/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210521.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 21, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 96
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Berry Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Cleary Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Quintana Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Ringer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Ware Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
AA CATERING: Armenta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Cooks
ABITINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Delivery Workers' Wages, Suit Says
ADYAR ANANDA: Garcia Sues Over Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ALEJANDRO CLABIORNE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vargas Claims
ALFAGOMMA AURORA: Pfotenhauer Files Suit in Illinois Circuit Court
ALL VISION: Barros Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages
ALL-WEATHER SEAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Whaley Suit Alleges
APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Patel Derivative Class Suit Pending
APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Blair Class Suit w/o Prejudice
APOLLO GLOBAL: Fongers Seeks to Recoup $35K Attorneys' Fees
APOLLO GLOBAL: Kansas Firefighters Pension Suit vs Presidio Junked
APOLLO GLOBAL: Securities Suit Over PlayAGS Disclosures Underway
APPLE INC: Faces McDonald Suit Over DoubleU Online Gambling Games
ASSET RECOVERY: Roeder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ASSISTCARE HOME: Simmons Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Settlement Discussion in Gaynor Suit Ongoing
BAZZINI HOLDINGS: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Douglas Files Suit in N.D. New York
BROKEN ARROW: Shoemaker Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
BROOK VALLEY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Bickerstaff Suit Alleges
CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Harbour Sues Over Data Breach
CARVANT FINANCIAL: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CHOBANI LLC: Gilker Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
CITY DINER: Quino, Herrera Sue Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Griffin Labor Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
CROSSOVER MARKET: Misclassifies Remote Workers, Kraemer Claims
D.P. GROUP: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Yunganaula Suit Says
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Faces Zaker Suit Over Decline of Share Price
EHEALTH INC: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit in California Pending
ELANCO ANIMAL: Walsh Sues Over Tick Collars Deceptive Marketing
ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Barcenas Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ESSA BANCORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sherman Act Claim
ESSA BANCORP: Mediation Ongoing in Suit Against Subsidiary
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
EVIDENT STAFFING: Tools Seeks OT Wages for Nurses Under FLSA, MFLSA
GB PREMIUM: Brunet FLSA & NMMWA Suit Moved From D.N.M. to S.D. Tex.
GOLD TIM: Faces Perez Suit Over Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages
GRANDMA LUCY'S: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Putative Class Suit Underway in California
HHH MANAGEMENT: Underpays Maintenance Workers, Ballance Suit Claims
INFINITY 1 INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
INSURANCE COMPANY: Fails to Reimburse Expenses, Manage Suit Claims
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Status Due Nov. 1
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Reddit-Related Short-Squeeze Suit Underway
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Putative Class Suit in California Underway
K.Y. YOUNG: Faces Macas Suit Over Spa Workers' Unpaid Wages
KRAFT HEINZ: Cheese Products Contain Phthalates, Stuve Suit Says
LADDER LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
LIFE TIME: Reulbach FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
LUSAMERICA FOODS: Faces Arias Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Junk New Jersey Putative Class Suit Pending
MAPLE HOLISTICS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
MATTRESS FIRM: Faces Payero Suit Over Defective Bed Frames
MEIOS INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
MERCK & CO: Zostavax Causes Viral Infection, Olson Suit Claims
MICHIGAN: Prisoner Smith Appeals COVID-19-Related Suit Dismissal
MOVE SALES: Fails to Reimburse Expenses, Brigde Class Suit Claims
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Paradis Balks at Merger Deal With Polaris
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Shabazz Suit Over Election Campaign Funds
NEW YORK, NY: Soybel Sues Over Deceptive Taxi Medallions' Value
NEWREZ LLC: Violates Truth in Lending Act, Parker Class Suit Says
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements Dismissed
OHIO STATE: Fails to Act on Sexual Abuse Complaints, Alf Suit Says
OLD DOMINION: Rowe Seeks Delivery Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
POLSKIE LINIE: Samborska Alleges Delay of Passengers' Air Carriage
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Velezmoro Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
POSTMATES LLC: Failed to Protect Drivers from Phishing, Benz Says
PRECIGEN INC: Abailla Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
R. M. PALMER: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RESPONDUS INC: Veiga BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fails to Present Mortgage Satisfaction, Suit Says
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ciccio Putative Class Suit Ongoing
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Litigation
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Steele Suit Seeks Refund of Withheld TSA Fees
SPA CASTLE: So Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
STRATHMORE INSURANCE: Select Hospitality Appeals Case Dismissal
SYNAPSE GROUP: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
SYNERGY COMPANIES: Faces Coss Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
TANGIBLE PLAY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jaquez Claims
TOOTSIE ROLL: Faces Sosa Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TOP KICK: Hohn Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
TOYOTA MOTOR: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Peterson Suit Pending
TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Pork Antitrust Litigation
TYSON FOODS: Settlement in Broiler Chicken Suit Gets Initial OK
TYSON FOODS: Settlement Reached in Turkey Purchasers' Suits
ULTIMATE CARE: Torres Seeks to Recover Damages Over FLSA Violations
UNITED HEALTHCARE: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fedor FLSA Suit
UNITED STAFFING: Faces Magtoles TVPA Suit in E.D. New York
USIC LLC: Underpays Locate Technicians, Martell Suit Claims
VEESTRO INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
VIRTUOUS VICES: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Faces Lemons Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Oregon
WORKHORSE GROUP: Continues to Defend Farrar and Kinney Suits
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Has $320MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Still Defends PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Settles Honeywell's Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety's Subsidiary Faces 3,043 Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Still Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell and Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 347 Pending Cases at March 31
*********
3M COMPANY: Berry Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK CARTER BERRY 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-01011-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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 Berry 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: Cleary Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD CLEARY 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-01019-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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 Cleary 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:
Richard Zgoda Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- and -
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
3M COMPANY: Quintana Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE MICHAEL QUINTANAY 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-01012-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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
says.
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 Quintana 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: Ringer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN C. RINGER 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-01013-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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 Ringer 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: Thomas Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONNIE THOMAS, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of
the Estate of JERRY WADE THOMAS, deceased, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY
f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, 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; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; 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., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01451-RMG (D.S.C., May 16, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The Decedent
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, the suit asserts.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Decedent developed serious medical conditions and complications
due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products
during the course of his training and firefighting activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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
- 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: Ware Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL LYLE WARE 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-01014-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
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 Ware 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
AA CATERING: Armenta Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Restaurant Cooks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE LUIS ARMENTA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AA CATERING INC. (D/B/A TURKISH
CUISINE) and AYSE SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04382
(S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime and spread of hours
premium for all hours worked, failure to provide a written wage
notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to
reimburse business expenses.
Plaintiff Armenta was employed as a cook at the Turkish Cuisine
restaurant located at 631 9th Avenue New York, New York from
approximately 2010 until on or about March 18, 2020 then again from
August 21, 2020 to October 2020.
AA Catering Inc. is an owner and operator of a Turkish restaurant
under the name Turkish Cuisine, located at 631 9th Avenue New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ABITINO'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Delivery Workers' Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNABE PABLO VALENTIN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. ABITINO'S PIZZA 49TH STREET CORP. (D/B/A
ABITINO'S PIZZERIA), DOMINIQUE ABITINO, and DAVID DOE, Case No.
