/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210518.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 18, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 93
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Barker Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Houle Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Kusinitz Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: McComisky Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Messing Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Miller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Murphy Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Pace Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Vanderbrook Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Washington Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ACADIA PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ACCELLION INC: Faces Sharp Suit Over Dec. 2020 Data Breach
ACCESS SUPPORTS: Munoz Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Approval of Versetto Settlement Under Appeal
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Chamberlain Faces BIPA-Related Putative Class Suit
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Chamberlain's Bid to Junk Dean Suit Pending
ALORICA INC: Faces Rohrman Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMARIN CORP: Court Junks New Jersey Consolidated Class Action
AMERIFINANCIAL SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lerner TCPA Suit
APPLE INC: Wins Partial Bid to Dismiss Shay's 2nd Amended Complaint
ARCIMOTO INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ATHENEX INC: Labaton Sucharow Announces Securities Class Action
BADCOCK'S ECONOMY: Faces Francis Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
BAKER MILLS: August 2 Deadline for Class Certification Bid Sought
BANK OF AMERICA: Deadline to File Class Cert. Extended to Oct. 14
BAR 20 DAIRY: $450K Class Settlement in Maciel Suit Gets Final OK
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Relates Merriman & Dphrepaulezz Class Suits
BETTER HOLDCO: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Lorenzo Sues Over Misleading Offering Documents
BOARDWALK AUTO: Amyx Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Naylor Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under Labor Code
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Grant of Dismissal Bids in Merger Suit Endorsed
BURTON PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Warden Claims
CAMPBELL SOUP: Smith Sues Over Heavy Metals Content in Baby Food
CANAAN INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of June 14 Deadline
CANIDAE CORP: Discusses Settlement in Mislabeled Pet Foods Suit
CANOO INC: Faces Blake Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
CANOO INC: Faces Kojak Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
CAPITAL FUNDING: Peters Broadcast Seeks to Certify Class Action
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in Del Toro FLSA Suit Approved
CHRISTONE ENTERPRISES: Jurcich Suit Seeks OT Pay for Technicians
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 28 Deadline
CITIZENS BANK: Palmer May File 2nd Amended Complaint, Court Says
COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Appeals Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Suit vs Unit
COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONGRESS COLLECTION: Second Bid to Dismiss Randolph Suit Granted
CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Sues Over Unlawful Overbilling Practices
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Putative Class Suit in Michigan Underway
CUBIC CORPORATION: Wilson Balks at Veritas-Elliott Merger Deal
CUP CAKES BY BRENDA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tzurec Claims
DCI DONOR: Palma Files Suit in California Superior Court
DELAWARE NORTH: Morand-Doxzon Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
DFL PIZZA: Nagel Labor Suit Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EMERGENT BIO: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 18 Deadline
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 15
FLUOR CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Chun's Amended Class Complaint
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 15 Deadline
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Labaton Sucharow Reminds Announces Class Action
FRITO-LAY INC: $710K Class Settlement in Sanchez Suit Has Final Nod
GARRETT MOTION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York
GEORGIA POWER: Appeals Class Certification of Franchise Fee Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Battles Landmark UK Suit Over Alleged iPhone Tracking
GOOGLE LLC: Blocking Class Suit Would Deny Justice, Says UK Court
GOOGLE LLC: Diaz Sues Over Security Flaw in Notification System
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Transfer of Various Actions to N.D. California
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Reaches Agreement to Settle Pending Suits
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Reaches Deal to Settle Securities Lawsuits
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Ochoa Balks at Merger Deal With Jazz Pharma
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Unlawfully Shared Personal Info, Cuevas Says
HEAVENLY VALLEY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Heggen Suit
HYCROFT GOLD: Settlement Approval Hearing to Be Held July 30
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Smelly Palisade Cabin Leads to Class Action Lawsuit
INDYMAC MBS: Court Allows $11.6K Payment to Claims Administrator
JOEYS NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Screnock Alleges
KADMON HOLDINGS: Tadros Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
LIFEMD INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Discovery in Smith Suit Ongoing
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Zuod Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
LTD FINANCIAL: Jamison Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
MAGIC SPOON: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAINE: Dismissal of Lane's & Zernicki's Claims in Swain Proposed
MALLEN & ASSOCIATES: Zupnick Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Court Narrows Claims in Morrison Class Suit
MATTEL INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Fisher-Price Sleeper
MATTEL INC: Whistleblower Related Class Suits Underway
MEREDITH CORP: Dismissal of Iowa Putative Class Suit Under Appeal
MEREDITH CORP: Spot Advertising Purchasers' Suit Underway
MERIT MEDICAL: Court Accepts R&R & Refuses to Toss Securities Suit
MESA PACKING: Settlement in Miguel-Sanchez Suit Gets Prelim Nod
MHC OPERATING: Harbor View Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
MICHIGAN: MDOC's Appeal of Monitor's Proposals in McBride Sustained
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Dismissal of Turnage Class Suit Appealed
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Dugan Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
NEBRASKA: Gills Ordered to Amend Complaint v. State Penitentiary
NINTENDO CO: Switch 'Drift' Defect Class Action Sent to Arbitration
NYC HOUSING: Alliance Tri-State Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
P.C. RICHARD: N.J. Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal of Baskin Suit
PARKING REIT: July 16 Final Approval Hearing on $2.5MM Accord
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Dismisses Hogan Putative Class Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Discloses Payment of $75MM to Direct Purchasers
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Grower Litigation in Oklahoma Underway
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Plant Workers' Class Suit
PILGRIMS PRIDE: NMSIC Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in UFCW Suit
PILOT TRAVEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perales Suit Alleges
PLAID INC: Must Face Class Action Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
PLUM PBC: Five Suits Consolidated Under Baby Food Class Litigation
PLUSHCARE INC: Mismanages Membership Subscription, Robbins Alleges
QUDIAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Greco Putative Class Suit Pending
QUDIAN INC: Bid to Nix Consolidated NY Putative Class Suit Pending
QUDIAN INC: Settlement Hearing on Securities Suit Set for June 8
QUDIAN INC: Song Class Action Remains Stayed
R.C. BIGELOW: C.D. California Narrows Claims in Banks Consumer Suit
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Hanscom Sues Over Mislabeled Recycling Bags
RICHARD SACKLER: Hartman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
RITUAL COFFEE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: IPRS Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
S&P GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Class Actions in Australia
S.C. JOHNSON: N.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Maisel Class Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Rear-Camera Glass
SAN DIEGO UNIVERSAL: Breaches California Labor Law, Lee Suit Says
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Seeks Review of Order Favoring St. Lucie Trust
SPEEDWAY LLC: DaRosa Suit Seeks to Certify Five Rule 23 Classes
STEWART ENTERPRISES: La. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Moulton
STRONG HOME: Walton Seeks Proper Overtime Pay Under FLSA, PMWA
TEEN CHALLENGE: Faces Reese Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
TEXAS CHILDREN'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Syas Suit Alleges
TJX DIGITAL: Harris Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRI-WIRE ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Says
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Cross Bids for Judgment in Evanston Suit Denied
UNITED STEEL: Bid for Reconsideration in Verso Suit Sustained
VERMONT BREAD: Class Action Suit Filed Over WARN Act Violations
VIRGIN SCENT: Hand Sanitizer Contains Benzene, Slaughter Suit Says
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Labaton Sucharow Announces Securities Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 29 Deadline
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 29 Deadline
WELLS FARGO: W.D. North Carolina Grants Bid to Dismiss Rogers Suit
WIND CREEK: To Pay $6 Million to Settle Labor Class Action Lawsuit
WOODSTREAM CORPORATION: Painter Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix BolaWrap Related Suit Pending
XP INC: Dismissal of IPO-Related Class Suit Under Appeal
ZYNGA INC: Oeste Suit Moved to Northern District of California
*********
3M COMPANY: Barker Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH EDWARD BARKER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00974-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Barker case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Houle Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CHRISTOPHER HOULE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00968-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Houle case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Kusinitz Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HOWARD KUSINITZ v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00969-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Kusinitz case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: McComisky Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEWART JAMES MCCOMISKY v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00977-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The McComisky case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Messing Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL WALTER MESSING v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00972-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Messing case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Miller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY LEON MILLER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00975-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Miller case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Murphy Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MURPHY, JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00971-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Murphy case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Pace Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOE CHARLY PACE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00976-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Pace case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Vanderbrook Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY JOHN VANDERBROOK III v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD.,
CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.),
DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:21-cv-00970-RMG (D.S.C., April 2, 2021) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Vanderbrook case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Washington Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES RODNEY WASHINGTON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00973-RMG (D.S.C., April 2,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Washington case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
U.S. health care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
ACADIA PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Acadia" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: ACAD) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-00762, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Acadia securities
between June 15, 2020 and April 4, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Acadia securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 18, 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.
Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of small molecule drugs that
address unmet medical needs in central nervous system disorders.
The Company is developing pimavanserin as a treatment for
dementia-related psychosis and as an adjunctive treatment for
schizophrenia, as well as an adjunctive treatment for major
depressive disorder.
In April 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
approved pimavanserin for the treatment of hallucinations and
delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis.
In June 2020, Acadia submitted a supplemental New Drug Application
("sNDA") with the FDA to expand pimavanserin's label to include
treatment for dementia-related psychosis (the "pimavanserin
sNDA").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin sNDA contained
statistical and design deficiencies; (ii) accordingly, the
pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary support that the Company
had led investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the FDA was
unlikely to approve the pimavanserin sNDA in its present form; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 8, 2021, post-market, Acadia issued a press release
providing a regulatory update on the pimavanserin sNDA, disclosing
"that the Company received a notification from the [FDA] on March
3, 2021, stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the
Company's [sNDA], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time." Acadia advised that "[t]he notification does not
specify the deficiencies identified by the FDA and there has been
no clarification by the FDA at this time."
On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $20.76 per share, or
45.35%, to close at $25.02 per share on March 9, 2021.
Then, on April 5, 2021, pre-market, Acadia issued a press release
announcing that the Company had received a Complete Response Letter
("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the pimavanserin sNDA could
not be approved in its current form. Specifically, the press
release stated that, "the [FDA Division of Psychiatry], in the CRL,
cited a lack of statistical significance in some of the subgroups
of dementia, and insufficient numbers of patients with certain less
common dementia subtypes as lack of substantial evidence of
effectiveness to support approval."
On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $4.41 per share, or 17.23%,
to close at $21.18 per share on April 5, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 18, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Acadia
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Acadia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACAD)
securities between June 15, 2020 and April 4, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Acadia investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops a drug called
pimavanserin as a treatment for dementia-related psychosis and as
an adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia, as well as an adjunctive
treatment for major depressive disorder. In June 2020, Acadia
submitted a supplemental New Drug Application ("sNDA") with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to expand pimavanserin's
label to include treatment for dementia-related psychosis.
On March 8, 2021, the Company revealed that, as part of its ongoing
review of the sNDA, the FDA "has identified deficiencies that
preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing
requirements/commitments at this time."
On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $20.76 per share, or
45.35%, to close at $25.02 per share on March 9, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.
On April 5, 2021, pre-market, the Company disclosed receipt of a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the
pimavanserin sNDA could not be approved in its current form.
Specifically, the press release stated that the CRL "cited a lack
of statistical significance in some of the subgroups of dementia,
and insufficient numbers of patients with certain less common
dementia subtypes as lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness
to support approval."
On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $4.41 per share, or 17.23%,
to close at $21.18 per share on April 5, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin
sNDA contained statistical and design deficiencies; (2)
accordingly, the pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary support
that the Company had led investors to believe it possessed; (3) the
FDA was unlikely to approve the pimavanserin sNDA in its present
form; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
[GN]
ACCELLION INC: Faces Sharp Suit Over Dec. 2020 Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
AARON SHARP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. ACCELLION, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-02525-VKD (N.D.
Cal., April 7, 2021) is a class action on behalf of individual
consumers whose personally identifying information ("PII") or
personal medical information ("PMI") was accessed and exposed to
unauthorized third parties during a data breach of Accellion's
systems, which occurred in December 2020 and lasted until at least
January 2021.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Classes, brings claims
for actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages, with
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses under the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"), and further
sues Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
The Plaintiff and the Classes also seek injunctive relief requiring
Accellion to: (1) disclose, expeditiously, the full nature of the
Data Breach, the institutional clients affected, and the types of
PII and PMI accessed, obtained, or exposed by the hackers; (2)
implement improved data security practices to reasonably guard
against future breaches of PII and PMI possessed by Accellion; and
(3) provide, at its own expense, all impacted victims with lifetime
identity theft protection services.
Accellion, Inc. provides cloud-based file transfer solutions. The
Company is based in Palo Alto, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
ACCESS SUPPORTS: Munoz Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN MUNOZ individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ACCESS: SUPPORTS FOR LIVING, INC. (D/B/A ACCESS:
SUPPORTS FOR LIVING) ACCESS: SUPPORTS FOR LIVING FOUNDATION, INC.
(D/B/A ACCESS: SUPPORTS FOR LIVING) OCCUPATIONS, INC., FAMILY
EMPOWERMENT COUNCIL INC., and SEAN GEROW Case No. 7:21-cv-02859
(S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021) seeks to recover for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
York Labor Law including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Munoz is a former employee of the Defendants. He was
employed as a home health aide. He alleges that he worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, he
adds.
The Defendants own, operate, or control an agency, located at 15
Fortune Road West Middletown, New York operating under the name
Access Supports For Living.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
576 Fifth Avenue, Suite 903
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 457-1699
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Approval of Versetto Settlement Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal in the
approval of the settlement in the class action suit initiated by
Nicole Versetto, is pending.
On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against the Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New
York Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division.
The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate
classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the
State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University
program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016.
The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools
Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to
violations of state law.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The Adtalem Parties moved
to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018.
On March 11, 2019, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave
to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead
plaintiff, Dave McCormick. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the Court
granted Defendants' motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend.
The plaintiff has filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019.
On October 18, 2019, defendants' moved to dismiss this complaint as
it is substantially similar to the one the Court previously
dismissed. No hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently
scheduled.
The Court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement on May 28, 2020. In conjunction with the Settlement,
Adtalem was required to establish a settlement fund by placing
$44.95 million into an escrow account, which is recorded within
prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020 and March 31, 2021. Adtalem
management determined a loss contingency was probable and
reasonably estimable.
As such, the company also recorded a loss contingency accrual of
$44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30,
2020 and charged the contingency loss within discontinued
operations in the Consolidated Statement of Income (Loss) for the
year ended June 30, 2020.
As of June 30, 2020, the company had anticipated the potential
payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the
escrow account during fiscal year 2021.
The company now anticipates the potential payments related to this
loss contingency to be made from the escrow account within the next
twelve months.
This loss contingency estimate could differ from actual results and
result in additional charges or reversals in future periods. The
Court issued an order approving the settlement on October 7, 2020,
and dismissed the action with prejudice.
On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of Jose
David Valderrama, a class member who objected to the terms of the
settlement, a notice to appeal the Court's order approving the
settlement.
On November 5, 2020, Richard Peart, another class member who
objected to the terms of the settlement, filed a notice to appeal
the Court's order approving the settlement.
Those appeals have been consolidated before the Appellate Court of
Illinois, First District. Objectors filed their briefs on February
4, 2021.
Plaintiffs' and the Adtalem Parties' briefs are currently due to be
filed on May 13, 2021, and objector's reply brief is due to be
filed on May 27, 2021.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Chamberlain Faces BIPA-Related Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Chamberlain
University faces Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA") related putative class action suit.
On March 12, 2021, a putative class action was filed by a John Doe
plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
against Chamberlain University in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division.
The plaintiff claims that Chamberlain's use of an online remote
proctoring tool for student examinations violated the Illinois
BIPA.
More particularly, the plaintiff claims that Chamberlain required
students to use a proctoring tool, which collected, captured,
stored, used, and disclosed students' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without written and informed consent.
The plaintiff also alleges that Chamberlain lacked a legally
compliant written policy establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers and biometric
information.
The potential class purportedly includes all students who took an
assessment using the proctoring tool, as a student of Chamberlain
in Illinois, at any time from March 12, 2016 through January 20,
2021.
The plaintiff and class seek damages in excess of $50,000, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The plaintiff and class also seek an unspecified amount of enhanced
damages based on alleged negligent or reckless conduct by
Chamberlain.
On April 19, 2021, Chamberlain filed a Motion for Extension of Time
to Answer or Otherwise Plead, and Chamberlain believes an extension
will be granted.
Chamberlain believes the allegations are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Chamberlain's Bid to Junk Dean Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Chamberlain
University's motion to dismiss the putative class action suit
initiated by Tanesia Dean, is pending.
On January 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
against Chamberlain University, by Tanesia Dean on behalf of
herself and similarly situated students of Chamberlain.
The complaint alleges breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims against Chamberlain related to its decision to transition
all classes online in March 2020, in light of the global pandemic,
without altering tuition or fees.
The putative class is defined to include all students, nationwide,
who paid tuition and fees during the following academic sessions:
May 2020, July 2020, September 2020, November 2020, and January
2021.
Plaintiff seeks monetary relief exceeding $5 million, and
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
On April 5, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
Chamberlain believes the allegations are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services
worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and
Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business.
Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in
Chicago, Illinois.
ALORICA INC: Faces Rohrman Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
LINDA ROHRMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ALORICA INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-00836-CEH-SPF (M.D.
Fla., April 7, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for
Defendant's unlawful pay practices and policies which made the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to suffer because they
were made to work off the clock without being paid a premium for
all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff performed work for the Defendant as a Customer
Service Representative from July 2020 until October 2020. The
Plaintiff trained and worked at the Defendant's Sarasota call
center office in Florida for approximately 6 to 8 weeks, then
required to commence working virtually from her home, as a "Virtual
Inbound Customer Service Representative".
Alorica Inc. is a customer service outsourcing company that
operates call centers throughout the United States. The Company is
based in Irvine, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6940 West Linebaugh Avenue, Suite 101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
jquintus@flandgatrialattorneys.com
AMARIN CORP: Court Junks New Jersey Consolidated Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action
suit entitled, In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation,
No. 3:19-cv-06601.
On February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company's
publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Amarin Corporation plc, the chief executive officer and
chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc,
John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb.
22, 2019).
On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially
similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation
plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J.
March 12, 2019).
On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption
In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No.
3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan
Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or
Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that added as defendants the
Company's current chief medical officer and the Company's former
chief executive officer, who is a current director.
The Amended Complaint alleged that from September 24, 2018 to
November 9, 2018 the Company misled investors by releasing topline
results for the REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on
biomarker increases in the placebo group as compared with baseline
measurement.
The Amended Complaint alleged that these data suggest that the
mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered
with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they alleged may
have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group. The Amended
Complaint further alleged that these purported misrepresentations
and omissions inflated the share price.
Based on these allegations, the suit asserted claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 29, 2021, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss this litigation for failure to state a valid claim. The
litigation was dismissed without prejudice, giving the plaintiffs
the right to file an amended complaint.
Amarin said, "We intend to vigorously defend against any future
complaint in this matter."
Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment
of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to
Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was
incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
AMERIFINANCIAL SOLUTIONS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Lerner TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELLY LERNER, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIFINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. GLR-20-965 (D. Md.), Judge George L.
Russell, III, of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denies Defendants AmeriFinancial and Valley Emergency Room
Associates, P.A.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Lerner brings the putative class action lawsuit against
the Defendants pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq. Lerner states that
AmeriFinancial, on behalf of Valley, contacted his cellular
telephone number on April 15, 2016, April 24, 2016, and May 12,
2016. In these phone calls, AmeriFinancial left pre-recorded
voicemail messages without Lerner's consent in violation of the
TCPA.
On April 14, 2020, Lerner initiated the class action lawsuit
against AmeriFinancial. On June 4, 2020, Lerner filed an Amended
Complaint to include Valley. The Amended Complaint alleges that
the Defendants violated the TCPA. Lerner seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order certifying this
Class Action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Defendants filed their Answers to the Amended
Complaint on July 17, 2020, and July 28, 2020.
On Dec. 1, 2020, the Defendants filed a joint Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. On Dec. 22, 2020, Lerner
filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On Jan.
12, 2021, the Defendants filed a Reply. Lerner and the Defendants
have subsequently filed several Notices of Supplemental Authority.
The Defendants contend that the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over Lerner's lawsuit. They raise two main arguments
in support of their position: (1) that the Supreme Court's decision
in Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S.Ct.
2335 (2020), strips the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction to
hear Lerner's claim; and (2) that other district courts who have
considered motions to dismiss on identical issues have dismissed
the plaintiffs' claims in those cases.
Judge Russell disagrees. He notes that the district courts that
have adopted the Defendants' position are vastly outnumbered by
those that have rejected it. While no decision of a district court
judge is technically binding on another district court judge, even
within the same district, opinions of other district judges are,
however, persuasive authority entitled to substantial deference.
In the case, the sheer volume of district courts to reject the
position taken by the Defendants in the case is highly persuasive.
As the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
held: "Even if the Court concluded that Justice Kavanaugh's
footnote is dicta, this Court is nevertheless persuaded by this
unambiguous announcement that the AAPC decision is not meant to
disturb the entirety of the TPCA. Recognizing the preeminence of
this nation's highest court, this Court cannot ignore such a clear
statement, whether it be considered dicta or a holding.
The Defendants have not presented sufficiently compelling arguments
to overcome these persuasive authorities. Accordingly, Judge
Russell declines to dismiss Lerner's claim for a lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction. He denies the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. A separate Order
follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4pw8k2p7 from Leagle.com.
APPLE INC: Wins Partial Bid to Dismiss Shay's 2nd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned RACHAEL SHAY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC. and APPLE
VALUE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20cv1629-GPC(BLM) (S.D.
Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California grants the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's second amended complaint without leave to amend.
The case was removed from state court on Aug. 21, 2020. On Jan. 8,
2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend.
On Jan. 28, 2021, Plaintiff Rachael Shay filed the operative
putative second amended class action complaint ("SAC") against
Defendants Apple, Inc. and Apple Value Services, LLC for claims
under the 1) California Legal Remedies Act, ("CLRA"); 2) violations
of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); 3) negligent
misrepresentation; and 4) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability.
The SAC alleges that the Defendants manufactured, marketed, sold
and/or distributed valueless Apple gift cards that they knew or
should have known was subject to an ongoing scam where the funds on
the gift cards are fraudulently redeemed by third parties accessing
the Personal Identification Number ("PIN") prior to use by the
consumer. On April 3, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a $50 Apple
gift card from Walmart in Encinitas, California, as a gift for her
son. When her son attempted to load the gift card, he received a
message that the gift card had already been redeemed.
The Plaintiff contacted the Defendants and was informed that the
gift card was redeemed by another account on April 3, 2020, the
same day she bought the card, and the card no longer had any value.
The Defendants would not provide any additional information about
who redeemed the code, other than it was an account unrelated to
the Plaintiff or her son. The Defendants informed her that there
was nothing they could do for her, that her case was closed, and
any further contact would go unanswered. If the Plaintiff had known
about the truth about the defect of the Defendants' gift card, she
said she would not have purchased it.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring the class action on behalf of these:
* Nationwide Class:
All consumers in the United States who purchased an Apple
gift card wherein the funds on the Apple gift card was (sic)
redeemed prior to use by the consumer. Excluded from this
Class are Defendants and their officers, directors and
employees, and those who purchased Apple gift cards for the
purpose of resale; and
* California Subclass:
All consumers in the State of California who purchased an
Apple gift card wherein the funds on the Apple gift card was
(sic) redeemed prior to use by the consumer. Excluded from
this Class are Defendants and their officers, directors and
employees, and those who purchased Apple gift cards for the
purpose of resale.
The Defendants move to dismiss the UCL claim and the CLRA claim to
the extent it seeks equitable relief arguing that the Plaintiff has
not alleged an inadequate remedy at law relying on Sonner v.
Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. June 17, 2020). The
Plaintiff opposes arguing it can seek both actual damages and
equitable relief relying on Moore v. Mars Petcare U.S., Inc., 966
F.3d 1007, 1021 n. 13 (9th Cir. July 28, 2020).
The SAC seeks restitution and injunctive relief under the CLRA and
UCL claims and alleges that in the event adequate legal remedies
are lacking, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction and restitution.
In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that the Ninth Circuit's
"binding" ruling in Moore applies in this case. In Moore, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal order on the UCL,
CLRA and False Advertising Law ("FAL") claims concluding that the
plaintiffs adequately alleged these claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and
Rule 9(b)). In a footnote, the court rejected the defendants'
additional argument that the plaintiffs could not seek equitable
relief under the UCL or FAL because the CLRA provided an adequate
legal remedy. The court summarily stated that the UCL, FAL and CLRA
explicitly provide that remedies under each act are cumulative to
each other.
The Plaintiff argues that Moore resolved the split of authority in
favor of allowing UCL claims to proceed with legal claims. The
Court disagrees. First, the footnote in Moore is dicta and not
binding on this Court. Unlike Sonner, which provided an analysis on
equitable remedies in federal court, Moore makes a summary
statement without any analysis or mention of Sonner, District Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel opines.
Moreover, Judge Curiel explains, as one district court noted, the
court in Moore only stated that the remedies under the UCL, FAL,
and CLRA are "cumulative with one another, not with separate legal
remedies," citing In re Subaru Battery Drain Prods. Liab. Litig.,
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03095-JHR-JS, 2021 WL 1207791, at *28
(D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2021).
Judge Curiel, holds that Sonner, and not Moore, actually resolved
the split in authority on whether plaintiff must plead an
inadequate remedy at law in order to seek equitable relief under
the UCL and CLRA, citing Anderson v. Apple Inc., ___ F. Supp. 3d
___, 2020 WL 6710101, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020). Thus, the
Court disagrees with the Plaintiff's assertion that Moore's
analysis is sound and binding on this Court.
The Plaintiff also argues, among other things, that reliance on
Sonner is misplaced due to the procedural posture of the case as
the UCL claim along with a legal claim proceeded until the eve of
trial.
In sum, the Court concludes that Sonner is binding on this Court.
Judge Curiel also finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that this allegation is sufficient to support equitable relief
under Sonner. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the UCL claim and the equitable relief she seeks in the
CLRA claim.
The Defendants also move to dismiss the breach of implied warranty
claim because the Plaintiff has not alleged she is in privity with
Apple or that an exception to the privity requirement applies. The
Plaintiff responds that vertical privity is not required because
she is a third-party beneficiary, who purchased the gift card from
a third party acting as an agent for the Defendants.
On privity, the SAC now alleges that the Plaintiff and Class
Members purchased the Apple gift cards from Apple gift card
retailers that are agents of the Defendants. However, the retailers
were not intended to be the ultimate consumers of the Apple gift
cards and have no implied warranty rights. Instead, the Plaintiff
and Class Members were the intended ultimate consumers of the Apple
gift cards. As such, the Plaintiff and Class Members assert their
implied warranty rights as third party beneficiaries.
To the extent that California recognizes a third-party beneficiary
exception to the privity requirement, the Plaintiff has failed to
allege a contract was entered into between Walmart and Apple for
the Plaintiff's benefit, Judge Curiel opines. Instead, the
Plaintiff merely alleges that the Apple gift card retailers are
agents of the Defendants and that the retailers were not intended
to be the ultimate consumers of the Apple gift cards and have no
implied warranty rights. Instead, the Plaintiff and Class Members
were the intended ultimate consumers of the Apple gift cards. These
new allegations in the SAC fail to allege the existence of any
contract between Walmart and Apple that benefitted the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not alleged privity or any
recognized privity exception adopted by the Ninth Circuit or
California courts. Thus, the implied breach of warranty claim fails
to state a claim and the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim.
In opposition, the Plaintiff seeks leave to amend in the event the
Court dismisses any part of the SAC.
Judge Curiel notes that where a motion to dismiss is granted, leave
to amend should be granted unless the court determines that the
allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading
could not possibly cure the deficiency. In other words, Judge
Curiel opines, where leave to amend would be futile, the Court may
deny leave to amend. Because the Plaintiff has failed to cure the
deficiencies previously identified, the Court denies the Plaintiff
leave to amend.
Based on the reasoning in the Order, the Court grants the
Defendants' partial motion to dismiss the UCL claim, the equitable
relief sought in the CLRA claim and the breach of implied warranty
of merchantability claim without leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3v3nr69x from Leagle.com.
ARCIMOTO INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
June 18, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Arcimoto, Inc.
("Arcimoto" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FUV) securities between
February 14, 2018 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Arcimoto investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On March 23, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report alleging
that Arcimoto had delivered "less than 5%" of the pre-orders it had
touted since 2018 and that the Company's largest customer is
secretly owned and operated by an undisclosed related party, FOD
Capital, LLC. Moreover, the report alleged that one day before
Arcimoto touted a 90-day trial for first responder units in
Orlando, the Company had filed a total production recall notice
"due to safety issues with the electronic drivers in the vehicles
which can 'lead to unexpected battery shutdown and immediate loss
of traction-power.'"
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.10 per share, or
approximately 6.56%, to close at $15.67 per share on March 23,
2021.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the preorders
of Arcimotos Fun Utility Vehicles (FUVs) were fabricated or never
completed, with only 19 units delivered out of an alleged preorder
of 422; (2) Arcimoto failed to disclose to customers that nearly
100% of its vehicles delivered were under safety recall; (3)
Arcimotos largest customer, R-Key-Moto, was an undisclosed related
party owned by insider FOD Capital, LLC; and (4) Arcimotos
partnership with HULA was an undisclosed related party transaction;
(5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Arcimoto securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 18,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ATHENEX INC: Labaton Sucharow Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Athenex,
Inc. ("Athenex" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ATNX) for violations of
Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 7,
2019 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the litigation partner assigned to the
matter, David J. Schwartz via email at david@labaton.com or using
the toll-free number (800) 321-0476.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Athenex announced on March 1, 2021, that
the FDA had issued a complete response letter ("CRL") for the
company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for oral paclitaxel plus
encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. The FDA's
CRL cited patient safety risks and uncertainty related to primary
endpoint results for the objective response rate ("ORR") which may
have introduced bias in the blinded clinical review. The FDA
recommended the Company "conduct a new adequate and well-conducted
clinical trial in a patient population with metastatic breast
cancer representative of the population in the U.S." The FDA also
indicated that the toxicity would require a risk mitigation
strategy for the treatment to be approved. Based on this news,
shares of Athenex fell by 55% in one day.
Join the case to recover your losses. [GN]
BADCOCK'S ECONOMY: Faces Francis Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN FRANCIS, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. BADCOCK'S ECONOMY FURNITURE STORE, INC. d/b/a BADCOCK
HOME FURNITURE AND MORE, a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No.
9:21-cv-80764-AHS (S.D. Fla., April 27, 2021) is brought against
the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
According to the complaint, Plaintiff Francis worked for Defendant
as a Sales Representative from approximately July 1, 2013 until his
termination on December 2, 2020. During Plaintiff's employment, he
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week during one or more work
weeks. Specifically, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 45
hours per week. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff time and one half his regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 4 hours per work week. Plaintiff should have
received compensation at time and one half his accurately
calculated regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond the 40
hours per week. Defendant's failure and/or refusal to properly
compensate Plaintiff at the rates and amounts required by the FLSA
was willful, asserts the complaint.
Badcock's Economy Furniture Store, Inc. d/b/a Badcock Home
Furniture and More is a private company which manufactures and
sells furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
Bruce Mount, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999 ext. 412
Facsimile: (833) 813-7512
Email: ahall@theleachfirm.com
bmount@theleachfirm.com
yhernandez@theleachfirm.com
BAKER MILLS: August 2 Deadline for Class Certification Bid Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRIS MINOR as an
individual, on behalf of herself, the general public and those
similarly situated, v. BAKER MILLS, INC. d/b/a KODIAK CAKES, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02901-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate
deadlines related to the class certification briefing schedule as
set in the Court's December 4, 2020 Order as follows:
Event Current Deadline Proposed Deadline
Motion for Class May 24, 2021 August 2, 2021
Certification &
Plaintiff's
Disclosure of Class
Certification Experts
Experts and Rebuttal
Experts
Opposition to Motion for June 24, 2021 45 days after
Class Certification and Plaintiff files
Defendant's Disclosure her motion for
of Class Certification class
certification
Reply in Support of July 22, 2021 30 days after
Motion for Class Defendants file
Certification and their
opposition
Plaintiff's Rebuttal to the motion
Experts on Certification for class
certification
Hearing on Motion for August 5, 2021 November 4, 2021
Class Certification
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33EPmGc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
Matthew T. McCrary
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
BANK OF AMERICA: Deadline to File Class Cert. Extended to Oct. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DIFLAURO, and BRIAN
MARTIN individually and on behalf of a class of other similarly
situated individuals, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a North Carolina Corporation,
Case No. 2:20-cv-05692-DSF-SK (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Dale S.
Fischer entered an order setting the following dates superseding
any prior dates established by the Court:
a. Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
certification
is extended four months to October 14, 2021;
b. Defendants' deadline to oppose the motion is extended four
months to December 13, 2021;
c. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file a reply is extended four
months
to January 27, 2022; and
d. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion shall be held on February
28, 2022.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services holding company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bp590i at no extra charge.[CC]
BAR 20 DAIRY: $450K Class Settlement in Maciel Suit Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE MACIEL and ELVIS BONILLA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, and as "aggrieved employees" on
behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, Plaintiffs v. BAR 20 DAIRY, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00902-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale
A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final
approval of a class action settlement and for an award of
attorneys' fees, costs, and an incentive award.
The Court previously granted preliminary approval of the settlement
in the action on Oct. 14, 2020.
The parties have agreed to a non-reversionary settlement of
$450,000. The settlement agreement provides for allocation of the
gross settlement fund as follows: (1) payment for attorneys' fees
in the amount of $150,000, which is one-third of the gross
settlement fund; (2) class counsel's litigation expenses in the
amount of $21,859.44; (3) payment made to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA") pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") in the amount of $3,750 and payment to
the net settlement amount of $1,250; (4) settlement administration
costs estimated to be $10,890; (5) incentive awards of $15,000 to
plaintiffs ($7,500 each); and (6) distribution to the class members
in the amount of the remaining funds, estimated to be $248,500.56.
None of the settlement will revert to the Defendant and entirety of
the net settlement amount will be distributed to the class members
who do not opt out of the settlement, as checks that are not cashed
before their expiration will be distributed to the class members
who have already cashed their own checks in the form of a second
individual settlement amount check. The net settlement amount will
be distributed to the class members on a pro rata basis, determined
by dividing each individual's number of pay periods worked in the
Defendant's employment at any time during the Class Period out of
the number of pay periods worked by all the class members. The
settlement administrator estimates that the average payment per
class member is $781.40, with the lowest payment estimated at
$100.10 and the highest payment estimated at $2,134.93.
The Plaintiffs estimate that the maximum potential damages for
unpaid wages in the case are approximately $3.4 million, that the
maximum statutory penalties are under $800,000, and that the
maximum discretionary civil penalties are approximately $4.2
million, for a total maximum possible recovery of $8.4 million.
Given that the parties very much disagree on whether the Plaintiffs
and the class would be entitled to recovery on any of the claims,
the class counsel contend that the gross settlement amount of
$450,000 was fair and reasonable under the circumstances of the
case.
On March 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the pending unopposed
motion for attorneys' fees and for final approval of the class and
collective action settlement. As of the date of the hearing on
April 12, 2021, no objections to the settlement have been received
or filed with the Court, and only one class member has requested
exclusion from the settlement.
Judge Drozd conducted an examination of the class action factors in
the orders granting preliminary approval of the settlement and
found certification warranted. Because no additional issues
concerning certification have been raised, he finds that final
class and collective action certification in the case is
appropriate.
The following class of an estimated 315 individuals is therefore
certified for settlement purposes: "All current and former
non-exempt employees of Defendant during the period of Feb. 11,
2011 through May 11, 2016 (Class Period) in the following
departments and/or job categories: Breeders, Calf, Corral
Maintenance, Feed Push, Feeders, Fresh Cow, Hospital, Maintenance,
Waste Management, Maternity, Milkers, Farm Tractor and Equipment
Drivers, Farm Irrigators, and Farm Shop."
In addition, and for the reasons stated in the order granting
preliminary approval, Plaintiffs Maciel and Bonilla are confirmed
as the class representatives; attorneys David G. Spivak of The
Spivak Law Firm and Eric B. Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley, APC
are confirmed as the class counsel; and Simpluris, Inc. is
confirmed as the settlement administrator.
After considering all of the relevant factors, Judge Drozd finds on
balance that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. He
concludes that (i) there was a bona fide dispute as to FLSA
liability and will approve the FLSA settlement; (ii) the lodestar
cross-check supports the requested award of $150,000 in attorneys'
fees, an amount equal to one-third of the total fund in the case;
(iii) all the expenses incurred in the amount of $21,859.44 to be
quite reasonable; (iv) the service awards of $6,500 for Plaintiff
Maciel and $5,000 for Plaintiff Bonilla are fair and reasonable;
and (v) the total cost for administration of the settlement,
including fees incurred and future costs for completion is $10,890
that Simpluris incurred, to be reasonable.
