB -- https://uscbamerica.com/ -- has grown to become the leader
in receivables management for the healthcare industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
VIVINT SOLAR: Tsou Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tsou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER, LLC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:21-cv-03647 (C.D. Cal., April 29, 2021), is brought to seek
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff
on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff'
privacy.
On January 2021, the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number in an attempt to solicit the
Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Defendants used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" to place its call to the
Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendants did not
possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls
using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. The Plaintiff
requested for Defendants to stop calling Plaintiff during one of
the initial calls from Defendants, thus revoking any prior express
consent that had existed and terminating any established business
relationship that had existed. Despite this, the Defendants
continued to call the Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its
services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of
the TCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in El Monte,
California.
VIVINT SOLAR, INC. is a solar energy company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
VROOM INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of May 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Root securities
between June 9, 2020 and March 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/vrm.
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, Defandants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Vroom had not demonstrated that it was able to
control and scale growth in respect to its salesforce to meet the
demand for its products; (2) as a result, the Company was forced to
discount aged inventory to move through its retail channels or
liquidated in its wholesale channels; (3) as a result, the
ecommerce gross profit per unit was reasonably likely to decline;
and (4) consequently, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
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/vrm 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 Vroom you
have until May 21, 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]
VROOM INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Vroom, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRM) between
June 9, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of
the important May 21, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Vroom securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Vroom class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2063.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 21, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vroom was unable to sell a
significant portion of existing inventory as a result of inadequate
sales personnel and overreliance on third-party sales support; (2)
Vroom's lack of adequate sales and support staff had resulted in
severe growth constraints, degraded customer experience, lost sales
opportunities and a greater than 10% increase in average days to
sale for Vroom products; (3) Vroom had been forced to mark down and
liquidate existing inventory at fire sale prices; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
Vroom's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Vroom class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2063.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Class Action Over Odor Issues Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Redling, writing for Waste Today, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit that targeted a Waste Connections-owned
landfill in Lower Saucon Township, Pennsylvania, was dismissed
March 30 after plaintiffs made clear that the odor issues they were
attributing to the landfill were instead originating from the
nearby Bethlehem Wastewater Treatment Plant instead of the IESI
Bethlehem Landfill.
Robin and Dexter Baptiste of Freemansburg, Pennsylvania, filed a
class action lawsuit against the landfill in 2018, stating its
odors and pollutants were affecting area residents' daily lives.
However, lawyers for Waste Connections noted that Robin Baptiste
revealed during her March 5 deposition that she had mistaken the
wastewater treatment plant that was located a half-mile from her
home for the landfill.
According to The Morning Call, "She identified the wastewater
treatment plant in an aerial photo of her neighborhood as the
landfill and testified that the facility was the source of the
odors. She also testified she was unaware of any other smells in
the neighborhood."
"The Baptistes' counsel, highly experienced waste lawyers, should
have reviewed these statements and considered the possibility that
the nearby sewage plant was the culprit, triggering at least a look
at a map and a confirmatory conversation with their clients, which
would have quickly cleared things up," the landfill's lawyers said,
according to The Morning Call.
"This is a well-run facility that utilizes state-of-the-art
landfill technology. Our own personnel live in the community and
the landfill takes pride in being a good neighbor," Robert
McReynolds, division vice president at Waste Connections, said.
The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed in their entirety with
prejudice and it was ruled that each side pay their own court
costs.
In a statement, the National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA)
applauded the decision, and said it could serve as an example for
other waste companies when defending nuisance complaints.