1:21-cv-03251 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2021) seeks to recover for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was ostensibly employed
as a delivery worker. However, he was required to spend a
considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to cleaning the inside of the restaurant,
mopping the floor, sweeping the floor, washing the dishes, and
preparing the food ("non-tipped duties").
The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and spread
of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, at
the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, Defendants failed to pay him the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.
In addition, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Valentin
wages on a timely basis, added the suit.
Plaintiff Valentin was employed as a delivery worker, food
preparer, a cook and dishwasher at the Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 730
10th Avenue New York, New York under the name "Abitino's
Pizzeria".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ADYAR ANANDA: Garcia Sues Over Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RIGOBERTO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. ROSSMAN FRUIT & VEGETABLE DIST. INC. (D/B/A ROSSMAN
FARMS), RIMINI FARMS LLC (D/B/A ROSSMAN FARMS), ROZE & GREEN NYC
LLC (D/B/A ROSSMAN FARMS), WORLD AGRO MARKETING INC. (D/B/A ROSSMAN
FARMS), ARIEL ROZMAN, NITZAN ROZMAN and MIKE DOE, Case No.
1:21-cv-01848 (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021) seeks to recover for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Garcia and other members
of the FLSA Class were similarly situated in that they had
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and have
been subject to the Defendants' common practices, policies,
programs, procedures, protocols and plans including willfully
failing and refusing to pay them the required minimum wage,
overtime pay at a one and one-half their regular rates for work in
excess of 40 hours per workweek under the FLSA and willfully
failing to keep records under the FLSA.
Plaintiff Garcia is a former employee of the Defendants.
The Defendants operate a produce market located in the Midwood
section of Brooklyn in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ALEJANDRO CLABIORNE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Vargas Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA VARGAS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
ALEJANDRO CLABIORNE, and VIRGINIE CLABIORNE, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-21718-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants of willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-live-in
domestic servant from on or about December 30, 2019 through April
30, 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that although she worked approximately 50
hours per week, the Defendants did not pay her overtime wages at
the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all
hours she worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Defendant
purportedly knew of the Plaintiff's work schedule and her overtime
hours, but the Defendants showed reckless disregard of the
provisions of the FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages as
required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees against the Defendants to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees
and costs, pre-judgment interest, and all other relief as the Court
deems reasonable under the circumstances.
The Individual Defendants were employers of the Plaintiff, who
provide her services in their private household. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
2847 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, FL 33020
Tel: (954) 361-8383
E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com
- and –
Isaac Mamane, Esq.
MAMANE LAW LLC
10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 650
Miami, FL 33161
Tel: (305) 773-6661
E-mail: mamane@gmail.com
ALFAGOMMA AURORA: Pfotenhauer Files Suit in Illinois Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALFAGOMMA AURORA TF
LLC. The case is styled as Michael Pfotenhauer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALFAGOMMA AURORA TF LLC,
Case No. 21-L-000251 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Kane Cty., May 14, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Contract Money Damage (over
$50,000.00)."
Alfagomma -- https://www.alfagomma.com/en/ -- is the world's
largest independent manufacturer of hoses and fittings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, PC
200 E 5th Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60565
ALL VISION: Barros Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY FERNANDO BARROS DAVILA, JOSE SANTOS DELCID CASTELLANOS,
LELIS EDGARDO DELCID ORELLANA, LUIS PATRICIO GUAMAN QUISHPI,
WUILDER JOSUE DELCID CASTELLANOS, and NELSON BILANDER DELCID
ORELLANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ALL VISION GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LLC (D/B/A
ALL VISION CONSTRUCTION), and GERALDINO GONTIJO FILHO (AKA GINO),
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04363 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay appropriate minimum wages and overtime compensation for all
hours worked, failure to provide a written wage notice, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business
expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed as marble installers, tile installers,
water-proofer, and mechanics at the Defendants' construction sites
located in New York and New Jersey at any time between 2017 and
2020.
All Vision General Construction LLC, doing business as All Vision
Construction, is a construction company located at 46 Morrell
Street, Long Beach, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ALL-WEATHER SEAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Whaley Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER WHALEY, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees v. ALL-WEATHER SEAL OF WEST MICHIGAN, INC. A Michigan
Domestic Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00302 (W.D. Mich.
April 8, 2021) is a collective action seeking to recover damages
for Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and its attendant rules and regulations.
The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering or
permitting the Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without paying overtime compensation at a rate of 1.5 times the
regular rate, the suit says.
Allegedly, the Defendant knew or should have known that the
Plaintiffs were not exempt under the FLSA and that their employees
must be paid at a premium overtime pay rate of not less than 1.5
times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
per week.
The Plaintiff previously worked for the Defendant as a piecework
Installer, as a Service Technician, and as a Project Manager. On
June 2019, Plaintiff Whaley began his employment with All-Weather
Seal as an Installer. As an Installer, the Plaintiff was
responsible for completing home improvement, remodeling, and
renovation services and installations on behalf of All-Weather
Seal.
All-Weather Seal provides services related to home improvement,
remodeling, and renovation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
8225 Moorsbridge, P.O. Box. 4010
Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
Telephone: (269) 324-3000
E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com
- and -
Mark S. Wilkinson, Esq.
PALADIN EMPLOYMENT LAW PLLC
251 North Rose Street
Suite 200, PMB No 288
Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3860
Telephone: (269) 978-2474
E-mail: mark@paladinemploymentlaw.com
APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Patel Derivative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the putative stockholder derivative and class
action suit initiated by Vrajeshkumar Patel, is pending.
On May 29, 2020, plaintiff Vrajeshkumar Patel filed a putative
stockholder derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against Talos Energy, Inc., all of the members of
Talos's board of directors (including two Apollo partners),
Riverstone Holdings, LLC, AGM Inc., and Guggenheim Securities, LLC
in connection with the acquisition of certain assets from Castex
Energy 2014, LLC and ILX Holdings, LLC in February 2020.
The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders and Talos, direct and derivative claims against
Apollo, Riverstone, and the individual defendants for breach of
their fiduciary duties.
The plaintiff alleges that Apollo and Riverstone comprise a
controlling shareholder group. The complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification and unspecified money damages.
On August 4, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.
The motion is now fully briefed and oral argument was held on
February 19, 2021.
Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Blair Class Suit w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court granted
AGM Inc.'s motion to dismiss and the court dismissed the complaint
filed by Zachary Blair without prejudice.
On March 12, 2020, AGM Inc. and several investment funds managed by
subsidiaries of AGM Inc. ("Apollo Funds") were added as defendants
in a class action filed by plaintiff Zachary Blair on December 7,
2017, in the Superior Court of California.
Plaintiff alleges he is a former employee of Classic Party Rentals,
a party equipment rental company previously owned by the Apollo
Funds.
Plaintiff alleges that Classic Party Rentals failed to comply with
California wage and hour and related laws, and also has asserted
claims based on various provisions of the California labor code and
California's unfair competition laws.
On October 11, 2019, the court certified a class of current and
former non-exempt drivers, assistant drivers, and organizer
employees of Classic Party Rentals who were paid on an hourly basis
and who worked at Classic Party Rentals in California at any time
from December 7, 2013, through the date of the class certification
order.