For all of these reasons, Judge Drozd granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the class action settlement and the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive
awards. He awarded the following sums:
a. Class counsel will receive $150,000 in attorneys' fees and
$21,859.44 in expenses;
b. Plaintiff Maciel will receive $6,500 as an incentive
payment;
c. Plaintiff Bonilla will receive $5,000 as an incentive
payment; and
d. Simpluris Inc. will receive $10,890 in settlement
administration costs and expenses;
The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement
agreement and any deadlines or procedures for distribution set
forth therein.
The action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms
of the parties' fifth amended settlement agreement, with the Court
specifically retaining jurisdiction over the action for the purpose
of enforcing the parties' settlement agreement. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/8auydtc6 from Leagle.com.
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Court Relates Merriman & Dphrepaulezz Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, AMANDA MERRIMAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, and ELANCO
ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., Defendants. MICHAELE DPHREPAULEZZ on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER
HEALTHCARE LLC, and ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case
Nos. 3:21-cv-02227-RS, 3:21-cv-02439-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Chief
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Franciso Division, granted the
parties' stipulation regarding unopposed administrative motion to
relate cases and order relating cases.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, the parties file the stipulation in
support of the Defendants' Administrative Motion to Consider
Whether Cases Should be Related Under Civil Local Rule 3-12(b) and
7-11(a).
On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff Merriman filed a putative class action
complaint seeking to represent a class of California purchasers of
Seresto(R) flea and tick prevention collars for dogs and cats. The
complaint asserts consumer fraud and breach of warranty claims,
including claims for (1) breach of express and implied warranty;
(2) unjust enrichment; (3) an alleged violation of California's
Song-Beverly Act; (4) an alleged violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act; (5) an alleged violation of California's False
Advertising Law; and (6) an alleged violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law.
On April 5, 2021, Plaintiff Dphrepaulezz filed another putative
class action complaint, seeking to represent a nationwide class of
purchasers of Seresto(R) in connection with consumer fraud and
warranty claims related to Seresto(R). The complaint asserts
claims for (1) an alleged violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; (2) an alleged violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability.
The Plaintiffs in both cases name Bayer Corp. and Elanco Animal
Health Inc. as Defendants and allege consumer fraud claims
regarding the marketing of Elanco's Seresto(R) flea and tick
prevention collars for dogs and cats.
Accordingly, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12(b), 7-11(a), and
7-12, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties, the
parties stipulated that these matters should be related and
assigned to the Court of the lowest-numbered case, Amanda Merriman
v. Bayer HealthCare LLC and Elanco Animal Health Inc., No.
3:21-cv-02227-RS, the Honorable Richard Seeborg, presiding.
Judge Seeborg so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/j8rv4w2v from Leagle.com.
BETTER HOLDCO: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BETTER HOLDCO, INC., Case 1:21-cv-03731 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 27, 2021) arises from Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and
services offered, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant's policy and practice deny
Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users,
access to Defendant's website -- www.better.com -- and therefore
specifically deny the goods and services that are offered to the
general public. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove
access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired
persons have been and are still being denied equal access to
Defendant's website, and the numerous goods and services and
benefits offered to the public through the website. Plaintiff seeks
a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
Plaintiff Cristian Sanchez is a blind, visually-impaired
handicapped person and a member of a protected class of
individuals.
Better Holdco, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation doing business in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Lorenzo Sues Over Misleading Offering Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael James Lorenzo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BLUECITY HOLDINGS LIMITED, BAOLI MA, ZHIYONG
(BEN) LI, ZHE WEI, and WEI YING, Case No. 652894/2021 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., April 30, 2021), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased
or otherwise acquired BlueCity American depositary shares ("ADSs")
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on
or about July 8, 2020. The action seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933, arising
from BlueCity's materially misleading Offering Documents issued in
connection with the IPO.
According to the complaint, the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Specifically, the Offering Documents were false or misleading or
failed to disclose that: (i) the Defendants had overstated
BlueCity's business and financial prospects; (ii) the Company was
ill-equipped to absorb the costs of becoming a publicly traded
company, including IPO- and growth-related costs; (iii) as a result
of all the foregoing, the Defendants had misrepresented the
Company's capability for sustainable growth; and (iv) as a result,
the Offering Documents were materially false or misleading and
failed to state information required to be stated therein.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of BlueCity's ADSs,
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired BlueCity ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to
the Offering Documents issued in connection with the IPO and
suffered damages as a result.
BlueCity operates a platform for the LGBTQ community primarily
under the BlueCity brand in China, India, Korea, Thailand, and
Vietnam.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
BOARDWALK AUTO: Amyx Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON AMYX, individually and 0f all others similarly 0n behalf
situated v. BOARDWALK AUTO CENTER, INC., and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 21 CV379043 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
April 2, 2021) alleges that Boardwalk auto failed to pay minimum
and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.
Plaintiff Amyx brings this putative class action against Defendants
on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of California
citizens who are and were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees or employees paid in whole or in part on a commission or
piece rate basis throughout California.
The Defendants are in the business of operating an automotive
dealership.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: Jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
BRIGHT HORIZONS: Naylor Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHABRAEL NAYLOR, individually and behalf of other similarly
situated and general public v. BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS,
LLC, an unknown business entity; BRIGHT HORIZONS CHILDREN'S CENTER,
LLC, an unknown business entity; and 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 21CV379045 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 2, 2021)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime
wages under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other members
were required to work more than eight hours per day and/or 40 hours
per week Without overtime compensation for all overtime hours
worked.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-paid
or non-exempt employees within the State 0f California, including
the County of Santa Glendale.
Bright Horizons is a United States-based child-care provider and is
the largest provider of employer-sponsored child care. It also
provides back-up child care and elder care, tuition program
management, education advising, and student loan repayment
programs. It is headquartered in Newton, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
County of Santa Clara
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Grant of Dismissal Bids in Merger Suit Endorsed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P. MERGER LITIGATION, C.A.
No. 20-960-RGA (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recommends that
the Buckeye Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and the IFM Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss be granted.
Pending before the Court are (1) the Buckeye Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss; and (2) the IFM Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. As
announced at the hearing on April 21, 2021, Magistrate Judge Hall
recommends granting both motions.
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hall notes that
they reviewed all of the briefing, declarations, and exhibits
submitted by the parties. They also reviewed the parties'
responses to the Order to Show Cause. All of the parties'
arguments have been considered. Magistrate Judge Hall recommends
that both motions to dismiss be granted.
The merger at issue in the case was the acquisition of Buckeye
Partners, L.P. by a subsidiary of IFM Global Infrastructure Fund.
Shortly after Buckeye issued its proxy statement regarding the
merger, various lawsuits were filed asserting deficiencies in the
proxy. The lead Plaintiff is Walter E. Ryan, Jr. Mr. Ryan was a
unitholder of Buckeye prior to the acquisition. The operative
complaint is styled, Third Amended Class Action Complaint.
Although it is a Third Amended Complaint, the pending motions to
dismiss are the first time that Mr. Ryan's claims have been subject
to evaluation by the Court.
The Third Amended Complaint sets forth eight counts. Counts 1 and
2 allege violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Counts 3, 4, 5, and 8 are state law claims for breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Count 7 alleges
that the IFM Defendants aided and abetted the Exchange Act and
state law violations. Count 6 is styled Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief, but it does not refer to an independent violation of state
or federal law.
The Buckeye Defendants and the IFM Defendants separately moved to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. During oral argument today,
Plaintiff conceded that it would be appropriate to dismiss his
federal Exchange Act claims with prejudice. The only remaining
issue is what to do with the state law claims. The Third Amended
Complaint suggested two bases for exercising jurisdiction over
those claims, the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d), and the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367.
All parties agree that the Class Action Fairness Act does not
provide a basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over the
state law claims set forth in the Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint. That leaves supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367.
In her Order to Show Cause, Magistrate Judge Hall indicated that
she would recommend declining supplemental jurisdiction in the
event that the federal claims were dismissed. She has considered
the arguments and the cited cases, and she recommends that the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
The Defendants say that those considerations weigh in favor of
exercising jurisdiction. Magistrate Judge Hall disagrees saying it
is not a case of near identical state and federal claims. There is
no question that there is substantial factual overlap, and there
are similar legal questions. But the analysis governing the
Plaintiff's state law claims is a different analysis. Before the
Plaintiff voluntarily agreed today to dismiss his federal claims,
the Court had assessed and was prepared to recommend dismissal of
those claims with prejudice on the bases that, one, the Plaintiff
abandoned them; and two, the Plaintiff failed to identify an
actionable false or misleading statement, which is a requirement to
state a Section 14(a) claim.
The Defendants argue that if the Court dismisses or did dismiss the
Plaintiff's federal claims on the basis that all material
information was disclosed, the Court could also dismiss the
Plaintiff's state law fiduciary duty claims for the same reason.
While she takes the Defendants' point that the state law claims are
similar to Plaintiff's federal claims, Magistrate Judge Hall holds
that it's not evident to her that a conclusion that the Plaintiff
failed to state a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act
would necessarily and automatically entitle the Defendants to a
dismissal of any or all of their state law claims. The Defendants
may be right that the Plaintiff's state law claims are not
meritorious, but she has not considered their merit as part of her
recommendation. Accordingly, principles of convenience to the
Court and judicial economy do not provide a justification for the
Court to exercise its jurisdiction to hear the state law claims.
Comity also favors dismissal of the case without prejudice to
permit the Plaintiff to proceed with his remaining claims in state
court. Magistrate Judge Hall takes the Defendants' point that
forcing them to now defend these claims in state court is
inconvenient and could delay the ultimate resolution of the case.
However, for the reasons discussed during argument today, it's not
clear to her that the Defendants would get a final answer before
they would in state court. And even if the case could be concluded
faster, she finds that it would not tip the scale in favor of
exercising jurisdiction.
For those reasons, Magistrate Judge Hall recommends that the
Defendants' motions be granted. The Plaintiff's federal claims
[(Counts 1 and 2)] should be dismissed with prejudice, and she
recommends that the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over
the Plaintiff's state law claims [(Counts 3 through 8)].
The Report and Recommendation was issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B), (C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b)(1), and District of Delaware Local Rule 72.1. The parties
are directed to the Court's "Standing Order for Objection Filed
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72," dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which
can be found on the Court's website.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Report & Recommendation
is available at https://tinyurl.com/u9h4myn7 from Leagle.com.
BURTON PACKAGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Warden Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN WARDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURTON PACKAGING COMPANY, INC.; MITCHELL H.
KOSSOFF, and PHYLLIS KOSSOFF, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02579
(E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Warden was employed by the Defendants as staff.
BURTON PACKAGING COMPANY, INC. is engaged in the packaging industry
specializing in creative packaging solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
Imran Ansari, Esq.
AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
546 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 486-0011
E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com
CAMPBELL SOUP: Smith Sues Over Heavy Metals Content in Baby Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWINA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, AND PLUM, PBC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08567-NLH-KMW (D.N.J., April 7, 2021) is a consumer class
action arising from the Defendants' failure to list heavy metals as
ingredient on the labels of their products.
These products include, but are not limited to: Plum Organics Stage
1 Just Peaches, Plum Organics Stage 1 Just Prunes, Plum Organics
Stage 1 Just Sweet Potato, Plum Organics Stage 1 Just Mango, Plum
Organics Super Puffs Variety Pack, Plum Organics Stage 2 Pear
Purple Carrot & Blueberry, Plum Organics Stage 2 Pear Spinach and
Pea, Plum Organics Stage 2 Banana Pumpkin, Plum Organics Stage 2
Grow Well DHA, Plum Organics Stage 2 Sweet Potato Apple & Corn,
Plum Organics Stage 2 Banana Zucchini & Amaranth, Plum Organics
Stage 2 Mango Sweet Potato Apple & Millet, Plum Organics Stage 2
Pumpkin Chickpea Spinach & Broccoli, Plum Organics Stage 2
Butternut Squash Carrot Chickpea & Corn, Plum Organics Stage 2
Apple Plum Berry Barley, Plum Organics Stage 2 Pear & Mango, Plum
Organics Stage 2 Peach Pumpkin Carrot & Cinnamon, Plum Organics
Stage 2 Mango Yellow Zucchini Corn & Turmeric, Plum Organics Mighty
4 Guava Banana Black Bean Carrot Oat, Plum Organics Mighty 4 Pear
Cherry Blackberry Strawberry Black Bean Spinach Oat, Plum Organics
Mighty Veggie Zucchini Apple Watermelon Barley, Plum Organics
Mighty Veggie Spinach Grape Apple Amaranth, Plum Organics Mighty
Veggie Carrot Pear Pomegranate Oat, Plum Organics Mighty Morning
Banana Blueberry Oat Quinoa, Plum Organics Mighty Protein & Fiber
Pear White Bean Blueberry Date & Chia, Plum Organics Mighty Protein
& Fiber Mango Banana White Bean Sunflower Seed Butter & Chia, and
Plum Organics Mighty Protein & Fiber Banana White Beat Strawberry
Chia.
The complaint states that an investigation by the U.S. House of
Representatives Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy
revealed that baby foods manufactured by the Defendants are
"tainted with significant levels of toxic heavy metals, including
arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury."
The complaint further says that the Defendants refused invitations
to cooperate with the Subcommittee. The Defendants additionally
refused to produce to the Subcommittee their testing standards or
any specific test results regarding the presence of toxic heavy
metals. Instead, Defendants provided a spreadsheet "self-declaring"
that their baby food meets unspecified criteria for toxic heavy
metals.
The Defendants manufacture, distribute, promote, offer for sale,
and sell the Products, both in the past and at present.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
memert@kgglaw.com
CANAAN INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of June 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of Canaan Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) ("Canaan") that a securities
fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Canaan American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
between February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Canaan ADRs during the Class Period may, no later than June 14,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/canaan-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=canaan.
Canaan designs, manufactures and sells bitcoin mining machines,
primarily in the Peoples Republic of China.
The Class Period commences on February 10, 2021, when Canaan issued
a press release claiming that Canaan's "revenue visibility has
improved substantially in 2021 as a result of attaining purchase
orders totaling more than 100,000 units of bitcoin mining machines
from customers in North America. Many of those purchase orders were
placed with prepayment and will likely occupy [Canaan]'s current
manufacturing capacity entirely for the full year of 2021 and
beyond."
Throughout the Class Period, the defendants concealed that due to
ongoing supply chain disruptions and the introduction of Canaan's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines, Canaan's fourth
quarter 2020 sales had declined more than 93% year-over-year
compared to its fourth quarter 2019 sales and more than 93%
quarter-over-quarter compared to its third quarter 2020 sales.
According to the complaint, on April 12, 2021, before the opening
of trading, Canaan issued a press release disclosing its actual
fourth quarter 2020 and fiscal year 2020 financial results for the
period ended December 31, 2020, including a 93% year-over-year
decrease in computing power sold and net revenues for the quarter.
Following this news, the market price of Canaan ADRs fell from
their close of $18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021 to close at $13.14
per ADR on April 12, 2021, a decline of nearly 30%.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) Canaan had
experienced significant ongoing supply chain disruptions during the
fourth quarter 2020; (2) the introduction of Canaan's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines had cannibalized
sales of the older product offerings during the fourth quarter
2020; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Canaan's fourth quarter
2020 sales and sales revenues had declined dramatically; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Canaan was not on track to achieve the
strong financial prospects it had led the market to believe.
Canaan investors may, no later than June 14, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
CANIDAE CORP: Discusses Settlement in Mislabeled Pet Foods Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued regarding the class action
settlement in Hill v. Canidae Corporation.
There is a Proposed Settlement in a class action lawsuit that
claims Canidae Corporation violated state laws regarding the
labeling and marketing of certain Canidae pet food products.
Canidae denies it did anything wrong and denies all of the claims
made in this lawsuit.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?
Anyone in the U.S. or U.S. territories who bought qualifying
Canidae pet food products after July 9, 2016 and prior to April 30,
2021 in the U.S. or U.S. territories is considered a potential
Class Member and is eligible to file a claim. Visit the Settlement
website below or call the toll-free number for a complete list of
products covered by the Proposed Settlement.
WHAT DOES THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
If the Proposed Settlement is approved and becomes final, it will
provide Benefits to Class Members. Defendant will make payments to
those Class Members who file Valid Claims by submitting a Claim
Form by the deadline, as well as pay for costs associated with the
notice and administration of the Settlement, attorneys' fees and
costs to the attorneys for the Class, and an Incentive Award to the
named Plaintiffs.
HOW CAN I GET A PAYMENT?
If you are a Class member, you may submit a Claim Form online at
PetFoodIngredientSettlement.com or by mail by July 29, 2021.
Payments for those submitting valid, timely claims could be $5.00
(without Proof of Purchase), or $5.00 for every $50.00 spent on
qualifying products (with Proof of Purchase), up to $125.00.
WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?
If you do nothing, you will not receive money from the Settlement
but you will be bound by the decisions of the Court. You may
Exclude yourself or Opt-Out from the Proposed Settlement. If you do
so you will not be eligible to receive money, but you will keep
your right to pursue a lawsuit against the Defendant, at your own
expense, about the claims in this case. You may Object to the
proposed Settlement. Please read the Long Form Notice found on the
website below with detailed instructions on how Opt-Out and Object.
The deadline to Opt-Out and Object, is June 14, 2021.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case on September 13, 2021 at
9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1 of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, George E. Brown, Jr. Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 3470 Twelfth Street
Riverside, California 92501-3801, to consider approval of the
Proposed Settlement, a payment of up to a total of $1,300,000 to
Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses and a payment of up
to a total of $5,000 to each of the two named Plaintiffs as an
Incentive Award, and related issues. The motion(s) by Class Counsel
for those fees, costs, and Incentive Awards for the named
Plaintiffs will be available on the Settlement Website after they
are filed and before the above hearing. You may appear at the
hearing, but you are not required to appear.
HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION?
This is only a summary. Please read The Long Form Notice at
PetFoodIngredientSettlement.com or call 800-335-2852 for complete
instructions on how to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself,
and other important information. Visit
PetFoodIngredientSettlement.com or call 800-335-2852, or write to
Canidae Settlement Administrator, c/o Heffler Claims Group, PO Box
98, Warminster, PA 18974-0098. [GN]
CANOO INC: Faces Blake Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL BLAKE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CANOO INC., TONY AQUILA, ULRICH KRANZ, and PAUL
BALCIUNAS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02873 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2021) is a
federal class action brought individually and on behalf of all
other 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),
seeking to recover damages pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
The Class Period begins on August 18, 2020. On August 18, 2020, the
Company issued a press release announcing that it had entered into
a deal with Canoo Holdings Ltd. which would result in it becoming a
publicly listed company.
During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants allegedly
engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct
that artificially inflated the Company's common stock and warrant
prices, and operated as a fraud or deceit on acquirers of the
Company's common stock and warrants.
On March 29, 2021, after the market close, Canoo issued a press
release (Q4 Release) reporting its fourth quarter and full year
2020 results. The Q4 Release removed the language touting its
"unique business model" simply stating: "Canoo has developed
breakthrough electric vehicles that are reinventing the automotive
landscape with bold innovations in design and pioneering
technologies."
On March 29, 2021, the Company held a conference call to discuss
its financial results (the "Q4 Call"). During the call Defendant
Aquila announced that Defendant Balciunas was being replaced as
CFO. The Company's CEO, Defendant Kranz was not on the call.
In response to this news, shares of Canoo fell $2.50 (or $21.2%)
from a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30
per share on March 30, 15 2021, on heavy volume. An analyst from
Roth Capital Partners downgraded the Company to 17 neutral from buy
and slashed the price target to $12 from $30 citing the hard pivot
in the Company’s business mode, the suit says.
The Plaintiff purchased shares of Canoo common stock and has been
damaged thereby.
Canoo (formerly known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV) is
a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive
offices in 19951 Mariner Avenue, Torrance, California. The Company
was formed for the purpose of effecting a business combination with
specific focus on businesses in the industrial, technology and
infrastructure sectors. The Individual Defendants are officers and
directors of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
Jeffrey V. Rocha, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
jrocha@bermantabacco.com
CANOO INC: Faces Kojak Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN KOJAK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. CANOO INC. f/k/a HENNESSY CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP.
IV, ULRICH KRANZ, TONY AQUILA, DANIEL J. HENNESSY, NICHOLAS A.
PETRUSKA, BRADLEY BELL, PETER SHEA, RICHARD BURNS, JAMES F. O'NEIL
III, JUAN CARLOS MAS, GRETCHEN W. MCCLAIN, and GREG ETHRIDGE, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02879 (C.D. Calif., April 2, 2021) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Canoo securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021,
inclusive (the Class Period) pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public entity via
merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity named
"Canoo." On March 29, 2021, after the market closed, Canoo revealed
that the Company would no longer focus on its engineering services
line, which had been touted in the SPAC merger documents just three
months earlier and formed the basis of Canoo's growth story.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.50, or 21.19%, to
close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Canoo had decreased
its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a
subscription model.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the 17 precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and 18 other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Plaintiff Kojak purchased Canoo securities during the Class Period,
and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law
violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or
material omissions.
Canoo Holdings was an electric vehicle company that touted a
"unique business model that defies traditional ownership to put
customers first."It has announced a delivery vehicle (to launch in
2022), pickup truck (to launch in 2023), and van, all of which are
built on the same underlying technological platform.
Hennessy Capital was a blank check company formed for the purpose
13 of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business
combination. On or about December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a
public entity via merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving
entity named "Canoo." The Individual Defendants are Officers of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007s
CAPITAL FUNDING: Peters Broadcast Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETERS BROADCAST
ENGINEERING v. CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC; JASON SANKOV; and JOHN DOES,
Case No. 2:20-cv-03135-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), Peters Broadcast asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. certifying that the action may be maintained and proceed as
a
class action against the defendants;
2. appointing the Proposed Class Representative Peters Broadcast
as class representative; and
3. appointing Percy Squire as Counsel for the Class and as
Liaison Counsel for the Class.
The Plaintiff brings this action as a Class Action under Rules
23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons who were told by Capital, LLC
their merchant cash advance was against receivables , that
borrowers had New York contacts and based on an affidavit filed by
Jason Sankov.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tSqN38 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Percy Squire, Esq.
PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
341 S. Third Street, Suite 10
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: 614-224-6528
E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.coms
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in Del Toro FLSA Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA DEL TORO, et al., Plaintiffs v. CENTENE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-CV-02635-JAR
(E.D. Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the
parties' Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, for Appointment of Settlement Administrator,
for Approval of Service Awards, and for Approval of Attorneys' Fees
and Costs.
The Defendant provides administrative and business support for
subsidiaries of Centene Corp. Those subsidiaries offer managed
healthcare products and services through Medicaid, Medicare, and
commercial health insurance, and the Defendant employs most health
plan employees. The Plaintiffs are Care Management Employees who
allege that the Defendant failed to pay overtime wages for
non-exempt work in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. ("FLSA").
The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on Sept. 25, 2019
pursuant to Section 216(b) of FLSA, and filed an amended complaint
on Oct. 31, 2019. The Defendant filed an Answer on Nov. 27, 2019.
On April 30, 2020, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Step-One Notice and conditionally certified a class of Care
Management Employees in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, Ohio,
New York, and Washington. The Plaintiff filed the operative Second
Amended Complaint on March 25, 2021.
Through mediation, the parties achieved a Settlement Agreement
covering 1,228 individuals, including the named Plaintiffs and 13
opt-in Plaintiffs. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
all the Class members will receive settlement checks representing
approximately 63% of the alleged overtime wages owed pursuant to
the Plaintiffs' Class counsel's calculation methodology, averaging
$1,775 per Class member. The Plaintiffs also seek approval of
attorneys' fees in the amount of 35% of the Gross Settlement Fund,
$7,317 in the Class counsel expenses, and Service Awards for the
named and opt-in Plaintiffs.
Analysis
A. Settlement Agreement
First, Judge Ross finds that the Settlement Agreement stems from a
bona fide dispute. Second, considering the totality of the
circumstances, he finds that the proposed settlement is reasonable
and fair to all parties. Lastly, he notes that he has reviewed and
approved only the material terms of the proposed settlement as they
relate to the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims.
B. Attorneys' Fees and Costs
The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks a fee representing 35% of the Gross
Settlement Fund, as well as reimbursement of actual litigation
costs.
After extensive consideration, Judge Ross will approve the
requested attorneys' fees and costs. He finds that the parties
have reasonably employed a percentage-of-the-fund approach, and a
35% fee is within the range routinely approved by courts in the
Eighth Circuit. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs' counsel undertook
substantial financial risk, exchanged discovery and participated in
mediation concerning complex factual and legal issues, and
ultimately came away with an excellent result for their clients.
Finally, the Judge double-checked the fees through a lodestar
analysis which confirmed that the requested fees are well within
the range of reasonableness. He also finds that the Plaintiffs'
counsel has justified recovery of litigation costs in the amount of
$7,317.
C. Service Awards
The Plaintiffs have also requested service awards for the named
Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiffs, in addition to any payment
such individuals will receive as their pro rata share of the fund.
Judge Ross finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel has affirmed that
these individuals "provided factual information and otherwise
assisted the Plaintiffs' counsel with the prosecution of the
litigation, and filed the suit knowing that future employers may
not hire them because they filed a lawsuit against a former
employer." The named Plaintiffs also participated in multiple
conferences. The entire Class substantially benefitted from the
actions of the named Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiffs.
Therefore, Judge Ross will approve the service awards to the named
and the opt-in Plaintiffs.
D. Redacted Settlement Agreement
Before filing the proposed Settlement Agreement, the parties
submitted a Joint Motion to File Settlement Agreement Under Seal.
The Court, acknowledging that the Eastern District of Missouri is
considering a revised local rule expanding access to court records,
ordered the parties to publicly submit a redacted version of the
Settlement Agreement while filing the unredacted agreement under
seal. The parties have now filed a redacted version of the
Settlement Agreement.
Judge Ross finds that the parties have effectively limited the
redactions in a manner which appropriately balances the presumption
of public access with the legitimate public interest in encouraging
settlement.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, Judge Ross granted the parties' Joint
Motion to File Settlement Agreement Under Seal because the parties
have publicly filed a minimally redacted version of the Settlement
Agreement. He also granted the parties' Joint Motion for Approval
of Settlement Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, for Appointment
of Settlement Administrator, for Approval of Service Awards, and
for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
The Settlement Agreement is approved with respect to the Named
Plaintiffs, the Opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Participating Settlement
Class Members, and is binding on them as defined in the Settlement
Agreement. The terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement,
including the amended definition of the FLSA collective, are
incorporated by reference into the Memorandum and Order.
The Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs and the Opt-in
Plaintiffs to be paid out of the Gross Settlement Fund are
approved.
The Plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorneys' fees in the amount
of 35% of the Gross Settlement Fund and litigation expenses in the
amount of $7,317.90 to be paid out of the Gross Settlement Fund are
approved.
Rust Consulting's appointment as Settlement Administrator is
approved.
The form, content, and distribution method of the parties' proposed
settlement notices are approved. The parties are authorized to
utilize all reasonable and mutually agreed upon procedures in
connection with the administration of the Settlement Agreement as
long as such procedures are not inconsistent with this Memorandum
and Order.
The Memorandum and Order will constitute a final Judgment pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3cdmdcum from Leagle.com.
CHRISTONE ENTERPRISES: Jurcich Suit Seeks OT Pay for Technicians
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Jurcich, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Christone Enterprises, Inc.., an Illinois corporation,
E.L.M. Construction, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, and Christopher
P. Mendola. And Christopher B. Mendola, Case No. 3:21-cv-00358
(S.D. Ill., April 2, 2021) is an action for overtime pay,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated current and former maintenance technicians (also
referred to as the Covered Positions) of the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and paid various
hourly rates of between $12.00 and $17.00. The Defendants employed
maintenance technicians to perform primary job duties consisting of
non-exempt manual labor.
The Defendants own and/or operate as Christone Enterprises, Inc.,
an enterprise located in St. Clair County, Illinois.
Christone Enterprises, Inc. is a real estate brokerage company
headquartered in O'Fallon, Illinois.
ELM Construction, Inc. is the in-house maintenance company for
Christone Enterprises, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza -- Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E-mail: james@bswages.com
- and -
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone AZ: (480) 382-5176
Telephone OH: (216) 395-4226
E-mail: cliff@bswages.com
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against
Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE: CCIV) ("CCIV") on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired CCIV securities between January 11, 2021
and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
CCIV securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 28,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/churchill-capital-class-action
lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=churchill
CCIV is a blank check company, also known as a special purpose
acquisition company. Atieva, Inc., d/b/a Lucid Motors ("Lucid") is
an American automotive company specializing in electric cars. As of
2020, Lucid's first car, Lucid Air, is in development.
The Class Period commences on January 11, 2021, when Bloomberg News
reported that Lucid "is in talks to go public through a merger with
one of Michael Klein's special purpose acquisition companies,
according to people familiar with the matter." Michael Klein
launched CCIV in April 2020 and raised $2,070,000,000 in CCIV's
initial public offering. It was rumored that the Lucid was merging
with CCIV. On February 16, 2021, Lucid's Chief Executive Officer,
Peter Rawlinson, appeared on Fox Business News with Neil Cavuto
touting that Lucid was aiming for a spring delivery of its first
vehicles.
On Monday, February 22, 2021, the long anticipated merger agreement
between CCIV and Lucid was announced. CCIV and Lucid's transaction
equity value was estimated at $11.75 billion. However, at 6:22 p.m.
that same night, Ed Ludlow of Bloomberg News reported that Mr.
Rawlinson announced that production of its debut car will be
delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite
date set for delivery of an actual vehicle.
Following this news, CCIV's stock price fell from a close of $57.37
per share on February 22, 2021, to a close of $35.21 per share on
February 23, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose a true and accurate picture of CCIV's
business, operations and financial condition.
CCIV investors may, no later than June 28, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
CITIZENS BANK: Palmer May File 2nd Amended Complaint, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants the Plaintiff's motion to file second amended complaint in
the lawsuit titled LAWRENCE PALMER, Plaintiff v. CITIZENS BANK,
N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06309-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in state
court in April 2020. In August, he filed and served on all the
Defendants an amended complaint. The first amended complaint made
two claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), one claim
California Business and Professions Code section 17200, and one
claim under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
("CCRAA").
The Defendants removed the action to the Court on Sept. 4, 2020.
The complaint alleged that the Defendants made unauthorized credit
inquiries regarding the Plaintiff. After the Court denied the
Plaintiff's motion to remand and the Defendants answered the first
amended complaint, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his
complaint that is now pending before the Court.
The Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add a new defendant
and four new privacy-based causes of action, based on a theory that
the Defendants improperly stored, used, and transmitted Plaintiff's
personal identifiable information. The Defendants oppose amendment
on grounds of futility.
After carefully considering the parties' written submissions, the
Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, and grants the
motion to amend.
As the Defendants themselves note, a proposed amendment should be
denied as futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the
amendment that would constitute a valid and sufficient claim,
citing Sweaney v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.
1997). Their futility arguments, however, are based upon the
Plaintiff's failure to allege any new facts to support his new
claims even though the elements of the new claims are different
from the previously pled claims. These arguments do not show that
the Plaintiff could allege no set of facts to prove these new
claims, only that he has not yet done so. Thus, denial of the
motion to amend on futility grounds is not proper, Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley holds.
That being said, at the case management conference, the Court will
discuss with the Plaintiff whether he wants to further amend his
complaint before requiring the Defendants to respond now that he
has the benefit of their dismissal arguments. It does not wish to
prolong motion practice and merely grant a motion to dismiss with
leave to amend when the Plaintiff could have further amended his
complaint. The Court will address the issue at the conference.
The Order disposes of Docket No. 52.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4zd3svjv from Leagle.com.
COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Appeals Class Cert. Bid Ruling in Suit vs Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cognyte Software Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2021, that the motion for leave to
appeal in the Tel Aviv suit against the company's subsidiary,
Cognyte Technologies Israel Ltd. (formerly known as Verint Systems
Limited), is pending.
In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit
Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Cognyte Technologies (Case Number
4186/09) and against the company's former affiliate Comverse
Technology, Inc. (CTI) (Case Number 1335/09).
Also, in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's
primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel,
commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited
(Case Number 3444/09).
In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class
action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former
employees of Cognyte IL and Comverse who had been granted stock
options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a
result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended
filing delay period that is discussed in Verint's and CTI's
historical public filings. On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District
Court, where the cases had been filed or transferred, allowed the
plaintiffs to consolidate and amend their complaints against the
three defendants: Cognyte IL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.
On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed all of the outstanding shares
of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating
subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's
shareholders (the "Comverse Share Distribution").
In the period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in
Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse,
Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties.
As the result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an
independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests
in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share
Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up
to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the
District Court did not rule on this motion. In February 2017,
Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc.
On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in a merger transaction. As a result of the CTI Merger,
Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any
liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing legal actions.
However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement entered into
in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution, Verint, as
successor to CTI, is entitled to indemnification from Comverse,
Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses Verint may suffer in its capacity
as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal actions. Under
the Separation and Distribution Agreement entered into with Verint
in connection with the spin-off, we agreed to indemnify Verint for
our share of any losses Verint may suffer related to the foregoing
legal actions either in its capacity as successor to CTI, to the
extent not indemnified by Mavenir, or due to its former ownership
of us and Cognyte IL.
Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of
Mavenir) or of Cognyte IL who held unexercised CTI stock options at
the time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that
the merits of the case would be evaluated under New York law.
As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.
On August 8, 2017, the Israeli Supreme Court partially allowed
CTI's appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District
Court to determine whether a cause of action exists under New York
law based on the parties' expert opinions.
Following two unsuccessful rounds of mediation in mid to late 2018
and in mid-2019, the proceedings resumed. On April 16, 2020, the
District Court accepted plaintiffs' application to amend the motion
to certify a class action and set deadlines for filing amended
pleadings by the parties.
CTI submitted a motion to appeal the District Court's decision to
the Supreme Court, as well as a motion to stay the proceedings in
the District Court pending the resolution of the appeal.
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion for a stay.
On July 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their response on the merits
of the motion for leave to appeal, and the parties are waiting for
further instructions or decisions from the Supreme Court.
Cognyte Software Ltd. provides security software solutions. The
Company offers platform which fuses, analyzes, and visualizes
disparate data sets at scale to help security organizations find
the needles in the haystacks and address ever-evolving security
threats. Cognyte Software serves customers worldwide.
COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY: Robinson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comprehensive
Security Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nicholas
Robinson, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Comprehensive Security Services, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00299929-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
30, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
Comprehensive Security Services, Inc. (CSSI) --
https://www.comprehensivesecurity.net/ -- is a premier disaster
recovery (and relief) contract security provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
555 12th Street, Suite 1725
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: 510-891-9800
Fax: 510-891-7030
Email: scole@scalaw.com
CONGRESS COLLECTION: Second Bid to Dismiss Randolph Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, issued an Opinion & Order granting the
Defendant's second motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned TOMEKA
RANDOLPH, Plaintiff v. CONGRESS COLLECTION LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 20-cv-12146 (E.D. Mich.).
Plaintiff Tomeka Randolph has filed a putative class action
complaint pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). Randolph's claims arise from a debt collection letter sent
to her by Defendant Congress Collection, LLC that allegedly
contained false, deceptive, and threatening information.
Congress Collection moved to dismiss Randolph's claims against it
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that
Randolph lacks standing to bring the instant action.
The Court provided Randolph an opportunity to amend her complaint
in light of Congress Collection's motion. After Randolph filed her
amended complaint, the Court dismissed Congress Collection's motion
to dismiss without prejudice. Congress Collection has now filed a
second Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits the judicial power to
resolving actual "cases" and "controversies," not theoretical
questions (U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2). No case or controversy
exists if the parties do not have standing to bring the action.
Standing has three elements. The plaintiff must have (i) suffered
an injury, (ii) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct
of the defendant, (iii) that is likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555, 560-561 (1992).
Ms. Randolph alleges that she suffered a statutory violation, an
emotional injury, the risk of reprioritizing other interest-bearing
debts, and legal costs and fees. She alleges that she was harmed
because the collection letter states that her delay in paying the
debt owed "may result in a negative effect on your credit score,
causing you to pay higher interest rates on loans and auto
insurance rates in the future."
Even assuming that this is a misrepresentation, it is light years
away from the types of misrepresentations that are sufficient in
and of themselves to create an injury in fact, District Judge Mark
A. Goldsmith holds. Although Randolph alleges--in a conclusory
manner--that the letter "threatened" her, a "threat" that her delay
in paying the undisputed debt "may" negatively affect her credit
score, loan interest rates, and auto insurance rates, is a far cry
from a threat of arrest or criminal prosecution, the Judge adds.
Judge Goldsmith also notes that the letter sent from Congress
Collection to Randolph does not mention litigation. Therefore, any
comparison to abuse of process is "inapt." In addition, Randolph
does not allege that Congress Collection threatened her with
arrest, criminal prosecution, or civil litigation. Thus, any
comparison to malicious prosecution is likewise inapt.
Because Randolph has not shown that she suffered a harm that
Congress intended to prevent or that is analogous to a harm that
the common law recognizes, she cannot prevail on the theory that
the alleged statutory violation, by itself, is an injury in fact,
Judge Goldsmith holds. Thus, Randolph can only survive the instant
Rule 12(b)(1) motion if she has alleged some other cognizable
injury. As discussed, Randolph has failed to do so.