"This is an important reminder to NWRA members defending nuisance
and other mass tort claims to always test the evidence," stated
NWRA Chief Counsel & Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
Jim Riley. "Members of the business community often will agree to
pay large settlements to plaintiffs' law firms just to make them go
away even if they are not at fault, but this only fuels more
lawsuits. We are putting these firms on notice -- not only will the
waste and recycling industry challenge dubious claims when they are
brought, but it will push for sanctions against these firms when
there is evidence they have knowledge that responsibility lies
elsewhere." [GN]
WESTBRAE NATURAL: Clark Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Howard Clark filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled HOWARD CLARK, Plaintiff v. WESTBRAE
NATURAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03221-JSC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the Defendant's label
describing soy milk as "vanilla" soymilk misrepresents to
reasonable consumers that the product's vanilla flavor is derived
exclusively from the vanilla bean plant. However, "scientific
testing of the product on January 31, 2020 by the Mass Spectrometry
Facility, Food Innovation Center North, revealed that the product's
vanilla flavor product does not come exclusively from the vanilla
plant." Plaintiff sought damages, restitution, and an injunction to
stop the Defendant's allegedly false and misleading marketing
practice regarding the product.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated April
22, 2021, granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Howard Clark v. Westbrae
Natural, Inc., Case No. 21-15749, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 27, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Howard Clark Mediation Questionnaire was due on May
4, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 26, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on June 25, 2021;
-- Appellant Howard Clark opening brief is due on August 4,
2021;
-- Appellee Westbrae Natural, Inc. answering brief is due on
September 3, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant HOWARD CLARK, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, is represented by:
George Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Sue Jung Nam, Esq.
Michael Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (917) 405-6686
E-mail: snam@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
Defendant-Appellee WESTBRAE NATURAL, INC. is represented by:
Christopher A. Nedeau, Esq.
NEDEAU LAW FIRM
154 Baker Street
San Francisco, CA 94117-2111
Telephone: (415) 516-4010
E-mail: cnedeau@nedeaulaw.net
WESTMONT NURSING: De Mesa Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oksana De Mesa (nee Shevtsove) and Kristoffer De, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTMONT NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER LLC, Case No. 2021L000487 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
18th Judicial, DuPage Cty., April 29, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant, to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and/or disclosure of the Plaintiffs' and the proposed
Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.
While most establishments and employers use conventional methods
for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
the Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required
that employees have hand(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping
device. Unlike ID badges or time cards – which can be changed or
replaced if stolen or compromised--biometrics are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
the Defendant's employees, including the Plaintiffs, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics. As
an employee/worker of Defendant, the Plaintiffs were required to
"clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having their hands
scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee,
including the Plaintiffs, asserts the complaint.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
the Defendant disregards employees' statutorily protected privacy
rights and unlawfully collected, stored, and used employees'
biometric data in violation of BIPA, the complaint alleges.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant at its facility in Illinois.
Westmont Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC is an Illinois
corporation with places of business in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, LLP
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Phone: 314-833-4825
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
plesko@peifferwolf.com
WHITEHOUSE ESTATES: Seeks Review of Order Entered in Casey Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Whitehouse Estates, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from
the Court's Order dated April 13, 2021, in the matter styled
KATHRYN CASEY, LAURIE CAGNASSOLA, GERALD COHEN, BETTY FURR,
FRANCESCA GAGLIANO, CAROLYN KLEIN, JOSEPH MORGAN, RICHARD ROSE,
JESSICA SAKS, and KIRK SWANSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and PAMELA RENNA, VITINA
DEGRBZIA aka VITINA LUPPINO, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. WHITEHOUSE
ESTATES, INC., KOEPPEL & KOEPPEL, INC., DUELL 5 MANAGEMENT LLC
d/b/a DUELL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, WILLIAM W. KOEPPEL and EASTGATE
WHITEHOUSE ESTATES, LLC, Defendants, and WHITEHOUSE ESTATES, INC.,
EASTGATE WHITEHOUSE LLC and WILLIAM W. KOEPPEL, Third-Party
Plaintiffs v. ROBERTA L. KOEPPEL, ALEXANDER KOEPPEL as Executors
and Trustees of the Trust Created under Article Fourth of the Last
Will of ROBERT A. KOEPPEL, KOEPPEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC and
ROBERTA L. KOEPPEL individually, Third-Party Defendants, Case No.
111723/2011, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.