After being served with the Complaint in July 2020, a co-defendant
removed the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on August 24, 2020, and AGM Inc. filed a
motion to dismiss all claims against it on September 23, 2020.
On March 24, 2021, the court granted AGM Inc.'s motion to dismiss
and the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Apollo said, "Because this action is in the early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time."
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APOLLO GLOBAL: Fongers Seeks to Recoup $35K Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Benjamin Fongers
filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) to recover
attorneys' fees of approximately $35,000 for the remand briefing.
On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative
class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against
CareerBuilder, LLC and AGM Inc.
Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its
compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers
would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to
receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not
reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan.
Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to
deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were
earlier entitled.
Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises complete control over
CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as AGM Inc.'s agent.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both
defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales
Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment
Collection Act.
The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of
Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on
January 6, 2020.
On October 21, 2020, the District Court granted the motion to
remand. On January 11, 2021, the District Court ordered the Clerk
of Court to take the necessary steps to transfer the case back to
Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County.
On March 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section
1447(c) to recover attorneys' fees of approximately $35,000 for the
remand briefing.
Defendants filed their opposition on March 31, 2021, and Plaintiff
replied on April 14, 2021.
Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time.
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APOLLO GLOBAL: Kansas Firefighters Pension Suit vs Presidio Junked
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the putative
class action suit entitled, Firefighters Pension System of City of
Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No.
2019-0839-JTL.
On October 21, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against Presidio, Inc., all of the
members of Presidio's board of directors (including five directors
who are affiliated with Apollo), and BC Partners Advisors L.P. and
Port Merger Sub, Inc. challenging the then-pending acquisition of
Presidio by BCP.
The action is captioned Firefighters Pension System of City of
Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No.
2019-0839-JTL.
The original complaint alleged that the Presidio directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation of the
Presidio Merger and that the disclosures Presidio made in its
filings with the SEC in connection with the Presidio Merger omitted
material information, and that BCP aided and abetted those alleged
breaches.
On November 5, 2019, the Court of Chancery held a hearing on a
motion by plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote
and denied that motion. On January 28, 2020, following the closing
of the Presidio Merger, plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint, adding as defendants AGM Inc. and AP VIII Aegis
Holdings, L.P. and LionTree Advisors, LLC (Presidio's financial
advisor in connection with the Presidio Merger).
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Presidio Merger, that the filings with the SEC in
connection with the Presidio Merger omitted material information,
that the Apollo Defendants were controlling stockholders of
Presidio and breached their alleged fiduciary duties to Presidio's
public stockholders, and that BCP, LionTree and the Apollo
Defendants aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties.
The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory
relief, class certification, and unspecified money damages. The
defendants completed briefing on motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on April 30, 2020.
On January 29, 2021, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion and
accompanying orders granting the Apollo Defendants' motion to
dismiss, granting the motions to dismiss filed by the directors
other than Presidio's CEO, and denying motions to dismiss as to
BCP, Liontree, and Presidio's CEO.
Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APOLLO GLOBAL: Securities Suit Over PlayAGS Disclosures Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that AGM Inc., Apollo
Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and
Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC together with PlayAGS Inc. continues to
defend a putative class action suit currently pending before the
District of Nevada.
On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
PlayAGS Inc., all of the members of PlayAGS's board of directors
(including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain
underwriters of PlayAGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC),
as well as AGM Inc., Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo
Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC.
The complaint asserts claims arising under the Securities Act of
1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS
stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the
registration statements issued in connection with those offerings
did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS.
Such claims are asserted against all defendants, including Apollo
Global Securities, LLC and the Apollo Defendants, as well as all
directors (including the directors affiliated with Apollo). The
complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Apollo
Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors
affiliated with Apollo), alleging that the Apollo Defendants and
the director defendants were responsible for certain misstatements
and omissions by PlayAGS about its business during a putative class
period from May 3, 2018 through August 7, 2019.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 21,
2021, and they filed a further amended complaint on March 25, 2021.
A responsive pleading is due by May 24, 2021. Apollo believes the
claims in this action are without merit.
Apollo said, "Because this action is in the early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this
time."
Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment
manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and
sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and
individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The
firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo
Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in
New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and
Europe.
APPLE INC: Faces McDonald Suit Over DoubleU Online Gambling Games
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA MCDONALD and MICHAEL HELSEL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Case No. 5:21-cv-02461-NC (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2021) is a class
action arising from Apple's profiting from illegal gambling games
developed by DoubleU Games Co., Ltd. and offered, sold, and
distributed by Apple through its App Store for consumers to
download and play.
Apple offers, sells, and distributes casino-style slot machines,
casino-style table games, and other common gambling games to
consumers through its App Store, which, for the reasons set forth
herein, constitutes illegal gambling pursuant to the law of various
states.
The Plaintiffs contend that they initially played the DoubleU
Casino App for free, but eventually purchased coins through in-app
purchases (paid directly to Apple) so tey could continue playing.
Accordingly, they seek to recover money paid and lost due to
gambling on the DoubleU Casino App pursuant to state law.
Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail :hzavareei@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
alperstein@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
ASSET RECOVERY: Roeder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mystique Roeder,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Alpha Recovery Corp., Velocity Investments, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02741 (E.D.N.Y., May 15, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC --
https://assetrecoverysolutions.com/ -- operates as an asset
recovery management company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
ASSISTCARE HOME: Simmons Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Simmons and Kelly Peterson-Small, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ASSISTCARE HOME HEALTH SERVICES
LLC, d/b/a Preferred Home Care of New York/Preferred Gold, Case No.
511490/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 14, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant to obtain damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack
and data breach.
The complaint alleges that as a result of the Data Breach, the
Plaintiffs and approximately 92,283 Class Members suffered
ascertainable losses in the form of the imminent risk of future
harm from the theft of their Social Security numbers and other
private information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the cyberattack. In
addition, the Plaintiffs' sensitive personal information -- which
was entrusted to the Defendant -- was compromised and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants.
Assistcare Home Health Services LLC, doing business as Preferred
Home Care of New York/Preferred Gold, is a New York limited
liability company that offers home health services throughout New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roopal P. Luhana, Esq.
Steven Cohn, Esq.
CHAFFIN LUHANA, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 888-480-1136
Fax: 888-499-1123
Email: luhana@chaffinluhana.com
cohn@chaffinluhana.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gmason@wbmllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
B RILEY FINANCIAL: Settlement Discussion in Gaynor Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that settlement discussion
is ongoing in the consolidated class action Gaynor v. Miller et
al.
On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016
naming MLV & Co. and National Securities Corporation, each an
indirect broker-dealer subsidiary of the Company, as defendants in
putative class action lawsuits alleging claims under the Securities
Act, in connection with the offerings of Miller Energy Resources,
Inc. have been consolidated.
The consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al., is
pending in the Circuit Court for Morgan County, Tennessee, and,
like its predecessor complaints, continues to allege claims under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters
for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the
registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with
six offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013;
September 26, 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August
21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately
$151.0 million.
Court ordered mediation before a federal magistrate took place on
August 6, 2019, with no resolution.
Settlement discussions are ongoing. An accrual for the settlement
is included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.