Ms. Randolph also alleges that she felt anxiety and emotional
anguish because the letter stated that her delay in paying the debt
"may" result in a negative on her credit score, which would in turn
cause her to pay higher interest rates on loans and auto insurance
rates "in the future." She, thus, alleges anxiety about a possible
future harm that is not certainly impending.
Judge Goldsmith opines that Randolph's anxiety is arguably
self-inflicted. She does not dispute the validity of the debt.
Rather, she alleges anxiety regarding negative effects on her
credit score, insurance rates, and auto loan rates. However, the
letter provides that Randolph's delay in paying the debt she
indisputably owes is what "may" negatively affect her credit score.
As a result, the ultimate cause of Randolph's anxiety is her own
failure to pay her debts and the potential consequences of her
delinquency, the Judge points out.
Because Randolph's anxiety is neither an injury in fact nor fairly
traceable to Congress Collection's challenged conduct, her anxiety
fails to establish standing. The Court concludes that Randolph has
failed to establish that she has standing to litigate her claims.
Ms. Randolph also alleges the letter affected and frustrated her
ability to intelligently respond to the Defendant's collection
efforts, leaving her unable to prioritize her debts in such a way
as to pay those debts with the most risk of negative credit
reporting first.
However, Judge Goldsmith notes, Randolph does not identify any way
in which her prioritization of debts was actually affected.
Notably, she does not allege that she actually paid the debt owed
to Congress Collection--or any other debt--as a result of receiving
the letter. Therefore, the letter's alleged effect on Randolph's
ability to prioritize her debts is not an injury in fact.
Finally, Randolph argues that her legal costs and fees to procure
an attorney as a result of receiving the letter is an injury in
fact. Payment of fees is traditionally considered a tangible
economic harm. However, pursuant to Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick,
PA, 946 F.3d 855, 862 (6th Cir. 2020), "plaintiffs 'cannot
manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based
on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly
impending.'"
For these reasons, Randolph has not shown some other basis for
standing. Consequently, Randolph's decision to hire and pay a
lawyer is not sufficient in and of itself to create an injury in
fact, Judge Goldsmith concludes.
Hence, Congress Collection's second motion to dismiss is granted.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated May 3, 2021,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/k2ts9c4c from Leagle.com.
CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Sues Over Unlawful Overbilling Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brainchild Surgical Devices, LLC, a New York limited liability
company, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v.
CPA GLOBAL LIMITED, a foreign entity formed under the laws of the
Island of Jersey, Channel Islands, Case No. 1:21-cv-00554-RDA-JFA
(E.D. Va., May 2, 2021), is brought on behalf of all the
Defendants' U.S. clients who have been injured by the Defendants'
systematic overbilling practices; and to seek classwide damages,
equitable relief, and injunctive relief.
According to the complaint, Brainchild holds United States and
foreign patents and patent applications as well as registered
designs. To maintain the registration of these Patents, Brainchild
must pay maintenance fees to offices in each jurisdiction where the
Patents are registered, or in some cases, pending. To manage these
payments, Brainchild entered into a renewal services agreement with
CPA. Under the Agreement, CPA agreed to charge Brainchild a fixed
fee per payment in addition to its actual costs of making
payments.
However, CPA substantially overcharged Brainchild in violation of
the Agreement. To hide this overcharging, CPA issued opaque
invoices to Brainchild that are devoid of any meaningful breakdown.
This made it difficult for Brainchild to determine the actual costs
CPA incurred in making payments, and thus difficult to tell if
Brainchild was being overcharged. The Defendant uses similar
contracts and pricing structures for all or nearly all of its
clients. CPA overcharges its clients according to a deliberate and
systematic scheme, asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff Brainchild Surgical Devices is a medical device company.
CPA is a large, multinational company with offices around the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Geoffrey A. Neri, Esq.
Ethan J. Brown, Esq.
Ryan Abbott, MD, PhD, Esq.
BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN, LLP
11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2080
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: (310) 593-9890
Fax: (310) 593-9980
Email: Geoff@bnsklaw.com
Ethan@bnsklaw.com
Ryan@bnsklaw.com
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Putative Class Suit in Michigan Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit pending before the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division.
On October 2, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on
alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding
the Company and its business, and seeking class certification,
unspecified damages plus interest and attorney and expert witness
fees and other costs on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that
purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from
November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020.
Credit Acceptance said they cannot predict the duration or outcome
of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, they are unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Credit Acceptance Corporation provides funding, receivables
management, collection, sales training, and related services to
automobile dealers. The Company provides indirect financing for
buyers with limited access to traditional sources of consumer
credit. Credit Acceptance operates in the United States. The
company is based in Southfield, Michigan.
CUBIC CORPORATION: Wilson Balks at Veritas-Elliott Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN WILSON v. CUBIC CORPORATION, BRADLEY H. FELDMANN, DAVID F.
MELCHER, PRITH BANERJEE, BRUCE G. BLAKLEY, DENISE L. DEVINE,
MAUREEN BREAKIRON-EVANS, CAROLYN FLOWERS, JANICE M. HAMBY, and
STEVEN J. NORRIS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00607-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal., April
7, 2021) is an action brought by Plaintiff, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, against Cubic Corporation and
the members of its Board of Directors for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Cubic will be acquired by Veritas
Capital and Elliott Investment Management L.P. through Atlas CC
Acquisition Corp. ("Parent") and Atlas Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger
Sub")
On February 8, 2021, Cubic issued a press release announcing that
it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February
7, 2021 (as amended on March 30, 2021) to merge Cubic with Parent
and Merger Sub. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cubic
stockholders will receive US$75.00 in cash for each share of Cubic
common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration").
On March 26, 2021, Cubic filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (as supplemented on April 5, 2021) with the SEC.
The complaint states that the Proxy Statement, which recommends
that Cubic stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other
things: (i) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation
analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by the Board's
financial advisors, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and Raymond James &
Associates, Inc.; and (ii) the potential conflicts of interest
faced by Company insiders. The Defendants authorized the issuance
of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
In short, unless remedied, Cubic's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction, the complaint alleges.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are
cured.
San Diego, California-based Cubic is a technology-driven, provider
of integrated solutions that increase situational understanding for
transportation defense command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ("C4ISR"), and
training customers worldwide to decrease urban congestion and
improve the militaries' effectiveness and operational
readiness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
9100 Wilshire Blvd., #725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
CUP CAKES BY BRENDA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tzurec Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL TZUREC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUP CAKES BY BRENDA GRILL, CORP. (D/B/A
TAQUERIA EL PATRON MEXICAN GRILL); BRENDA CASTELLANOS, and ANA
PRINCE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02555 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2021)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Tzurec was employed by the Defendants as delivery
worker.
CUP CAKES BY BRENDA GRILL, CORP. owns and operates two Mexican
restaurants, located at Brooklyn, NY under the name "Taqueria El
Patron Mexican Grill".
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
DCI DONOR: Palma Files Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCI Donor Services,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mariah Wells, on behalf on
herself and all others similarly situated v. DCI Donor Services,
Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00299857-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
30, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
DCI Donor Services -- https://dcids.org/ -- are committed to saving
and enhancing lives by connecting people through organ and tissue
donation and transplantation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park E., Ste. 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346
Phone: 310-824-3828
Fax: 310-862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
DELAWARE NORTH: Morand-Doxzon Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA MORAND-DOXZON, on
behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of
the general public, v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES SPORTSERVICE, INC.;
CALIFORNIA SPORTSERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Case No.
3:20-cv-01258-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on July 2, 2021 to enter an order:
1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) as to the
following Class and Subclasses:
-- Class
"All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants at
Petco Park from May 26, 2016 to the date the Court grants
class certification.
-- Rest Period Subclass
"All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants at
Petco Park from May 26, 2016 to the date the Court grants
class certification who worked at least one shift of over
three and a half (3.5) hours;"
-- Meal Period Subclass
"All non-exempt employees who worked for the Defendants at
Petco Park from May 26, 2016 to the date the Court grants
class certification who worked at least one shift of over
five hours;"
-- Unpaid Wages Subclass
"All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants at
Petco Park and were hired or re-hired by Defendants from
May 26, 2016 to the date the Court grants class
certification who submitted required paperwork on a date
before their first day of work shown in the time
records;"
-- Wage Statement Subclass
"All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants at
Petco Park and were hired or re-hired by Defendants from
May 26, 2019 to the date the Court grants certification
who submitted required paperwork on a date before their
first day of work shown in the time records;" and
-- Waiting Time Penalties Subclass
"All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants at
Petco Park and were hired or re-hired from May 26, 2017 to
the date the Court grants class certification who
submitted required paperwork on a date before their first
day of work shown in the time records and whose
employment
with the Defendant has ended;"
2. appointing him as Class Representative; and
3. appointing his counsel, David Mara, Esq., and Jill Vecchi,
Esq., of Mara Law Firm, PC, as Class Counsel.
Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc. operates as a food,
beverage, and retail management company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bvHsDv at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
Jill Vecchi, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino del Rio N., Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 234-2833
Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
DFL PIZZA: Nagel Labor Suit Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Nagel, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. DFL Pizza, LLC, Tri-City Pizza, Inc., Minuteman Pizza, Ltd.,
Pinnacle Pizza, Inc., Jay Feavel, Charles S. Dolan, John Doe Corp.
1-10, John Doe 1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-00946-DDD (D. Colo., April 2,
2021) alleges that Defendants have repeatedly and willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Act by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related and other work-related expenses, thereby failing
to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage for all
hours worked.
The Defendants have also repeatedly and willfully violated the
Colorado Wage Claim Act by taking unauthorized deductions from the
delivery drivers wages and failing to pay all wage and compensation
earned by the delivery drivers in a timely manner.
The Defendants own and operate a group of over 30 Domino's Pizza
franchise stores in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ebang International Holdings Inc. ("Ebang" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: EBON) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and docketed under 21-cv-09859, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Ebang securities between June
26, 2020 and April 5, 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 Ebang securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 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.
Ebang purports to be a leading application-specific integrated
circuit ("ASIC") chip design company and a leading manufacturer of
Bitcoin mining machines.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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 go "primarily for development," and that instead the
funds were directed to repay related-party loans to a relative of
the Ebang's Chief Executive Officer, Dong Hu. The report also noted
that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange had failed due to widespread media coverage of a sales
inflation scheme with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending
platform that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655
million "vanish[ing] into thin air."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.82, or
approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per share on April 6, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a statement
stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed] many
errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate interpretations of
events," the "Board, together with its Audit Committee, intends to
further review and examine the allegations and misinformation
therein and will take whatever necessary and appropriate actions
may be required to protect the interest of its shareholders."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, or 2.17%, to
close at $5.41 per share on April 7, 2021. The stock price
continued to decline over the next trading session by $0.38, or 7%,
to close at $5.03 per share on April 8, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
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 [GN]
EMERGENT BIO: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of June 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland against Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE:EBS) ("Emergent")
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Emergent common stock
between July 6, 2020 and March 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Emergent
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than June 18,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information investors are encouraged to
contact the litigation partner assigned to the matter, David J.
Schwartz via email at david@labaton.com or using the toll-free
number (800) 321-0476.
Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops
vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases.
The Class Period commences on July 6, 2020, when Emergent issued a
press release announcing that it had signed a five-year agreement
for large-scale drug substance manufacturing for Johnson &
Johnson's ("J&J") lead COVID-19 vaccine candidate.
The truth about Emergent was revealed on March 31, 2021 after the
close of markets, when The New York Times published an article
reporting on the accidental contamination of COVID-19 vaccines
developed by J&J and AstraZeneca at the Emergent manufacturing
plant in Baltimore. The New York Times article stated that in late
February 2021, employees at Emergent's Baltimore manufacturing
plant inconceivably "mixed up" ingredients of the two different
COVID-19 vaccines, contaminating up to 15 million doses of J&J's
vaccine and forcing regulators to delay authorization of the
plant's production lines. Further, The New York Times article noted
that Emergent's massive vaccine lot contamination went undiscovered
for days until J&J's quality control checks uncovered it, raising
questions about Emergent's failed training and supervision of its
employees during the production process. Following this news,
Emergent's stock price dropped from a close of $92.91 on March 31,
2021, down to a close of $80.46 on April 1, 2021, a drop of over
13%. As more facts unfolded in the media, Emergent's stock price
continued to decline, closing at $78.62 on April 5, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent's Baltimore plant
had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for
massive contaminations; (2) these longstanding contamination risks
and quality control issues at Emergent's facility led to a string
of U.S. Food and Drug Administration citations; (3) Emergent
previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of doses of
COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated
from manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
the defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability and
capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its
Baltimore manufacturing site were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Emergent investors may, no later than June 18, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
About the Firm
Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
http://www.labaton.com.
Contact:
David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
david@labaton.com
SOURCE: Labaton Sucharow LLP [GN]
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 18, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Emergent BioSolutions Inc. ("Emergent" or the
"Company") (NYSE: EBS) common stock between July 6, 2020 and March
31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Emergent investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/emergent-biosolutions-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On March 31, 2021, The New York Times published an article
reporting that in late February 2021, employees at Emergent's
Baltimore manufacturing plant "mixed up" ingredients of the
different COVID-19 vaccines, contaminating up to 15 million doses
of the Johnson & Johnson ("J&J") vaccine forcing regulators to
delay authorization of the plant's production line.
On April 1, 2021, the Associated Press reported on Emergent's
"history of violations," noting that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") has repeatedly cited Emergent for problems
such as poorly trained employees, cracked vials and problems
managing mold and other contamination in its facilities.
On April 3, 2021, The New York Times reported that the Biden
administration placed J&J in charge of Emergent's Baltimore plant
and prohibited it from producing the AstraZeneca vaccine, a setback
for a Company that had touted its "unique" preparedness and "proven
manufacturing capabilities" only months prior.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $14.29 per share, or
over 15%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $78.62
per share on April 5, 2021.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Emergent's Baltimore plant had a history of manufacturing
issues increasing the likelihood for massive contaminations; (2)
these longstanding contamination risks and quality control issues
at Emergent's facility led to a string of FDA citations; (3) the
Company previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of
doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant
deviated from manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Emergent common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 18,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210430005076/en/ [GN]
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due June 15
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, MICHAEL
C. ANDREW, and KATINKA HOSSZU, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE NATATION,
Case No. 3:18-cv-07393-JSC (N.D. Calif.), the Parties pursuant to
Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, stipulated that:
-- the deadline for the Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification currently set for May 25, 2021
shall be extended to June 15, 2021;
-- the deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their Motion
for Class Certification currently set for June 22, 2021
shall be extended to July 16, 2021;
-- the hearing date for the Class Certification Motion currently
set for July 8, 2021 at 9:00 9 a.m. shall be continued to
August 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., or on a date that is convenient
for the Court subject to the approval of this Court.
A copy of Parties' motion dated April 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uL09uw at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
The Attorneys for Defendant are:
Daniel M. Wall, Esq.
Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
Aaron T. Chiu, Esq.
Colleen E. Heyler, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
E-mail: Dan.Wall@lw.com
Chris.Yates@lw.com
Aaron.Chiu@lw.com
Colleen.Heyler@lw.com
FLUOR CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Chun's Amended Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIN-YIP CHUN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLUOR CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-01338-X (N.D. Tex.), Judge
Brantley Starr of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Dallas Division, issued Memorandum Opinion and Order:
a. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint;
b. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
request for consideration of documents;
c. denying the Plaintiffs' request for consideration of
documents; and
d. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.
Fluor is a Texas company that formerly engineered and constructed
gas-fired power plants for a fixed price. After four of its
projects encountered struggles that led to significant losses,
Fluor bowed out of the fixed-price, gas-fired business.
Several investors filed the class-action suit under the Public
Securities Litigation Reform Act claiming fraud, alleging that the
Defendants (Fluor and members of its leadership) bid
unrealistically low on these projects and misrepresented their
bidding strategy as careful and conservative. They also argued
that the Defendants lied to investors, telling them these projects
were on schedule when they knew they were not. And the Plaintiffs
accused the Defendants of intending to deceive investors by their
statements, or at the very least making the statements in a
severely reckless manner -- an allegation otherwise known as
scienter.
The Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiffs did
not plead fraud with sufficient specificity and did not properly
allege scienter. The Court agreed and dismissed the initial
complaint without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiffs to replead.
They did so, and the Defendants again moved to dismiss.
Analysis
Before turning to the motion to dismiss, Judge Starr must do some
housekeeping and addresses the other outstanding motions in the
case.
First, the Judge grants in part and dismisses in part the
Defendants' motion for judicial notice. While the Court already
"accepts as true the well-pled factual allegations in the
complaint, and construes them in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff," the Judge must take judicial notice of certain
documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and other
matters of public record. The Plaintiffs object to the
consideration of only two of the 15 documents the Defendants raise:
An April 2014 letter between Fluor and Mitsubishi (the manufacturer
of its gas-fired plant turbines), and a "purported earnings call
transcript."
Judge Starr grants the motion for judicial notice as to all
unobjected documents. And because he does not rely on either
disputed document when ruling on the motion to dismiss, he
dismisses the Defendants' motion for judicial notice as to those
two documents as moot.
Judge Starr also denies the Plaintiffs' request for consideration
of documents. Unlike the Defendants, the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to take notice of four documents that the complaint does not
reference. When deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court generally
takes judicial notice only of documents referenced in the
complaint, documents attached to the complaint, and matters of
public record. These documents do not fit that description and add
only additional (but not necessary) context to the existing
pleadings. The Judge therefore denies the Plaintiffs' request for
consideration of documents.
Lastly, Judge Starr denies the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
pleadings. He notes that while Rule 15(a) "evinces a bias in favor
of granting leave to amend, it is not automatic." The Court may
deny leave to amend based on factors such as undue delay, bad faith
or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to
cure deficiencies, and futility of amendment. The First Amended
Complaint is already gargantuan -- 160 pages in length. The Court
informed the Plaintiffs several times that this repleading would be
their last.
By the Plaintiffs' own admission, the proposed amendments do not
add any necessary substance to their already-substantial
repleading. And further bites at the proverbial apple would
prejudice the Defendants by delaying the suit's conclusion and
subjecting the Defendants to additional costs. So the Judge denies
the motion.
Now for the main event: The Defendants' motion to dismiss. The
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the Defendants committed
securities fraud by (1) repeatedly making false and misleading
statements and omissions and (2) doing so with scienter. The
defendants argue that this complaint does not fix the original
complaint's failure to allege fraud with particularity, calling
this a case of "fraud by hindsight."
The Defendants claim that: (1) when initially bid for and
undertaken, the projects appeared to be stable investments, and (2)
the plaintiffs cannot claim their statements to investors about the
projects' progress and overall stability were false when made by
pointing accusatorily at the losses and setbacks the projects
ultimately suffered.
The complaint contains several allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions, and Judge Starr divides them into the
following categories according to subject matter: (i) statements
regarding Fluor's bidding and risk management process (Statements
1-19); (ii) statements about the gas-fired plants (Statements
20-36); (iii) statements about Fluor's disclosure controls, its
procedures, and its reported revenue (Statements 37-63); and (iv)
omissions of material information (Statement 64). A few of these
statements and omissions, combined with the complaint's well-pled
particularized facts, amount to properly stated fraud claims. Most
do not.
Judge Starr examines each category individually to determine which
claims the Plaintiffs properly stated and which claims they did
not. First, he finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege fraud with
particularity because the statements they cite cannot support a
fraud claim. Therefore, they do not state a securities fraud claim
regarding Statements 1-19.
Second, Judge Starr finds that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim
with respect to Statements 20-25 and 27-36. The Plaintiffs'
summary does not accurately reflect what the plaintiffs allege
Fluor's CEO actually stated.
Third, the Plaintiffs therefore fail to state a claim regarding
Statements 37-63 because they still do not plausibly allege that
any of the Defendants' statements were false when made, or (in some
cases) specify how the Defendants' procedures and policies were
inadequate in the first place.
Finally, the Defendants' decision not to inform the public about
every contingency that contributed to their estimates was not fraud
because they had no duty to disclose the information. Moreover,
the Plaintiffs never allege with particularity what claims, orders,
or disputes the defendants did not report. So they fail to state a
claim of fraud with respect to Statement 64 as well.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Judge Starr grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. He dismissed with
prejudice all allegations -- excluding those related to Statement
26 as to Defendants Seaton, Porter, and Smalley -- in the Amended
Complaint. The Judge (i) grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' request for consideration of documents; (ii) denies the
Plaintiffs' request for consideration of documents; and (iii)
denies the Plaintiffs' motion to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8nw5s86z from
Leagle.com.
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Franklin Wireless Corp. and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Franklin securities between September 17, 2020
and April 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/fkwl.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Franklin's hotspot devices suffered from battery
issues, including overheating, thereby presenting a fire hazard;
(2) as a result, it was reasonably likely that the Company's
customers would recall Franklin's devices; (3) as a result,
Franklin would suffer reputational harm; 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/fkwl. 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 Franklin
you have until June 15, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Labaton Sucharow Reminds Announces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Franklin
Wireless Corp. ("Franklin" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:FKWL) 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 September
17, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the
litigation partner assigned to the matter, David J. Schwartz via
email at david@labaton.com or using the toll-free number (800)
321-0476. 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. Franklin's hotspot products suffered from
problems with their batteries such as overheating, which caused the
devices to become a fire hazard. The Company's customers were
likely to be forced to recall the hotspot devices from their
end-user customers. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about Franklin, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses. [GN]
FRITO-LAY INC: $710K Class Settlement in Sanchez Suit Has Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRITO-LAY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:14-cv-00797-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
the Plaintiff's unopposed motions for final approval of the class
action settlement and for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, a
class action representative incentive award, and settlement
administrator costs.
The matter came before the Court on May 3, 2021, for hearing on the
Plaintiff's unopposed motions. The Plaintiff filed the putative
class action in Kern County Superior Court on April 11, 2014,
alleging the following causes of action under California law: (1)
failure to pay regular hourly wages, (2) failure to pay overtime
wages, (3) failure to pay the correct overtime rate of pay, (4)
failure to pay premium wages for denial of meal and rest periods,
(5) failure to pay vested vacation wages, (6) illegal deductions of
vested vacation wages, (7) breach of contract for failure to pay
vested wages, (8) failure to pay final wages due upon termination,
(9) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and (10)
violation of the Unfair Competition Law.
The putative class in the action is comprised of non-exempt hourly
employees of the Defendant, the owner and operator of several
distribution centers throughout California. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant implemented policies and practices that resulted
in the alleged violations of employment laws. On May 23, 2014, the
Defendant removed the case to the federal court.
After the action was filed, the Plaintiff's counsel investigated
the claims further and determined that the proposed class
definition needed to be narrowed to cover only the employees in the
position of "Maintenance Mechanic." After which, the Plaintiff
proceeded on two primary allegations related to this narrowed class
of employees. First, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
engaged in a company-wide practice by which employees were denied a
second meal period for every shift of ten or more hours. Second,
he alleges that the Defendant's company-wide practice and written
rest break policy failed to authorize and permit a third rest break
for shifts of 10 or more hours.
After submitting to mediation on Nov. 25, 2014, the parties
executed a settlement agreement. The Plaintiff has previously
moved for preliminary approval of the class action settlement and
conditional certification of the class on Dec. 11, 2014, Jan. 14,
2016, Feb. 23, 2017, Nov. 9, 2018, and Oct. 22, 2019. The Court
denied the Plaintiff's first three motions seeking conditional
class certification and preliminary approval of their settlement
due to the court's repeated and substantial expressed concerns with
the calculations plaintiff's counsel had employed in determining an
assumed violation rate. The Plaintiff's fourth motion seeking
preliminary approval was granted in part as to the preliminary
class certification, but denied as to preliminary settlement
approval because the Court's expressed concerns regarding the
purported California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim
settlement, release of claims, and notice form still had not been
addressed by counsel.
The Court ultimately granted preliminary approval of the settlement
in the action on Oct. 30, 2020, after the parties submitted an
amendment to their revised settlement agreement, which omitted any
reference to violations of PAGA and FLSA and released only those
claims that arose during the class period, reallocated the $5,000
that was previously allocated to pay PAGA penalties "to the Payout
Fund to be distributed to the Settlement Class Members," and
provided the court with an amended, more robust proposed notice.
The parties have agreed to a non-reversionary settlement of
$710,473.33. The settlement agreement provides for allocation of
the gross settlement fund as follows: (1) distribution of an
estimated $495,355.00 payout fund to the class members; (2) an
award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $177,618.33, which is 25%
of the gross settlement fund; (3) reimbursement of the class
counsel's litigation expenses in the amount of $20,000; (4) an
incentive award of $7,500 to Plaintiff Sanchez; and (5) an award of
settlement administration costs estimated to be $10,000.
The payout fund of $495,355 will be divided between the two
subclasses, with the 4×10 Subclass receiving 90.1% of the
allocation, or $446,314.85 ($495,355 × 90.1%), and the 5×10
Subclass receiving 9.9% of the allocation, or $49,040.15 ($495,355
× 9.9%). Within each subclass, each class member's settlement
payment will be a proportionate share of the payout fund based on
weeks worked during the class period. The settlement administrator
estimates that the average payment for the participating class
members in the 4×10 Subclass will be $2,277.12, with the highest
payment estimated at $4,460.45; and the participating class members
in the 5×8 Subclass will receive an average gross payment of
$250.20, with the highest payment estimated at $1,058.78.
None of the settlement will revert to defendant as any unpaid or
unclaimed funds will be distributed in the following manner: 25% to
the State Treasury's Trial Court Improvement and Modernization
Fund, 25% to the State Treasury Equal Access Fund of the Judicial
Branch, and 50% to The United Way, "to be earmarked for a veterans'
organization within the arm of The United Way, if practicable."
On April 12, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the pending unopposed
motions for final approval of a class action settlement and for an
award of attorneys' fees and costs, a class action representative
incentive award and settlement administrator costs. As of the date
of the hearing on May 3, 2021, no objections to the settlement have
been received or filed with the Court, and no class member has
requested exclusion from the settlement. In addition, no objectors
appeared at the May 3, 2021 hearing on the motion now pending
before the Court.
Judge Drozd conducted an examination of the class certification
factors in the orders granting preliminary approval of the
settlement and found certification warranted. Because no
additional issues concerning certification have been raised, he
finds that final class certification in the case is appropriate.
The following class of an estimated 196 individuals is therefore
certified for settlement purposes: All employees of the Defendant
in California who were employed as Maintenance Mechanics at any
time from April 11, 2010, through June 24, 2015.
The Settlement Class has also been further divided into two
subclasses to account for the schedules worked by Maintenance
Mechanics: (1) Maintenance Mechanics who worked four ten-hour days
a week ("4×10 Subclass") and (2) Maintenance Mechanics who worked
five eight-hour days a week ("5×8 Subclass").
In addition, and for the reasons stated in the orders granting
preliminary approval, Plaintiff Sanchez is confirmed as the class
representative, Bisnar Chase, LLP is confirmed as the class
counsel, and ILYM Group, Inc. is confirmed as the settlement
administrator.
After considering all of the relevant factors, Judge Drozd finds on
balance that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
With respect to the motion for for an award of attorneys' fees and
costs, a class action representative incentive award, and
settlement administrator costs, the Judge concludes that (i) the
lodestar cross-check supports the requested award of $177,618.33 in
attorneys' fees, an amount equal to 25% of the total fund in the
case; (ii) the costs the firm incurred in connection with the
pursuit of the litigation to be quite reasonable; (iii) the
incentive payment is fair and does not destroy the adequacy of
class representation in the case; and (iv) the administration costs
are reasonable.
For all of the reasons he stated, Judge Drozd granted the
Plaintiff's motions for final approval of the class action
settlement and for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, a class
action representative incentive award, and settlement administrator
costs.
The Judge awarded the following sums:
a. The Class counsel will receive $177,618.33 in attorneys'
fees and $20,000 in expenses;
b. Plaintiff Sanchez will receive $7,500 as an incentive
payment; and
c. ILYM Group, Inc., will receive $10,000 in settlement
administration costs.
The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement
agreement and any deadlines or procedures for distribution set
forth therein. The action is dismissed with prejudice in
accordance with the terms of the parties' amended settlement
agreement, with the Court specifically retaining jurisdiction over
the action for the purpose of enforcing the parties' settlement
agreement. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5dy93z8y from Leagle.com.
GARRETT MOTION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated putative class action suit headed by the
plaintiffs in The Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli Dividend & Income
Trust, The Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc., The Gabelli Equity Trust
Inc., SM Investors LP and SM Investors II LP, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Su Ping Lu,
Olivier Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, Craig
Balis, Thierry Mabru, Russell James, Carlos M. Cardoso, Maura J.
Clark, Courtney M. Enghauser, Susan L. Main, Carsten Reinhardt, and
Scott A. Tozier, Case No. 1:20-cv-08296-JPC (SDNY).
On September 25, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against Garrett Motion Inc. and certain current and
former Garrett officers and directors, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The case bears the caption: Steven Husson, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Garrett Motion Inc.,
Olivier Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, and
Su Ping Lu, Case No. 1:20-cv-07992-JPC (SDNY).
The Husson Action asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, for securities fraud and control person
liability.
On September 28, 2020, the plaintiff sought to voluntarily dismiss
his claim against Garrett Motion Inc. in light of the Company's
bankruptcy; this request was granted.
On October 5, 2020, another putative securities class action
complaint was filed against certain current and former Garrett
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
This case bears the caption: The Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli
Dividend & Income Trust, The Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc., The
Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., SM Investors LP and SM Investors II LP,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Su
Ping Lu, Olivier Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean
Deason, Craig Balis, Thierry Mabru, Russell James, Carlos M.
Cardoso, Maura J. Clark, Courtney M. Enghauser, Susan L. Main,
Carsten Reinhardt, and Scott A. Tozier, Case No. 1:20-cv-08296-JPC
(SDNY). The Gabelli Action also asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On November 5, 2020, another putative securities class action
complaint was filed against certain current and former Garrett
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
This case bears the caption: Joseph Froehlich, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Olivier Rabiller,
Allesandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, and Su Ping Lu, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09279-JPC (SDNY). The Froehlich Action also asserted
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
All three actions are currently assigned to Judge John P. Cronan.
Su Ping Lu filed a waiver of service in the Gabelli Action on
November 10, 2020. On November 24, 2020, competing motions were
filed seeking the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel
and the consolidation of the Husson, Gabelli, and Froehlich
Actions.
On December 8, 2020, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Gabelli
Action, the Entwistle & Cappucci law firm, filed an unopposed
stipulation and proposed order that would (1) appoint the
plaintiffs in the Gabelli Action the "Gabelli Entities" the lead
plaintiffs; (2) would appoint Entwistle & Cappucci as lead counsel
for the plaintiff class; and (3) consolidate the Gabelli Action,
the Husson Action, and the Froehlich Action.
On January 21, 2021, the Court granted the motion to consolidate
the actions and granted the Gabelli Entities' motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel.
On February 25, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws. Defendants'
motion to dismiss is due by April 26, 2021; Plaintiffs' opposition
is due by June 25, 2021; and Defendants' reply is due by July 26,
2021.
The Company's insurer, AIG has accepted the defense, subject the
customary reservation of rights.
Based in Switzerland, Garrett Motion Inc. designs, manufactures and
sells highly engineered turbocharger and electric-boosting
technologies for light and commercial vehicle original equipment
manufacturers and the global vehicle and independent aftermarket.
GEORGIA POWER: Appeals Class Certification of Franchise Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal on the grant
of class certification in the franchise fee related suit, is
pending.
In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state law claims.
This case has been ruled upon and appealed numerous times over the
last several years. In one recent appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court
remanded the case and noted that the trial court could refer the
matter to the Georgia PSC to interpret its tariffs.
Following a motion by Georgia Power, in February 2019, the Superior
Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit petitions to
the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling and also conditionally
certified the proposed class.
In March 2019, Georgia Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions
with the Georgia PSC seeking confirmation of the proper application
of the municipal franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia
PSC's orders.
Also in March 2019, Georgia Power appealed the class certification
decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals. In October 2019, the
Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia Power has
appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule.
In March 2020, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the Superior
Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order granting conditional
class certification and remanded the case to the Superior Court of
Fulton County for further proceedings. In September 2020, the
plaintiffs and Georgia Power each filed motions for summary
judgment and the plaintiffs renewed their motion for class
certification. On March 16, 2021, the Superior Court of Fulton
County granted class certification and Georgia Power's motion for
summary judgment.
On March 22, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and, on
April 2, 2021, Georgia Power filed a notice of cross appeal on the
issue of class certification.
Georgia Power said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be
estimated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any
municipalities."
Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.
GOOGLE LLC: Battles Landmark UK Suit Over Alleged iPhone Tracking
-----------------------------------------------------------------
fxempire.com reports that a proposed multi-billion pound British
class action against Google, which alleges the Internet giant
secretly tracked millions of iPhone users, is not viable and should
not be allowed to proceed, the Supreme Court was told on
Wednesday.
"It is not my case that loss of personal data may not have serious
consequences, but it may not always do so in a way that attracts
compensation," he said, adding that any uniform award would also
fail to take into account differing phone usage.
Richard Lloyd, a former director at consumer rights group Which?,
is leading the claim that seeks to extend Britain's fledgling class
action regime - and multi-billion pound data protection claims
against tech giants, such as Facebook, TikTok and YouTube, rest on
the judgment.
Lloyd has previously estimated that damages could run to 750 pounds
per iPhone user, potentially bringing damages to more than 3
billion pounds ($4.2 billion) if any future trial succeeds.
The case, brought on behalf of more than four million Apple iPhone
users, hinges on whether Google breached its duties as a data
controller by clandestinely collecting browser-generated data and
then offering it to advertisers in 2011 and 2012 - and whether such
a class action can proceed in Britain.
Experts say the case is "hugely significant" and warn businesses
that harvest and use troves of personal data for commercial gain to
consider whether they are acting fairly and transparently.
"If the judgment goes in favour of the claimants, we will see the
floodgates open to a tsunami of representative data class actions
in the UK," said Julian Copeman, a partner at Herbert Smith
Freehills.
Critics of "opt out" class actions, which automatically bind a
defined group into a lawsuit unless individuals opt out, say they
can lead to claims without merit and lush profits for litigators
and their funders.
Proponents say they allow easier access to justice, especially when
individual claims are too small to pursue individually, and that
alternative "opt in" lawsuits, where every claimant signs up, are
costly and time-consuming.
The Confederation of British Industry, a trade body, says such
cases could be "highly detrimental", noting the risk of ruinous
damages awards could prompt settlements regardless of the merits of
a case. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Blocking Class Suit Would Deny Justice, Says UK Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirstin Ridley at Reuters reports that blocking a proposed British
class action against Google (GOOGL.O), that alleges it secretly
tracked millions of iPhone users a decade ago, risks allowing big
firms to behave with impunity, a lawyer told the Supreme Court.
Hugh Tomlinson, a lawyer for former consumer rights champion and
class representative Richard Lloyd, told senior judges that
although the case was "novel and innovative", it was an appropriate
way to ensure access to justice and compensation.
"If we are wrong about this, there is no civil remedy," Tomlinson
told the final day of a two-day hearing, adding that pursuing
Google with a U.S.-style class action was the only way to attract
the necessary commercial funding for a claim.
A lawyer for Google has said the case is not viable, arguing in
part that English law only offers redress for data breaches if
claimants can be shown to suffer damage.
Lloyd, a former director of consumer rights group Which?, alleges
Google breached its duties as a data controller between 2011 and
2012 and is seeking damages on behalf of more than four million
Apple (AAPL.O) iPhone users, who he says could be owned more than 3
billion pounds ($4.2 billion) if a trial succeeds.
Google, which makes billions of pounds in revenue from advertising,
illegally took iPhone users' personal data by tracking internet
browsing histories and used this to sell a lucrative, targeted
advertising service, Lloyd alleges.
Tomlinson said that while individual compensation from a class
action, which automatically binds a defined group into a lawsuit
unless people opt out, could be very small, there was a fundamental
value to accessing justice and to providing redress.
The case has been called "ground-breaking" and "hugely significant"
by lawyers, who say it will trigger copycat claims if businesses
are not fair or transparent when harvesting and using troves of
personal data for commercial gain.
Claims against Facebook (FB.O), TikTok, YouTube and hotels operator
Marriott (MAR.O) are among those awaiting the Supreme Court
judgment.
A judgment in the case, which hinges on the definition of damage in
English law, whether a class action is appropriate and whether the
planned lawsuit can proceed against an overseas party, is expected
in the next 12 months.
Britain's class action regime is currently limited to competition
claims. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Diaz Sues Over Security Flaw in Notification System
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN DIAZ and LEWIS BORNMANN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No.: 5:21-cv-3080
(M.D. Cal., April 27, 2021) is an action under the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act seeking to obtain
damages, restitution, and a mandatory public injunction requiring
Google to remediate the security flaw in its implementation of the
Google-Apple Exposure Notification System (GAEN).
According to the complaint, Google co-created GAEN to assist state
and local authorities deploying apps for mobile devices that
conduct COVID-19 "contact-tracing," and implements GAEN in Android
smartphones via Google Mobile Services, a collection of Google
apps. Google unequivocally assured that it completely safeguards
the sensitive information necessarily involved with COVID-19
contact tracing. However, because Google's implementation of GAEN
allows this sensitive contact tracing data to be placed on a
device's system logs and provides dozens or even hundreds of third
parties access to these system logs, Google has exposed GAEN
participants' private personal and medical information associated
with contact tracing, including notifications to Android device
users of their potential exposure to COVID-19.