The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by tenants of 350
East 52nd Street a/k/a 939 First Avenue in Manhattan. The
Defendants are the owner/landlord of the building, which contains
approximately 137 apartments.
Plaintiffs Kathryn Casey, Laurie Cagnassola, Gerald Cohen, Betty
Furr, Francesa Gagliano, Carolyn Klein, Joseph Morgan, Richard
Rose, Jessica Saks, and Kirk Swanson are tenants, who moved into
the apartment building between 2002 and 2011.
The Plaintiffs allege that their landlord illegally charged them
market rate rents for their apartments. They allege that, as J-51
recipients, the Defendants were required to keep the apartments
rent stabilized pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision in
Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., 13 NY3d 270 (2009).
Plaintiffs are suing under the RSL for reimbursement of the excess
rent amounts they allegedly paid defendants while defendants were
participating in the J-51 tax benefit program. The complaint
alleges that approximately 72 apartments have been improperly
deregulated.
The Defendants seek a review of the Order granting Plaintiffs'
motion to modify the 2014 use and occupancy order (the "2014 U&O
Order") by reducing, prospectively, the amount of interim use and
occupancy to be paid to landlord by the tenants.
The appellate case is captioned as KATHRYN CASEY, LAURIE
CAGNASSOLA, GERALD COHEN, BETTY FURR, FRANCESCA GAGLIANO, CAROLYN
KLEIN, JOSEPH MORGAN, RICHARD ROSE, JESSICA SAKS and KIRK SWANSON,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, PAMELA RENNA, VITINA DEGREZIA a/k/a VITINA LUPPINO,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. WHITEHOUSE ESTATES, INC., KOEPPEL &
KOEPPEL, INC., DUELL 5 MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a DUELL MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS, WILLIAM W. KOEPPEL, and EASTGATE WHITEHOUSE LLC,
Defendants, and WHITEHOUSE ESTATES, INC., EASTGATE WHITEHOUSE LLC
and WILLIAM W. KOEPPEL, Third-Party Plaintiffs v. ROBERTA L.
KOEPPEL, ALEXANDER KOEPPEL as Executors and Trustees of the Trust
Created under Article Fourth of the Last Will of ROBERT A. KOEPPEL,
KOEPPEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC and ROBERTA L. KOEPPEL individually,
Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 2021-01304, in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial
Department, filed on April 15, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Whitehouse Estates, Inc., et al., are
represented by:
Howard W. Kingsley, Esq.
ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C.
733 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 867-6000
WILLIAM HENRY GATES: Vaughn Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gates, et al. The
case is styled as William Vaughn also known as: Mosias, for himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. William H. Gates, III,
Melinda Gates, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Co-Founder; Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation; United States of America; Joseph R.
Biden, Jr., President of the U.S.A.; Kamala D. Harris, Vice
President of the U.S.A.; Donald J. Trump, Former President of the
U.S.A.; Michael R. Pence, Former Vice President of the U.S.A.;
Nancy P. Pelosi, Speaker of the House; John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief
Justice of the U.S.A.; Case No. 4:21-cv-00503-JAR (E.D. Mo., April
30, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Civil Rights Act.
William Henry Gates III is an American business magnate, software
developer, investor, author, and philanthropist.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
William Vaughn
2229 Ashby Road
St. Louis, MO 63114
Phone: (314) 828-8952
PRO SE
XPO LOGISTICS: Labul Files Suit in U.S. Court of Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against XPO Logistics, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Larry Labul, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Riviera Beach Police
Pension Fund, Norfolk County Retirement System, Plaintiffs; Local
#817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272 Labor-Management Pension Fund,
Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund,
Plaintiff – Appellants v. XPO Logistics, Inc., Bradley S. Jacobs,
Defendant – Appellees; John J. Hardig, Scott B. Malat,
Defendants; Case No. 21-986 (U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Second
Cir., April 19, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as 3850 STATUTES-Secur Comm Exchange.