B. Riley Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
collaborative financial services and solutions in North America,
Australia, and Europe. The company operates in four segments:
Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal,
and Principal Investments - United Online and Magic Jack. The
company was formerly known as Great American Group, Inc. and
changed its name to B. Riley Financial, Inc. in November 2014. B.
Riley Financial, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is headquartered in
Woodland Hills, California.
BAZZINI HOLDINGS: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bazzini Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Bazzini Holdings, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04386-LJL (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bazzini Holdings LLC -- https://www.bazzininuts.com/ -- produces
chocolates and confectionery products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Douglas Files Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition
Company. The case is styled as Mieshia Douglas, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beech Nut Nutrition
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00271-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., May 4, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Beech Nut Nutrition -- https://www.beechnut.com/ -- is a baby food
company that is owned by the Swiss branded consumer-goods firm Hero
Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Eric Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kathleen E. McCarthy, Esq.
KING, SPALDING LAW FIRM-NY OFFICE
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-4003
Phone: (212) 556-2100
Fax: (212) 556-2222
Email: kmccarthy@kslaw.com
BROKEN ARROW: Shoemaker Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHONIE SHOEMAKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BROKEN ARROW COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV13873, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on May 14, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04070 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.
Broken Arrow Communications, Inc. is a wireless telecommunication
services provider headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew E. Farmer, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 705-3000
Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
E-mail: mfarmer@littler.com
BROOK VALLEY: Fails to Pay Overtime, Bickerstaff Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET DENISE BICKERSTAFF, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOK VALLEY THRIFT STORES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00392 (M.D. Tenn., May 14, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Ms. Bickerstaff was employed as an hourly-paid manager at the
Defendant's retail thrift store in Clarksville, Tennessee.
Brook Valley Thrift Stores, Inc. is an operator of retail thrift
stores, with its principal offices located at 4880 Valleydale Road,
Birmingham, Alabama. [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
CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Harbour Sues Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
John Harbour and Tami Wisnesky, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA HEALTH & WELLNESS PLAN,
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., HEALTH NET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
HEALTH NET COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS, INC., HEALTH NET LLC, and
ACCELLION, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-03322-SVK (N.D. Cal., May 4,
2021), is brought on behalf of individuals who had their sensitive
personal information--including but not limited to names, email
addresses, phone numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers (SSN), bank account and routing information, and
other personally identifying information ("PII"), as well as
information used to process health insurance claims, prescription
information, medical records and data, and other sensitive personal
health information ("PHI")--disclosed to unauthorized third parties
during a massive breach of Accellion's File Transfer Appliance
software.
According to the complaint, during the Data Breach, unauthorized
persons gained access to Accellion's clients' files by exploiting a
vulnerability in Accellion's FTA platform. At the time of the Data
Breach, Health Defendants, along with reportedly hundreds of
others, were clients of Accellion. Accellion's services to Health
Defendants, and other customers, included the use of Accellion's
outdated and vulnerable FTA platform for large file transfers. The
PHI and PII of Defendants, as well as millions of other class
members who are clients or affiliated with other Accellion clients
impacted by the Data Breach ("Impacted Accellion Clients"), was
accessed by and disclosed to criminals without authorization
because who were able to exploit vulnerabilities in Accellion's FTA
product.
The Defendants were well aware of the data security shortcomings in
Accellion's FTA product. Nevertheless, the Defendants continued to
use FTA, putting millions at risk of being impacted by a breach.
The Defendants' failures to ensure that Accellion's file transfer
services and products were adequately secure fell far short of
their obligations and Plaintiffs' and class members' reasonable
expectations for data privacy, jeopardized the security of
Plaintiffs' and class members' PHI and PII, and put the Plaintiffs
and class members at serious risk of fraud and identity theft.
As a result of the Defendants' conduct and the resulting Data
Breach, Plaintiffs' and millions of class members' privacy has been
invaded, their PII and PHI is now in the hands of criminals, and
they face a substantially increased risk of identity theft and
fraud. Accordingly, these individuals now must take immediate and
time-consuming action to protect themselves from such identity
theft and fraud, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs provided their PII and PHI to the Defendants.
Accellion is a software company that provides third-party file
transfer services to clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Theodore Maya, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 310.474.9111
Facsimile: 310.474.8585
Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
CARVANT FINANCIAL: Harris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Shaquana Harris, on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals v. CARVANT FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02718
(E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate; statutory
penalties; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was not properly
compensated wages at the overtime wage rate for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff
with an accurate wage statement or summary, accurately accounting
for the actual hours worked, and setting forth the hourly rate of
pay and overtime wages. This was done to disguise the actual number
of hours the Plaintiff worked and to avoid paying the overtime wage
for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendant
knowingly and willfully operated business with a policy of not
paying the Plaintiff wages for hours worked over 40 hours in a
workweek at the overtime wage rate in violation of the FLSA and
NYLL and the supporting Federal and New York State Department of
Labor Regulations.
The Plaintiff began her employment with the Defendant as a
collector, on August 1, 2019.
CARVANT FINANCIAL LLC, is a domestic business corporation,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
Imran Ansari, Esq.
AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
546 5th Avenue
New York, New York 10036
Phone: (212) 486-0011
Email: ls@aidalalaw.com
CHOBANI LLC: Gilker Sues Over Misleading Marketing Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Gilker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Chobani, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00488 (S.D. Ill., May
16, 2021), seeks damages and an injunction to stop the Defendant's
false and misleading marketing practices with regards to its
low-fat Greek yogurt under the Chobani Complete brand in flavors
including vanilla and strawberry.
According to the complaint, the front label statements include
nutrition and nutrient claims, ingredient claims and allergen
claims. The nutrition claims include "Chobani Complete" and
"Advanced Nutrition Yogurt." The "allergen" claims include
"Lactose-Free" and "Easy to Digest." The claims are false,
deceptive, and misleading for several reasons. The Product's name,
"Complete Nutrition," is false, deceptive, and misleading because
it fails to provide "complete" nutrition as this term is understood
by reasonable consumers. Reasonable consumers understand "complete"
the same way as defined by the dictionary - "having all the
necessary or appropriate parts." The Product does not have all the
necessary and appropriate parts related to an average consumer's
nutritional needs. The "Advanced Nutrition Yogurt" representation
is false, deceptive, and misleading because the ingredients and
composition are not beyond what others have already introduced into
the marketplace.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on at least one occasion within
the statutes of limitations for each cause of action.
Chobani, LLC manufactures, labels and sells low-fat Greek yogurt
under the Chobani Complete brand in flavors including vanilla and
strawberry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
CITY DINER: Quino, Herrera Sue Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERICO QUINO CAPIR and JACINTO HERRERA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. THE CITY DINER CORP. (D/B/A
CITY DINER), STEVEN PALAFOX HERRERA, and PEDRO PALAFOX HERRERA,
Case 1:21-cv-02344 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2021) is brought against
the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of (FLSA), and for violations of the
N.Y. Labor Law (NYLL), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP.
CODES R. & REGS.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
he had to work over 10 hours a day.
Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff Quino as a delivery
worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a
significant amount of time spent performing non-tipped duties.