In February 2021, Google was informed of the security flaw in its
implementation of GAEN that caused the data breach alleged. To
date, Google has failed to inform the public that participants in
GAEN have had their private personal and medical information
exposed to third parties, who in the ordinary course of business
may access the system logs from time to time, or that Google itself
may access these logs, the complaint asserts.
Plaintiffs Diaz and Bornmann both downloaded and installed CA
Notify, the California contact tracing app that uses GAEN.
Google LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company based in
Mountain View, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Melissa Gardner, Esq.
Ian Bensberg, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
mgardner@lchb.com
ibensberg@lchb.com
- and -
Nicholas Diamand, Esq.
Douglas Cuthbertson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
E-mail: ndiamand@lchb.com
dcuthbertson@lchb.com
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks Transfer of Various Actions to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: Digital Advertising Antitrust
Litigation. Case No. 3010 (U.S. Judicial Dist., Multidistrict
Litigation, April 30, 2021), Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc.,
and YouTube, LLC filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 and
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Rule 6.2 for an order
transferring 20 different actions pending in 16 different district
courts, and any later-filed cases that assert similar or related
claims, to a single district court for consolidated or coordinated
pretrial proceedings. Google specifically requests that the actions
be transferred to and centralized before the Hon. Beth Labson
Freeman in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
In support of their motion, Google states as follows: 20 cases are
pending in 16 judicial districts, all alleging that Google has
monopolized or suppressed competition in advertising-technology
related markets. The digital advertising actions will all require
courts to resolve overlapping factual and legal issues. These
include: Defining a relevant antitrust market in the digital
advertising space; The participants in any antitrust market
relevant to Google's ad tech; Google's and its competitors' market
shares in any antitrust market related to Google's ad tech; How
Google's ad tech interacts with competitors' ad tech; The
competitive impacts of Google's acquisitions related to ad tech;
The design and operation of Google's ad tech products and services,
including changes made to the design and operation of those
products and services over the course of years.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Justina K. Sessions, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
One Market Plaza
Spear Tower, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 947-2197
Facsimile: (415) 947-2099
Email: jsessions@wsgr.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jacobson, Esq.
Michael S. Sommer, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 497-7758
Facsimile: (212) 999-5899
Email: jjacobson@wsgr.com
msommer@wsgr.com
- and -
Eric Mahr, Esq.
Julie S. Elmer, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP
700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 777-4545
Fax: (202) 777-4587
Email: eric.mahr@freshfields.com
julie.elmer@freshfields.com
- and -
Boris Feldman, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER LLP
2710 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: (650) 461-8200
Email: boris.feldman@freshfields.com
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Reaches Agreement to Settle Pending Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Construction Incorporated (NYSE: GVA) ("Granite" or the
"Company") announced that it entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") to settle the
previously disclosed securities class action litigation filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California titled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite
Construction Incorporated, et al., which was filed in August 2019.
The Settlement Agreement also settles claims alleged in the
putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Cruz titled Nasseri v. Granite
Construction Incorporated, et al., which was filed in October 2019.
The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval of the court.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Granite will pay or
cause to be paid a total of $129 million in cash, $63 million of
which it expects to be paid through insurance proceeds to settle
these lawsuits. The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of
liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties.
"We are pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve these
matters and believe doing so is the right business decision for
Granite and our shareholders," said Kyle Larkin, Granite President.
"While we are confident in the facts and the merits of our
position, we believe it is prudent to end this protracted and
uncertain class action litigation process and focus on doing what
we know best - driving the business forward. Importantly, our
balance sheet and liquidity remains in a strong position following
the settlement."
As previously disclosed, the Company had not been in a position to
reasonably estimate the range of potential loss in connection with
the lawsuits. As a result of the entry into the Settlement
Agreement, the Company expects to recognize a pre-tax charge of
approximately $66 million in the quarter ending March 31, 2021.
The previously disclosed shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California remains pending.
About Granite
Granite is America's Infrastructure Company(TM). Incorporated since
1922, Granite (NYSE:GVA) is one of the largest diversified
construction and construction materials companies in the United
States as well as a full-suite provider in the transportation,
water infrastructure and mineral exploration markets. Granite's
Code of Conduct and strong Core Values guide the Company and its
employees to uphold the highest ethical standards. Granite is an
industry leader in safety and an award-winning firm in quality and
sustainability. For more information, visit the Granite website,
and connect with Granite on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and
Instagram. [GN]
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Reaches Deal to Settle Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Construction Incorporated (NYSE: GVA) ("Granite" or the
"Company") today announced that it entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") to settle the
previously disclosed securities class action litigation filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California titled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Granite
Construction Incorporated, et al., which was filed in August 2019.
The Settlement Agreement also settles claims alleged in the
putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Santa Cruz titled Nasseri v. Granite
Construction Incorporated, et al., which was filed in October 2019.
The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval of the court.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Granite will pay or
cause to be paid a total of $129 million in cash, $63 million of
which it expects to be paid through insurance proceeds to settle
these lawsuits. The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of
liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the parties.
"We are pleased to have reached an agreement to resolve these
matters and believe doing so is the right business decision for
Granite and our shareholders," said Kyle Larkin, Granite President.
"While we are confident in the facts and the merits of our
position, we believe it is prudent to end this protracted and
uncertain class action litigation process and focus on doing what
we know best - driving the business forward. Importantly, our
balance sheet and liquidity remains in a strong position following
the settlement."
As previously disclosed, the Company had not been in a position to
reasonably estimate the range of potential loss in connection with
the lawsuits. As a result of the entry into the Settlement
Agreement, the Company expects to recognize a pre-tax charge of
approximately $66 million in the quarter ending March 31, 2021.
The previously disclosed shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California remains pending. [GN]
GW PHARMACEUTICALS: Ochoa Balks at Merger Deal With Jazz Pharma
---------------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN OCHOA v. GW PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, GEOFFREY GUY, JUSTIN GOVER,
CABOT BROWN, DAVID GRYSKA, CATHERINE MACKEY, JAMES NOBLE, ALICIA
SECOR, and WILLIAM WALDEGRAVE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00580-BAS-BLM (S.D.
Calif., April 2, 2021) is class action lawsuit against GW
Pharmaceuticals and the members of GW's Board of Directors for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, arising out of their attempt to
merge with Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company through
Jazz's wholly owned subsidiary Jazz Pharmaceuticals UK Holdings
Limited.
On February 3, 2021, GW announced that it had entered into a
transaction agreement (the "Merger Agreement") to sell GW to Jazz
pursuant to which holders of GW ordinary shares will receive $16.66
2/3 in cash plus an amount of Jazz ordinary shares equal to an
exchange ratio that will be calculated based upon Jazz's share
price, and holders of American Depositary Shares of GW ("GW ADSs")
will receive approximately $220 in cash and $20 in Jazz stock in
consideration for their GW ADSs (the "Merger Consideration").
On March 15, 2021, GW filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. Allegedly, the Proxy is materially
deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose
material information regarding the Company's and Jazz's financial
projections and the financial analyses performed by the Board's
financial advisors, Centerview Partners LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co.
LLC ("Goldman"). Without additional information, the Proxy is
materially misleading in violation of the federal securities laws.
The stockholder vote to approve the Proposed Transaction is
forthcoming. Under the Merger Agreement, following a successful
stockholder vote, the Proposed Transaction will be consummated. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from conducting the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until the
material information discussed below is disclosed to the holders of
the Company common stock, or, in the event the Proposed Transaction
is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times a continuous
stockholder of GW.
GW is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering,
developing, and commercializing novel therapeutics from its
proprietary cannabinoid product platform in various disease areas.
The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd., No. 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
- and -
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 860-9158
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: raymond@bespc.com
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Unlawfully Shared Personal Info, Cuevas Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC d/b/a Account
Resolution Services, Case No. 2:21-cv-00340 (M.D. Fla., April 27,
2021) is brought against the Defendant for sharing personal and
confidential information without Plaintiff's consent in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff allegedly incurred a monetary
obligation at a medical facility for personal, family, and/or
household purposes. Defendant was engaged by the medical facility
in order to direct debt collection efforts in connection with the
debt toward Plaintiff. Defendant made the affirmative business
decision to communicate with Plaintiff about the collection of her
debt via written correspondence. However, rather than preparing and
mailing written collection correspondence on its own, Defendant
sent information regarding Plaintiff and the debt to a third-party
vendor in order to outsource the process. Specifically, Defendant
disclosed to the vendor, among other things: (i) Plaintiff's status
as a debtor; (ii) the amount of monies allegedly owed; (iii) the
fact the Debt concerned a personal, family, and/or household
purpose; and (iv) other highly personal pieces of information.
Plaintiff never consented to having her personal and confidential
information, concerning the debt or otherwise, shared with anyone
else. Defendant unlawfully communicated with the vendor solely for
the purpose of streamlining its generation of profits without
regard to the propriety and privacy of the information, which it
disclosed to a third-party. In its reckless pursuit of a business
advantage, Defendant disregarded the known, negative effect that
disclosing sensitive personal information to unauthorized
third-parties has on consumers, asserts the complaint.
Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC d/b/a Account Resolution
Services is a debt collector located in Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Legg, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: 954-235-3706
E-mail: Chris@theconsumerlawyers.com
HEAVENLY VALLEY: Court Enters Scheduling Order in Heggen Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California issued Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order in
the case, ADAM HEGGEN, Plaintiff v. HEAVENLY VALLEY, Limited
Partnership; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00107 WBS DB (E.D. Cal.).
After reviewing the parties' Joint Status Report, Judge Shubb
vacates the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference scheduled for
May 10, 2021. He finds that all the Defendants have been served,
and no further service is permitted without leave of court. No
further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings will be
permitted except with leave of court.
Jurisdiction is predicated upon the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), because it is a putative
class action in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million
and at least one member of the putative class is a citizen of a
different state than the Defendant. Venue is undisputed and found
to be proper.
The parties agree to serve the initial disclosures required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) by May 24, 2021. The
parties will disclose experts and produce reports in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Oct.
17, 2022. With regard to expert testimony intended solely for
rebuttal, those experts will be disclosed and reports produced in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by Nov.
14, 2022.
All discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony,
is left open, save and except that it will be so conducted as to be
completed by Dec. 12, 2022. All motions to compel discovery must
be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance with
the local rules of the Court and so that such motions may be heard
(and any resulting orders obeyed) not later than Dec. 12, 2022.
Because the parties agree that the Court should set a deadline by
which the Plaintiff must file his motion for class certification
(or by which the Defendant must file a motion to affirmatively
preclude class certification), Judge Shubb orders that any such
motion be filed by March 28, 2022. The parties further agree that
the Opposition to any such motion will be filed six weeks later, on
May 9, 2022. Any Reply will be filed by May 31, 2022. The hearing
on any such motion will be held on June 13, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in
Courtroom No. 5.
All other motions, except motions for continuances, temporary
restraining orders, or other emergency applications, will be filed
by Jan. 23, 2023. All motions will be noticed for the next
available hearing date. The counsel are cautioned to refer to the
local rules regarding the requirements for noticing and opposing
such motions on the Court's regularly scheduled law and motion
calendar.
The Final Pretrial Conference is set for April 10, 2023, at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom No. 5. The conference will be attended by at
least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of
the parties and by any unrepresented parties.
The jury trial is set for June 6, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. The parties
estimate that the trial will 3 to 5 court days if no class is
certified, and several weeks if a class is certified.
A Settlement Conference will be set at the time of the Pretrial
Conference. All parties should be prepared to advise the Court
whether they will stipulate to the trial judge acting as settlement
judge and waive disqualification by virtue thereof.
Laslty, any requests to modify the dates or terms of the Scheduling
Order, except requests to change the date of the trial, may be
heard and decided by the assigned Magistrate Judge. All requests
to change the trial date will be heard and decided only by Judge
Shubb.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/b7wyhkxs from Leagle.com.
HYCROFT GOLD: Settlement Approval Hearing to Be Held July 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers, P.C. announces that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") has scheduled a hearing to
be held on July 30, 2021, at 10:00 am EST [via video conference] to
approve a settlement among all of the parties to the class
proceeding styled as LBP Holdings Ltd. v. Allied Nevada Gold Corp,
Scott A. Caldwell, Robert M. Buchan, Cormark Securities Inc., and
Dundee Securities Limited. brought under the Court under Court File
No. CV-14-50851300-CP (the "Action")
The substance of the litigation (i.e. that the Defendants made
misrepresentations in a 2013 short-form prospectus (the
"Prospectus") released May 9, 2013 concerning a secondary public
offering) has not been adjudicated by the Court. The Defendants
deny the allegations.
This lawsuit alleges that the Prospectus contained
misrepresentations about the Company's business and operations at
its Hycroft Mine. The lawsuit further alleges that when the Company
issued statements correcting these misrepresentations on July 22,
and August 6 and 7, 2013, the price of Hycroft's stock declined to
reflect the true state of events, thereby harming Class Members.
The Settlement Agreement may be viewed at
https://morgantico.com/hycroft-mining-corporation/ or at
www.CanadianAlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.ca.
Your Two Options:
1. Do Nothing and Remain in the Class Action:
Class Members are automatically included in the action once
certified if they do not opt-out. You do not need to do anything at
this time to stay in the Class Action. If a settlement or any
recovery or benefits are achieved for the Class and approved by the
Court, you will be notified about how to ask for the portion to
which you are entitled. You will be legally bound by all orders and
judgments of the Court, and you will not be able to sue the
Defendants on your own regarding the legal claims made in this
case. You will NOT be required to pay any costs in the event that
this Class Action is unsuccessful.
2. Opt-Out of the Class Action:
All Class Members will be bound by all orders and judgments of the
Court and any settlement reached unless they opt-out of the action.
If you wish to pursue your own action or do not want to be bound by
the outcome of the Class Action, YOU MUST OPT-OUT OF THE CLASS
ACTION.
If you want to opt-out of the Action, you must send an OPT-OUT FORM
stating that you elect to opt-out of the Class in the Hycroft Gold
Class Action.
The Opt-Out Form is available at
www.CanadianAlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.ca
The Opt-Out Form must be sent by prepaid mail, email or fax to:
Trilogy Class Action Services,
117 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1000,
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, L0S 1J0,
Email: optout@trilogyclassactions.ca,
Toll-Free: 1877-400-1211, Fax: 416-342-1761,
Attention: Hycroft Class Action
The Opt-Out Form must be received on or before July 2, 2021 at
5:00pm E.S.T.
A copy of the long-form notice providing greater detail about the
certification and your right to opt-out of the action is available
at https://morgantico.com/hycroft-mining-corporation/ or
www.CanadianAlliedNevadaSecuritiesSettlement.ca.
Class members who seek the advice or guidance of their personal
lawyers do so at their own expense.
This notice has been approved by the Court. Questions about matters
in this notice should NOT be directed to the Court. [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Smelly Palisade Cabin Leads to Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Furlong at Industry News reports that Hyundai hasn't done
enough to fix the problem.
One of the best things about buying a brand new ride? That
unmistakable new-car smell. Hopefully, it's more leathery than
plasticky but it reminds your olfactory system that you are the
proud first owner of an untouched vehicle.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the case for new owners of the Hyundai
Palisade. Last year, the strong-selling SUV was found to have an
unpleasant whiff in the cabin that some owners even likened to
rotten vegetables. The smell seems to come from the Nappa leather
seats. Hyundai then came up with a bizarre solution to the problem,
recommending owners spray the cabin with Fabreze, but that hasn't
stopped a class action complaint being filed against the company.
According to Business Wire, clients of the Minnesota-based law firm
Hellmuth & Johnson filed the complaint against Hyundai Motor
America, Inc., on behalf of Palisade owners who have had the same
issue. To make matters worse, the issue applies to the seats fitted
to the more expensive SEL and Limited trim levels.
Apparently not detectable during a normal test drive, the smell has
caused many owners embarrassment but also resulted in passengers
experiencing nausea. Customers are incensed that Hyundai has not
issued a recall nor provided any effective solutions to the issue.
"I have been in customer service my entire career, including more
than 20 years at a car dealership. I know what good and responsible
customer service looks like," said Richard Stucki, one of Hellmuth
& Johnson's clients. "Hyundai has failed to respond to our concerns
and repeated calls. We have no other recourse, and we are not the
only ones who have been affected by this issue."
A visit to the NHTSA's website confirms that individual customers
have complained about the terrible smell, comparing it to rotten
onions and garlic. It remains to be seen how Hyundai responds to
the class action complaint but the company can surely no longer
ignore the issue. [GN]
INDYMAC MBS: Court Allows $11.6K Payment to Claims Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
authorizes the payment of $11,592 to the Claims Administrator in
the lawsuit styled In Re Indymac Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation, Master Docket No. 09-Civ. 04583 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).
The Lead Plaintiffs, Wyoming Retirement System and Wyoming State
Treasurer, having moved the Court for an order approving the
payment of final claims administration expenses in the class
action.
The Court, having considered all of the materials submitted in
support of the motion, including the Declaration of Jason Rabe
Regarding Final Accounting of the Net Settlement Funds, dated April
29, 2021 ("Rabe Declaration"), submitted on behalf of the
Court-approved Claims Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc. ("Claims
Administrator"), Lead Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law, as well as all
prior proceedings, and after due deliberation, the Court:
(a) approves as fair and reasonable the additional expenses
incurred and paid to the Claims Administrator, as
reflected in the Rabe Declaration;
(b) authorizes the payment of the Remaining Balance of
$11,592.68 from the Net Settlement Funds to the Claims
Administrator as full and final payment for services
rendered in connection with the administration of the
settlements in this Action; and
(c) as the Settlements have been fully distributed, closes
the matter.
The clerk will terminate any unresolved motions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ecb4j6ph from Leagle.com.
JOEYS NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Screnock Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL SCRENOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOEYS NEW YORK PIZZA III LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01117 (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2021) seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unreimbursed expenses, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees.
Plaintiff Screnock was employed by the Defendant as delivery
driver.
Joeys New York Pizza III LLC owned and operated a restaurant known
as Joeys N.Y. Pizza's. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W 70th Avenue, Suite 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com
KADMON HOLDINGS: Tadros Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAFIK TADROS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. KADMON HOLDINGS, INC., HARLAN W. WAKSAL, and STEVEN
MEEHAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01797 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2021) is a
federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Kadmon securities between October 1, 2020 and
March 10, 2021, both dates inclusive seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
On September 30, 2020, post-market, Kadmon announced the submission
of a New Drug Application (NDA) for belumosudil for the treatment
of cGVHD (the "Belumosudil NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").
Then, on November 30, 2020, Kadmon announced the FDA's acceptance
of the Belumosudil NDA, and that the FDA had assigned the NDA a
Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target action date of May
30, 2021.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that the Belumosudil NDA was incomplete and/or deficient.
As a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 10, 2021, Kadmon issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has extended the review period" for the Belumosudil NDA
and that, "[i]n a notice received from the FDA on March 9, 2021,
the Company was informed that the [PDUFA] goal date for its
Priority Review of belumosudil has been extended to August 30,
2021."
On this news, Kadmon's stock price fell $0.52 per share, or 10.57%,
to close at $4.40 per share on March 11, 2021. As a result of
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.
The Plaintiff acquired Kadmon securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.
Kadmon is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and
commercializes small molecules and biologics primarily for the
treatment of inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. The Company's lead
product candidates include, among others, belumosudil (KD025), an
orally administered selective inhibitor of the rho-associated
coiled-coil kinase 2 (ROCK2), which is in Phase II clinical
development for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease
(cGVHD).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
LIFEMD INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against LifeMD, Inc. ("LifeMD" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LFMD) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD securities
between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/lfmd.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) many of LifeMD's executives were associated with
Redwood Scientific when it was charged for unlawful autoshipping,
abusive telemarketing, and false claims, and that they employed
similar practices at the Company; (2) LifeMD engaged in
autoshipping products to unwilling customers to record recurring
revenue and the Company made it difficult to cancel such
subscriptions; (3) certain of the purportedly licensed physicians
on the Company's platform were not in fact licensed and faced
disciplinary action; (4) as a result of the foregoing practices,
the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny
and/or reputational harm; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
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/lfmd 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 LifeMD
you have until June 15, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Discovery in Smith Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35.
On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018).
In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer
operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and
state statutes, including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification.
On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court
agreeing to transfer the case to the Federal District Court for
Utah. On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in Utah.
As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiffs' amended
complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and
removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the former Chief Executive
Officer remains a defendant in the case).
The Plaintiffs' amended complaint added an antitrust claim,
alleging that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its
products and is attempting to use those patents in an
anti-competitive manner.
The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Company's
Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the Company filed a
reply brief on January 10, 2019.
The Court ruled on the motion on December 5, 2019, dismissing three
of the Plaintiff's four claims, including the antitrust claim,
unjust enrichment claim, and the securities claim for the sale of
unregistered securities.
On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5)
securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of
unregistered securities and unjust enrichment. LifeVantage filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 28, 2020,
and with the Motion fully briefed by the parties as of March 17,
2020, the Court decided the matter on the parties' briefs only on
November 25, 2020.
In its decision, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs'
Section 12(1) claim (sale of an unregistered security), because the
Court concluded the claim is time barred. The Court also dismissed
the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment against LifeVantage
without prejudice, and the Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint
following the Court's order to re-plead unjust enrichment.
The court found that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled their
claim under Section 12(2) (offer to sell a security that misstates
or omits a material fact by means of a prospectus or oral
communication). LifeVantage filed its Answer to the Second Amended
Complaint on December 23, 2020, responding to the Plaintiffs'
remaining securities claims.
On February 2, 2021, the Court issued an amended scheduling order
that reflects the parties' agreement on a schedule for discovery
and other litigation matters. Initial discovery has begun and will
continue per the amended scheduling order.
The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this
lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and
the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
LifeVantage said, "Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this
matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations or financial condition."
LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements
and skincare products. The company sells its products through a
direct sales model, as well as a network of independent
distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia,
Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is
headquartered in Sandy, Utah.
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Zuod Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
SULAYMAN ZUOD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LORDSTOWN MOTORS CORP., STEPHEN S. BURNS, JULIO C.
RODRIGUEZ, RICH SCHMIDT and MICHAEL FABIAN, Case No. 4:21-cv-00720
(N.D. Ohio, April 2, 2021) is a securities fraud class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded shares of Class A
common stock and warrants to purchase the Class A common stock of
Lordstown and/or DiamondPeak between August 3, 2020 and March 24,
2021, inclusive, and all holders of DiamondPeak common stock
entitled to participate in the August 22, 2020 shareholder vote on
the merger with Lordstown, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Lordstown's predecessor, DiamondPeak, was until August 2020 a
publicly traded special purpose acquisition company formed in 2018
for the express purpose of effecting a merger, stock exchange,
acquisition, reorganization, or similar business combination with
one or more businesses.
Founded in April 2019, defendant Lordstown manufactures and markets
electric vehicle ("EV") pickup trucks primarily to commercial fleet
operators. Its Endurance full-size pickup was purportedly due to be
released in September 2021.
Lordstown targets the fleet pickup market estimated to be a $65
billion market and claims that the Endurance offers 25% lower cost
of ownership than a traditional gas or diesel truck.
On the start of the Class Period on August 3, 2020, the Company
announced that Lordstown would list its common stock on the NASDAQ
through a reverse merger with the DiamondPeak SPAC.
In investor presentations throughout the Class Period, Lordstown
prominently and repeatedly touted having already booked hundreds of
preorders for the Endurance EV truck, eventually stating in January
2021 that it had achieved 100,000 pre-orders and that fleet
customers had booked 580 units per order. The Company also claimed
to be managed by a very experienced and successful management team
and to be on track to start final production by September 2020 and
to then begin shipping and selling thousands of EVs. Meanwhile,
with the market price of the Company's Class A common stock trading
at fraud-inflated prices as a result of defendants' materially
false and misleading statements, certain of Lordstown's senior
executives cashed in, selling nearing $27 million of their
personally held shares.
On March 12, 2021, stock research firm Hindenburg Research
published a research report accusing Lordstown of touting what were
"largely fictitious" orders. Hindenburg Research had earlier
targeted other EV manufacturers Nikola and China's Kandi for
misleading investors about their business metrics, and the firm's
claims had later proved to be true there.
Finally, on March 24, 2020, during the trading day, Hindenburg
Research published additional pictures of the Endurance EV truck
after it broke down and had to be loaded onto a tow truck during
the filming of a commercial that had been aired just days prior to
the common stock of Lordstown being taken public via its
combination with DiamondPeak.
On this news the stock price fell another $1.21 per share, once
again trading down on unusually high volume of more than 11 million
shares trading.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions as
alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class purchased Lordstown and/or
DiamondPeak publicly traded Class A common stock and warrants at
artificially inflated prices, suffered significant losses and were
damaged thereby.
Plaintiff Zuod purchased Lordstown common stock during the Class
Period and was damaged thereby.
Lordstown was founded in 2018 by defendant Burns, the former CEO of
EV truck manufacturer Workhorse Group (Workhorse). It is
headquartered in Lordstown, Ohio, and based on the former General
Motors Lordstown Assembly plant. The Individial Defendants are
officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
E-mail: murray@mmmb.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
LTD FINANCIAL: Jamison Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawneay Jamison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., LTD
Acquisitions, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:21-cv-01930 (E.D.
Pa., April 27, 2021) arises from the Defendants' unlawful debt
collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The complaint alleges that on November 3, 2020, Defendant LTD
Financial sent Plaintiff a collection letter regarding an allegedly
owed and unidentified debt. The letter deceptively fails to
identify who the original creditor to whom the alleged debt is
owed. Defendant's letter provides Plaintiff no reference to which
debt this may be related to and the mere mention of the debt buyer
(LTD Acquisitions) and the debt collector (LTD Financial) does
nothing to inform the Plaintiff as to the origin of the alleged
debt. This complete lack of identifying information was materially
misleading to Plaintiff, who could not ascertain the creditor who
claimed she owed a debt. Even if Plaintiff would have paid the
debt, Plaintiff would not know to whom the debt was being paid.
Plaintiff sustained an informational injury as, since she could not
identify the original creditor, she could not verify whether she
owed the debt and, therefore, could not pay it, asserts the
complaint.
LTD Financial Services, L.P. and LTD Acquisitions, LLC are debt
collectors located in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 326-9179
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
MAGIC SPOON: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Magic Spoon Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Magic Spoon Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03862-LJL (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Magic Spoon -- https://magicspoon.com/ -- offers cereal with
high-protein, low-sugar, keto-friendly, and gluten-free.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
MAINE: Dismissal of Lane's & Zernicki's Claims in Swain Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ZACHARY SWAIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. MAINE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00449-JDL (D.
Me.), Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine:
(i) denies the Plaintiffs' motion to amend, motion to
separate Plaintiffs, and motion for next friend status;
and
(ii) recommends the Court dismisses the claims of Plaintiffs
Lane and Zernicki without prejudice for lack of
prosecution.
The Plaintiffs, six inmates at the Maine State Prison, allege that
they have been diagnosed with serious mental health conditions,
which have been exacerbated by their conditions of confinement at
the prison.
After the Plaintiffs filed their complaint, each Plaintiff filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court granted Plaintiff
Gladu's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but, on Jan. 5, 2021,
denied the motions as to the other Plaintiffs, concluding that the
other Plaintiffs had not included with their motions the financial
information necessary for the Court to assess their requests. The
Court ordered the remaining Plaintiffs to renew their in forma
pauperis requests and file the necessary financial information on
or before Jan. 22, 2021.
On Jan. 21, Plaintiff Swain filed a second motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, which motion the Court granted. Swain then filed
his intent to proceed. Plaintiff Hardy filed a second motion to
proceed in forma pauperis on Feb. 16, 2021. The Court granted
Hardy's motion, and Hardy later notified the Court of his intent to
proceed.
On March 5, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiffs Lane and Zernicki to
show cause as to why they had not complied with the Court's order
to pay the filing fee or to file an application to proceed in forma
pauperis.
On March 8, 2021, Plaintiffs Gladu, Hardy, and Swain filed a motion
seeking "to separate themselves from the claims and lawsuit of Lane
and Zernicki, so that the matters proceed as two separate suits."
On March 18, 2021, Gladu, Hardy, and Swain filed a motion to amend
their complaint, which was accompanied by a proposed amended
complaint.
In the proposed amended complaint, only Gladu, Hardy, and Swain are
named as Plaintiffs. On March 25, 2021, Gladu, Hardy, and Swain
filed a motion for next friend status as to the claims of Plaintiff
Zernicki, alleging that Zernicki is "legally incompetent and unable
to protect his own rights."
Discussion
A. Motion to Amend Complaint/Motion to Separate Plaintiffs
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendments to
pleadings before trial. Rule 15(a) states, in relevant part, that
a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21
days after serving it. Because the Plaintiffs have not yet served
the Defendants, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to amend their
complaint against the Defendants as a matter of course. All the
Plaintiffs, however, do not seek to amend the complaint. Instead,
three of the Plaintiffs, Gladu, Hardy, and Swain, ask to amend the
complaint essentially to remove the other three Plaintiffs from the
case.
Magistrate Judge Nivison holds that Gladu, Hardy, and Swain,
without the consent of the other Plaintiffs, cannot amend the
complaint to remove the other Plaintiffs from the case. Similarly,
in the alleged class action in which the Plaintiffs have asserted
common facts and issues, judicial economy militates against
separating the Plaintiffs to permit two separate lawsuits.
B. Motion for Next Friend Status
Plaintiffs Gladu, Hardy, and Swain ask the Court to grant them next
friend status as to the claims of Plaintiff Zernicki "for the
limited purpose of motioning on his behalf for an independent
mental health evaluation to assess Zernicki's functional capacity."
The Plaintiffs seek next friend status and ask the Court to
"appoint a mental health professional to examine Zernicki prior to
dismissing his claims."
Magistrate Judge Nivison holds that because Plaintiffs Gladu,
Hardy, and Swain are not licensed to practice law in Maine and
because they are not represented by counsel, their appointment as a
next friend of Zernicki would not permit them to request the relief
they seek on behalf of Zernicki.
C. Order to Show Cause
Plaintiffs Lane and Zernicki failed to comply with the Court's
order that directed them to file the necessary financial
information such that the Court could analyze their requests to
proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, they did not respond to
the Court's Order to Show Cause for their failure to pay the filing
fee or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis in
accordance with the Court's order. The Plaintiffs thus have not
only failed to comply with two of the Court's orders, but insofar
as they have not notified the Court of their intent to proceed in
this matter, Plaintiffs have also failed to prosecute their claims.
Dismissal of their claims, therefore, is warranted.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, Magistrate Judge Nivison denies
the Plaintiffs' motion to amend, motion to separate Plaintiffs, and
motion for next friend status. He also recommends the Court
dismisses the claims of Plaintiffs Lane and Zernicki without
prejudice for lack of prosecution.
Notice
Any objections to the Order on the Plaintiffs' motions will be
filed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 within
14 days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive
memorandum and will be filed within 14 days after the filing of the
objection. Failure to file a timely objection will constitute a
waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to
appeal the district court's order.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Recommend Decision is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4sc6tu98 from Leagle.com.
MALLEN & ASSOCIATES: Zupnick Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Malen & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as Steven Zupnick, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Malen & Associates,
P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-02661 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Malen & Associates, P.C. -- https://www.malen.com/ -- is a law firm
with its practice limited to Creditor's Rights,. Collections,
Bankruptcy, Foreclosure and Real Estate Closings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Court Narrows Claims in Morrison Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division, grants in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL J.
MORRISON and DANA HARVEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, LP,
et al., Defendants, Case No. SA-20-CV-0480-JKP-RBF (W.D. Tex.).
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims. With the
filing of the Plaintiffs' response and the Defendants' reply brief,
the motion is ripe and ready for ruling. After considering the
motion, other briefing, pleadings, and applicable law, the Court
grants the motion in part.
In May 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint. This action arises out of Defendant Marathon Petroleum
Company LP's alleged breach of Defendant Andeavor LLC's 2018
Incentive Compensation Program ("ICP"). Marathon agreed to pay full
non-prorated ICP bonuses to eligible employees, who were terminated
after its acquisition of Andeavor in 2018. The Plaintiffs further
allege that despite amending the ICP in writing and orally,
Marathon has refused to pay the bonuses.
The Plaintiffs assert diversity jurisdiction. They provide numerous
factual allegations to support their claims. The Plaintiffs claim
that Marathon breached agreements with them by failing to pay full
bonuses in 2018. They seek a declaratory judgment related to the
class and their claims. They also seek specific performance by the
Defendants to comply with the agreements to pay the bonuses.
The Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims on grounds that (1)
Plaintiffs have not alleged a plausible claim for breach of
contract; (2) Plaintiffs have not pled facts to support an
amendment to provide for non-prorated bonuses; (3) the statute of
frauds bars any oral amendment; and (4) the alleged breach is
foreclosed because any amendment is subject to the sole discretion
of defendants. They also seek dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims
for declaratory judgment on grounds that the claim merely
duplicates the breach-of-contract claim. In addition, they seek
dismissal of the claim for specific performance based on Texas law
that requires litigants to choose between monetary damages and
specific performance.
The Plaintiffs oppose the motion while acknowledging that their
claims for declaratory judgment and specific performance are merely
alternative to and not in addition to their claim for breach of
contract. And with the filing of the Defendants' reply brief, the
motion became ripe for ruling.
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Defendants seek dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' claims based on insufficient factual allegations,
application of asserted defenses, and for the claims for
declaratory judgment and specific performance, specifically
supported legal principles.
The Defendants attach five exhibits (exceeding four hundred pages)
to their motion: (A) the ICP, (B) Merger Agreement, (C) Executive
Severance & Benefit Treatment Guide, (D) a public filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and (E) a 2018 Incentive
Compensation Statement. The Plaintiffs have not objected to their
consideration, their relevance, or their centrality to their
claims. Nor have they objected that the purported public documents
are not subject to judicial notice. Although the Plaintiffs did not
provide these documents, the Defendants properly attached them to
their motion to dismiss and there is no need to treat the motion to
dismiss as one for summary judgment due to the attached exhibits.
District Judge Jason Pulliam notes that regardless of the attached
exhibits, the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim satisfies the
well-established standards for stating a claim set out in Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, the Court finds that the
Defendants have argued no defense in their motion that is
conclusively established by the operative pleading. Thus, no
asserted defense warrants granting any part of the motion to
dismiss regarding the breach-of-contract claim.
The Plaintiffs acknowledge that they assert a single claim in this
action (breach of contract) and that their claims for declaratory
judgment and specific performance are not in addition to that claim
but are merely asserted in the alternative. The Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure permit alternative demands for relief.
But the Plaintiffs present declaratory judgment and specific
performance as additional claims for relief, separate and apart
from their claim for breach of contract, Judge Pulliam notes. Only
after the Defendants moved for dismissal of such claims did the
Plaintiffs characterize their Second and Third Claims for Relief as
alternative to their breach-of-contract claim, Judge Pulliam
observes. And even then, the Plaintiffs do not fully acknowledge
that declaratory judgment and specific performance are merely forms
of relief sought, rather than claims asserted.
In this case, Judge Pulliam notes, the Plaintiffs drafted their
pleading with declaratory judgment and specific performance as
separate claims, in addition to their breach-of-contract claim.
Although the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim survives
dismissal, the Defendants have provided legally supported reasons
for dismissing the Plaintiffs' alternate relief for declaratory
judgment and specific performance. While, in general, the Court
sees no harm in allowing alternative relief to proceed beyond a
motion to dismiss, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned
decisions from its sister court in the Northern District of Texas
that, declaratory relief is discretionary relief that "need not be
permitted" when it "adds nothing to an existing lawsuit," citing
Cypress/Spanish Ft. I, L.P. v. Pro. Serv. Indus., Inc., 814
F.Supp.2d 698, 710 (N.D. Tex. 2011).
Consequently, under the circumstances, the Court exercises its
discretion and dismisses the requested declaratory judgment as
adding nothing to the case beyond what is already placed at issue
by the breach-of-contract claim. To the extent, the Plaintiffs seek
a declaration regarding class counsel and other class matters, such
matters can be pursued through Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 or other channels
directly applicable to class action litigation.
Similarly, the Court dismisses the request for specific
performance. Under Texas law, specific performance is an equitable
remedy that may be awarded for a breach of contract, but parties
suing for breach of contract must elect to sue either for money
damages or specific performance (Goldman v. Olmstead, 414 S.W.3d
346, 361 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2013, pet. denied)).
In the case, the Plaintiffs seek monetary damages from the breach
of contract and their requested specific performance is that they
be paid their non-prorated bonuses. Because they have elected to
sue for money damages there is no basis for specific performance
under Texas law, Judge Pulliam holds.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The
Court grants the motion as to the Plaintiffs' claims for
declaratory judgment and specific performance. It otherwise denies
the motion. The Plaintiffs have stated a plausible
breach-of-contract claim and that claim survives the motion to
dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
May 3, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/54z2wmua from
Leagle.com.