XPO Logistics -- https://www.xpo.com/ -- is an American
transportation and contract logistics company that manages supply
chains for 50,000 customers worldwide, including 69 of the Fortune
100.[BN]
The Plaintiff – Appellants are represented by:
Jason C. Davis, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
1 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Personal: (415-288-4545
The Defendant – Appellees are represented by:
Julia Tarver Mason Wood, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Personal: 212-373-3000
ZINUS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Chandler's Mattresses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Trager, writing for KMOV.com, reports that it should have
been a peaceful night's sleep for one family outside Phoenix.
Instead, from inside the children's beds, tiny glitter-like pieces
of fiber glass.
"They came out and they're like mama, 'we're itchy, we're itchy,'"
said mom Amanda Richie. It was on their clothes, furniture and
irreplaceable mementos.
"You'd feel it. It would start stabbing your face, little tiny
itchy dots," she said.
Their story is just one of the most recent of horror stories since
News 4 first told you about it happening to a family in our area
more than a year ago.
Imagine feeling tiny shards of glass in your bed, your clothes,
your towels on pretty much every surface in your home.
"Since your story about the Chandlers, this issue has captured
nationwide attention," said Attorney Lloyd Cueto, who represents
Collinsville, Illinois couple Robert Durham and Amanda Chandler.
In February, 2020 we told you about their child's mattress bought
at a local Walmart. They took off what they thought was a removable
cover and inadvertently exposed airborne fiberglass particles that
then traveled over their entire home. Ever since that story, News 4
has received email after email from people who say they're affected
by the same problem Once the fibers are released, the fiberglass is
very difficult to clean-up.
"The average remediation cost we get is around $15,000," Cueto
said.
Cueto now has a class action lawsuit against Zinus, the maker of
the Chandler's mattress, and he's eyeing other manufacturers as
well.
"The 196 plaintiffs we represent are from over 32 states and
Washington DC," he said. The fiberglass is intended as a
fire-retardant and News 4 previously found it does a pretty good
job at that. But Cueto says the manufacturers aren't making sure
those fibers can't somehow be exposed, especially because in many
cases, the mattress covers actually zip right off.
"I think that's laughable. The very existence of a zipper on a
mattress cover would invite the user to unzip it," Cueto said. So
far, he says the company hasn't give a clear reason as to why. News
4 tried reaching out to an attorney representing Zinus in the suit,
but never heard back.
Fiberglass is commonly put in mattresses to make them more
fire-resistant, but does it actually work?
A spokesperson for Zinus said, "We value the health and safety of
our customers and take all feedback very seriously."
They did not, however, respond to News 4's questions asking if they
would commit to removing the zippers or eliminating the fiberglass
all together.
The spokesperson added, "We encourage all Zinus product owners to
refer to the FAQ page on our company website, which addresses many
common questions, including this Q&A, which discusses proper care
and handling of mattress covers."
Cueto says he plans to fight the cases all the way through court.
"It really is ruining their lives," he said.
But he says until they get real change, it could happen to you. The
trial for the class action suit could still be a long way off. In
the meantime, we are going to keep asking if the government should
step in to regulate these products. [GN]
[*] Trump Judge Argues Class Actions Should Be Extremely Limited
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Mincberg, writing for People for the American Way, reports
that Trump Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar argued in dissent that
federal class actions should be extremely limited, so that
effectively only people within one state can form a class, even if
a corporation's misconduct harms people in many states. The panel
majority rejected Thapar's claim in its March 2021 ruling was
Lyngaas v. Curaden AG.
Brian Lyngaas is a dentist in Michigan who received unsolicited
advertisements for toothbrushes manufactured by Curaden AG from its
American distributor Curaden USA These ads were sent out to over
46,000 different fax numbers in multiple states. On behalf of
similarly situated dental professionals, Lyngaas filed suit in
district court in Michigan, contending that the faxes constituted a
violation of the Telephone Communications Protections Act (TCPA).
The district court certified the case as a class action and ruled
in favor of Lyngaas and awarded damages, although it held that only
the company that improperly sent the ads, not its parent
corporation, could be liable for violating the TCPA. Both parties
appealed.