Regardless, Defendants paid Plaintiff Quino at a rate that was
lower than the required tip-credit rate. However, under both the
FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit
because Plaintiff Quino's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each
workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day.
Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff
Quino's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a
delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee, asserts the
complaint.
Defendants own, operate, or control a diner located in Maspeth, New
York under the name "City Diner" where Plaintiffs were employed as
a delivery worker, dishwasher, food preparer, and grill man.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Griffin Labor Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TRICILLA GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. S-CV-0046281, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Placer
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on May 14, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00456 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
Consolidated Communications is an American broadband and business
communications provider headquartered in Mattoon, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brandon R. McKelvey, Esq.
Timothy B. Nelson, Esq.
Rabindra M. David, Esq.
MEDINA McKELVEY LLP
925 Highland Pointe Drive, Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95678
Telephone: (916) 960-2211
Facsimile: (916) 742-5488
E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com
tim@medinamckelvey.com
rabi@medinamckelvey.com
CROSSOVER MARKET: Misclassifies Remote Workers, Kraemer Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL KRAEMER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. CROSSOVER MARKET, LLC, TRIOLOGY
ENTERPRISES, INC., and ESW CAPITAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00398 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2021) brings this complaint
against the Defendants seeking relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked exclusively for the Defendants as an
hourly-paid remote worker from October 2018 until about May 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the
Defendants, she and other similarly situated hourly workers were
misclassified as independent contractors by the Defendants. Despite
working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not
compensate them for their lawfully earned overtime compensation at
the rate of one ad one-half times their regular rates of pay for
all hours they worked over 40 per week. Instead, the Defendants
paid them straight time for overtime, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the
applicable rate, all costs, recoverable expenses and attorney's
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
The Corporate Defendants jointly employed the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated Hourly Workers.
Crossover Market, LLC is national and international recruiting
company that provides a recruitment and contractor clearinghouse
services. ESW Capital, LLC owns and operates Crossover.
Trilogy Enterprises, Inc. (DE) is wholly owned by Trilogy, Inc.
(DE), a sister company to ESW Capital LLC with shared
ownership.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
2537 S. Gessner, Suite 104
Houston, TX 77063
Tel: (713) 223-8855
E-mail: trang@tranlf.com
service@tranlf.com
D.P. GROUP: Fails to Pay Laborers' OT Wages, Yunganaula Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAUL YUNGANAULA, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. D.P. GROUP GENERAL CONTRACTORS/DEVELOPERS
INC. and ABC CORPORATION, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:21-cv-02015 (E.D.N.Y.. April 14, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid
wages and benefits including overtime premium pay which Plaintiff
and the class were statutorily and contractually entitled to
receive for work performed during their employment pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Yunganaula worked for Defendants as a laborer and a mason
tender on several private and publicly financed construction
projects within the State of New York, from Summer 2016 to October
2018.
The Defendants operated construction businesses providing
construction and demolition work on private and Public Works
Projects in the State of New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
milana@lipskylowe.com
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Faces Zaker Suit Over Decline of Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMIE ZAKER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. EBANG INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS INC., DONG HU, and LEI
CHEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-03060 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) is a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Ebang securities between June 26, 2020 and April
5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ebang purports to be a leading application-specific integrated
circuit ("ASIC") chip design company and a leading manufacturer of
Bitcoin mining machines.
On April 6, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report alleging, among other things, that Ebang is
directing proceeds from its IPO last year into a "series of opaque
deals with insiders and questionable counterparties." According to
the report, Ebang raised $21 million in November 2020, claiming the
proceeds would go "primarily for development," and that instead the
funds were directed to repay related-party loans to a relative of
the Ebang's Chief Executive Officer, Dong Hu. The report also noted
that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange had failed due to widespread media coverage of a sales
inflation scheme with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending
platform that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655
million "vanish[ing] into thin air."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.82, or
approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per share on April 6, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a statement
stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed] many
errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate interpretations of
events," the "Board, together with its Audit Committee, intends to
further review and examine the allegations and misinformation
therein and will take whatever necessary and appropriate actions
may be required to protect the interest of its shareholders."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, or 2.17%, to
close at $5.41 per share on April 7, 2021. The stock price
continued to decline over the next trading session by $0.38, or 7%,
to close at $5.03 per share on April 8, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors 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, the suit contends.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
shares, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages.
Plaintiff Zaker purchased Ebang shares during the Class Period, and
suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law
violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omission.
Ebang purports to be a leading ASIC chip design company and a
leading manufacturer of Bitcoin mining machines. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@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) 914-5007
EHEALTH INC: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit in California Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 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 eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST
(N.D. Cal.)., is pending.
On April 8, 2020 and April 30, 2020, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against the company, its chief executive
officer, Scott N. Flanders, its chief financial officer, Derek N.
Yung, and its then-chief operating officer, David K. Francis, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The cases are captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 4:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.).
The complaints allege, among other things, that the company and
Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding our accounting and modeling assumptions, rate
of member churn and our profitability during the alleged class
period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020.
The complaints allege that we and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and
Francis violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit) punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.
On June 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the above-referenced
matters under the caption In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master
File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.).
The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated matter. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on August 25, 2020, which Defendants moved to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed.
eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services
to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States
and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and
Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was
incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara,
California.
ELANCO ANIMAL: Walsh Sues Over Tick Collars Deceptive Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER WALSH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02929
(S.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021) is a consumer class action arising out of
the Defendant's deceptive marketing practices in connection with
its sale of Seresto flea and tick collars for dogs and cats
throughout the United States.
According to the complaint, Elanco actively markets and sells the
Product as being acceptable for both cats and dogs in regular,
everyday use. In reality, though, the Product has been implicated
in nearly 1700 pet deaths since 2012, 907 incidents of human
injury, and more than 75,000 incident reports to the Food and Drug
Administration.
As a result, Elanco markets and sells a product that is inherently
dangerous to pets and humans, but does so without including any
warnings on the Product. This is an omission of material fact under
the New York Deceptive Business Acts and Practices Law as well as a
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the suit
alleges.
Plaintiff Walsh is a citizen of the State of New York, residing in
the Bronx. On May 30, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased a Seresto Flea
and Tick Collar for Dogs over Pounds from Chewy.com for $57.99. On
or about June 7, 2019, he placed the collar on her dog, Ollie.
Ollie swiftly sickened and then died on July 15, 2019. The
Plaintiff is not aware of any other condition or circumstance that
would have caused the death of her dog.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an Indiana limited liability
corporation with its principal place of business at 2500 Innovation
Way, Greenfield, Indiana, 46140. At all relevant times, Defendant
has owned, marketed, and sold the Product at issue.
On August 3, 2020, Elanco purchased Bayer Animal Health from Bayer
AG for $6.89 billion. As part of its acquisition, Elanco acquired
the entire portfolio of products in Bayer Animal Health from Bayer
AG, including the Product. On information and belief, Elanco
acquired all assets and liabilities of Bayer Animal Health at the
time of the acquisition.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
kcooper@whafh.com
manifold@whafh.com
malmstrom@whafh.com
ERMINIA RESTAURANT: Barcenas Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO BARCENAS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. ERMINIA RESTAURANT CORP. a/k/a ERMINIA CORP d/b/a
LATTANZI RESTAURANT, VITTORIO LATTANZI, and FRANCO PAUL LATTANZI,
Case No. 508240/2021 (N.Y. Super., Kings Cty., April 8, 2021) seeks
to recover unpaid wages due to invalid tip credit, illegally
retained gratuities, failure to provide valid notice of the tip
credit allowance claimed, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
According to the complaint, on November 1, 2019, Plaintiff Barcenas
began employment with Defendants as a Waiter for the Defendants'
restaurant. Throughout the first three days of Plaintiff's
employment by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was forced to undergo a
training period for the position of waiter (the Training Period).