MATTEL INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Fisher-Price Sleeper
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a number
of putative class action lawsuits related to the Fisher-Price Rock
'n Play Sleeper.
A number of putative class action lawsuits are pending against
Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false
advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud,
and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the
Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper.
In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have
been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight
sleep for infants. The putative class action lawsuits propose
nationwide and over 15 statewide consumer classes comprised of
those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged
and overnight sleep.
The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge for
pre-trial purposes pursuant to the federal courts' Multi-District
Litigation program.
Forty-nine additional lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price,
Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper
caused the fatalities of or injuries to fifty-three children.
Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also
received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional
plaintiffs who are threatening to assert similar claims.
In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Kumar v. Bradley, et
al., filed July 7, 2020) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment related to the development, marketing, and sale
of the Sleeper.
The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's
current and former officers and directors. In August 2020, the
derivative action was stayed pending further developments in the
class action lawsuits.
The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief. Mattel
believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.
A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range
of loss cannot be made at this time.
Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MATTEL INC: Whistleblower Related Class Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend suits,
including class action suits related to the whistleblower letter
and claim that the company misled the market in several of its
financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017.
In December 2019 and January 2020, two stockholders filed separate
complaints styled as class actions against Mattel, Inc., and
certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.
The complaints rely on the results of an investigation announced by
Mattel in October 2019 regarding allegations in a whistleblower
letter and claim that Mattel misled the market in several of its
financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017. The
lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the plaintiff
and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at
artificially inflated prices.
In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Moher v.
Kreiz, et al., filed April 9, 2020) making allegations that are
substantially identical to, or are based upon, the allegations of
the class action lawsuits.
The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's
current and former officers and directors, Mattel, Inc., and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Subsequently, a nearly identical
derivative action was filed by a different stockholder against the
same defendants.
The second lawsuit is styled as an amended complaint and replaces a
complaint making unrelated allegations in a previously filed
lawsuit already pending in Delaware federal court (Lombardi v.
Kreiz, et al., amended complaint filed April 16, 2020).
In May 2020, the derivative actions were consolidated and stayed
pending further developments in the class action lawsuits.
The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, expert fees, costs and/or injunctive relief.
Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable
estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot
be made at this time.
Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and
produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates
through North America, International, and American Girl segments.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo,
California.
MEREDITH CORP: Dismissal of Iowa Putative Class Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa, is pending.
On September 6, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between May 10,
2018 and September 4, 2019 (the New York Action).
On September 12, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer, and its Chairman of the Board seeking to
represent a class of shareholders who acquired securities of the
Company between January 31, 2018 and September 5, 2019 (the Iowa
Action).
Both complaints allege that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.
Both complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws and
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 12,
2019, the plaintiff shareholder withdrew the New York Action, and
the action has been dismissed.
On November 25, 2019, the City of Plantation Police Officers
Pension Fund was appointed to serve as lead plaintiff in the Iowa
Action. On March 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the Iowa Action, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between January
31, 2018 and September 30, 2019.
On June 22, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Iowa
Action. On October 28, 2020, a U.S. District Judge granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the Iowa Action with
prejudice at plaintiffs' cost due to plaintiffs' failure to satisfy
applicable pleading requirements.
Specifically, the court held that plaintiffs had failed to plead
any actionable misstatement or omission, scienter, or loss
causation. The court observed that, "as explained in Defendants'
motion to dismiss and supporting briefs, this lawsuit is precisely
the type of frivolous 'strike' suit that Congress directed federal
courts to dismiss at the pleading stage."
On November 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of the District Court's dismissal. The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals has scheduled briefing on the appeal.
The Company expects all briefs to be submitted within the first
half of calendar 2021.
Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.
MEREDITH CORP: Spot Advertising Purchasers' Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit initiated by purchasers of
broadcast television spot advertising.
On April 3, 2019, a purported class of plaintiff purchasers of
broadcast television spot advertising amended its pending
consolidated complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against a number of broadcast television
station groups to add Meredith and other broadcast television
station groups as defendants.
The amended complaint alleges that the Defendants have violated
federal antitrust law by entering agreements with their competitors
to fix prices and exchange competitively sensitive information.
The Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss on June 5, 2019,
after which the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
complaint on September 9, 2019.
The Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on October 8, 2019. On November 6, 2020, the court denied
the motion to dismiss.
Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.
MERIT MEDICAL: Court Accepts R&R & Refuses to Toss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David O. Carter of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California issued an amended order accepting
report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and
dismissing case entitled In Re Merit Medical Systems, Inc.
Securities litigation, Case No. 8:19-02326 DOC (ADS) (C.D. Cal.).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs'
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint, the Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of their
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and all
related filings, along with the Report and Recommendation of the
assigned Magistrate Judge dated March 16, 2021, the Defendants'
Written Objections to the March 16, 2021 Report and Recommendation,
and the Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Report
and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge.
Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have
been made.
Accordingly, Judge Carter rules that:
1. The United States Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation is accepted;
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action
Complaint is denied; and
3. Defendants' objections are overruled.
A full-text copy of the Court's Amended Order dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2hdv7ezz from Leagle.com.
MESA PACKING: Settlement in Miguel-Sanchez Suit Gets Prelim Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
parties' settlement in the lawsuit titled WILLIAM MIGUEL-SANCHEZ,
ET AL., Plaintiffs v. MESA PACKING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-00823-VKD (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs William Miguel-Sanchez, Luis Antonio Meza-Estrada, and
Sergio Jimenez-Cruz filed this action for themselves and on behalf
of a putative class against defendant Mesa Packing, LLC ("Mesa")
for alleged violations of the California Labor Code; the Migrant
and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act ("AWPA"); and
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
The Court heard oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion on March 9,
2021. At the Court's direction, the Plaintiffs submitted
supplemental briefing on certain issues. Upon consideration of the
moving papers, the Plaintiffs' supplemental brief, and the
arguments made at the hearing, the Court grants the motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
The Plaintiffs' Allegations
According to the complaint, Mesa is a farm labor contractor that
employs migrant and seasonal agricultural field workers. Mr.
Miguel-Sanchez has worked for Mesa since Feb. 2009, and Messrs.
Meza-Estrada and Jimenez-Cruz have worked for Mesa since Sept.
2014. The Plaintiffs were to be compensated for their work on a
piece rate and hourly basis.
The Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Labor Code and
the AWPA. First, the Plaintiffs say that they and other putative
class members were not paid for time spent on "pre-shift exercises"
and distribution of items and tools needed for their work, and that
Mesa did not accurately record their field arrival times and work
that occurred prior to scheduled shift start times. Second, because
the Plaintiffs and other putative class members began work before
dawn, they required headlamps. The Plaintiffs say they purchased,
maintained, charged, and replaced their own headlamps and batteries
without any reimbursement or compensation for those items, and were
not paid for the time spent preparing and maintaining them.
Third, the Plaintiffs allege that Mesa did not accurately record
time spent performing piece rate work, resulting in an
under-recording of hours worked. Fourth, the Plaintiffs allege that
Mesa did not provide accurate paystubs. Fifth, the Plaintiffs
allege that they and other putative class members were suffered and
permitted to work during their 30-minute unpaid meal periods, but
that Mesa automatically deducted the full-30 minute period from
workers' daily total hours worked and, therefore, did not pay them
for that time worked. Additionally, the Plaintiffs say that they
regularly worked without at least one required off-duty 30-minute
meal period or uninterrupted 10-minute rest break, and they were
not compensated for any late, short, or missed meal periods or
breaks. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that they were required to
report to work but were on occasion sent home before being provided
at least half the usual day's work and subsequently not paid
reporting time wages.
The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Feb. 4, 2020. They assert
the following claims: (1) violation of the AWPA; (2) failure to pay
minimum wage compensation in violation of California Labor Code;
(3) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor
Code; (4) failure to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu
thereof in violation of California Labor Code; (5) failure to
provide rest breaks or premium wages in lieu thereof in violation
of California Labor Code; (6) failure to indemnify for necessary
business expenditures in violation of California Labor Code; (7)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation
of California Labor Code; (8) violation of California's UCL,
California Business and Professions Code; (9) entitlement to civil
penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA"); and (10) failure to provide pay for reporting time in
violation of California Labor Code.
The complaint seeks relief on behalf of a class defined as "[a]ll
workers employed by Defendant at work sites in California and
compensated, in part, on a piece rate basis or employed during
early morning or late evening low-light conditions."
Following some initial discovery, the parties negotiated a
settlement of the asserted claims.
Proposed Settlement
For purposes of settlement, the Plaintiffs request that the Court
certify a class under Rule 23 as "the 701 persons that worked for
Mesa as non-exempt piece rate workers during the period of February
4, 2016 to October 23, 2020." They further request that Messrs.
Miguel-Sanchez, Meza-Estrada, and Jimenez-Cruz be appointed as
class representatives and Santos Gomez and Dawson Morton of the Law
Offices of Santos Gomez be appointed as class counsel.
The settlement agreement requires Mesa to pay $1,850,000 ("the
gross settlement amount"), which includes: (1) payments for
attorneys' fees and costs awarded to class counsel, not to exceed
$400,000 for fees and $7,500 for costs; (2) incentive payments to
the named plaintiffs ($7,500 for each plaintiff), and (3)
settlement benefits to class members. The gross settlement amount
does not include payroll taxes owed on settlement benefits or the
cost of settlement administration (estimated at $9,982), which Mesa
will pay separately. The net settlement amount after accounting for
attorneys' fees and costs and incentive payments is estimated to be
$1,427,500. Any unclaimed portion of the settlement funds will be
distributed in equal amounts to the Food Bank for Monterey County,
California and the non-profit health care provider Salud Para La
Gente as cy pres recipients.
Additionally, the settlement agreement requires Mesa to implement
and continue to maintain the following employment practices:
a) Provide a full 30-minute duty-free meal period before the
conclusion of fifth and tenth hours of work on all work
days of more than five hour or ten hour total duration;
b) Provide duty-free rest periods of no less than 10 minutes
for every four hours, or major fraction thereof, of work,
and to continue to provide the first daily rest period with
a 15-minute duration through the end of the year 2025;
c) Track and record all non-productive work, including
pre-shift work preparing labels, performing exercises, time
changing harvesting locations during the work day (whether
at the same field worksite or between different ranches),
separately and paid separately from the piece rate earnings
at no less than the guaranteed hourly rate;
d) Pay wages for rest and recovery periods in accordance with
Labor Code Section 226.2 (no non-productive time will be
included in the denominator when calculating the average
piece rate hourly rate); and
e) Provide all other necessary tools and equipment to piece
rate workers free of charge, including headlamps (with all
necessary batteries).
The settlement agreement provides that all individuals in the
proposed class who do not submit a timely and valid request to opt
out will be deemed to have released any claims under California law
asserted in the complaint or that could have been asserted based on
the complaint's allegations between Feb. 4, 2016, and Oct. 23, 2020
("the class period"), including the following: (a) unpaid wages,
Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1182.11-1182.13, 1194 and 1197; (b) unpaid
overtime wages, Cal. Lab. Code Section 1194 and Wage Order 14; and
(c) failure to provide meal periods, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7,
512 & Wage Orders.
Originally, the release extended to claims against "third parties
such as Earthbound Farm, LLC." The Plaintiffs' supplemental brief
represents that the parties subsequently agreed to limit the
release to include specifically the following third parties:
Earthbound Farm, LLC, Growers Express, LLC, The Nunes Company,
Inc., and Ocean Mist Foods, LLC.
The settlement agreement calls for appointment of a settlement
administrator (the parties have selected Atticus Administration).
Within 15 calendar days after preliminary approval is granted, Mesa
will provide to the settlement administrator the following
information for each class member: complete name, last known
address, Social Security Number, dates of employment, and number of
piece rate workdays worked during the class period necessary to
determine each individual's estimated settlement payment. Within 10
days after receiving the information for the class, the settlement
administrator will mail to all class members, via First Class
United States Mail, a copy of the court-approved class notice in
English and Spanish. The settlement administrator will also prepare
and maintain a website where the class notice and other
case-related documents will be made available in English and
Spanish.
The settlement administrator will use standard skip tracing
procedures as necessary to obtain forwarding addresses prior to
mailing the class notices. If any notices are returned, the
settlement administrator will use reasonable diligence to obtain a
current address and re-mail the notice to that address. The mailed
notices and website will be further supplemented by notice through
the WhatsApp messaging application using class members' known phone
numbers.
The settlement agreement further provides that class members will
have 45 days from the initial mailing of the notice to (a) request
exclusion from the settlement or (b) object to the settlement and
advise of their desire to appear at the final fairness hearing. Any
such requests or objections must be submitted in writing by mail,
e-mail, or fax to the settlement administrator. Any member who does
not timely request exclusion will receive their pro rata share of
the net settlement amount based on the number of pay periods they
performed work for Mesa during the class period and be bound by the
release of claims.
Discussion
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi holds that for purposes of
settlement, provisional certification of a Rule 23 class is
appropriate in the case. Because the Plaintiffs meet the Rule 23(a)
requirements, the Court provisionally appoints William
Miguel-Sanchez, Luis Antonio Meza-Estrada, and Sergio Jimenez-Cruz
as class representatives. The Court provisionally appoints Santos
Gomez and Dawson Morton of the Law Offices of Santos Gomez as class
counsel for settlement purposes only.
Judge Demarchi finds that the benefits to all parties of settlement
weigh in favor of preliminary approval. The settlement agreement
provides for an attorneys' fee award of up to $400,000, which
represents 21.6% of the gross settlement amount and 28.2% of the
proposed net settlement amount. The proposed fees here are not a
cause for concern at the preliminary approval stage, Judge Demarchi
observes.
With respect to preferential treatment, the settlement agreement
provides that funds will be allocated among class members on a pro
rata basis according to the number of pay periods during which they
performed work for Mesa during the class period. Judge Demarchi
holds that this proposed distribution does not appear to grant
preferential treatment to any class members.
While the settlement agreement authorizes the Plaintiffs'
application for incentive payments not to exceed $7,500 each, these
incentive awards--if finally approved--do not necessarily render
the settlement unfair, since the Ninth Circuit has recognized that
service awards to named plaintiffs in a class action are
permissible and do not render a settlement unfair or unreasonable,
Judge Demarchi holds.
The Plaintiffs represent that when they move for final approval,
they will provide declarations attesting to the amount of time they
have devoted to this case and explaining why they are entitled to
the requested amount. The Court expects a more fulsome explanation
from each Plaintiff at that time.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs and their counsel are qualified
to serve as class representatives and class counsel, and that
nothing in the record before the Court suggests any kind of
collusion between the parties that would cause the Court to
question the settlement agreement.
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval, conditionally certifies the class, and
approves the proposed form of notice with the above described
modification. The parties were to file on the docket their revised
settlement agreement reflecting revisions made to the third-party
releases.
The Court also approves the proposed class counsel, class
representatives, and claims administrator. The Plaintiffs'
motion(s) for final approval, for incentive awards, and for class
counsel fees and costs must be filed no later than the date on
which the claims administrator mails the notice, claim form, and
exclusion form to the class members.
The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Sept. 14, 2021, at
10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, at 280 South First Street,
in San Jose, California.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ay7re9d8 from Leagle.com.
MHC OPERATING: Harbor View Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Harbor View Mobile Homeowners Association,
Inc., on behalf of themselves, the class of current and former
mobile homeowners in the Park and all otheres similarly situated v.
MHC Operating Limited Partnership, Equity Lifestyle Properties,
Inc., Harbor View MHC, LLC, Eric Zimmerman, Stanley Martin, Sydney
Morris, Rene Scott, Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc.,
Joseph Allen Bobo, Lutz, Bobo & Telfair, P.A. (doing business as:
Lutz, Bobo, Telfair, Eastman & Bobo formerly known as: Lutz, Webb &
Bobo, P.A.), Case No. 2020-CA-002875 was removed from the Sixth
Judicial Circuit, Pasco County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on May 12, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01143-SDM-AEP to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
MHC Operating Limited Partnership provides operation of residential
mobile home sites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL PERRY
4767 New Broad St Ste 1007
Orlando, FL 32814
Phone: (407) 894-9003
Email: dan@danielperry.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jody B. Gabel, Esq.
Joseph Allen Bobo, Esq.
LUTZ, BOBO & TELFAIR, PA
2 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 500
Sarasota, FL 34236
Phone: (941) 951-1800
Fax: (941) 366-1603
Email: jbgabel@lutzbobo.com
jabobo@lutzbobo.com
- and -
Mahlon Herbert Barlow, III, Esq.
Ali Vakili Mirghahari, Esq.
SIVYER BARLOW & WATSON PA
401 E Jackson St., Ste. 2225
Tampa, FL 33602-5213
Phone: (813) 221-4242
Fax: (813) 227-8598
Email: mbarlow@sbwlegal.com
amirghahari@sbwlegal.com
- and -
Kevin S. Hennessy, Esq.
Nicole Janine Poot, Esq.
LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, PA
100 Second Avenue South, Suite 501-S
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (941) 708-4040
Fax: (941) 708-4024
Email: khennessy@llw-law.com
npoot@llw-law.com
MICHIGAN: MDOC's Appeal of Monitor's Proposals in McBride Sustained
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY ANN McBRIDE, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
15-11222 (E.D. Mich.), Magistrate Judge David R. Grand of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, sustains the Michigan Department of Corrections' appeal
of the Settlement Monitor's recommendations to dismiss and/or
re-hear Brandon Resch's misconduct charges.
It is a class action brought on behalf of inmates within the MDOC
who are deaf and/or hard of hearing. Following the Court's March 9,
2018 ruling that the MDOC had violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, granting partial summary
judgment to the class Plaintiffs, and ordering certain relief, the
parties reached a settlement, the terms of which were incorporated
into a Settlement Agreement. One term provided for a Settlement
Monitor to monitor the MDOC's compliance.
Later, the parties entered a Stipulated Order that provided a
mechanism by which the class Plaintiffs could raise disputes
related to "the implementation of the terms and conditions of the
Settlement Agreement" with the Settlement Monitor, agreeing that
any challenges of the Settlement Monitor's proposed resolution
would be submitted to the undersigned for final resolution.
Presently before the Court is one such dispute.
Specifically, following execution of the Settlement Agreement,
class member Resch, an MDOC inmate confined at the Carson City
Correctional Facility, received three separate misconduct charges
that he believes were processed in violation of the Settlement
Agreement. Resch invoked the Stipulated Order's procedures, and
the Settlement Monitor recommended that each of the misconduct
charges against Resch be dismissed, or alternatively, that Resch be
provided new hearings on each of them, with the MDOC documenting
that "effective communication" took place during the hearings.
The MDOC appealed the Settlement Monitor's recommendation, and it
is that "appeal" that is presently before the Court for resolution.
Resch, through class counsel, filed a response, and the MDOC filed
a reply.
Discussion
i. The MDOC's Exhaustion Argument
The MDOC argues that Resch "opted not to exhaust all of his
administrative remedies despite being fully aware of these
administrative remedies and never pursued any remedies allowed in
the court system." It argues that Resch was required to appeal his
Class I fighting misconduct conviction "to the Hearings
Administrator in the Office of Legal Affairs," and then to appeal
"to a court of law," i.e., a Michigan Circuit Court. It argues
that Resch was required to appeal his Class II misconduct
convictions "to the Deputy Warden as is required under policy in
order to exhaust" his claim, along with grieving the claim "through
Step III" of the MDOC's familiar grievance appeal process.
Reading the Stipulated Order as a whole, and considering the case's
procedural posture, Magistrate Judge Grand finds that this
provision requires an MDOC inmate to "properly exhaust" in the
traditional sense any claim he wishes to bring as a separate civil
action, but that it does not prohibit the Court from considering
disputes that the parties have agreed to resolve through the
process explained in the Stipulated Order.
First, the Stipulated Order distinguishes between claims for "fees
and/or money damages" which "must be made through an independent
cause of action," and therefore must be exhausted in the
traditional sense, and the resolution of disputes regarding "the
implementation of the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement," which the parties have agreed will be submitted to the
undersigned for "final and binding" determination which "may not be
objected to or further appealed. Second, the MDOC's interpretation
ignores that the disputes are before the Court because the MDOC
has, pursuant to the Stipulated Order, raised them in its instant
appeal.
ii. Disputes Subject to Review under the Stipulated Order
Next, Magistrate Judge Grand considers the MDOC's argument that
"the Settlement Monitor cannot order the MDOC to dismiss or re-hear
Mr. Resch's 2019 charges, as he attempts to do in here. The
parties did not agree to allow inmates to bypass exhaustion
requirements or to elevate the Settlement Monitor to the position
of a judge who would adjudicate the merits of prison disciplinary
proceedings."
Because, as an alternative to dismissing the disciplinary charges
against Resch, the Settlement Monitor is recommending the lesser
consequence of having the disciplinary charges "re-issued and/or
re-heard," and Magistrate Judge Grand finds that even that relief
is unwarranted, he declines to decide whether the outright
dismissal of charges could be appropriate here or in any other
case. However, Magistrate Judge Grand has no qualms finding that
the Settlement Monitor has the authority to recommend that a
misconduct charge be re-issued or re-heard where the dispute about
the issuance of the misconduct ticket, or the hearing on that
matter, concerns "the implementation of the terms and conditions of
the Settlement Agreement." Indeed, the Stipulated Order does not
carve out any particular category of disputes from that already
very narrow universe.
iii. The Court will sustain the MDOC's Appeal
While each of the three misconducts in issue includes some
reference to Resch's hearing capabilities, Magistrate Judge Grand
opines that Resch fails to show any actual violation of the
parties' Settlement Agreement. First, Resch argues the MDOC
violated the Settlement Agreement by failing to "document that
effective communication" took place during the three misconduct
hearings. While the Magistrate Judge Grand concurs that it is
prudent for the MDOC to document that effective communication
occurred during high-stakes interactions, the Settlement Agreement
contained no explicit "documentation" obligation on the MDOC.
Therefore, he is unwilling to find that the MDOC's failure to
document that effective communication took place during the
hearings violated the Settlement Agreement. That the MDOC later
realized the benefit of such documentation and included such a
requirement in its formal policies did not create a retroactive
obligation to provide such documentation.
Second, Magistrate Judge Grand finds that Resch's individualized
arguments as to the three misconducts simply do not establish
violations of the Settlement Agreement. As to the out of place
disciplinary hearing, "documentation" of these steps was not
required by the Settlement Agreement at the time in question, so
the MDOC's alleged failure to do so did not violate that Agreement.
As to the fighting misconduct, nothing about the hearing or the
hearing officer's consideration of the fighting charge against
Resch violated the Settlement Agreement. Finally, as to Resch's
claim that the hearing officer did not document any consideration
of how Mr. Resch's hearing impairment might have affected his
ability to comply, there is no indication in the record of Resch
contending that he was unable to hear the hearing officer's
questions or any of the statements made at the hearing. Nor does
Resch contend that any issues with his hearing prevented him from
advocating his position.
Disposition
For all of these reasons, Magistrate Judge Grand sustains the
MDOC's appeal of the Settlement Monitor's recommendations to
dismiss and/or re-hear Resch's misconduct charges.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/8mmyhmtj from Leagle.com.
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Dismissal of Turnage Class Suit Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit initiated by Ray C. Turnage, is
pending.
In 2018, Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed a
putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power and the
three then-serving members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror Construction work in progress (CWIP) rate premised
upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction
costs for the Kemper IGCC prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into
service.
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that
the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were
improper.
They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid customers by up
to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying an incorrect
interest rate. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and their putative class, actual damages, punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's
fees, and costs.
In response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each
filing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in March 2019. The amended complaint included four
additional plaintiffs and additional claims for gross negligence,
reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing.
Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, which occurred in May 2020 and March
2020, respectively. Also in March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking to name the new members of the Mississippi PSC, the
Mississippi Development Authority, and Southern Company as
additional defendants and add a cause of action against all
defendants based on a dormant commerce clause theory under the U.S.
Constitution.
In July 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, which included the same federal claims as
the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several
additional state law claims based on the allegation that
Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of
interest applicable to refunds.
In November 2020, the court denied each of the plaintiffs' pending
motions and entered final judgment in favor of Mississippi Power.
On January 22, 2021, the court denied further motions by the
plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to file a revised second
amended complaint.
On February 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material impact
on Mississippi Power's financial statements.
Mississippi Power Company, headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi,
is a regulated utility subsidiary of The Souterhern Company, a
utility holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Dugan Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage
LLC. The case is styled as David Dugan, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00341-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C., April 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper --
https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services. The Company
provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asa C. Edwards, IV, Esq.
Edward H. Maginnis, Esq.
Karl S. Gwaltney
MAGINNIS HOWARD
7706 Six Forks Rd., Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: (919) 526-0450
Fax: (919) 882-8763
Email: aedwards@maginnishoward.com
emaginnis@maginnislaw.com
kgwaltney@maginnislaw.com
- and -
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5003
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: scott@whitfieldbryson.com
NEBRASKA: Gills Ordered to Amend Complaint v. State Penitentiary
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID GILLS, Plaintiff v. SCOTT R. FRAKES and PETE
RICKETTS, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants,
Case No. 4:21CV3004 (D. Neb.), Judge Richard G. Kopf of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska issues Memorandum and
Order finding that Gill's complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and permitting him to file an amended
complaint within 30 days.
Plaintiff Gills, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Nebraska State Penitentiary, filed his pro se Complaint on Jan. 14,
2021, and subsequently was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Now that the required initial partial filing fee has
been paid, the Court conducts an initial review of Gills' Complaint
to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
Mr. Gills alleges he was hospitalized and placed on a ventilator in
September 2020 after contracting COVID-19. He alleges he nearly
died, but does not allege that he continues to have any physical
problems. He claims Defendants Scott R. Frakes (Director of the
Nebraska Department of Correctional Services) and Pete Ricketts
(Governor of the State of Nebraska) conspired to violate his civil
rights, and he seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Mr. Gills alleges that the Defendants, "together and under the
color of law, reached an agreement or understanding, engaged in a
course of conduct, and otherwise conspired and colluded among and
between themselves to deprive him of his constitutional rights to
be free from physical injury and a dangerous environment which is
not conducive to his health and safety; to due process of law; and
to be free from negligence, gross negligence, and cruel and unusual
punishment.
Mr. Gills invokes the protections of the Fifth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments, and for relief seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
Liberally construing the allegations of Gills' Complaint, the case
is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Gills requests the Court to take supplemental jurisdiction over
related state claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a), but Jduge
Kopf finds that Gills' Complaint contains only one count, which is
specifically identified as a Section 1983 claim. However, Gills
does reference a non-existent constitutional right to be free from
negligence and gross negligence. To the extent this is intended to
state a claim for negligence or gross negligence under Nebraska
law, the Judge cannot exercise the Court's supplemental
jurisdiction over such a claim.
Because any alleged negligence or gross negligence necessarily
occurred within the scope of the Defendants' official duties, Gills
can only sue the Defendants for damages in their official
capacities under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act ("STCA"), Neb.
Rev. Stat. Sections 81-8,209, et seq.
To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege a
violation of rights protected by the United States Constitution or
created by federal statute and also must show that the alleged
deprivation was caused by conduct of a person acting under color of
state law. To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, a plaintiff
must prove that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs. Judge Kopf finds that Gills does not
allege any facts showing that the Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs.
The Eighth Amendment also requires that prison officials "take
reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." A
prison official can be found deliberately indifferent if "the
official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health
or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the
inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and he must also draw the inference." Although Gills lists
various ways in which inmates at the penitentiary allegedly are at
risk for contracting COVID-19, he does not allege any facts to show
that he personally faces an excessive risk of reinfection.
Mr. Gills also does not explain the nature of his due process
claim, and the Judge on his own has not found sufficient facts
alleged to support such a claim.
Mr. Gills has filed a motion to supplement his Complaint, but his
supplemental allegations do not correct the deficiencies noted.
They instead are argumentative, and have no place in a pleading.
The motion therefore will be denied.
Finally, Gills has also filed a motion for class certification, and
for appointment of counsel to represent the class. This motion
will also be denied because, among other reasons, Gills' Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Kopf finds, upon initial review,
that Gills' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, but he will permit him to file an amended complaint
within 30 days. If an amended complaint is not filed within 30
days, the case may be dismissed without further notice.
On the Court's own motion, the Plaintiff will have 30 days in which
to file an amended complaint. Failure to file an amended
complaint within 30 days will result in the Court dismissing the
case without prejudice, and without further notice to the
Plaintiff.
If the Plaintiff files an amended complaint, he will restate the
allegations of the Complaint and any new allegations. Failure to
consolidate all claims into one document may result in the
abandonment of claims. The Plaintiff is warned that an amended
complaint will supersede, not supplement, his prior pleadings.
The Court reserves the right to conduct further review of the
Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e) and 1915A
in the event he files an amended complaint.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to set the following pro se case
management deadline: June 4, 2021, check for amended complaint.
The Plaintiff's motion to supplement the complaint is denied. His
motion to certify class and to appoint counsel is denied without
prejudice to reassertion.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/a572bh64 from Leagle.com.
NINTENDO CO: Switch 'Drift' Defect Class Action Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nintendo of America Inc. prevailed in its motion to compel
arbitration in a product defect suit alleging that the Nintendo
Switch video game console's Joy-Con controllers are flawed. The
Western District of Washington claimant, a minor who brought the
suit through his guardian, will now have to arbitrate his claims.
According to the court's opinion, the Switch was released for sale
in March 2017. Its standard packaging states that by using the
Switch, the gamer agrees to Nintendo's End-User License Agreement
(EULA), which contains an arbitration provision, and provides the
web address at which the EULA is available. Also, when users power
up the Switch for the first time, they are informed of the EULA.
The screen reportedly states, " '(b)y selecting the Accept button,
you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by the
End-User License Agreement. If you do not agree, stop using this
system.' "The opinion noted that users can opt out of the
arbitration agreement by notifying Nintendo within 30 days of
purchase in writing, and that if a user does not wish to accept the
EULA, they can return the console for a full refund.
The court explained that several months after the minor plaintiff
purchased a Switch the console's Joy-Con controllers began
displaying a defect known as "drifting." The defect reportedly
occurs when video game characters or items move without user
command or manual operation of the Joy-Con controller. The gamer
then filed a class action against Nintendo, to which it responded
with a motion to compel arbitration.
The user asserted that the parties never formed a valid arbitration
agreement because the minor plaintiff lacked the capacity to
contract. The court concluded that the minor had the capacity to
form a contract under both California and Washington law. The court
did not reach the plaintiff's next argument, that he disaffirmed
the EULA, because it found that the parties agreed to have an
arbitrator decide the dispute.
The court also considered and disposed of the plaintiff's final
argument: that delegating the dispute to arbitration was
unconscionable. The court held that the gamer "had a meaningful
choice to accept the delegation provision, to opt out of the
arbitration clause (including the delegation provision), or to
reject the entire EULA and return his Nintendo Switch."
The plaintiff is represented by Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC and
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, and Nintendo by
Perkins Coie LLP.
Relatedly, a class action filed in February alleged that Sony sold
PlayStation 5 (PS5) DualSense Wireless Controllers that similarly
suffered from a drift defect. On April 5, the case was transferred
from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of
California. [GN]
NYC HOUSING: Alliance Tri-State Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York City Housing
Authority, et al. The case is styled as ALLIANCE TRI-STATE
CONSTRUCTION, INC., INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
SIMILARLY SITUATED NEW YORK LIEN LAW ARTICLE 3-A TRUST
BENEFICIARIES v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL, Case No.
511291/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 12, 2021).
The New York City Housing Authority --
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/index.page -- is a New York State
public development corporation which provides public housing in New
York City.[BN]
P.C. RICHARD: N.J. Supreme Court Reverses Dismissal of Baskin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ellen Baskin, Kathleen O'Shea, and Sandeep Trisal, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, d/b/a P.C.
Richard & Son, and P.C. Richard & Son, Inc., d/b/a P.C. Richard &
Son, Defendants-Respondents, Case No. A-77 September Term 2019
(N.J.), the Supreme Court of New Jersey:
(i) reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and
(ii) remands the matter for the parties to conduct discovery
related to class action certification.
In the case, the Supreme Court considers whether the Plaintiffs
sufficiently pled the class certification requirements to survive a
motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e). Baskin, O'Shea, and Trisal
filed a class action complaint against the Defendants, alleging the
Defendants violated the Federal Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) by printing their credit or debit
card expiration dates on their receipts. Although the Plaintiffs
did not suffer identity theft, fraud, or third-party disclosure as
a result of the information on the receipts, they allege that the
Defendants' noncompliance with FACTA has placed them at an
increased risk of harm and seek statutory damages.
FACTA prohibits any business that accepts credit or debit cards
from "printing more than the last 5 digits of the card number or
the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at
the point of the sale or transaction." FACTA imposes civil
liability on businesses that are willfully noncompliant with its
terms. If plaintiffs can establish defendants' willful
noncompliance, statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 will
be awarded to each plaintiff.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing
that the Plaintiffs could not meet the superiority requirement for
class certification because statutory damages available under FACTA
were sufficient to incentivize individual actions.
The trial court granted the motion, finding: (1) the Plaintiffs
failed to establish numerosity because they did not specify how
many members were in the class; (2) predominance was not satisfied
because some class members may have suffered actual damages and
liability would therefore have to be determined on a case-by-case
basis; and (3) superiority was not established because FACTA's
statutory award sufficiently incentivized plaintiffs to bring suit
individually.
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal as it pertained to
the class action claims and to the individual claims of O'Shea and
Trisal; however, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of
Baskin's individual claim.
The Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs' petition for
certification pertaining to the class certification issues. It
also granted the New Jersey Association for Justice's (NJAJ) motion
to appear as amicus curiae.
The Plaintiffs assert the trial and appellate courts imposed three
barriers to class certification at the pleading stage, each of
which on its own has the effect of precluding class action lawsuits
in the State. Those barriers concern the numerosity, predominance,
and superiority requirements of Rule 4:32-1.
Amicus NJAJ aligns itself with the Plaintiffs and emphasizes that
"the class action rule should be liberally construed." Applying
traditional principles of liberal construction, NJAJ argues, a
motion court is required to meticulously search the pleadings to
find even a suggested cause of action when a motion to dismiss on
the pleadings is filed; if a suggested cause of action cannot be
found, NJAJ adds, then leave to amend should be granted. NJAJ
reiterates the Plaintiffs' arguments that the trial and the
appellate courts effectively ended the Plaintiffs' class action
claims when they sua sponte "expanded the grounds of dismissal to
include pleading deficiencies on the issues of numerosity and
predominance."
The Defendants contend that, because numerosity was not at issue in
Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., L.L.C., 203 N.J. 496, 505 (2010), the
Plaintiffs' argument that the Appellate Division's holding on
numerosity is in conflict with that decision cannot be correct.
With respect to predominance, they argue the Plaintiffs
mischaracterize the holding in Delgozzo v. Kenny, 266 N.J.Super.
169, 190 (App. Div. 1993) and rely on dicta. Specifically, the
Defendants note the predominance issue in Delgozzo involved
conflict-of-law considerations that are not present in the case;
thus, in their view, there is no intersection between Delgozzo and
the holdings in the case.
The issue presented by the appeal is whether the Plaintiffs, who
suffered no actual harm and are seeking statutory damages,
sufficiently pled a class action against the Defendants for
noncompliance with FACTA such that their complaint should have
survived a motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e).
In light of our standard of review at this stage, the Supreme Court
disagrees with the trial and the appellate courts and reverses the
grant of the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Giving the Plaintiffs
the benefit of all favorable inferences, it finds they sufficiently
pled facts regarding Rule 4:32-1's numerosity, predominance, and
superiority requirements to survive a motion to dismiss.
Specifically, the Supreme Court concludes that: (1) an exact or
specific number of class members need not be pled to satisfy
numerosity; (2) questions as to whether defendants were willfully
noncompliant with FACTA and programmed their equipment to print
credit or debit card expiration dates predominated because the
Plaintiffs are seeking only statutory and punitive damages; and (3)
the class action vehicle seems to be the superior means of
adjudicating the Plaintiffs' claims because it is unlikely a
plaintiff will have the financial wherewithal to bring these claims
individually in small claims court.
However, the Supreme Court is not certifying the class at this
time. Instead, it is remanding the matter for class action
discovery to be conducted pursuant to Rule 4:32-2(a) so that the
trial court may determine whether to certify the class.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/sbubh9kt from Leagle.com.
Chant Yedalian -- chant@chant.mobi -- of the California bar,
admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellants (Lite
DePalma Greenberg and Chant & Company, attorneys; Bruce D.
Greenberg -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- and Chant Yedalian, on
the briefs).
William S. Gyves -- wgyves@kelleydrye.com -- argued the cause for
respondents (Kelley Drye & Warren, attorneys; William S. Gyves,
Glenn T. Graham -- ggraham@kelleydrye.com -- and Robert N. Ward --
rward@kelleydrye.com -- on the briefs).
Bruce H. Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- argued the cause for
amicus curiae New Jersey Association for Justice (Nagel Rice --
jrice@nagelrice.com -- attorneys; Bruce H. Nagel, of counsel and on
the brief, and Randee M. Matloff -- rmatloff@nagelrice.com -- on
the brief).