A Sixth Circuit panel affirmed the ruling of the district court in
a 2-1 decision. The majority explained that the district court had
correctly interpreted the law and applied the facts, including with
respect to the TCPA and the "claims-administration process" it set
up to deal with relief for the individual class members around the
country. Based on the facts and the law, the majority went on, the
situation in the case, where "unsolicited fax advertisements" were
improperly sent to "a target list of fax numbers," is "precisely
the type best handled" through such a process.
Trump judge Thapar dissented in favor of Curaden on two issues. He
argued that Curaden did not violate the TCPA at all with respect to
people who received the fax via computer because the law supposedly
"does not make it illegal to send unauthorized fax ads to
computers," which he claimed were different for these purposes than
"telephone facsimile machine[s]" as stated in the statute. The
majority squarely rejected that claim, noting that the statutory
language "clearly covers more than a traditional fax machine" and
includes "equipment" like computers that have the "capacity" to
"transcribe text and messages," as the FCC determined in 2015.
In an even more troubling argument, Thapar claimed that the
lawsuit, as well as many others, could not be brought as a class
action at all with respect to people who did not live in Michigan,
because a court in Michigan could not get "personal jurisdiction"
over Curaden as to "each unnamed class member." He based this
largely on the Supreme Court decision in the Bristol-Myers Squibb
case, where the Supreme Court ruled that a state court must be able
to get personal jurisdiction over a defendant as to each person who
sues in a "mass-tort action."
The majority strongly rejected this claim, which it noted would
create a "major change" in the law and significantly limit the
ability to bring federal class actions where a corporation has
harmed people in multiple states. The Squibb case, the majority
continued, involved "[h]undreds of individual plaintiffs," from
inside and outside California, who filed suits in California state
court contending that they were injured by a blood-thinning drug.
The "separate complaints" were consolidated into a "coordinated
mass action" under California state law. But the Supreme Court
ruled that the case had to be dismissed, because the out-of-state
plaintiffs "had no connection" to California and there was no
"adequate link between the State and the nonresidents' claims," so
that the state court had no jurisdiction or authority over Squibb
concerning nonresidents' claims.
The majority in this case noted that the Squibb Court took careful
pains to "limit its decision," and ruled that it simply did not
apply to federal class actions. The majority explained that a state
court "mass-tort action" is a consolidated case that combines
multiple lawsuits by a number of individual injured people, each of
whom must be able to sue the corporation that committed the "mass
tort" in the state court, including having "personal jurisdiction"
over the corporation. In contrast, the majority went on, a federal
class action is "formally one suit" in which the corporation
"litigates only against the class representative," who represents
all class members as to whether the corporation is liable, and
absent class members are not considered "parties" for purposes of
determining whether the court has jurisdiction over and authority
to sue the corporation. As long as the court has jurisdiction over
the corporation concerning the class representative, the case can
properly proceed.
The majority thus explained that "[l]ong-standing precedent,"
including in the Supreme Court, "shows that courts have routinely
exercised personal jurisdiction" over corporations in "nationwide
class actions" like this case. Accordingly, the majority went on,
the courts have "rejected" the effort to extend Squibb to make
"many nationwide class actions constitutionally invalid" for lack
of personal jurisdiction over the corporation as to "unnamed class
members," and this court agreed. Thapar's dissent, the majority
concluded, was improperly trying to read a "new and unsupported
holding" into Squibb and other decisions.
Trump judge Thapar's views would have produced dire consequences if
he had been in the majority. His opinion would have created a much
higher, more difficult legal standard for individuals attempting to
participate in a multistate federal class action, at least in the
Sixth Circuit, trying to hold corporations accountable for
misconduct. Fortunately, the majority rejected Thapar's assertions,
and the Lyngaas claim for TCPA violations by Curaden across the
country can go forward.
Note: the initial draft of this blog entry was prepared by PFAW
legal intern Oliver Telsuma. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***