During the Training Period, Plaintiff was scheduled to work six
hour days. The Defendants allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff
and the Class members with proper wage notices at hiring and
annually thereafter. The Plaintiff did not receive proper wage
notices either upon being hired or annually since the date of
hiring, the suit asserts.
The Defendants own and operate an Italian food restaurant under the
trade name "LATTANZI RESTAURANT" located at 361 West 46th Street,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ESSA BANCORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sherman Act Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the Sherman Act claim, has been denied.
On May 29, 2020, ESSA Bank & Trust was named as a defendant in a
second action commenced by three plaintiffs who will also seek to
pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class
of people similarly situated.
The plaintiffs allege that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks from a different title
company than the one involved in the previously discussed
litigation in the process of making loans.
The original complaint alleged violations of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
The plaintiffs filed an Amended complaint on September 30, 2020
that dropped the RICO claim, but they are continuing to pursue the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Sherman Act claims. The
Bank moved to dismiss the Sherman Act claim on October 14, 2020,
and that motion was denied on April 2, 2021.
The Bank intends to defend against such allegations. To the extent
that this matter could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount
of such exposure cannot currently be estimated.
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
ESSA BANCORP: Mediation Ongoing in Suit Against Subsidiary
----------------------------------------------------------
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that mediation is ongoing in
the putative class action suit filed against ESSA Bank & Trust
related to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
The Bank was named as a defendant in an action commenced on
December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this
action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people
similarly situated.
The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA
Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of
making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.
In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the
Bank's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the
court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the
appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the
plaintiff's case against the Bank, and remanded the case back to
the district court in order to continue the litigation. The
litigation is now proceeding before the district court.
On December 9, 2019, the court permitted an amendment to the
complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar
claims. On May 21, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
The case is currently stayed while the parties explore the
possibility of a negotiated resolution to the case.
In an order dated November 24, 2020, the Court referred the case to
a Magistrate Judge to assist in mediation efforts.
ESSA said, "If these discussions are not successful, the Bank will
continue to defend against such allegations. To the extent that
this matter could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of
such exposures cannot currently be estimated."
ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank &
Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals,
families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was
founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Suit Seeks to Certify Plan Participant Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned KIMBERLY GARTHWAIT, et al. v.
EVERSOURCE ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-00902-JCH (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
1. certifying case as a class action on behalf of:
"All participants and beneficiaries in the Plan at any time
on or after June 30, 2014 to the present (the "Class
Period"), including any beneficiary of a deceased person who
was a participant in the Plan at any time during the Class
Period;"
2. appointing them as representatives of the defined class; and
3. appointing their counsel as counsel for the Class.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 5, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u5WmXg at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jemiller@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Michael P. Ols, Esq.
Alec J. Berin, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
mpols@millershah.com
ajberin@millershah.com
- and -
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1401 Dove Street, Suite 510
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (323) 510-4060
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: kctang@millershah.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
gabriellek@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
EVIDENT STAFFING: Tools Seeks OT Wages for Nurses Under FLSA, MFLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHEVADA TOOLS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. EVIDENT STAFFING, INC. (d/b/a EVIDENT
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT and EVIDENT STAFFING, LLC), Case No.
0:21-cv-00983 (D. Minn., April 14, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for damages and other relief relating to violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation for
all current or former hourly-paid health care workers employed by
the Defendant within three years back from the date this complaint
was filed.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States domiciled in the
City of Woodbury, State of Minnesota. The Defendant employed
Plaintiff as an hourly-paid health care worker, specifically a
Registered Nurse (RN), from February 2020 to January 2021.
Evident Staffing is an agency that provides health care staffing
services in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, hospitals,
and private homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Kayla Kienzle, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: fisher@nka.com
kkienzle@nka.com
GB PREMIUM: Brunet FLSA & NMMWA Suit Moved From D.N.M. to S.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TRAVIS BRUNET, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GB PREMIUM OCTG SERVICES LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00299, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on May 14, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-01600 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
thread representatives overtime pay for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.
GB Premium OCTG Services LLC is a supplier of oil well services,
with its principal place of business in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
GOLD TIM: Faces Perez Suit Over Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
LUCIO PEREZ MORALES, and MANUEL CRUZ CHIMBAY, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. GOLD TIM CORP. (D/B/A FAMOUS
GOLD TIM'S DELI AND GRILL), EUN IM HUH, (a/sk/a SYLVIA HUH) and
TOMMY HUH, Case No. 1:21-cv-01993 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2021) seeks
to recover for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed as
sandwich makers at the Defendants' deli. The Plaintiffs contend
that they worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that they worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated
employees.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants Gold Tim.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 126-01
15th Ave., College Point, NY 11357 under the name "Famous Gold
Tim's Deli and Grill".[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
GRANDMA LUCY'S: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GRANDMA LUCY'S LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03052 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 8 , 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.grandmalucys.com, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a freeze-dried pet food and treats company, and
owns and operates the website, offering features which should allow
all consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Putative Class Suit Underway in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No.
19-cv-10701-DDP-E, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v.
Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, against the company and two of its former officers.
The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the
company's business strategy.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were
misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details
regarding the company's customer acquisition strategy and its
impact on the company's financial performance.
The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and
seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs.
On February 18, 2020, a shareholder derivative suit and securities
class action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No.
20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed in United States District Court for
the Central District of California, against us and certain of our
officers and directors.
The suit avers purported breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis of the same wrongdoing
alleged in the first lawsuit described above. The suit does not
define the purported class allegedly damaged. These cases have been
related.
The company had not yet responded to the complaints in these
matters.
Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are
unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation would have a material impact on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit
cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It
is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its
GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena,
California.
HHH MANAGEMENT: Underpays Maintenance Workers, Ballance Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY BALLANCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HHH MANAGEMENT, INC. and DONALD ROSENTHAL,
Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-80876 (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated workers appropriate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Mr. Ballance worked for the Defendants as a porter/maintenance
worker in Florida from approximately November 15, 2018 through
approximately January 23, 2021.
HHH Management, Inc. is a property management company based in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
INFINITY 1 INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. INFINITY 1 INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:21-cv-03056-GBD
(S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.rockabilia.com, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a band clothing company, and owns and operates the
website, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the
delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State. The Defendant operates and distributes its products
throughout the United States, including New York..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
INSURANCE COMPANY: Fails to Reimburse Expenses, Manage Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TEWANA ROSE MERAZ-PILANA-MANAGE,, an individual, on his own behalf,
and in his representative capacity on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 21VECV00505
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 14, 2021) is an action is
brought pursuant to the California Labor Code regarding
unreimbursed expenses incurred in the discharge of work-related
duties.