PARKING REIT: July 16 Final Approval Hearing on $2.5MM Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parking REIT, Inc. disclosed in a recently filed Form 8-K report
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a settlement
has been reached among the parties in three pending stockholder
putative class actions:
(i) SIPDA Revocable Trust, by Trenton J. Warner, Director v.
The Parking REIT, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00428, filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on or
about March 12, 2019;
(ii) Arthur Magowski, as custodian of his IRA v. The Parking
REIT, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-19-003125, filed in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City on or about May 31, 2019; and
(iii) Michelle Barene, as custodian of her IRA v. The Parking
REIT, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-19-003527, filed in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City on or about June 28, 2019.
In addition, by letter dated June 19, 2019, Mr. Magowski, through
his counsel, also made a derivative demand upon the Company's Board
of Directors to initiate certain litigation on behalf of the
Company similar in substance to the three lawsuits.
On April 20, 2021, the Maryland Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the Settlement, preliminarily certifying
the Settlement Class, setting a schedule for the Court's final
review of the Settlement, and establishing customary notice and
objection procedures for Settlement Class Members.
In consideration for the full and final settlement and the release
of all Released Plaintiff Claims by Plaintiffs and the Settlement
Class, the TPR shall pay, or cause to be paid, to the Settlement
Trust Account, to be established under the direction of Interim
Settlement Class Counsel, a monetary payment in the amount of $2.5
million or, if after payment of all covered amounts and reserving
for projected covered amounts, including attorneys' fees, expenses,
and costs, the remaining amount of coverage under certain TPR
Insurance Policies as of the Payment Date, whichever amount is
greater.
The Maryland Court has scheduled the Settlement Final Approval
Hearing for July 16, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections 14 and 20 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for breach of fiduciary
duty under Maryland law. More information is available at:
https://www.theparkingreitsettlement.com/
A full-text copy of the Notice of Settlement is available at
https://bit.ly/3ymAfiH
Counsel for Plaintiff Magowski and Co-Lead Interim Settlement Class
Counsel:
Paul D. Malmfeldt, Esq.
BLAU & MALMFELDT
566 W. Adams Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60661
Tel: (312) 443-1600
Email: pmalmfeldt@blau-malmfeldt.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Barene and Co-Lead Interim Settlement Class
Counsel:
Adam Polk, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel: (415) 981-4500
Email: apolk@girardsharp.com
Counsel for The Parking REIT, Inc. and the Independent Director
Defendants:
G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Esq.
VENABLE LLP
750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202
Counsel for Michael V. Shustek, MVP Realty Advisors, LLC, Vestin
Realty Mortgage I, Inc., and Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc.:
Kristin N. Murphy, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Peloton Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PTON) from September 11, 2020 through April 16,
2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Peloton securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Peloton Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) in addition to the tragic death of a child, Peoloton'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 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 ("CPSC")
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, 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 17, 2021, a day the market was closed, the CPSC issued a
press release entitled "CPSC Warns Consumers: Stop Using the
Peloton Tread+" alerting the public to dangers, including death,
associated with the Peloton 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.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 28, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Peloton securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/pelotoninteractiveinc-pton-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-395/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Peloton
Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PTON) 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 September
11, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 28, 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. Peloton's Tread+ product was a serious
safety risk to small children and pets, resulting in multiple
incidents of injury to both including the tragic death of one
child. The Company knew about the safety risk but did not treat
safety as a priority, failing to recall or suggest a usage halt of
the Tread+. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC")
announced that the Tread+ represented a serious risk to public
safety and urged consumers with small children to stop using the
product. The CPSC also found that the Tread+ represented a safety
risk to consumers that lost their balance. 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 Peloton, 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.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210429006202/en/ [GN]
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Dismisses Hogan Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the complaint in the putative class action suit initiated by
Patrick Hogan, has been granted.
On October 10, 2016, Hogan, acting on behalf of himself and a
putative class of persons who purchased shares of the company's
(PPCs) stock between February 21, 2014 and October 6, 2016, filed a
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado against PPC and its named executive officers.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's SEC filings
contained statements that were rendered materially false and
misleading by PPC's failure to disclose that (1) PPC colluded with
several of its industry peers to fix prices in the broiler-chicken
market as alleged in the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation, (2) its conduct constituted a violation of federal
antitrust laws, (3) PPC's revenues during the class period were the
result of illegal conduct and (4) that PPC lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting.
The complaint also states that PPC's industry was anticompetitive
and seeks compensatory damages.
On April 4, 2017, the Colorado Court appointed another stockholder,
George James Fuller, as lead plaintiff. On May 11, 2017, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which extended the end date
of the putative class period to November 17, 2017. PPC and the
other defendants moved to dismiss on June 12, 2017, and the
plaintiff filed its opposition on July 12, 2017. PPC and the other
defendants filed their reply on August 1, 2017.
On March 14, 2018, the Colorado Court dismissed the plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice and issued final judgment in favor of
PPC and the other defendants. On April 11, 2018, the plaintiff
moved for reconsideration of the Colorado Court's decision and for
permission to file a Second Amended Complaint.
PPC and the other defendants filed a response to the plaintiff's
motion on April 25, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Colorado Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and granted
plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint.
On June 8, 2020, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
against the same defendants, based in part on the Indictment.
On July 31, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The Colorado Court granted the motion to dismiss on April 19, 2021
and issued judgment in favor of defendants.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Discloses Payment of $75MM to Direct Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2021, that the company paid $75
million as settlement in the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class'
putative suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08637.
Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, a series of
purported federal class action lawsuits styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 were filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the company (PPC) and 19 other producers by and on behalf
of direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition
laws.
The complaints seek, among other relief, treble damages for an
alleged conspiracy among defendants to reduce output and increase
prices of broiler chickens from the period of January 2008 to the
present.
The class plaintiffs have filed three consolidated amended
complaints: one on behalf of direct purchasers and two on behalf of
distinct groups of indirect purchasers.
Between December 8, 2017 and April 16, 2021, 72 individual direct
action complaints were filed with the Illinois Court by individual
direct purchaser entities naming PPC as a defendant, the
allegations of which largely mirror those in the class action
complaints. Subsequent amendments to certain complaints added
allegations of price fixing and bid rigging on certain sales, which
have been stayed by the Illinois Court pending resolution of the
original supply reduction conspiracy.
On August 28, 2020, the Illinois Court issued a revised scheduling
order through trial, which contemplates the close of all merits
fact discovery on June 11, 2021, and summary judgment briefing and
related expert reports proceeding from July 2, 2021 to February 22,
2022.
The Illinois Court has set a trial date of for a first trial on
October 17, 2022.
On January 22, 2021, PPC filed oppositions to the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs motions for class certification. Briefing on
class certification, related expert reports and motions requiring
expert testimony is currently scheduled to conclude on May 6, 2021.
On March 17, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to amend certain
deadlines relating to summary judgment briefing, expert reports,
and fact discovery as it relates to certain plaintiffs.
As of April 28, 2021, the Illinois Court has yet to rule on the
motion.
On January 11, 2021, PPC announced that it had entered into an
agreement to settle all claims made by the putative Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff Class, which the Illinois Court preliminarily
approved February 25, 2021.
As a result of this agreement, PPC recognized an expense of $75.0
million within Selling, general and administrative expense in the
Consolidated Statements of Income for the year ended December 27,
2020. Pursuant to this agreement, PPC paid the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff Class this amount during the first quarter of 2021.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Grower Litigation in Oklahoma Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2021 that the company continues to
defend a consolidated suit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Grower
Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS.
On January 27, 2017, a purported class action on behalf of broiler
chicken farmers was brought against the company (PPC) and four
other producers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Oklahoma alleging, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce
competition for grower services and depress the price paid to
growers.
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the
Packers and Stockyards Act and seek, among other relief, treble
damages.
The complaint was consolidated with a subsequently filed
consolidated amended class action complaint styled as In re Broiler
Chicken Grower Litigation, Case No. CIV-17-033-RJS.
The defendants (including PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2017 for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Oklahoma Court granted only certain other
defendants' motions challenging jurisdiction.
On January 6, 2020, the Oklahoma Court denied the pending Rule 12
motion, and lifted the stay on discovery. The case is currently in
discovery.
On October 6, 2020, the Oklahoma plaintiffs filed a motion with the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML")
seeking consolidation of a series of copycat complaints filed in
September and October 2020 in the U.S. District Courts for the
District of Colorado, the District of Kansas, and the Northern
District of California.
On December 15, 2020, the JPML ordered the transfer of all cases to
the Oklahoma Court for consolidated or coordinated pretrial
proceedings.
On February 12, 2020, the Oklahoma Court entered a case management
order in the multi-district litigation setting a February 1, 2022
deadline for the close of fact discovery.
That order also set a deadline of September 15, 2022 for the filing
of class certification motions, with deadlines of October 27, 2022
for opposition briefing and December 1, 2022 for reply briefing.
Under the order, motions for summary judgment are to be filed on
February 1, 2023, with oppositions and replies due March 22, 2023,
and April 12, 2023, respectively.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIMS PRIDE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Plant Workers' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2021, that the defendants motion
to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative class action suit
initiated by plant workers has been denied.
Between August 30, 2019 and October 16, 2019, four purported class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland against the company (PPC) and a number of
other chicken producers, as well as WMS Webber, Meng, Sahl and
Company and Agri Stats.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of processing
plant production and maintenance workers. They allege that the
defendants conspired to fix and depress the compensation paid to
Plant Workers in violation of the Sherman Act and seek damages from
January 1, 2009 to the present.
On November 12, 2019, the Maryland Court ordered the consolidation
of the four cases for pretrial purposes. The defendants (including
PPC) jointly moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
November 22, 2019.
Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs informed the defendants and the
Maryland Court that they would be amending their complaint, which
they did on December 20, 2019. The consolidated amended complaint
asserts largely similar allegations to the pleadings in the
consolidated complaint, but was extended to include more class
members and turkey processors as well as chicken processors. The
defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on March 2, 2020. The Maryland Court dismissed PPC and a
number of other defendants on September 16, 2020 without prejudice.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed amended complaints on November 2,
2020 re-naming PPC and the other dismissed defendants. The
defendants moved to dismiss on December 18, 2020, which was denied
by the Maryland Court on March 10, 2021.
Pilgrim's Pride said, "The Company believes it can be successful in
defending and defeating the legal claims brought by the plaintiffs
in this matter and, therefore, believes no accrual is required at
this time. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company is exploring
its options to settle this matter for cost of defense and to avoid
all risk associated therewith provided it can reach acceptable
monetary and non-monetary terms with the plaintiff class. All
potential settlement discussions to date have been predicated on
reaching agreement on both the monetary and non-monetary terms
being satisfactory to the Company. If non-monetary terms (which are
substantial and important to the Company's decision to settle)
cannot be reached, the Company is prepared to litigate the matter
and, as stated above, the Company believes it can defeat the legal
claims brought by the plaintiffs."
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILGRIMS PRIDE: NMSIC Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in UFCW Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2021, that the New Mexico State
Investment Council ("NMSIC") has been appointed as lead plaintiff
in the putative class action suit initiated by United Food and
Commercial Workers International Union Local 464A ("UFCW").
On July 6, 2020, UFCW, acting on behalf of itself and a putative
class of persons who purchased shares of PPC stock between February
9, 2017 and June 3, 2020, filed a class action complaint in the
Colorado Court against PPC, and Messrs. Lovette, Penn, and Sandri.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that PPC's public
statements regarding its business and the drivers behind its
financial results were false and misleading due to the defendants'
purported failure to disclose its participation in an antitrust
conspiracy as alleged in the Broiler litigation and the Indictment.
On September 4, 2020, UFCW and NMSIC filed competing motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff under the Private Litigation Securities
Reform Act.
On March 17, 2021, the court appointed NMSIC as lead plaintiff.
The deadline for filing or designation of the operative complaint
is May 26, 2021, and any motions to dismiss that complaint must be
fully briefed by September 30, 2021.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation engages in the production, processing,
marketing, and distribution of fresh, frozen, and value-added
chicken products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe,
and Mexico. The company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a subsidiary of
JBS S.A.
PILOT TRAVEL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Perales Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL PERALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC d/b/a PILOT FLYING J,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00434 (D.N.M., May 8, 2021) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Perales was employed by the Defendant as driver.
Pilot Travel Centers, LLC d/b/a Pilot Flying J owns and operates
gas stations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
Parmet PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
PLAID INC: Must Face Class Action Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Financial services startup Plaid will have to face claims that it
deceptively acquired consumers' banking credentials without their
permission.
In a ruling U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu found a consolidated
class of customers adequately alleged that Plaid had violated their
privacy under a host of California laws by hiding its role as a
transactional middleman in order to secretly download their
financial data.
Plaid's software allows consumers to link their bank accounts with
payment apps like Venmo, Coinbase and Square's Cash App.
Venmo user James Cottle says he had no idea that he was actually
sharing his banking credentials with Plaid when he signed up for a
Venmo account in 2019. His federal lawsuit filed last year says
Plaid hid the fact that it was accessing his sensitive financial
information by prompting him to login to his bank to set up a Venmo
account, a misleading process that allegedly omits that fact that
Plaid is actually intercepting a trove of consumer spending data
that it later resells.
The class action came just as Plaid was planning a $3.5 billion
acquisition by Visa, announced just months before the filing. The
deal hit a regulatory wall late last year following an
investigation by the Department of Justice into whether the merger
poses a threat to competition in the market for online debit
services.
Cottle's case was combined with four other lawsuits brought in May,
June, and July 2020.
Ryu's ruling advances a host of claims, including intrusion upon
seclusion, unjust enrichment, deceit and violation of California's
Anti-Phishing law, which makes it illegal to misrepresent oneself
in order to induce someone to hand over their sensitive financial
information.
"We're very pleased by the ruling and the recognition that we've
adequately alleged an invasion of privacy that was achieved via
deceit," Rachel Geman, an attorney with Lieff Cabraser who
represents the class, said. "We're excited to move forward."
Ryu nixed a claim for violation of the Stored Communications Act,
which prohibits unauthorized access electronic communications
considered to be in "electronic storage;" a form of digital
trespassing. Ryu agreed with Plaid that a financial institution is
not "a facility through which an electronic communication service
is provided" under the statute.
She also found Cottle and his fellow plaintiffs had failed to
allege that they suffered damage or lost money or property as a
result of Plaid's actions, which doomed their claims for fraud
under California's Unfair Competition Law and Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning
they cannot be amended and refiled.
"While we believe the case should have been dismissed in full, we
are pleased to see that several of the baseless allegations were
dismissed with prejudice," a Plaid spokesperson said in an email to
Courthouse News. "We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves
against the lawsuit. Plaid firmly believes that consumers should
have permission-based access to and control over their financial
data, and embody these principles in our practices." [GN]
PLUM PBC: Five Suits Consolidated Under Baby Food Class Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits captioned LUDMILA GULKAROV, ET AL., Plaintiffs v.
PLUM, PBC AND PLUM, INC., Defendants. VANESSA MATHIESEN, Plaintiffs
v. PLUM, PBC, Defendant. CINDY PEREIRA, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP
COMPANY AND PLUM, PBC, Defendants. AUTUMN ELLISON, Plaintiffs v.
PLUM, PBC AND PLUM, INC., Defendants. JESSICA DAVID, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs v. PLUM, PBC, Defendant. LAUREN SMITH, Plaintiff v.
PLUM, PBC, ET AL., Defendants, Case Nos. 4:21-CV-913-YGR,
4:21-CV-1763-YGR, 4:21-CV-1767-YGR, 4:21-CV-2015-YGR,
4:21-CV-2059-YGR, 4:21-CV-2519-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California consolidated five
lawsuits under the caption, IN RE PLUM BABY FOOD LITIGATION.
Pursuant to the April 26, 2021 scheduling conference held in the
cases, the Court orders that the current May 3, 2021 deadline for
Defendants Plum PBC and Plum, Inc.'s response to the Gulkarov
consolidated class action complaint is vacated.
The Gulkarov, Pereira, Mathiesen, Ellison, and David actions will
be consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) before the Court.
The Smith action will not be part of the Consolidated Action. All
papers filed in the Consolidated Action will be filed under Case
No. 21-CV-00913-YGR and will bear the following caption: IN RE PLUM
BABY FOOD LITIGATION Master File No. 4:21-CV-00913-YGR This
Document Relates to:
The case file for the Consolidated Action will be maintained under
Master File No. 21-CV-00913-YGR. When a pleading is intended to
apply to all actions to which this Order applies, the words All
Actions will appear immediately after the words This Document
Relates To: in the caption. When a pleading is not intended to
apply to all actions, the docket number for each individual action
to which the paper is intended to apply and the last name of the
first-named plaintiff in said action will appear immediately after
the words This Document Relates To: in the caption, for example,
21-CV-1767, Pereira.
Any action subsequently filed, transferred or removed to the Court
that the Court determines arises out of the same or similar
operative facts as the Consolidated Action will be, with the
Court's approval, consolidated with the Consolidated Action for
pre-trial purposes. Any party may file a Notice of Related Action
pursuant to N.D. Calif. Local Rule 3.12 whenever a party believes a
case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, or
transferred to, this District.
If the Court determines that the case is related and should be
consolidated, the clerk will:
a. place a copy of the Order in the separate file for such
action;
b. serve on the Plaintiffs' counsel in the new case a copy of
this Order;
c. direct that thie Order be served upon the defendants in the
new case; and
d. make the appropriate entry in the Master Docket.
The parties in the Consolidated Action will confer on a leadership
structure and file any stipulation or motion no later than June 29,
2021. The Defendants' position regarding same will be filed no
later than July 2, 2021.
The Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action will file a consolidated
complaint no later than 30 days after the decision of the Judicial
Panel of Multidistrict Litigation should the cases remain before
this Court. The Defendants will have 30 days after filing to
respond.
The May 18, 2021 hearing on the Defendants' pending motion to
transfer the Gulkarov, Pereira, Mathiesen, Ellison, and David
actions to the District of New Jersey is vacated to be reset if
necessary.
The Order terminates Docket Number 29. The Clerk will
administratively close the Pereira (Case No. 4:21-CV-1767-YGR),
Mathiesen (Case No. 21-CV-1763-YGR), Ellison (Case No.
4:21-CV-2015-YGR), and David (Case No. 4:21-CV-2059-YGR) actions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ytmxfbsn from Leagle.com.
PLUSHCARE INC: Mismanages Membership Subscription, Robbins Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH ROBBINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLUSHCARE, INC.; and PLUSHCARE OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., A.P.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03444 (N.D.
Cal., May 7,2021) alleges violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.
The Plaintiff asserts in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to disclose terms of their subscription services and instead
enrolled consumers in monthly membership plans that renew
indefinitely without the consumers knowledge or consent. The
Defendants allegedly took money for six months from a checking
account managed by the Plaintiff via electronic fund transfers,
even though the Defendants never obtained her express consent or
her written authorization to take money from the account for an
ongoing membership subscription.
As a direct result of the Defendants' alleged conduct, the
Plaintiff and the class suffered economic injury in the loss of
monies paid for the Defendants' subscriptions which they did not
consent to purchase.
PlushCare, Inc. provides online health care services. The Company
offers diagnosis, treatment, and prescribed medication services via
phone. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
QUDIAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Greco Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative securities class suit entitled, Greco et al
v. Qudian Inc. et al, Case 1:20-cv-00577-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), is
pending.
The company and certain of its officers and directors were also
named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on
January 22, 2020 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Greco et al v. Qudian Inc.
et al, Case 1:20-cv-00577-GHW (S.D.N.Y.).
The Federal Exchange Act Action alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with the company's FY19
financial guidance and certain related public statements.
On April 7, 2020, the Court entered a stipulated order appointing
Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel.
On June 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint.
On September 4, 2020, the company moved to dismiss the AC for
failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the company's motion to
dismiss on October 2, 2020, and the company filed a reply on
October 16, 2020.
A decision on the motion is pending.
Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.
QUDIAN INC: Bid to Nix Consolidated NY Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled,
entitled, In re Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Index No.
651804/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is pending.
The company and certain of its directors and officers were also
named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed
in New York Supreme Court, Panther Partners Inc. v. Qudian Inc.,
Index No. 651804/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), and The Morrow
Property Trust v. Qudian Inc., Index No. 653047/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty.).
The New York State Actions purportedly brought on behalf of a class
of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering
(IPO), similarly allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the United States Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
company's disclosure of business and regulatory risks.
On August 15, 2018, the two putative securities class actions were
consolidated by joint stipulation under the master caption In re
Qudian Inc. Securities Litigation, Index No. 651804/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty.).
On June 1, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the actions
for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, to stay the actions
in light of the Federal Actions. On August 24, 2018, Plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss or stay, and
the company filed a reply on October 5, 2018. A hearing was held on
November 8, 2018. On November 14, 2018, the court granted the
company's motion to stay.
On January 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay and
file an amended complaint. The company filed an opposition to the
motion on February 21, 2020, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on March
6, 2020. On April 28, 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to
lift the stay.
Plaintiffs noticed an appeal from the court's decision on May 15,
2020 and filed their opening brief on July 13, 2020.
On August 12, 2020, the company filed a responsive brief, and on
August 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their reply brief. On December 3,
2020, the Appellate Division reversed the order denying Plaintiffs
motion to lift the stay, and on December 9, 2020, Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint.
On December 29, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim or, alternatively,
to stay the actions in light of the pending settlement hearing in
the Federal Actions. On January 7, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion, and the company filed a reply on January
13, 2021. A decision on the motion is pending.
Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.
QUDIAN INC: Settlement Hearing on Securities Suit Set for June 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement hearing
date in the consolidated suit entitled, In re Qudian Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.),
is set on June 8, 2021.
The company and certain of its directors and officers were named as
defendants in four putative securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York:
Ramnath v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA
(S.D.N.Y.), Maia v. Min Luo et al., Civil Action No.
1:17-cv-09796-RA (S.D.N.Y.), Foat v. Qudian Inc. et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-09875-RA (S.D.N.Y.), and Perez v. Qudian Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-09903-RA (S.D.N.Y.).
The Federal Actions purportedly brought on behalf of a class of
persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their
purchase of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering
(IPO), allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the United States
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the company's disclosure
of business and regulatory risks.
On March 16, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Federal Actions under master caption In re Qudian Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 1:17-cv-09741-RA (S.D.N.Y.) and
appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated
case.
On May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint,
and, on July 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.
On October 12, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the
federal securities laws.
On September 27, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting in part
and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. The Order granted the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend the Second Amended Complaint with respect to certain
of Plaintiffs' allegations, and denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to the launch of the Company's Dabai Auto business. On
October 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation confirming that
they will not seek to amend the Second Amended Complaint.
On November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to
reconsider the Order with respect to one of the dismissed
allegations. On December 6, 2019, the company filed an opposition
to the motion for reconsideration, and Plaintiffs filed a reply on
December 20, 2019. On July 10, 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration.
On August 10, 2020, certain defendants filed an answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Certain remaining defendants separately
moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on additional grounds
on the same date. Plaintiffs' filed their opposition to the motion
to dismiss on September 24, 2020.
On November 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion
requesting approval for settlement pursuant to the terms stipulated
by the parties. On November 16, 2020, Judge Furman preliminarily
approved the stipulated settlement, certified a settlement class,
and set a settlement hearing for April 27, 2021.
On November 18, 2020, certain absent class members filed a motion
to compel vacatur and denial of the order preliminarily approving
the settlement. On November 20, 2020, the Company and Plaintiffs
filed oppositions to the motion to compel vacatur, and on November
23, 2020, Judge Furman denied the motion.
On March 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of
the settlement. On April 9, 2021, the court continued the
settlement hearing date to June 8, 2021.
Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.
QUDIAN INC: Song Class Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------
Qudian Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action
suit entitled, Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., Case No. 18CIV01425,
remains stayed.
The company and certain of its directors and officers were also
named as defendants in Song v. Qudian Inc. et al., Case No.
18CIV01425 (Cal. Supr. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), a putative securities
class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Mateo. The California Action purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their purchase of the company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public offering
(IPO), alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
United States Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
company's disclosure of business and regulatory risks.
On May 15, 2018, the company filed a motion to stay the action in
light of, inter alia, the Federal Actions. Plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to stay on June 8, 2018, and the company
filed a reply on June 22, 2018. A hearing on the motion to stay was
held on September 14, 2018.
On December 21, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to
stay.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Qudian Inc. provides online small consumer credit products in the
People's Republic of China. It uses big data-enabled technologies,
including artificial intelligence and machine learning to transform
the consumer finance experience. The company offers small credit
products, such as cash credit products; merchandise credit products
to finance borrowers' direct purchase of merchandise offered on its
marketplace on installment basis; and budget auto financing
products. In addition, it operates a platform for loan
recommendations and referrals. Qudian Inc. was founded in 2014 and
is headquartered in Beijing, the People's Republic of China.
R.C. BIGELOW: C.D. California Narrows Claims in Banks Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an order denying in part and granting in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the
lawsuit entitled KIMBERLY BANKS and CAROL CANTWELL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. R.C.
BIGELOW, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-6208 DDP (RAOx) (C.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Banks and Cantwell bring the putative class action
challenging the Defendant's labeling of its tea products. The
Defendant is R.C. Bigelow, Inc. ("Defendant"), a private
corporation headquartered in Fairfield, Connecticut. Its products
at issue are tea products including the following: Bigelow Earl
Grey Black Tea, Bigelow English Teatime Black Tea, Bigelow Green
Tea with Ginger, Bigelow Matcha Green with Turmeric, Bigelow Green
Tea with Pomegranate, Bigelow Green Tea Decaffeinated, Bigelow
"Constant Comment" Black Tea, and Bigelow Vanilla Chai Black Tea.
These products are sold throughout the United States and the State
of California by third party retailers, such as grocery chains and
large retail outlets.
The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of California, who allege
to have purchased boxes of the Defendant's "Bigelow Earl Grey Black
Tea, Bigelow Vanilla Chai Black Tea, Bigelow 'Constant Comment'
Black Tea, and Bigelow Matcha Green Tea." In purchasing these
products, the Plaintiffs allege to have seen and relied on the
statements printed on the product's packaging, "MANUFACTURED IN THE
USA 100% AMERICAN FAMILY OWNED" and "AMERICA'S CLASSIC."
The Plaintiffs allege that their belief that the Products were
manufactured in the USA was "an important factor in the decision to
purchase the Products." They allege that they "would have paid
less" for the Products, or "would not have purchased them at all
had they known that the Products were not manufactured in the USA
(i.e., that they were made solely from foreign sourced and
processed tea)."
According to the Plaintiffs, the tea leaves which comprise over 90%
of the Products are grown by tea plantations, and processed by tea
processing plants, located in places, such as Sri Lanka and India.
Many of the additional flavors or spices added to some of the
Products are also not from the United States.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's packaging of the
Products is false and deceptive and likely to mislead reasonable
consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class members, to believe that
the Products are manufactured in the USA. The Plaintiffs allege
that American consumers prefer, and are willing to pay more for,
American-made products. The Plaintiffs and other consumers would
have paid less for the Products, or would not have purchased them
at all, had they known that the Products were and are not
manufactured in the USA. The Plaintiffs also allege that they and
other consumers purchasing the Products have suffered injury in
fact and lost money as a result of Bigelow's false and deceptive
practices.
Based on the allegations, the Plaintiffs bring this putative class
action alleging violations of (1) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17533.7; (2) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA");
(3) California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (4) California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (5) Breach of Express Warranty,
California Commercial Code Section 2313; (6) Breach of Implied
Warranty, California Commercial Code Section 2314; (7) Intentional
misrepresentation; (8) Negligent misrepresentation; and (9) Quasi
contract/Unjust enrichment/Restitution.
The Defendant presently moves to dismiss all causes of action
contending that the Plaintiffs fail to state claims for relief and
fail to plead with particularity the circumstances constituting
fraud, or alternatively, to strike the First Amended Complaint.
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' causes of action under
the UCL, FAL, and CLRA fail for three reasons: (1) the Plaintiffs'
theory of liability is implausible because no reasonable consumer
would be deceived by the statements "America's Classic" and
"Manufactured in the USA 100% Family Owned"; (2) the challenged
statements are nonactionable puffery; and (3) the challenged
statements are true statements.
The Products at issue are sold in similar rectangular boxes with
identical alleged deceptive representations. The top front of the
packaging has the statement "America's Classic" printed in all
caps. The word "Bigelow" is in bold large font centered between the
words "America's" and "Classic." Although the statement "America's
Classic" is in smaller font, its placement at the top, with the
large bold "Bigelow" between the two words, "America's" and
"Classic," can plausibly have the effect of drawing a reasonable
consumer's attention to the statement, District Judge Dean D.
Pregerson notes.
Further, on the back of the packaging, styled as a stamp, are the
statements "Manufactured in the USA," "100%," and "American Family
Owned." The "100%" is larger than the other two statements. The
statement "Manufactured in the USA," is above the large "100%" and
the statement "American Family Owned" is below the large "100%."
In context, a reasonable consumer viewing these statements together
could likely be deceived into believing that the Products are 100%
manufactured in the USA and 100% family owned, Judge Pregerson
observes. In other words, as presented on the package, it is
plausible that reasonable consumers would believe that the "100%"
modifies "Manufactured in the USA" and "American Family Owned."
Collectively, the representations "America's Classic,"
"Manufactured in the USA," "100%," and "American Family Owned"
contribute to the alleged deceptive impression that the Products
are manufactured in the United States.
According to Plaintiffs, this representation is false because none
of the Products contain any tea that was grown or processed in the
United States. The Plaintiffs further allege that the additional
flavors or spices used in the Products also do not come from the
United States. Accepting the allegations as true, the Plaintiffs'
have plausibly alleged that the representations are likely to
deceive reasonable consumers, Judge Pregerson opines.
At this stage, the Court declines to review the statements in
isolation to determine whether the single statement "America's
Classic" is nonactionable puffery. Even statements that might be
innocuous puffery or mere statement of opinion standing alone may
be actionable as an integral part of a representation of material
fact when used to emphasize and induce reliance upon such a
representation, Judge Pregerson opines, citing Coffelt v. Kroger
Co., 2017 WL 10543343, *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2017) (quoting
Casella v. Webb, 883 F.2d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 1989)).
The statement "America's Classic" contributes to alleged deceptive
packaging as a whole. Therefore, the Court declines to dismiss or
strike the Plaintiffs' claims based on "America's Classic."
Lastly, whether the statements "Manufactured in the USA" and "100%
American Family Owned" are truthful statements, as the Defendant
argues, is not an appropriate consideration at the pleading stage,
Judge Pregerson notes. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the
Products are not manufactured in the United States. Further, "100%
American Family Owned" also contributes to the alleged deceptive
packaging as a whole. The Court declines to consider this single
representation in isolation. Therefore, the Court declines to
strike claims based on the representations "Manufactured in the
USA" and "100% American Family Owned."
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
causes of action under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.
The Defendant also challenges the Plaintiffs' claims under Section
17533.7 arguing, first, that "Manufactured in the USA 100% American
Family Owned" are true statements. Second, that the Products'
labels do not state that the Products were "made" in the United
States and that the statement is qualifying in and of itself. And
third, that the packaging contains a qualifying statement on the
side panel.
As to the Defendant's first argument, at the pleading stage, the
Court says it must accept the allegations as true. The Plaintiffs
allege that the raw materials used to make the Products are wholly
processed outside of the United States. Second, the Defendant has
not cited to any authority for the proposition that the term
"manufactured" is not within the ambit of Section 17533.7 simply
because it is not the same as the word "made," Judge Pregerson
opines. Third, the Court declines to find that the statement that
appears on the side of the packaging in small font, "Blended and
Packaged in the U.S.A.," is a sufficiently qualifying statement
precluding a cause of action under Section 17533.7.
Judge Pregerson holds that the packaging as a whole could plausibly
mislead a reasonable consumer to believe that the manufacturing,
including processing of raw materials, is conducted in the United
States. The Court fails to see how this overall impression could be
dispelled by the significantly smaller font statement on the side
panel, "Blended and Packaged in the U.S.A."
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' theory of liability under
Section 17533.7 is sufficiently pled.
The Defendant argues next that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
the misrepresentation claims with specificity as required under
Rule 9(b). Judge Pregerson holds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pled the misrepresentation claims with specificity
providing the Defendant with adequate notice of the charge. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has, through its packaging of
the Products, deceptively represented that the Products are
manufactured in the USA. Therefore, the Judge holds that the
Plaintiffs have alleged the "particular circumstances" surrounding
the representations.
The Plaintiffs do not appear to dispute that where there is an
adequate remedy at law, they cannot seek equitable relief. Instead,
the Plaintiffs argue that they have pled that a legal remedy "alone
is inadequate for Plaintiffs to obtain complete relief as
Plaintiffs and consumers will suffer irreparable injury in the
future, i.e. after damages are awarded, in the absence of equitable
relief." The Plaintiffs allege that they "may purchase Bigelow tea
products in the future" and "are susceptible to reoccurring harm."
However, the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that a
legal remedy for such future harm would be inadequate, Judge
Pregerson notes, citing In re MacBook Keyboard Litig., No.
5:18-CV-02813-EJD, 2020 WL 6047253, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13,
2020). Under Sonner, the Plaintiffs cannot seek equitable relief
absent plausible allegations that they lack an inadequate legal
remedy. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' equitable claims under the UCL,
FAL, and unjust enrichment and request for equitable relief are
dismissed without leave to amend.
The Defendant next challenges the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs'
claims for breach of express and implied warranty.
Judge Pregerson holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
a breach of express warranty claim. The Plaintiffs allege that the
representations "America's Classic" and "Manufactured in the USA
100% Family Owned" are affirmations of fact or promises that the
Products were made in the USA. The court concludes that the
packaging as a whole, and the statements viewed in context, are
plausibly affirmations or promises that the Products were
manufactured in United States. The Judge opines that the
allegations sufficiently raise a claim for relief for breach of
express warranty claim.
Similarly, the Plaintiffs have also sufficiently pleaded the breach
of implied warranty claim, Judge Pregerson holds. The allegations
plausibly raise a claim for breach of implied warranty.
Lastly, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs cannot be allowed
to extend their claims beyond challenging the products they
allegedly purchased or those teas identified in the Complaint with
the same three statements the Plaintiffs challenge. The Plaintiffs
challenge all Bigelow tea products which have packaging that
represent they are manufactured in the USA.
At the pleading stage, the Plaintiffs have identified the products,
which they challenge and plausibly allege that the products are
substantially similar--the products are all tea products, all
contain identical alleged misrepresentations, and the theory of
liability for all products is the same. To the extent that the
Defendant seeks to limit the scope of the products based on
material differences, the Defendant may raise this issue at the
class certification stage, Judge Pregerson rules.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted in part, denied in
part. The Court dismisses Plaintiffs' equitable claims and requests
for equitable relief without leave to amend.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nc5pz5td from Leagle.com.
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Hanscom Sues Over Mislabeled Recycling Bags
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISABETH HANSCOM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS INC.;
and REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-03434-SK (N.D. Cal., May 7, 2021) seeks to remedy the
Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices with
respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of Hefty brand
Recycling Bags (the "Products").
According to the complaint, the Defendants market plastic trash
bags under the Hefty trademark as "Recycling" bags. Reasonable
consumers understand this to mean that the Products are suitable
for disposing of recyclable waste and are, in fact, recyclable. In
truth, the Hefty bags contaminate the recyclable waste stream,
decrease the recyclability of otherwise recyclable materials, and
are not recyclable because they are made from low-density
polyethylene plastic, the suit says.
The Defendants know that the Products typically end up in landfills
or incinerated and are a contaminant unsuitable for recycling. The
Defendants' representations that the Products are "Recycling" bags
are material, false, misleading and likely to deceive members of
the public, added the suit.
Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. manufactures and distributes
household packaging products. The Company offers preparation,
cooking, cleanup, and storage solutions such as aluminum foils,
plastic wrap, oven bags, and slow cooker liners. Reynolds Consumer
Products serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie Mccrary, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
RICHARD SACKLER: Hartman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richard Sackler. The
case is styled as Paul Hartman, and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. RICHARD SACKLER, DAVID SACKLER, ILENE
SACKLER LEFCOURT, JONATHAN SACKLER, KATHE SACKLER, MORTIMER
SACKLER, THERESA SACKLER, PETER BOER, JUDITH LEWENT, CECIL PICKETT,
PAULO COSTA, RALPH SNYDERMAN, JOHN STEWART, MARK TIMNEY, CRAIG
LANDAU, RUSSELL GASDIA Case No. 2:21-cv-02001-MAK (E.D. Pa., April
30, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for violation of the
Pennsylvania Consumer Fraud Act, and all other Acts in the United
States.
Richard Stephen Sackler is an American billionaire businessman who
was the chairman and president of Purdue Pharma, a company
purchased by his late father Raymond Sackler, and whose connection
to the opioid epidemic in the United States was the subject of
multiple lawsuits and fines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Innelli, Esq.
JOHN F INNELLI LLC
Two Penn Center, Suite 1300
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: (215) 845-0250
Email: jinnelli@innellilaw.com
RITUAL COFFEE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ritual Coffee
Roasters, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Ritual Coffee
Roasters, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04270 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ritual Coffee Roasters -- https://ritualcoffee.com/ -- is a coffee
roaster based in San Francisco, California, with six cafes in San
Francisco and Napa.[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
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: IPRS Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the consolidated
putative class action suit headed by Indiana Public Retirement
System has been dismissed without prejudice based on the request
for voluntary dismissal.