This complaint challenges Defendant's systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violation of the Labor Code against
Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants, jointly and severally acted intentionally and with
deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the Plaintiff's
and the Aggrieved Employees' rights by failing to reimburse them
for business-related expenses that they routinely incurred in
performing their job duties.
Plaintiff Manage is and was, at all times relevant to this
Complaint, an adult individual who lived in North Hills, California
and worked for Defendant in the City of Woodland Hills, in the
County of Los Angeles, California. She was employed by the
Defendant as a full time Claims Specialist from March 12, 2018 to
March 13, 2020.
ICW was a California corporation doing business and employing
persons throughout California, where it employed Plaintiff and the
Aggrieved Employees. ICW provides commercial property, surety
bonds, and workers' compensation coverage in key markets across the
continental United States, including the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
Cornelo Dilag, Esq.
WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 674-4922
E-mail: reception@jnwpc.com
cdilag@jnwpc.com
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Status Due Nov. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that on December 18,
2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action
complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the
Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on November 1,
2021.
The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's
customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system
used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage
accounts that have margin deficiencies.
The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.
On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and
without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017,
plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially
unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the
District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30,
2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January
15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019.
On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the
District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two
questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to
dismiss. The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May
15, 2020.
Currently, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on
November 1, 2021.
Interactive said, "Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the
Company does not believe that a purported class action is
appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and
many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any
particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the
related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves
vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in
connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential
claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case
may be fully pursued against the plaintiff."
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Reddit-Related Short-Squeeze Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that Interactive Brokers
LLC continues to defend a "Reddit-related short-squeeze"
consolidated class action suit.
Since late January 2021, more than three dozen federal class action
lawsuits have been filed in different jurisdictions against various
brokers and other market participants claiming that the defendants
acted improperly in restricting trading in the shares of and
options on GameStop Corp. and other companies that were subject to
unusual trading in January 2021 in what has been referred to as the
"Reddit-related short-squeeze".
Most of these cases assert federal antitrust claims, including
alleging an illegal antitrust conspiracy among the defendants, as
well as various state and federal securities-related claims. IB LLC
and its affiliates have been named as defendants in nine of these
class action lawsuits.
These cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation
("MDL"), and were transferred to the Southern District of Florida
on April 1, 2021 for pre-trial proceedings.
All discovery has been stayed until amended complaints are filed,
and issues regarding the timing of amended complaints and responses
to the allegations therein will be addressed by the MDL court at a
future date.
The time for IB LLC and its affiliates to respond to the
allegations will likely be stayed during the pendency of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation proceedings.
The Company believes that the claims asserted against IB LLC and
its affiliates lack merit on their face and the Company intends to
file, at the appropriate time, a motion to dismiss any class action
that might name IB LLC and its affiliates as defendants.
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic
broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades
in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and
mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977
and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Putative Class Suit in California Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that the Company and its former Chief Executive
Officer violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The purported class includes all persons who purchased or acquired
the Company's securities between August 4, 2020 and January 28,
2021.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages purportedly sustained by
the class.
The Company believes the complaint to be without merit and plans to
vigorously defend itself.
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. is a digital healthcare company
redefining the way cardiac arrhythmias are clinically diagnosed by
combining its wearable biosensing technology with cloud-based data
analytics and deep-learning capabilities. The company is based in
San Francisco, California.
K.Y. YOUNG: Faces Macas Suit Over Spa Workers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAYRA JOANA MACAS and MARIA JEREZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. K.Y. YOUNG, INC. (D/B/A DOLCE SPA
NYC), CYNTHIA LEE, KYUNG SOON YI, and JOHN DOE LEE (A.K.A MR. LEE),
Case No. 1:21-cv-03244 (S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2021) seeks to recover
for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed as a
manicurist, masseuses, and a nail technician at the spa. Allegedly,
the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or any additional
overtime premium, the suit says.
The Defendants further failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants K.Y. Young.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a nail and spa business,
located at 1595 3rd Ave, New York, New York."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
KRAFT HEINZ: Cheese Products Contain Phthalates, Stuve Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELLE STUVE and JESSICA NICODEMO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY a/k/a
KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01845 (N.D. Ill., April
6, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for deceptive
business practices, including misrepresentations and omissions, as
well as breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, regarding the
presence (or risk) of dangerous phthalates in the Kraft Mac &
Cheese Products, including those that Plaintiffs purchased.
According to the complaint, the ubiquitous boxed macaroni and
cheese has long been a staple meal in many U.S. households for
children and adults alike. Defendant has allegedly profited from
this fact with massive sales of its popular Kraft boxed macaroni
and cheese products (the "Kraft Mac & Cheese Products"). By some
reports, approximately a million boxes of Kraft Mac & Cheese
Products are sold every day. But Defendant has improperly and
misleadingly packaged and marketed its Products to reasonable
consumers, like Plaintiffs, by failing to disclose on the
Products’ packaging that they contain (or are at a risk of
containing) "ortho-phthalates," also known as "phthalates," which
are harmful chemicals that carry a real risk of health impacts if
consumed, the suit contends.
There is increasing scientific evidence linking phthalate exposure
with harmful health outcomes and dairy has been found to be a major
source of exposure. For most people, food is generally the greatest
exposure to phthalates and fattier and more processed foods tend to
have the highest phthalate levels. The cumulative effect of
phthalates is concerning, particularly because studies show that
one in five American adults eats 81 percent of their calories from
ultra-processed foods, including foods such as powdered macaroni
and cheese products.
Phthalates are classified as endocrine-disrupting chemicals and
have been linked to adverse health effects. For example, studies
have found that in adult populations, there is an association
between phthalate exposure and markers of testicular function in
men, particularly decreased semen quality. There is also evidence
linking endometriosis in women with high phthalate metabolite
levels and increases in waist circumference and body mass index
(BMI) have been linked to exposure in men and adolescent and adult
females.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the
proposed Class including requiring full disclosure of all such
substances and ingredients in Defendant’s marketing, advertising,
and labeling; requiring testing of all ingredients and final
products for such substances; and restoring monies to the members
of the proposed Class.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, New York
Consumer Law for Deceptive Acts and Practices, and the New York
Consumer Law for False Advertising.