On October 7, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint against the company, and three officers, Richard Fain,
Jason Liberty and Michael Bayley, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging
misrepresentations relating to COVID-19 in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons and entities (subject to specified
exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020.
In addition, on October 27, 2020, a second complaint was filed by
another shareholder against us and these same officers in the
District Court alleging the same misrepresentations relating to
COVID-19.
As is the case with the first action, the second action seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities from February 4,
2020 through March 17, 2020.
On December 23, 2020, these cases were consolidated with a new lead
plaintiff, Indiana Public Retirement System.
On February 25, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed with the District
Court a voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.
On February 26, 2021, the District Court dismissed the entire
action without prejudice based on the request for voluntary
dismissal.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. operates as a global cruise company
operating a fleet of vessels in the cruise vacation industries. The
Company operates through brands which primarily serve the
contemporary, premium, and deluxe segments of the cruise vacation
industry which also includes the budget and luxury segments. The
company is based in Miami, Florida.
S&P GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Class Actions in Australia
----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend class action suits in Australia.
A class action lawsuit was filed in Australia on August 7, 2020
against the Company and a subsidiary of the Company.
A separate lawsuit was filed against the Company and a subsidiary
of the Company in Australia on February 2, 2021 by two entities
within the Basis Capital investment group.
The lawsuits both relate to alleged investment losses in
collateralized debt obligations rated by Ratings prior to the
financial crisis.
S&P Global said, "We can provide no assurance that we will not be
obligated to pay significant amounts in order to resolve these
matters on terms deemed acceptable."
S&P Global Inc. a leading provider of transparent and independent
ratings, benchmarks, analytics and data to the capital and
commodity markets worldwide. The company is based in New York, New
York.
S.C. JOHNSON: N.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Maisel Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH MAISEL, Plaintiff, v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00413-TSH (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Thomas S. Hixon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denies SC Johnson's motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2),
12(b)(6), and 9(b).
Plaintiff Maisel brings the putative class action against Defendant
S.C. Johnson, alleging it mislabels certain of its Ecover brand
cleaning products. SC Johnson is a Wisconsin corporation with its
principal place of business in Racine, Wisconsin. It sells 14
cleaning products under the Ecover brand name. The products
include: Ecover All Purpose Cleaner, Ecover Cream Scrub, Ecover
Delicate Wash, Ecover Dishwasher Powder, Ecover Dishwasher Tablets,
Ecover Dishwasher Tablets Zero, Ecover Fabric Softener (Morning
Fresh), Ecover Fabric Softener (Sunny Day), Ecover Floor Soap,
Ecover Laundry Detergent (Alpine Mint), Ecover Laundry Detergent
(Lavender Field), Ecover Rinse Aid, Ecover Stain Remover, and
Ecover Toilet Cleaner.
Ms. Maisel is a resident of Berkeley, California, who purchased the
Ecover Dishwasher Tablets in early 2020. She alleges that SC
Johnson falsely and misleadingly labels certain of its Ecover
products with the following claims: "Plant-based ingredients";
"With plant-based ingredients"; "Plant-based & mineral
ingredients"; or "With plant-based and mineral ingredients." She
further alleges SC Johnson "reinforces the plant-based
representations on each product with the following additional label
statements: "Get nature on your side"; "Made using renewable
plant-based ingredients'" "Made using renewable plant-based
ingredients" or "Made using renewable plant-based & mineral
ingredients'" "At Ecover, we have been pioneering green science for
over 30 years to make effective, plant-based cleaners by
planet-loving people"; an image of a flower above the "e" and "c"
in the ecover brand name; and anmage of a leaf above the
plant-based representations with a dotted line connecting the
representation and leaf.
Despite these representations, Maisel alleges "the Products are
chock full of synthetic, non-natural, and highly processed
ingredients" that do not come from plants and/or minerals, "as well
as ingredients that were subjected to chemical modification or
processing, which materially altered the ingredients' original
plant-based or mineral composition."
Based on SC Johnson's representations, Maisel alleges that
reasonable consumers, such as herself, "believe the Products only
contain ingredients that come from plants and/or from plants and
minerals, and that are not subject to chemical modification or
processing, which materially alters the ingredients' original
plant-based or mineral composition." However, the products
"contain numerous ingredients that do not come from plants or
minerals whatsoever," and "have been subjected to chemical
modification or processing, which materially altered the
ingredients' original plant-based or mineral composition." Maisel
alleges these representations are misleading and deceptive, and
therefore unlawful, and that she would not have purchased the
dishwasher tablets had she known the products contained ingredients
that do not come from plants or minerals.
Ms. Maisel filed the case on Jan. 15, 2021, seeking to bring a
class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of
herself and other consumers who bought Ecover products. After SC
Johnson moved to dismiss her original complaint, Maisel filed the
operative First Amended Complaint. She defines members of a
Nationwide class as: "All residents of the United States who,
within the applicable statute of limitations periods, purchased the
Products"; and a California subclass as: "All residents of
California who, within four years prior to the filing of this
Complaint, purchased the Products."
Ms. Maisel brings five causes of action: (1) violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200 et seq., on behalf of the California subclass; (2)
violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq., on behalf of the California
subclass, (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq., on behalf of
the California subclass; (4) breach of express warranty on behalf
of the Nationwide and California subclasses, and (5) unjust
enrichment on behalf of the Nationwide and California subclasses.
SC Johnson filed the present motion on April 7, 2021. It raises
seven arguments: (1) Maisel does not identify any false claims on
the Ecover product labels because they contain plant-based and/or
mineral ingredients, as advertised; (2) her personal interpretation
of "plant-based ingredients" and "plant-based and mineral
ingredients" does not reflect a reasonable consumer's understanding
of the terms because the product labels do not claim the products
contain a specific amount of plant-based or mineral ingredients;
(3) Maisel cannot challenge the labels on 13 Ecover products she
did not purchase because she did not suffer any injury by them; (4)
her express warranty claim fails because the product labels are
true, and her interpretation of "plant-based ingredients" and
"plant-based and mineral ingredients" cannot form the basis of an
express warranty; (5) her unjust enrichment claim fails because she
received the benefit of the bargain -- a product that contains
plant-based and mineral ingredients -- and it duplicates her other
claims; (6) because Maisel asserts claims for damages, she does not
lack an adequate remedy at law, and her UCL, FAL, CLRA, and unjust
enrichment claims fail; and (7) her national class claims should be
dismissed because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the
non-California class members she purports to represent.
Discussion
I. Judicial Notice
SC Johnson requests the Court takes judicial notice of labels for
Ecover Fabric Softener Morning Fresh, Ecover Fabric Softener Sunny
Day, Ecover Stain Remover, Ecover Toilet Cleaner, and Ecover
Laundry Detergent Lavender Field. Magistrate Judge Hixon notes
that the FAC also contains images of the packaging in question, and
Maisel does not contest the authenticity of the pictures of the
Ecover labels. Accordingly, he takes judicial notice of these
materials.
II. Article III Standing
SC Johnson argues Maisel lacks standing to pursue her claims
because she challenges products she never purchased and alleges too
speculative an injury to seek injunctive relief. Because questions
of Article III standing go to a federal court's subject-matter
jurisdiction, an argument that a party lacks standing is "properly
raised in a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1)."
Magistrate Judge Hixon finds that (i) because Maisel alleges she
purchased the Ecover dishwasher tablets and would not have if she
knew they were mislabeled, she has Article III standing to bring
the case; (ii) Maisel has sufficiently alleged her causes of action
under the FAL, the CLRA, and the UCL; (iii) Maisel has sufficiently
alleged the unpurchased Ecover products are substantially similar
to the Ecover product she purchased; and (iv) Maisel has standing
to seek injunctive relief.
III. Rule 12(b)(6)
SC Johnson also moves for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), which "tests the legal sufficiency of a
claim."
A. UCL, FAL, and CLRA Claims
Maisel's first three causes of actions are brought under the UCL,
FAL, and CLRA for allegedly misleading statements on the product
packaging. SC Johnson argues Maisel fails to adequately allege the
product labels are misleading under these statutes because her
interpretations of "plant-based ingredients" and "plant-based and
mineral ingredients" do not reflect a reasonable consumer's
understanding of the terms.
Magistrate Judge Hixon holds that Maisel pleads her UCL, FAL, and
CLRA causes of action with sufficient particularity to place SC
Johnson on notice of the circumstances constituting the alleged
fraud. Maisel "sets forth more than the neutral facts necessary to
identify the transaction"; indeed, she "sets forth what is false or
misleading about a statement, and why it is false." The
Magistrate Judge also holds that Maisel's allegations plausible
under the reasonable consumer test. Although the products do not
make any objective representations about the amount of plant-based
and mineral ingredients, it is plausible that a reasonable consumer
could be deceived into thinking the products only contain
ingredients that come from plants and/or from plants and minerals.
B. Breach of Express Warranty
In her fourth cause of action, Maisel alleges SC Johnson purports,
through the products' labeling and advertising, to create express
warranties that they only contain ingredients that come from plants
and/or from plants and minerals, and that despite its claims about
the nature of the products, they contain numerous ingredients that
do not come from plants or minerals.
SC Johnson argues Maisel fails to state a breach of express
warranty claim for two reasons. First, it argues "plant-based
ingredients," "with plant-based ingredients," "plant-based and
mineral ingredients," and "with plant-based and mineral
ingredients" are true statements about the products, as they
contain plant-based or plant-based and mineral ingredients.
Second, it argues Maisel's interpretation of the statements is
unreasonable and cannot form the basis of any express warranty
because the statements "do not warrant to consumers that the
Products only contain ingredients that (1) come from plants and/or
from plants and animals; and (2) are not subject to chemical
modification or processing, which materially alters the
ingredients' original plant-based or mineral composition."
Because Maisel's "allegations are sufficient to state a claim under
the reasonable consumer standard, Magistrate Judge Hixon holds that
they are likewise sufficient to state a claim for breach of express
warranty." SC Johnson's motion to dismiss Maisel's fourth cause of
action for breach of express warranty is therefore denied.
C. Unjust Enrichment
In her fifth cause of action, Maisel alleges that by purchasing the
Ecover products, she and members of the class conferred a benefit
on SC Johnson in the form of the purchase price, SC Johnson had
knowledge of such benefit, and its acceptance and retention of the
benefit is inequitable and unjust because the benefit was obtained
by its fraudulent and misleading representations and omissions. SC
Johnson argues Maisel cannot state a claim for unjust enrichment
because she received the benefit of the bargain -- a product that
contains plant-based and mineral ingredients.
As Maisel's unjust enrichment claim is based on the same alleged
misrepresentations about SC Johnson's products as her other claims,
Magistrate Judge Hixon finds they are sufficient to state a claim
for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, SC Johnson's motion to dismiss
Maisel's fifth cause of action is denied.
D. Whether Plaintiff's UCL, FAL, CLRA and Unjust Enrichment Claims
Fail Because She Does Not Allege She Lacks an Adequate Remedy At
Law
SC Johnson argues Maisel's UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims
must be dismissed in their entirety because they provide
exclusively equitable relief, not damages, and Maisel does not and
cannot establish she lacks an adequate remedy at law. However, the
Court follows other courts in this district that find no bar to the
pursuit of alternative remedies at the pleadings stage. Magistrate
Judge Hixon therefore denies the motion to dismiss on this ground.
IV. Personal Jurisdiction
Finally, SC Johnson argues the Court would lack personal
jurisdiction over the non-California class members Maisel purports
to represent. Magistrate Hudge Hixon need not reach this argument,
however, because he holds that the Court has pendent jurisdiction
over Maisel's class claims. Accordingly, he exercises the Court's
discretion to assert pendent jurisdiction over SC Johnson as to the
non-California class members' claims.
Conclusion
For the reasons he stated, Magistrate Hudge Hixon denies SC
Johnson's motion to dismiss. He will conduct a case management
conference on June 3, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. by Zoom video conference.
The webinar link and instructions are located at
https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/hixson-thomas-s-tsh/. This
conference will be attended by lead trial counsel. Parties who are
not represented by counsel must appear personally.
By May 27, 2021, the parties will file a joint case management
statement containing the information in the Standing Order for All
Judges in the Northern District of California, available at:
http://cand.uscourts.gov/tshorders. The Joint Case Management
Statement form may be obtained at:
http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. If the statement is e-filed,
no chambers copy is required.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/un7bb892 from Leagle.com.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Rear-Camera Glass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh Pandey at makeuseof.com reports that Samsung is facing a
class-action lawsuit for allegedly using defective rear-camera
glass on the Galaxy S20 series. The lawsuit claims that the
defective camera glass tends to shatter unexpectedly during
everyday use.
The lawsuit has been filed against Samsung in the US District Court
of New Jersey. It accuses Samsung of fraud and violating many
consumer-protection laws.
Owners Claim Samsung Used Defective Rear Camera Glass
Hundreds of Galaxy S20 owners have reported of the rear-camera
glass on their device spontaneously cracking without any external
cause or drops and dings. If these reports are to be believed, this
issue potentially affects all variants of the Galaxy S20 lineup,
including the Galaxy S20 Ultra, Galaxy S20+, and Galaxy S20 FE.
The lawsuit from plaintiff Hagens Berman alleges that some older
smartphones like the Galaxy S7 and LG V20 also had a similar
issue.
The lawsuit shares numerous complaints from Galaxy S20 owners
posted on online forums to prove that this was a widespread issue.
It alleges that Samsung deleted complaints from consumers on its
online forum about this issue, including an open letter.
The lawsuit highlights that a Samsung Care Ambassador who knew
about the issue allegedly identified the cause to be "pressure
buildup underneath the glass and not customers banging it against
something." Despite this post from a Samsung Care Ambassador, the
company never initiated a recall and continued denying warranty
claims to affected customers. [GN]
SAN DIEGO UNIVERSAL: Breaches California Labor Law, Lee Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDI LEE, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO UNIVERSAL MANAGEMENT, a California
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case
No. 37-2021-00015367-CU-DE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 7, 2021) is
an employment-related wage and hour class action seeking monetary
damages, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and any other
equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs
attributable to Defendants and its agents.
Defendant SAN DIEGO UNIVERSAL MANAGMENT, LLC, is a California
Limited Liability Company involved in the retail cannabis industry.
Despite its significant revenues and broad reach throughout San
Diego, the Company has failed and continues to fail to provide
Defendants' employees with certain basic entitlements required by
California law, including accurate, itemized wage statements,
asserts the complaint.
The complaint further states that the Defendants' consistent wage
and hour abuses violate the California Labor Code and the
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, thereby causing losses
to the Plaintiff and Class Members.
On September 14, 2020, Defendants hired Plaintiff Lee in California
as a website developer at their San Diego office. Plaintiff began
her work for Defendants on October 26, 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
Keia J. Atkinson, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1260
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1333
Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
kja@classactionlaw.com
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Seeks Review of Order Favoring St. Lucie Trust
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company's petition
for review of the trial court's decision in the putative class
action suit initiated by St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust with the Texas Supreme Court remains
pending.
On October 17, 2016, the St. Lucie County Fire District
Firefighters' Pension Trust filed a putative class action in the
61st District Court in Harris County, Texas, against the Company,
certain of its former officers and current and former directors and
the underwriters on behalf of itself and others that purchased
certain depositary shares from the Company's January 2015 equity
offering, alleging material misstatements and omissions in the
registration statement for that offering.
The Company removed the case to federal court, but after a decision
by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that these
types of cases are not subject to removal, the federal court
remanded the case to the Texas state court.
The Texas trial court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and
in February 2020, the court of appeals declined to exercise
discretion to reverse the trial court's decision.
The Company filed a petition to review the trial court's decision
with the Texas Supreme Court, and the Court requested a response
from the plaintiff. The Court subsequently requested full briefing
on the merits of the case.
The Company carries insurance for the claims asserted against it
and the officer and director defendants, and the carrier has
accepted coverage.
The Company denies all allegations and intends to continue to
defend this case vigorously.
The Company does not expect this case to have a material adverse
effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash
flows of the Company after taking insurance into account.
Additionally, it is not possible at this time to estimate the
amount of any additional loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably
possible.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Southwestern Energy Company, an independent energy company, engages
in the exploration, development, and production of natural gas and
oil in the United States. It operates through two segments,
Exploration and Production, and Midstream. Southwestern Energy
Company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Spring, Texas.
SPEEDWAY LLC: DaRosa Suit Seeks to Certify Five Rule 23 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH DaROSA, WILLS
CLERVIL, ALKA DAVIS, MARTIN SCHUTZIUS and DANIEL SCHULZ on behalf
of themselves and similarly situated employees, v. SPEEDWAY LLC,
Case No. 1:19-cv-10791-RGS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of five state-specific Rule 23 classes:
a. the "Massachusetts class"
"All salaried General Managers employed by Defendant at
Level
1 through Level 5 stores in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
since April 22, 2016;"
b. the "New York class"
All salaried General Managers employed by Defendant at Level
1 through Level 5 stores in the State of New York since
October 1, 2014;"
c. the "Illinois class"
"All salaried General Managers employed by Defendant at Level
1 through Level 5 stores in the State of Illinois since April
22, 2016;"
d. the "Pennsylvania class"
"All salaried General Managers employed by Defendant at Level
1 through Level 5 stores in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
since April 22, 2016;" and
e. the New Jersey class
"All salaried General Managers employed by Defendant at Level
1 through Level stores in the State of New Jersey since
October 1, 2014."
The Plaintiffs allege that Speedway has misclassified them and
other salaried General Managers (GMs) at its Level 1-5 convenience
stores as exempt from overtime pay under the laws of Massachusetts,
New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
Speedway is an American convenience store and gas station chain
headquartered in Enon, Ohio, with locations primarily in the
Midwest and the East Coast regions of the United States wholly
owned by 7-Eleven.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 3, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fjkQHd at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Michelle Cassorla, Esq.
Anastasia Doherty, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
mcassorla@llrlaw.com
adoherty@llrlaw.com
- and -
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
STEWART ENTERPRISES: La. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Moulton
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN MOULTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC., JOHN B.
ELSTROTT, JR., THOMAS M. KITCHEN, ALDEN J. McDONALD, JR., RONALD H.
PATRON, ASHTON J. RYAN, JR., JOHN K. SAER, JR., FRANK B. STEWART,
JR., AND SERVICE CORP. INTERNATIONAL, RIO ACQUISITION CORP., Case
No. 2020-CA-0090 (La. App.), a three-judge panel of the Court of
Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirms the Oct. 18, 2017
amended judgment of the District Court.
The amended judgment granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendants/appellees Stewart Enterprise and the seven members of
its Board of Directors.
The case is a direct shareholder class action. The litigation was
initiated in 2013 by certain aggrieved shareholders, who initially
sought an injunction to prevent a merger between the Company and a
larger competitor, Service Corporation International, Inc. ("SCI")
and its wholly owned subsidiary, Rio Acquisition Corp. Before the
merger, SCI was the largest funeral service provider in the United
States, and the Company was the second largest. The merger
involved a $1.4 billion transaction wherein SCI and Rio acquired
all of the Company's outstanding shares at a price of $13.25 per
share.
After the District Court denied injunctive relief and the merger
was approved by more than 99% of the total shareholders, these
aggrieved shareholders amended their petition to seek damages from
the Company and the seven members of the Board: John B. Elstrott,
Alden J. McDonald, Jr., Thomas M. Kitchen, Ashton J. Ryan, Jr.,
Ronald H. Patron, John K. Saer ("Named Directors"), and Frank B.
Stewart, Jr. They alleged that the process was unfair and riddled
with conflicts of interest, such that either the Board should have
negotiated a better share price for the shareholders or the Company
should not have been sold.
The dispute revolves around Stewart, who was the Chairman of the
Board at the time of the merger. The Company became publicly
traded on the NASDAQ stock market in the 1990's. At the time of
the merger, the Company offered two classes of stock, Class A
common stock (one vote per share) and Class B common stock (ten
votes per share). Stewart owned all of the Company's Class B
common stock. At the time of the merger, Stewart was the largest
individual shareholder, and through his holdings he held
approximately 11% ownership and 36% voting power. This voting
power allowed Stewart to block any corporate action that required a
two-thirds vote of shareholders, but as he was not a majority owner
or majority voter, he could not force any Board or shareholder
action singlehandedly.
Shareholder Appellants argue that the Board breached its fiduciary
duty to shareholders in several ways. They claim that Stewart was
so difficult to work with that the Named Directors engineered the
merger to be rid of Stewart. They contend that the Named Directors
were so beholden to Stewart that, in an effort to have the merger
completed, the Board ignored better options to grow, acquire
smaller competitors, and increase the share price, and that the
Board failed to include sufficient information in the proxy
statement in anticipation of the shareholder vote. They argue that
Stewart orchestrated a "side deal" for himself by leading the Board
away from an opportunity to acquire a smaller private competitor
("Potential Seller"), so that the Potential Seller could purchase
divested properties and Stewart could invest personally in the
Potential Seller.
Following discovery in the litigation, Stewart, the Company, and
the Named Directors filed motions for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of all claims. They argued that they are protected from
liability by the business judgment rule, the presumption that they
used their business judgment and acted in the best interest of the
shareholders such that the courts must not second-guess that
judgment.
The Shareholder Appellants argued that the business judgment rule
does not apply due to conflicts of interest, lack of director
independence from Stewart, and insufficient disclosure in the proxy
statement. Thus, according to them, the business judgment
presumption is rebutted and the Company, Stewart, and the Named
Directors were required to show that the merger was "inherently
fair," which they did not do and thus did not meet their summary
judgment burden.
Following a hearing, the District Court granted summary judgment on
Oct. 31, 2016. The Shareholder Appellants appealed, and following
remand from the Court, the District Court rendered an amended
judgment on Oct. 18, 2017, which dismissed all claims. The appeal
followed.
Motion for Summary Judgment
The Company, Named Directors, and Stewart sought summary judgment
holding that the business judgment rule applies and, therefore,
precludes the Court from overturning their good faith business
decisions, which resulted in the formation and operation of a
Special Committee and subsequently the approval of the merger.
The Court of Appeal is reluctant to interfere in the corporate
matters involved in the case and refrain from substituting its
judgment for that Company's Board of Directors. It reviews these
business transactions guided by principles of fairness and balanced
deliberation to achieve predictability and flexibility in the
application of its business laws. It finds that the directors in
the case decided matters rationally, honestly, and without
disabling conflicts of interest; thus, it refrains from interfering
with the business decisions of the directors. The Shareholder
Appellants' claims on appeal are limited to breach of the duty of
loyalty.
Seeking to rebut the application of the business judgment rule, the
Shareholder Appellants argue in assignment of error number one that
the District Court erred in failing to place the burden on the
Company and the Board to prove that the merger was "inherently
fair." They also contend that genuine issues of material fact
remain as to (1) Stewart's alleged self-dealing; (2) whether the
Named Directors acted independently from Stewart; and (3) whether
the Board withheld material information from shareholders in bad
faith.
The Court of Appeal holds that (i) it finds no law equating a
director's post-merger investment in a third party to an unlawful
business transaction; (ii) the Shareholder Appellants offer no
evidence that Stewart secured any personal or financial benefits in
the merger not shared equally with the other shareholders; and
(iii) it discerns no reason to apply Section 84 to the facts before
it on the appeal. In summary, the first assignment of error lacks
merit.
The Court of Appeal next considers the Shareholder Appellants'
second assignment of error. They argue that, even if Section 84
does not apply, genuine issues of material fact remain regarding
their theories of liability as to breach of loyalty. First, they
reiterate their claim that Stewart engaged in self-dealing by
seeking to purchase assets that SCI may be required to divest to
obtain FTC approval of the merger. Next argue that the business
judgment rule does not apply because Stewart compromised the
integrity of the Special Committee deliberations. Third, they that
the Board breached its fiduciary duty by withholding material
information in the proxy statement on which shareholders relied in
voting on approval of the merger.
The Court of Appeal holds that (i) considering the particular
undisputed facts of the case, it simply cannot conclude, under
Louisiana corporate law as it existed at the time of the merger,
that Stewart's personal hopes and dreams that never came to pass
were a conflict of interest under former Title 12; (ii) no evidence
was produced proving that Stewart participated in or interfered
with the deliberations of the Special Committee; and (iii) under
Section 91, the burden to show a breach of fiduciary duty,
including the duty to establish the materiality of nondisclosures
fell to the Shareholder Appellants, and they have failed to show
any material factual dispute as to said breach of duty.
Conclusion
Consequently, the Court of Appeal finds, as the District Court did,
that the Shareholder Appellants claims failed to present evidence
sufficient to raise any genuine issue of material fact and overcome
the business judgment rule. In the absence of such evidence, the
Company and the Board were entitled to summary judgment dismissing
the claims against them. Accordingly, for these reasons, it
affirms the judgment of the District Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ncxnu39c from Leagle.com.
Andrew A. Lemmon, Scott J. Falgoust, LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC, at 15058
River Road, in Hahnville, Louisiana 70057.
David T. Wissbroecker -- DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins,
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, at 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, in San
Diego, California 92101, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS.
Robert B. Bieck, Jr. -- rbieck@joneswalker.com -- Mark A.
Cunningham -- mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- Alexander N.
Breckinridge V -- abreckinridge@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER,
LLP, at 201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor, in New Orleans,
Louisiana 70170.
Steven W. Usdin -- susdin@barrassousdin.com -- Laurence D. Leseur
-- llesueur@barrassousdin.com -- BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN FREEMAN &
SARVER, LLC, at 909 Poydras Street, 24th Floor, in New Orleans,
Louisiana 70112.
Pamela S. Palmer -- pamela.palmer@troutman.com -- Admitted Pro Hac
Vice PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, at 350 South Grand Avenue, Two California
Plaza, Suite 3400, in Los Angeles, California 90071-3427.
Edward J. Castaing, Jr. -- ecastaing@cclhlaw.com -- Edward J. Lilly
-- elilly@cclhlaw.com -- CRULL, CASTAING & LILLY, at 601 Poydras
Street 2323, Pan American Life Center, in New Orleans, Louisiana
70130, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.
STRONG HOME: Walton Seeks Proper Overtime Pay Under FLSA, PMWA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE WALTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. STRONG HOME MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01570 (E.D. Pa.
April 2, 2021) is a class action lawsuit against Strong Home
seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff resides in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania and was
employed from June 2020 until January 2021. He and other mortgage
loan officers conspicuously work long hours. For example, Plaintiff
estimates that he often worked over 60 hours per week. He contends
that the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay him and the
FLSA collective overtime premium compensation for all hours worked
over 40 per week.
The Defendant is in the business of originating residential
mortgage loans. The Defendant operates a branch office located at
651 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
TEEN CHALLENGE: Faces Reese Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
KRIS REESE and TODD SAYLOR On behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. TEEN CHALLENGE TRAINING CENTER, INC., d/b/a
PENNSYLVANIA ADULT & TEEN CHALLENGE, d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA ADULT &
TEEN CHALLENGE, d/b/a PHILADELPHIA ADULT & TEEN CHALLENGE, d/b/a
PHILADELPHIA TEEN CHALLENGE FOR LADIES, d/b/a PHILADELPHIA TEEN
CHALLENGE FOR MEN, Case No. 210400093 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia
Cty., April 2, 2021) seeks damages and restitution for the
Defendant's actions in connection to a data breach.
According to its website, PAATC "offer[s] programs from detox
through outpatient treatment programs" for adults and youth through
many of its various satellite locations in Pennsylvania.
On or about July 29, 2020, PAATC discovered that an unauthorized
person had gained access to PAATC's computer systems (the "Data
Breach"). The unauthorized person stole the confidential and
personal health information ("PHI") of over 7,771 people.
PAATC initiated an investigation into the Data Breach and,
according to PAATC, the investigation concluded on December 29,
2020.
The Plaintiff contends that PAATC did not start notifying victims
of the Data Breach until March 2021 -- nearly 8 months after PAATC
officials discovered the Data Breach. The victims of the Data
Breach did not start receiving letters notifying them of the Data
Breach until March 2021.
The Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes are victims of
Defendant's alleged negligence and deceptive trade practices.
Specifically, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed classes
trusted Defendant with their PHI. But Defendant betrayed that
trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security
practices to prevent the Data Breach, and when the Data Breach was
discovered, Defendant attempted to downplay and minimize the
Breach's impact, the Plaintiffs add.
The Defendant's negligence and deceptive practices caused real and
substantial damage to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed
classes.
Teen Challenge is a faith-based addiction-treatment center
headquartered in Rehrersburg, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
David L. Kwass, Esq
Elizabeth A. Bailey, Esq
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone (215) 496-8282
- and -
Lynn Toops, Esq.
Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
Peter J. Jannace, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH
& JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
TEXAS CHILDREN'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Syas Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSLYN SYAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TEXAS CHILDREN'S HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-01532 (S.D. Tex., May 8, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Perales was employed by the Defendant as analyst.
Texas Children's Health Plan, Inc. operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers medicaid and health insurance services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
TJX DIGITAL: Harris Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTERRIO HARRIS, Individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. TJX DIGITAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
and TJX DIGITAL MEMPHIS MERCHANTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-02262 (W.D. Tenn., April 27,
2021) seeks damages for unpaid "off the clock" overtime pay claims
in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
TJX Digital, Inc. and TJX Digital Memphis Merchants, LLC operate a
distribution center located in Memphis, Tennessee where Plaintiff
worked as an hourly-paid Coach Trainer during the three-year period
immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other hourly-paid Coach
Trainers were required, induced, expected and/or, suffered and
permitted, to perform compensable post-shift work after the ending
of their respective shifts, and did perform "off-the-clock"
post-shift work after the ending to their respective shifts within
weekly pay periods during all times material, without being
compensated for such "off-the-clock" work at the applicable FLSA
overtime rates of pay. As a result of Defendants' bad faith and
willful failure to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated in
compliance with the FLSA, Plaintiffs have suffered lost wages in
terms of lost overtime compensation, as well as other damages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
TRI-WIRE ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER RODRIGUEZ; JORGE ESQUILIN; HARRY CHARCALIS; and DARREN
COUTURIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TRI-WIRE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC.;
COMCAST CORPORATION; and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-10752-PBS (D. Mass., May 7, 2021)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as technicians.
Tri-Wire Engineering Solutions, Inc. provides electrical
contracting services. The Company offers cable installation, light
construction, and support services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
Nate Silver, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com
nate@blockleviton.com
-and-
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Stacy Savett, Esq.
Daniel F. Thornton, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
stasavett@bm.net
dthornton@bm.net
-and-
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
mlim@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Cross Bids for Judgment in Evanston Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, HISCOX
DEDICATED CORPORATE MEMBER LIMITED AS REPRESENTATIVE MEMBER OF
SYNDICATE 33 AT LLOYD'S, Plaintiff/Intervenor, WESTCHESTER SURPLUS
LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/Intervenor v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01934 (E.D. Pa.), the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an
Opinion ruling that:
-- Westchester's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
granted;
-- Tristar's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
denied;
-- Evanston's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted;
-- Tristar's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
denied;
-- Hiscox's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted;
and
-- Tristar's Cross-Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
denied.
The lawsuit is a declaratory judgment action stemming from a
dispute over three insurance providers' alleged obligations to
defend and indemnify their insured, Defendant Tristar Products,
Inc., in an underlying litigation. Tristar has been sued in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for its
marketing and manufacturing of allegedly defective cookware. All
three insurance providers--Evanston Insurance Company, the original
Plaintiff in the action, as well as Intervenor-Plaintiffs
Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company and Hiscox Dedicated
Corporate Member Limited as Representative Member of Syndicate 33
at Lloyd's--sold commercial liability insurance policies to
Tristar.
The providers now argue these policies do not obligate them to
defend or indemnify Tristar in the Central District of California
litigation. Tristar disagrees. Each party has filed cross-motions
for judgment on the pleadings, with each party seeking a
declaration from this Court as to their respective obligations and
entitlements relative to the underlying litigation under the
several insurance policies.
The Underlying Litigation
On March 3, 2020, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action complaint against Tristar in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Partida, et al. v. Tristar
Products, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-00436 (the "Underlying
Complaint")). Tristar is a New Jersey Corporation and a lead
manufacturer and marketer of "as seen on TV" products. The
Plaintiffs in the underlying action allege that Tristar
manufactured, marketed, and distributed a line of purportedly
non-stick cookware called "Copper Chef Signature Cookware." They
aver that contrary to Tristar's representations and as evidenced by
an endless stream of consumer complaints, Copper Chef Pans do
not--and cannot--work as advertised.
In particular, the Plaintiffs claim that Copper Chef Pans lose
their non-stick functionality shortly after purchase, and scratch,
chip and peel, leaving customers with an overpriced Pan to which
everything sticks. They state that Tristar intentionally and
knowingly misrepresented material facts and actively deceived
purchasers of Copper Chef Pans. According to them, a stream of
negative product reviews and online criticism evidences the
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair nature of Tristar's marketing
representations as to the Copper Chef Pans.
The Plaintiffs assert the following 10 causes of action in the
underlying litigation based on the factual allegations: (1)
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
2301, et seq.; (2) breach of express warranty; (3) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability; (4) unjust enrichment; (5)
violation of the California unfair competition law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. (on behalf of the California
class); (6) violation of the California consumers legal remedies
law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq. (on behalf of the
California class); (7) violation of the California false
advertising law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq. (on
behalf of the California class); (8) violation of New York's false
and deceptive business practices law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section
349 (on behalf of the New York class); (9) violation of New York's
false advertising law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 350 (on behalf of
the New York class); and (10) violation of Pennsylvania's unfair
trade practices and consumer protection law, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Section 201-1, et seq. (on behalf of the Pennsylvania class).
The Relevant Insurance Policies
The relevant insurance policies are: the Westchester Policies, the
Evanston Policies, and the Hiscox Policies. Westchester issued to
Tristar two commercial general liability insurance policies under
policy numbers G237603609 001 and G27603609 002 with consecutive
policy terms of June 1, 2015, to June 1, 2016 (the "2015-16
Westchester Policy") and June 1, 2016, to June 1, 2017 (the
"2016-17 Westchester Policy") (collectively, the "Westchester
Policies").
Evanston issued Tristar two commercial excess liability policies.
Policy number MKLV1EUL100021 covered the period June 1, 2016, to
June 1, 2017 (the "2016-17 Evanston Policy"), for which year the
underlying policy was commercial general liability policy number
G27603609 002 issued by Westchester. Policy number MKLV1EUL100822
covered the period June 1, 2017, to July 1, 2018 (the "2017-18
Evanston Policy") (collectively, the "Evanston Policies"), for
which year the underlying policy was commercial general liability
policy number PL1744407 issued by Great American E&S Insurance
Company ("GAIC") (the "GAIC Policy").
Hiscox underwrote two commercial general liability policies to
Tristar. Policy number B0180PN1802957 covered the period July 1,
2018, to July 1, 2019 (the "2018-19 Hiscox Policy") and policy
number B0180PN1902957 covered the period July 1, 2019, to July 1,
2020 (the "2019-20 Hiscox Policy") (collectively, the "Hiscox
Policies"). The Hiscox Policies and the Westchester/GAIC Policies
are in all material respects identical or practically so. However,
unlike the Westchester, GAIC, and Evanston Policies, the Hiscox
Policies contain a New York choice of law provision.
Relevant Procedural Background
The underlying litigation in the matter was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 3,
2020. Shortly thereafter Tristar gave notice of the lawsuit to
Westchester, Evanston, and Hiscox. Westchester agreed to
participate in Tristar's defense in the underlying litigation,
subject to a reservation of rights to withdraw its defense upon a
determination that the Westchester Policies do not provide coverage
for the claims asserted in the underlying litigation. By letter
dated March 17, 2020, Evanston notified Tristar that it was
disclaiming coverage because the Underlying Complaint alleged
damage to Tristar's own product; Evanston also reserved its rights
for several other reasons.
Tristar subsequently asked Evanston to reconsider its position, and
on April 16, 2020, Evanston agreed to defend Tristar subject to a
reservation of rights. Hiscox similarly agreed to participate in
Tristar's defense--subject to a reservation of rights--and notified
Tristar of its position by letter dated March 27, 2020. The
underlying lawsuit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.
Evanston commenced the instant declaratory judgment action on April
16, 2020, with the filing of its five-count Complaint.
Specifically, Evanston's Complaint seeks declaratory judgment that
(I) Evanston has no duty to defend or indemnify Tristar because the
Underlying Complaint does not allege an "occurrence"; (II) Evanston
has no duty to defend or indemnify Tristar for damage to its
product; (III) Tristar is not entitled to coverage under the
Evanston Policies because the Underlying Complaint alleges that the
injuries were expected or intended; (IV) Tristar is not entitled to
coverage under the Evanston Policies because if the Underlying
Complaint alleges an "occurrence," it is a single occurrence that
falls outside the policy periods; and (V) Evanston has no duty to
defend or indemnify Tristar for punitive damages.
On June 12, 2020, Tristar filed its Answer and Counterclaim to
Evanston's Complaint, in which Tristar asserts a single count of
declaratory relief--i.e., declaratory judgment that Evanston has a
duty to participate in its defense in the underlying litigation.
On July 31, 2020, Hiscox filed a motion to intervene in the instant
action. The motion, which was not opposed by Evanston or Tristar,
was granted on August 12, 2020. On the same day, the Court docketed
Hiscox's Intervenor Complaint, which asserts four counts of
declaratory relief: declaratory judgment (I) that Hiscox has no
duty to defend or indemnify Tristar because the Underlying
Complaint does not allege an "occurrence"; (II) that Hiscox has no
duty to defend or indemnify Tristar because the Underlying
Complaint alleges that the damage was expected or intended and not
accidental; (III) that Hiscox has no duty to defend or indemnify
Tristar for damage to its own product; and (IV) that Hiscox has no
duty to defend or indemnify Tristar for conduct outside the policy
periods. Tristar responded to Hiscox's Intervenor Complaint on
August 31, 2020, with an Answer and Counterclaim, asserting a
single count of declaratory relief--declaratory judgment that
Hiscox has a duty to defend Tristar in the underlying litigation.
Westchester filed its unopposed motion to intervene on Aug. 20,
2020, and the Court granted Westchester's motion on Aug. 21, 2020.
The Court subsequently docketed Westchester's Intervenor Complaint,
which asserts five counts of declaratory relief, counts which
generally track the counts asserted in Evanston's Complaint. On
Sept. 10, 2020, Tristar filed its Answer and Counterclaim to
Westchester's Intervenor Complaint, asserting a single count of
declaratory relief for declaratory judgment that Westchester has a
duty to defend Tristar in the underlying litigation.
Between Oct. 1 and Nov. 16, 2020, the parties briefed the three
motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by the insurance
providers as well as Tristar's opposition and cross-motions for
judgment on the pleadings as to each of the provider's Complaints.
Discussion
As the parties observe, the threshold question in this case is
whether the allegations in the Underlying Complaint constitute an
"occurrence" as that term is defined in the several Policies. If
there is no "occurrence," there can be no coverage.
In the Court's view, even construing the factual allegations in the
Underlying Complaint in Tristar's favor, that pleading does not
assert liability for, or raise allegations in support of, tort
liability for physical damage to property other than the allegedly
deficient products Tristar manufactured and distributed. Rather,
the Underlying Complaint alleges that the Copper Chef Pans were
"defective," "incapable of performing as advertised," and "of low
quality and durability." In this way, the Underlying Complaint is
asserting that by the Pans' inability to retain their non-stick
feature, and owing to Tristar's misleading marketing campaign to
the contrary, the Copper Chef Pans were unsuited for their intended
use and were not what the Plaintiffs and the putative class members
bargained for when they purchased these products.
District Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., finds that the Underlying
Complaint's key allegations make clear that the Plaintiffs and the
putative class members are alleging that Tristar delivered products
that did not have the features which they were advertised as
having, and accordingly they were unsuited for their intended
purpose. The heart of this dispute is the allegation that the
purchasers of the Copper Chef Pans did not receive what they
considered to be the agreed-upon product--non-stick cookware that
was able to maintain its non-stick quality. It is, therefore, clear
that the Underlying Complaint alleges Tristar's "faulty
workmanship" in producing the pans rather than an "active
malfunction" of the Copper Chef Pans, the Judge holds, citing Sapa
Extrusions, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 939 F.3d 243, 256 (3d
Cir. 2019).
Importantly, that the Underlying Complaint states that complaints
over the quality of the Copper Chef Pans were widespread (and that
the Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class accordingly)
indicates that the deficient nature of the Pans was allegedly part
and parcel of the Pans themselves and the consequence of their
design and/or manufacture; it was not, as Tristar appears to argue,
a fortuitous, unforeseeable consequence of some circumstance
outside of Tristar's control, Judge Leeson opines.
Tristar also argues that the Underlying Complaint unambiguously
alleges that Tristar's allegedly defective product caused damages
to other property. According to Tristar, the allegation of "damages
to other property" ends the analysis, entitling Tristar to coverage
and a defense under Pennsylvania law.
The Court disagrees. Judge Leeson notes that it is doubtful the
fleeting reference to "damages to other property" in the Underlying
Complaint, devoid of any particulars or context, is substantive
enough to be plausible. However, even assuming it is, the fact that
any consequences of Tristar's faulty workmanship--i.e., delivering
a product to customers, which was clearly not consistent with the
customers' expectations based on Tristar's advertising, and
therefore not what they bargained for--were foreseeable is the
dispositive factor. That foreseeable damage to third-party property
is alleged does not alter the analysis.
For all of the reasons discussed in the Opinion, the Court
concludes that the Underlying Complaint alleges faulty workmanship
on Tristar's part which primarily--and likely,
exclusively--concerns Tristar's own deficient products, the Copper
Chef Pans. Because the consequences of Tristar's faulty workmanship
were foreseeable, the Underlying Complaint fails to allege an
"accident," and consequently fails to allege a coverable
"occurrence" under the several Policies. Without a coverable
"occurrence," there can be no duty on Westchester, Evanston, or
Hiscox to participate in the defense of Tristar in the underlying
lawsuit.
Because an insurer's duty to defend its insured in a lawsuit is
broader than its duty to indemnify, it necessarily follows that it
will not have a duty to indemnify an insured for a judgment in an
action for which it was not required to provide defense, Judge
Leeson notes, citing Ramara, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 814 F.3d
660, 673 (3d Cir. 2016). Here, because neither Westchester,
Evanston, nor Hiscox have a duty to defend Tristar in the
underlying action under their respective insurance policies, they
similarly do not have a duty to indemnify Tristar under those
Policies.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion, Westchester, Evanston,
and Hiscox are entitled to declaratory judgment that, as a matter
of law, they owe no duty to defend or indemnify Tristar in the
underlying lawsuit. Westchester's, Evanston's, and Hiscox's motions
for judgment on the pleadings are, therefore, granted. Tristar's
cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings are denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/224xzdr6 from Leagle.com.
UNITED STEEL: Bid for Reconsideration in Verso Suit Sustained
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled VERSO CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs v.
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-0006 (S.D. Ohio),
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, sustained the Defendant's motion for reconsideration.
The matter is before the Court on a Motion for Reconsideration
filed by the Defendant, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC's ("USW" or "Defendant"). USW
seeks reconsideration of the Court's March 27, 2020, Decision and
Entry ("Decision and Entry") overruling its Motion to Compel Labor
Arbitration. The Plaintiffs filed a response, and USW filed a
reply.
The parties have also filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority,
Response and Reply concerning a recently unpublished decision by
the Sixth Circuit, USW v. LLFlex, ___ Fed.Appx ___, No. 19-5464,
2021 WL 1123301, (6th Cir. March 24, 2021).
Background and Procedural History
Plaintiffs Verso Corporation and Verso Corporation Health and
Welfare Benefit Plan, an ERISA benefit plan, announced in August
2017, the elimination of certain healthcare benefits for
union-represented employees, who retired prior to age 65 from
Verso, or one of its predecessors, between Dec. 21, 2012, and Dec.
31, 2017. Their Complaint, which included class action allegations,
sought a declaratory judgment that Verso's elimination of retiree
healthcare benefits did not violate the Labor-Management Relations
Act ("LMRA"), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"). It named six unions, including USW, and 12 retired
individuals from Verso/NewPage as Defendants.
In response to the Complaint, five separate motions to dismiss were
filed, and USW filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. As a result of
voluntary dismissals and the Court's Decision and Entry sustaining
the five motions to dismiss and overruling USW's Motion to Compel
Arbitration, only USW and two other unions remain as Defendants.
USW requests reconsideration of the Court's denial of its Motion to
Compel Arbitration. It contends that it is a party, along with
Verso, to the 2012 Master collective bargaining agreement ("Master
CBA"), "governing the three USW-represented bargaining units to the
separate local CBAs setting terms specific to each plant." USW
argues that the Master CBA makes all contract disputes subject to
the "arbitration processes" of the local CBAs at the mills in
Wisconsin, Michigan and Maryland.
Following Verso's August 2017 announcement, USW filed grievances
for about 178 employees who retired under the then-in-force 2012
Master CBA.
Discussion
USW's motion to compel arbitration is construed as a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Accordingly, the evidence will be construed most
strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, Verso, District Judge
Walter H. Rice notes.
USW argues that the Court's decision overruling its motion to
compel arbitration is contrary to national labor policy and Sixth
Circuit authority, primarily Cleveland Electric v. UWU, 440 F.3d
809, 818 (6th Cir. 2006), and USW v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 474
F.3d 271, 281-282 (6th Cir. 2007). This Defendant further asserts
that none of the local CBAs exclude retiree healthcare disputes
from arbitration and that the healthcare rights of the 178 retirees
it represents vested when they were employees.
In response, Verso argues that arbitration is a matter of contract
and "a court may order arbitration of a particular dispute only
where the court is satisfied that the parties agreed to arbitrate
that dispute," citing Granite Rock v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561
U.S. 287, 297, 130 S.Ct. 2847 (2010). Verso further contends, among
other things, that prior to engaging in arbitration, the local CBAs
require that a "grievance procedure" be followed, and that this
procedure in the local CBAs pertains exclusively to disputes
involving employees and makes no mention of retirees.
In this case, Judge Rice notes, the dispute is not the formation of
the agreements to arbitrate, but whether they cover the Union's
grievances, filed on behalf of retirees, over the elimination of
Verso's Pre-65 Retiree Medical Plan. To determine this issue, and
because "arbitration is a matter of consent," Litton Financial
Printing Division v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190, 201, 111 S.Ct. 2215
(1991), the Court must apply basic principles of contract law and
review the arbitration provisions to determine the intent of the
parties.
Applying these principles, the Court analyzes the Sixth Circuit
authority cited as controlling by USW, primarily Cleveland Electric
v. UWU, 440 F.3d 809, 818 (6th Cir. 2006) and USW v. Cooper Tire &
Rubber Co., 474 F.3d 271, 281-282 (6th Cir. 2007).
Recently, in USW v. LLFlex, supra, the Sixth Circuit examined
whether arbitration could be compelled when an employer changed
retiree healthcare benefits and refused to arbitrate a grievance
filed by the union on behalf of the retirees. In affirming the
holding that the dispute was not arbitrable, the Court agreed with
the district court that the CBA contained a "narrowly written
arbitration clause" and that health care benefits were not "within
the CBA's substantive scope." Additionally, and as is true in this
case, the CBA contained a grievance process that did not include
retirees. Judge Rice also notes that the CBA's four-step grievance
procedure--of which the arbitration clause is a part--is
incompatible with the grievance at issue in this case. That
procedure provides four escalating steps to 'any employee who feels
that he/she has a just grievance,' from the employee's immediate
supervisor (Step 1), to the Manufacturing or Plant Manager and
grievance committee (Step 2), to the Plant Employee Relations
Manager (Step 3), and then to arbitration (Step 4).
Notwithstanding Verso's arguments, including that the grievance
process in each of the three local CBAs does not mention "retirees"
and only mentions "employees," the fact remains that USW is a party
to the Master CBAs's arbitration provisions and the language in
these agreements is broadly written to include: (1) "any dispute .
. . initiated by the employee and/or the Union;" (2) "all
complaints and grievances involving the interpretation of or
compliance with this Agreement;" and (3)"differences arising out of
the interpretation, application or alleged violation of any
provision of this Agreement." The CBA in LLFlex specifically
limited arbitration to disputes concerning working conditions,
discharges, minority rights, lay-offs and re-employment.
Additionally, healthcare benefits, as admitted by Verso in in its
Complaint, and unlike LLFlex, are within the "substantive scope" of
the three CBAs.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that "the presumption of
arbitrability applies" and there is no "positive assurance that the
arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that
covers the asserted dispute" to overcome this presumption, citing
Granite Rock, 561 U.S. at 314. (quoting AT & T Technologies, Inc.
v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 650, 106 S.Ct. 1415
(1986)).
Although the grievances filed by USW concerning Verso's elimination
of the Pre-65 Retiree Medical Plan must be arbitrated, USW must
demonstrate that the approximately 178 retirees, who retired under
the Master CBA, consent to the Union's representation at the
arbitration, Judge Rice holds.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, the Motion for Reconsideration is
sustained, subject to USW demonstrating to the arbitrator, before
taking the grievances filed by USW to the arbitration, that the
retirees have consented to USW's representation. If, and only if,
such consent is shown, the claims of the retirees are arbitrable.
All further proceedings of this case are stayed pending the outcome
of the arbitration. Counsel for USW is ordered to notify the Court
of the arbitrator's final decision within five business days of
receipt of same.
The counsel of record will note that a conference call with the
Court is scheduled to discuss the procedures to notify the retirees
and to obtain their consent, even though it is the arbitrator who
must ultimately determine whether such consent has been obtained,
after first determining the nature and extent of the consent
requirements.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Entry dated May 3,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/rpsx3zk9 from
Leagle.com.
VERMONT BREAD: Class Action Suit Filed Over WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
reformer.com reports that a former employee is the first plaintiff
in a class action suit against Vermont Bread Company, Koffee Kup
and American Industrial Acquisition Corporation, alleging the
abrupt termination of himself and 500 other employees was a
violation of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988.
The suit was filed by Thomas P. Aicher, of Cleary Shahi & Aicher in
Rutland, in collaboration with Lankenau & Miller in New York City,
The Gardner Firm in Mobile, Ala., and the Sugar Law Center for
Economic and Social Justice in Detroit, on behalf of former Vermont
Bread employee Matthew Chaney of Brattleboro.
On April 26, American Industrial Acquisition Corporation, which
acquired a majority share in Koffee Kup Bakery just 25 days before,
abruptly closed bakeries in Burlington and Brattleboro and North
Grosvenor Dale, Conn.
"For each of the last four years Koffee Kup has suffered
substantial financial losses and was unable to find a way out of
their troubles," states a news release, which came from Jeff Sands,
a "turnaround" specialist at Dorset Partners and the senior advisor
in North America for American Industrial Acquisition Corporation.
"Employees, lenders, suppliers and customers all went above and
beyond to support Koffee Kup during that time."
"Four years of losses are the culprit," Sands told the Reformer.
"Everyone wants a villain storyline, but there's just not one
there. This one just wasn't salvageable."
Sands said he was not at liberty to discuss how much Koffee Kup
lost over those four years or what was responsible for the losses.
The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Vermont, states the plant closures and resulting mass
layoffs were "without cause," and were a violation of the WARN Act
because they failed to give employees at least 60 days advance
written notice of termination.
Stuart Miller, of Lankenau & Miller, is the lead attorney on the
suit.
"It looks and smells like a WARN Act violation," Miller told the
Reformer on Friday.
He said his firm and The Gardner Firm together have handled more
than 200 WARN Act violation suits but this is their first in
Vermont.
"About 85 percent of the cases we handle have to do with a company
filing for bankruptcy," he said. "Here there are a very unusual set
of facts. The company was purchased just weeks before. It's just
really bizarre."
The case came to his attention via the Sugar Law Center, which
contacted him when it learned of the layoffs.
Miller noted there is a provision in the WARN Act that allows such
terminations if a company can prove it had been seeking financing
60 days in advance of the layoffs.
"Although many promising avenues were explored that we were
cautiously optimistic would have allowed Koffee Kup to survive,
those efforts have now been exhausted without success and Koffee
Kup no longer has sufficient capital to continue operations," Sands
wrote in the WARN notice issued to the state on Monday.
Sands wrote he was unable to provide an earlier notice to the state
"as we were uncertain of the success of the efforts that we have
been making to continue operating. Earlier notice of this
unfortunate outcome would have been premature and would have
jeopardized those very efforts."
To qualify for an exemption in the WARN Act, said Miller, "There
has to be a reasonable expectation that they will obtain the
financing and a reasonable expectation that had you got the
financing, it would have saved the company and the jobs.
"Even if Koffee Kup was seeking financing and was unable to get it,
and couldn't last another two weeks without it, it seems the
purchaser would have known about it," he added. "I don't remember
any case where a company was purchased and two weeks after the sale
it fired all of the employees."
According to the suit, AIAC was required to provide at least 60
days prior written notice of the termination or notice as soon as
practicable explaining why the 60 days prior notice was not given.
In addition, states the lawsuit, "The Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff and each of the Class Members their respective wages,
salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued
vacation for 60 working days following their respective
terminations, and failed to make the pension and 401(k)
contributions, provide other employee benefits under ERISA, and pay
their medical expenses for 60 calendar days from and after the
dates of their respective terminations."
The lawsuit is demanding a judgment to satisfy those financial
requirements, as well as attorney fees.
Miller said any employee can bring a WARN Act violation case on
behalf of all other employees. He said he expects to be filing an
amended complaint with more plaintiffs soon.
But in this case, an employee doesn't need to be named to receive
representation, he said.
"A plaintiff has to actively opt out to not be represented," said
Miller. "The only people who usually opt out are high-level
executives or those in management."
On Tuesday, Michael Harrington, the commissioner of the Vermont
Department of Labor, said his department was investigating whether
the issuance of the notice of potential layoff presented to the
state on Monday violated state or federal law.
I was not aware of the suit, but because it specifically mentions
WARN, and not Notice of Potential Layoff Act, it is outside of our
jurisdiction to provide comment. WARN is the federal requirement.
I believe our legal team is continuing its efforts into looking
into whether or not exemptions to the Notice of Potential Layoff
Act were met or not.
Thanks,
Kyle [GN]
VIRGIN SCENT: Hand Sanitizer Contains Benzene, Slaughter Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN SLAUGHTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and for the benefit of the general public v. VIRGIN SCENT,
INC., D/B/A ARTNATURALS, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:21-cv-02875
(C.D. Cal., April 2, 2021) arises from the Defendant's manufacture,
marketing, packaging, distribution, and sale of hand sanitizer
products containing benzene, a known carcinogen and reproductive
toxin, at levels many multiples of the emergency, interim limit set
by the United States Food and Drug Administration.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's adulterated and
misbranded hand sanitizer products, which have been sold and
distributed from California throughout the United States during the
course of the COVID-19 pandemic, are not merchantable, are not of
the quality represented, and indeed are worthless because they are
not legal to sell. No reasonable consumer would knowingly purchase
a topical product that may contain high levels of a known
carcinogen and reproductive toxin and that was illegal to purchase
or sell, the suit says. Additionally, the FDA, states that "Benzene
is a carcinogen that can cause cancer in humans."
The Defendant holds itself out as a purveyor of natural and
toxin-free personal-care products, stating on its interactive
website that "ArtNaturals was born out of a desire to free beauty
from high prices, toxic chemicals and all-around bad vibes," and
that its products are "CHEMICAL FREE -- We use only nourishing,
natural ingredients to boost your beauty with no preservatives,
parabens, or phthalates to drag you down."
The Plaintiff purchased Defendant's hand sanitizer products, and
specifically purchased Defendant's ArtNaturals-branded hand
sanitizer products at a grocery store in Birmingham, Alabama, in
October 2020, primarily for personal, family, and household use.
Virgin Scent has been engaged in the manufacture, sale, marketing,
and/or distribution of adulterated and misbranded hand sanitizer
products in the United States and in and from California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
Charles Nicholas Dorman, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
355 So. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
16870 W. Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (310) 684-2504
Facsimile: (858) 674-6641
E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com
ndorman@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Thomas Mauriello, Esq.
MAURIELLO LAW FIRM
1181 Puerta Del Sol No. 120
San Clemente, CA 92673
Telephone: (949) 542-3555
Facsimile: (949) 606-9690
E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Labaton Sucharow Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Volkswagen AG (OTC PINK:VWAGY)
between March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Volkswagen
investors under the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 29,
2021 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the litigation partner assigned to the
matter, David J. Schwartz via email at david@labaton.comor using
the toll-free number (800) 321-0476. 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 lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) "Voltswagen" was never going to be used by the
Volkswagen, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWoA"), or on any
relevant vehicle; (2) Volkswagen, VWoA, and their spokespeople
purposefully misled reporters regarding the now-purported "joke"
and/or "promotion"; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public
statements and statements to journalists were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
About the Firm
Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
[GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Volkswagen AG (OTC:VWAGY) publicly traded
securities between March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Montag v. Volkswagen
AG, No. 21-cv-03678. The Volkswagen class action lawsuit charges
Volkswagen and certain of its executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Volkswagen AG publicly traded securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
the Volkswagen class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally
the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief
sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of
the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Volkswagen class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Volkswagen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the Volkswagen class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Volkswagen class action
lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the
Volkswagen class action lawsuit, please provide your information
here or contact counsel, Juan Carlos Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
Lead plaintiff motions for the Volkswagen class action lawsuit must
be filed with the court no later than June 29, 2021.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("Volkswagen") is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. On March 29, 2021, Volkswagen
published a "draft" of a press release announcing its purported
name change to "Voltswagen" on its website for a short time. In
response to the name change press release, multiple news agencies
reported that they confirmed with Volkswagen insiders that the name
change was real. As CNBC reported: "Volkswagen accidentally posted
a press release on its website a month early on Monday announcing a
new name for its U.S. operations, Voltswagen of America,
emphasizing the German automaker's electric vehicle efforts." The
price of Volkswagen AG's American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") rose
more than 8% from March 29 to March 30, 2021.
The Volkswagen class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) "Voltswagen" was never going to be
used by Volkswagen, Volkswagen AG, or on any relevant vehicle; (ii)
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen, and their spokespeople purposefully
misled reporters regarding the now-purported "joke" and/or
"promotion"; and (iii) as a result, defendants' public statements
and statements to journalists were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
Late on March 30, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published a "WSJ
News Exclusive" which was entitled "No, Volkswagen Isn't Rebranding
Itself Voltswagen: German car maker says announcement by its U.S.
operation was supposed to be an April Fools' gag" and noting that
"[i]nvestors have been clamoring for shares of companies involved
in electric vehicles and have recently been pouring money into the
stocks of established car makers with solid EV plans." As ABC News
also reported: "'The Associated Press was repeatedly assured by
Volkswagen that its U.S. subsidiary planned a name change, and
reported that information, which we now know to be false,' company
spokeswoman Lauren Easton said." The ABC News article added that
"[t]he USA Today reporter who was initially lied to was more blunt.
'This was not a joke,' reporter Nathan Bomey wrote on Twitter. 'It
was deception. In case you haven't noticed, we have a
misinformation problem in this country. Now you're part of it. Why
should anyone trust you again?'" On this news, the price of
Volkswagen AG's ADRs fell more than 5% over the next two full
trading days, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. ISS
Securities Class Action Services has ranked Robbins Geller as one
of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered and
total number of class action settlements for shareholders every
year since 2010. The SCAS 2020 Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller
first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and
have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved
victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded
investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are
consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and
the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Juan Carlos Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Volkswagen AG (OTC: VWAGY) between March 29, 2021 and
March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Volkswagen investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Volkswagen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2072.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) "Voltswagen" was never going to be used by the
Volkswagen, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWoA"), or on any
relevant vehicle; (2) Volkswagen, VWoA, and their spokespeople
purposefully misled reporters regarding the now-purported "joke"
and/or "promotion"; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public
statements and statements to journalists 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 29,
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-2072.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. [GN]
WELLS FARGO: W.D. North Carolina Grants Bid to Dismiss Rogers Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Statesville Division, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled RALEIGH ROGERS, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO, Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-6-RJC (W.D.N.C.).
In the Complaint, the pro se Plaintiff filed several causes of
action under North Carolina law, seeking damages allegedly
resulting from the Defendant's opening an unauthorized account in
his name. The Plaintiff acknowledges that he was notified of the
"ongoing Wells Fargo unauthorized account settlement," but asserts
he did not join it.
The Plaintiff filed the Complaint in Caldwell County (North
Carolina) Superior Court, but the Defendant removed it to this
Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to
Stay the Action on Feb. 14, 2019. The Court stayed this matter on
Aug. 9, 2019, pending appeal of the Final Approval Order in Jabbari
v. Wells Fargo & Co., N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:15-cv-2159. (Doc. No.
9). On July 20, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued its decision affirming the Final Approval
Order in that case (Case No. 18-16213, Doc. Nos. 149, 150).
In light of that ruling, the Court lifted the stay in this case and
ordered the Plaintiff to show cause as to why the case should not
be dismissed. The Plaintiff issued a response on Aug. 21, 2020,
arguing that he was not given notice allowing him to opt out, and
moreover that his lack of joining the settlement is de facto proof
that he opted out. The Defendant then filed a Notice of
Supplemental Authority on April 5, 2021, to which the Plaintiff
filed a Response arguing that he had never agreed to join the
Jabbari settlement.
District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., notes that a judgment in a
class action certified under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure is binding on all class members except those who
timely opt out, citing In Re: MI Window and Doors, Inc, Products
Liability Litigation, 860 F.3d 218, 223 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367 (1996)).
The Settlement Class certified in the Jabbari case was defined as:
"all Persons for whom Wells Fargo or Wells Fargo's current or
former subsidiaries, affiliates, principals, officers, directors,
or employees opened an Unauthorized Account. . . during the period
from May 1, 2002 to April 20, 2017, inclusive." Jabbari v. Wells
Fargo & Co., No. 15-CV-02159-VC, 2017 WL 5157608, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
July 8, 2017), aff'd sub nom. Jabbari v. Farmer, 813 F. App'x 259
(9th Cir. 2020).
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant opened an unauthorized
account in his name on Dec. 17, 2013, and the Plaintiff's claims
stem from this alleged action. The Plaintiff further alleges that
he was aware of the ongoing Wells Fargo settlement for such claims,
meaning that he had actual notice of the settlement and the
opportunity to opt out. The Plaintiff is not, however, listed by
the Jabbari Court among the class members who timely opted out, and
his primary argument that he opted out is simply that his failure
to opt in meant, de facto, that he opted out.
This argument is insufficient given the explicit Jabbari class opt
out procedures that the Plaintiff did not follow here, Judge Conrad
opines.
Therefore, Judge Conrad holds, because the Plaintiff meets the
Jabbari class description and had actual notice of the settlement,
but did not affirmatively opt out as required to avoid preclusive
effect, "the Plaintiff's claims lie exclusively under the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, pursuant to the Final Order in the Jabbari
case."
Judge Conrad holds that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's claims, as the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California retains exclusive jurisdiction over the
released claims and parties in question.
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, therefore, is granted. The Clerk
of Court is directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 3, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4xd9j74d from Leagle.com.
WIND CREEK: To Pay $6 Million to Settle Labor Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Harris at The Morning Call reports that Wind Creek Bethlehem
has agreed to put $6 million on the table to settle a class-action
lawsuit that claimed the casino failed to properly notify and pay
its tipped employees under federal and state wage laws.
U.S. District Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. granted preliminary
approval of the settlement. The court will conduct a final approval
hearing on Sept. 8 to "determine the overall fairness of the
settlement" and to approve attorneys' fees and costs.
The approval resolves a lawsuit filed March 24, 2020, by a
Hellertown man who was employed as a table games dealer at the
Bethlehem casino from August 2018 until October 2019. His period of
employment covers two different ownership periods for the casino,
which officially changed hands from Las Vegas Sands Corp. to Wind
Creek Hospitality on May 31, 2019.
The man brought the class action to address two policies at the
casino that violated federal and Pennsylvania law, according to
court documents:
First, Wind Creek Bethlehem failed to properly inform its tipped
employees of the required tip credit provisions before it paid them
below minimum wage, which violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage act. Federal labor law permits
employers to take a tip credit toward its minimum wage obligations
for tipped employees, provided employees are informed of certain
provisions.
Second, the casino also made improper deductions from its
employees' wages for gaming license fees and other costs, which
reduced workers' compensation below the required minimum wage.
Wind Creek Bethlehem, operated by an authority of the Poarch Band
of Creek Indians in Alabama, did not immediately provide a comment
on the settlement.
Similar class-action lawsuits have surfaced against other casinos,
too. Last April, for instance, a lawsuit was filed against Rush
Street Gaming, which owns Rivers Casino properties in Pittsburgh
and Philadelphia, that claimed the company failed to inform tipped
employees of the required tip credit provisions and deducted the
cost of dry-cleaning uniforms from their wages.
The Wind Creek settlement, according to a March 12 court document,
was agreed upon following a 12-hour mediation and resolves the
claims of 3,152 class members.
The court certified two settlement classes in the agreement:
A tip credit class, covering any person who worked at the Bethlehem
casino as an hourly, tipped employee between March 24, 2017, and
Dec. 8, 2020, who made a cash wage of $7.24 or less an hour.
And a gaming license class, which includes any person who worked at
Wind Creek Bethlehem as an hourly, tipped employee between March
24, 2017, and Dec. 8, 2020, who made $7.25 an hour or less and had
a gaming license fee deducted from their wages.
The $6 million settlement, court documents indicate, will result in
an estimated average payment of at least $2,088 to each member of
the tip credit class and more than $102 to members of the gaming
license class.
More than one-third of employees involved in the lawsuit are
members of both classes.
The court said documents will be mailed to employees involved in
the action. [GN]
WOODSTREAM CORPORATION: Painter Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY PAINTER,
individually and behalf of all others situated, v. WOODSTREAM
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-02872-SO (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following classes:
-- Ohio Class
"All Ohio residents who have purchased one or more Victor
branded PestChasers, in the state of Ohio, from October
17, 2014 and thereafter;" and
-- Multi-State Class:
"All individuals who have purchased one or more Victor
branded PestChasers, in Alaska, California, Colorado,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and
Oklahoma, from October 17, 2014 and thereafter;"
2. appointing Painter as class representative; and
3. appointing her counsel counsel for the class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uLSPPc
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
- and -
Ronald A. Margolis, Esq.
BONEZZI, SWITZER, POLITO AND HUPP CO., LPA
1300 East 9th Street, Suite 1950
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 875-2068
E-mail: RMargolis@bsphlaw.com
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix BolaWrap Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wrap Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
re Wrap Technologies, Inc. Securities Exchange Act Litigation, Case
No. 20-8760-DMG (PVCx), is pending.
On September 23, 2020, Carone Cobden filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, former Chief Executive Officer David
Norris Chief Financial Officer, James A. Barnes, and President,
Thomas Smith in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, docketed as Case No.
2-20-cv-08760-DMG-PVCx.
The Cobden Complaint alleges that the named defendants, in their
capacities as officers of the Company, knowingly made false or
misleading statements or omissions regarding trials of the
Company's BolaWrap product conducted by the Los Angeles Police
Department (the "BolaWrap Pilot Program").
The Cobden Complaint also alleges that the conduct of the named
defendants artificially inflated the price of the Company's traded
securities, and that the disclosure of certain adverse information
to the public led to a decline in the market value of the Company's
securities. The Cobden Complaint further alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and defines the class period as July 31,
2020 through September 23, 2020.
On October 1, 2020, Joseph Mercurio filed a second putative class
action complaint against the Company, Norris, Smith, and Barnes in
the same court, which contains substantially the same factual
allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Cobden Complaint,
and is docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-09030-DMG-PVCx.
On October 15, 2020, Paula Earley filed a third putative class
action complaint against the Company, Smith, Norris, Barnes, Chief
Strategy Officer Mike Rothans, and former Chief Executive Officer,
Marc Thomas in the same court, which contains many of the same
factual allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Cobden and
Mercurio Complaints, but defines the class period as April 29, 2020
through September 23, 2020, and alleges additional false or
misleading statements in connection with BolaWrap and the BolaWrap
Pilot Program. The Earley Complaint is docketed as Case No.
2-20-cv-09444-DMG-PVCx.
On November 3, 2020, the Hon. Dolly M. Gee consolidated the three
above-mentioned cases under the caption In re Wrap Technologies,
Inc. Securities Exchange Act Litigation, Case No. 20-8760-DMG
(PVCx).
On January 7, 2021, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the
Securities Action, who designated its attorneys as lead counsel. On
January 21, 2021, Judge Gee ordered that a consolidated amended
complaint be filed in the Securities Action on or before March 12,
2021, with defendants' motion to dismiss to be filed on or before
April 26, 2021, and a hearing on the motion to dismiss to be held
on July 23, 2021.
On March 12, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
naming the Company, Norris, Thomas, Smith, and Barnes as
defendants.
Those defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss on April 26,
2021.
The Company believes that the Securities Action is without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against the claims raised.
Wrap Technologies, Inc. is a global public safety technology and
services company organized in March 2016 delivering modern policing
solutions to law enforcement and security personnel. The company is
based in Tempe, Arizona.
XP INC: Dismissal of IPO-Related Class Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
XP Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2021, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiff in the initial public
offering (IPO) related to the consolidated federal action filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
From March to April 2020, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against, among others, the company, certain
of its officers and directors and its controlling shareholder XP
Controle, one of which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York and two of which were filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
In June 2020, the federal actions were consolidated into a single
proceeding and co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were
appointed.
The New York State plaintiff subsequently filed an amended
complaint, which added as defendants certain of the company's
directors and the company's shareholder Itau.
Thereafter, co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action
also filed an amended complaint, which added Itau, XP Controle, and
one of the company's directors as defendants.
The complaints allege, among other things, that certain offering
documents filed with the SEC in connection with the company's
initial public offering (IPO) misrepresented and/or omitted to
state certain material facts.
The company, along with certain other defendants, have filed
motions to dismiss both the New York State action and the
consolidated federal action in their entirety.
On February 8, 2021 and March 8, 2021, respectively, the New York
State and federal district courts dismissed both actions in their
entirety and with prejudice.
The plaintiff in the New York State action has not appealed or
sought reargument of the relevant dismissal decision.
On April 7, 2021, the plaintiff in the consolidated federal action
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.
XPsaid, "We intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously in
this litigation."
XP Inc. is a Brazilian investment management company. The company
offers fixed income, equities, investment funds, and private
pension products, as well as offers wealth management and other
financial services. The company is based in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
ZYNGA INC: Oeste Suit Moved to Northern District of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES OESTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZYNGA, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. GLR-20-1566 (D. Md.), Judge George L.
Russell, III, of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland:
(i) grants Zynga's Motion to Transfer Case, or in the
Alternative, to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
and Improper Venue; and
(ii) transfers the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
Defendant Zynga is a San Francisco, California-based developer of
games for mobile devices and social networking platform. In order
to download Zynga's games, users must either create an account with
Zynga and provide certain personally identifying information
("PII"), such as their full name, email address, phone number,
gender, and password, or link their Zynga account to their personal
Facebook account. Zynga routinely collects and retains users' PII
and Facebook log-in information.
On Sept. 12, 2019, Zynga suffered a data breach that affected as
many as 173 million user accounts. It did not notify its users of
the breach by email or through a notification on their gaming apps;
rather, Zynga posted a "Player Security Announcement" to its
website stating that "certain player account information may have
been illegally accessed by outside hackers." Thus, "the only way
for a user to know that his or her PII has been unlawfully accessed
is if that user were to access Zynga's website on a web browser, or
notice instances of fraud or identity theft." The Plaintiffs
contend that, as a result, "likely only a minority of Zynga's users
know that their PII has been illegally accessed by hackers."
The Plaintiffs allege that Zynga was aware or should have known
that the information "stored on its servers was highly sensitive,
susceptible to attack, and could be used for malicious purposes by
third parties, for reasons such as identify theft, fraud, and/or
other misuse." Nonetheless, "Zynga completely failed to take
adequate measures to protect" its users' PII. As a result of this
failure, Zynga's users "have been placed at an imminent, immediate,
and continuing increased risk of harm from identity theft and
identity fraud." Indeed, some Zynga users were subjected to
unauthorized charges on credit and debit cards; assessed penalties
for over-drafting from bank accounts and exceeding credit limits;
deprived of the use of and access to their cards and funds; and
required to expend time, energy, and money to mitigate the
consequences of the breach.
On June 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated the instant action
against Zynga asserting 11 claims on behalf of themselves and a
class of similarly situated individuals consisting of: "All persons
residing in the United States, including the District of Columbia,
whose PII was disclosed in the Zynga Data Breach."
Zynga moved to transfer or, in the alternative, to dismiss for
improper venue on Aug. 31, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed an
Opposition on Sept. 10, 2020. Zynga filed a Reply on Sept. 24,
2020.
Zynga argues that the matter should be transferred to the Northern
District of California because the Plaintiffs' claims are subject
to a mandatory forum selection clause. Section 1404(a) requires
that "a valid forum-selection clause should be given controlling
weight in all but the most exceptional cases." It argues that the
action must be transferred because the Plaintiffs consented to the
Terms of Service, which require that claims against Zynga must
either be: (1) submitted to arbitration; or (2) if the claims are
excepted from arbitration, filed in state or federal court in San
Francisco, California. In other words, Zynga contends "that San
Francisco is the only appropriate venue for judicial proceedings."
Judge Russell agrees and finds that the plain language of the
agreement supports this interpretation. Reading the provisions
together, it is evident that disputes which qualify as "Exceptions
to Agreement to Arbitrate" must be brought in San Francisco courts,
while all other claims are subject to arbitration. Because the
Plaintiffs elected to file a lawsuit in court rather than initiate
arbitration, they must necessarily take the position that their
claims fall under Section 15's Exceptions to Agreement to
Arbitrate. As such, Plaintiffs were required to file their claims
in state or federal court in San Francisco, California. Because
they failed to do so, it is proper for the Court to transfer the
matter. As such, Judge Russell will immediately transfer the
matter to the Northern District of California.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Russell grants Zynga's Motion to
Transfer Case. A separate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 5, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3byttyva from Leagle.com.
*********
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 ***