Kraft operates a factory in Champaign, Illinois with some 900
employees on acres that makes half of the Kraft macaroni and cheese
sold in the United States. The Defendant packages, labels, markets,
advertises, formulates, manufactures, distributes, and sells Kraft
Mac & Cheese Products throughout the United States, including
Illinois, Florida and New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nicholas Lange, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
Facsimile: (773) 598-5609
E-mail: nlange@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 899-1760
Facsimile: (332) 206-2073
E-mail: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
- and -
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany Brown, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: DGeorge@4-justice.com
EService@4-justice.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: LFeldman@4-justice.com
EService@4-justice.com
- and -
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
LADDER LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LADDER, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03053 (S.D.N.Y., April 8,
2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.ladder.sport, and therefore denial
of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a fitness supplement company, and owns and
operates the website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
LIFE TIME: Reulbach FLSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CRAIG REULBACH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., et al., Case
No. CV-21-946432, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on May 14, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-01013 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Life Time Fitness, Inc. is a chain of health clubs in the United
States and Canada, headquartered in Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert J. Bowes, III, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
Park Center Plaza I, Ste. 400
6100 Oak Tree Boulevard
Cleveland, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 750-0404
Facsimile: (216) 750-0826
E-mail: Robert.Bowes@jacksonlewis.com
- and –
Eric R. Magnus, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
171 17th Street, NW. Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30363
Telephone: (404) 525-8200
Facsimile: (404) 525-1173
E-mail: Eric.Magnus@jacksonlewis.com
LUSAMERICA FOODS: Faces Arias Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELES ARIAS, LUIS VELASCO, and LUIS GARCIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LUSAMERICA
FOODS, INC. (dba LUSAMERICA FISH) and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-03642 (N.D. Cal., May 14, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California
Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide rest or pay
additional wages in lieu thereof, failure to provide meal periods
or pay additional wages in lieu thereof, failure to indemnify
employees for necessary business expenditures or losses incurred,
failure to maintain and provide accurate itemized employee wage
statements and records.
Plaintiffs Arias, Velasco, and Garcia worked for the Defendants as
non-exempt employees from approximately June 28, 2017 to March 19,
2020, from approximately June 4, 2014 to October 20, 2020, and from
approximately February 2016 to February 19, 2021, respectively.
Lusamerica Foods, Inc., doing business as Lusamerica Fish, is a
seafood distributor company headquartered at 16480 Railroad Avenue,
Morgan Hill, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Liliana Garcia, Esq.
Heather Hamilton, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
LGarcia@TheMMLawFirm.com
HHamilton@TheMMLawFirm.com
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Junk New Jersey Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit filed before the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, remains pending.
A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019.
On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on
May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for
control person liability) arising in large part from allegations
that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection
with reinsurance provided to AmTrust.
Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings'
representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial
statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss
reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of
Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the
misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell,
causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.
On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of
all Defendants; the company cannot predict when the Court will
issue a decision on the motion.
Maiden said, "We believe the claims are without merit and we intend
to vigorously defend ourselves. It is possible that additional
lawsuits will be filed against the Company, its subsidiaries and
its respective officers due to the diminution in value of our
securities as a result of our operating results and financial
condition. It is currently uncertain as to the effect of such
litigation on our business, operating results and financial
condition."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company,
previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty
insurers in the United States, Europe, and select other global
markets. The company operates internationally providing branded
auto and credit life insurance products through insurer partners to
retail clients in the EU and other global markets through Maiden
Global Holdings, Ltd. and its subsidiaries. The company is based in
Pembroke, Bermuda.
MAPLE HOLISTICS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MAPLE HOLISTICS LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03054 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.mapleholistics.com, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a beauty products supply company, and owns and
operates the website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
MATTRESS FIRM: Faces Payero Suit Over Defective Bed Frames
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO PAYERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC., Case No. 7:21-cv-03061-VB
(S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) is an action against the Defendant for
the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the HR Platform bed frame
sold under the Bed Tech brand (the Product) which allegedly
suffered from an identical defect in design.
Allegedly, the bed frame can collapse, posing a crush hazard that
can result in severe injury or death. A bed frame that poses such a
hazard is unreasonably dangerous considering the prone position of
the users laying on top of the bed frame and the fact Product can
collapse at any time. This defect rendered the Product unsuitable
for its principal and intended purpose, the suit says.
The Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendant individually and
on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers of
the Product for violation of New York General Business Law;
violation of New York General Business Law; fraud; unjust
enrichment; breach of implied warranty; and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Plaintiff Payero is, and at all times relevant to this action has
been, a resident of Yonkers, New York. Mr. Payero purchased two HR
Platform bed frames from a Mattress Firm store located in New York.
The Defendant markets and distributes the Product throughout the
United States. Defendant sells its products directly to consumers
in Mattress Firm stores and on Mattress Firm's website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
jsmith@bursor.com
MEIOS INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MEIOS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-03055 (S.D.N.Y., April 8,
2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.osirisshoes.com, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a skateboard clothing company, and owns and
operates the website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
MERCK & CO: Zostavax Causes Viral Infection, Olson Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET OLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02211 (E.D. Pa., May 14, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict
liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach
of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and punitive damages.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a
vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants
failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation,
manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control,
labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax
because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused
viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to
consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the
labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their
healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious
bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use,
the suit contends.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiffs sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as
well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish,
emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment
and injury.
Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
company based in New Jersey.
Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a
research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth M. Wilkins, Esq.
SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP
100 South 4th Street, Suite 1200
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 621-6115
Facsimile: (314) 621-7151
E-mail: bwilkins@uselaws.com
MICHIGAN: Prisoner Smith Appeals COVID-19-Related Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DERRICK LEE SMITH filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled DERRICK LEE SMITH, Plaintiff v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01211, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand
Rapids.
Mr. Smith alleges that he and other prisoners at the Muskegon
Correctional Facility became infected with COVID-19 after being
intentionally placed with prisoners who were known to be COVID-19
positive. He claims that after becoming infected, he and other
prisoners were moved to a building that was not appropriate for the
treatment of infected prisoners. He also states that prison
officials repeatedly moved infected prisoners around the prison
until nearly every prisoner became infected.
The lawsuit is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiff sought leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Because Plaintiff has filed at least three
lawsuits that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure
to state a claim, the Court barred him from proceeding in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
Mr. Smith now seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated March 2,
2021, dismissing his motion without prejudice for lack of
prosecution and failure to comply with the Court's order.
The appellate case is captioned as Derrick Smith v. Heidi
Washington, et al., Case No. 21-1472, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on May 10, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DERRICK LEE SMITH of Muskegon Correctional
Facility, Muskegon, Michigan, appears pro se.
MOVE SALES: Fails to Reimburse Expenses, Brigde Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BRIDGE, an individual, on his own behalf, and in his
representative capacity on behalf of all other similarly situated
v. MOVE SALES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 21VECV00508 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 14, 2021) is an action is brought pursuant to the California
Labor Code regarding unreimbursed expenses incurred in the
discharge of work-related duties.
This complaint challenges Defendant's systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violation of the Labor Code against
Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees. The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants, jointly and severally acted intentionally and with
deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the Plaintiff's
and the Aggrieved Employees' rights by failing to reimburse them
for business-related expenses that they routinely incurred in
performing their job duties.
Plaintiff Bridge is and was, at all times relevant to this
Complaint, an adult individual who lived in Camarillo, California
and worded for Defendants in the City of Westlake Village in the
County of Los Angeles, California. He has been employed by
Defendant as a full time Retention Account Specialist since April
19, 2018.
Move Sales is an organization that provides online real estate
services to the real estate industry and maintains its principal
executive offices in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
Cornelo Dilag, Esq.
WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 930
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 674-4922
E-mail: reception@jnwpc.com
cdilag@jnwpc.com
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Paradis Balks at Merger Deal With Polaris
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL PARADIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MULTIPLAN CORPORATION f/k/a CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORP.
III, MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY TARAGIN, MARK KLEIN, MICHAEL ECK, GLENN R.
AUGUST, PAUL GALANT, JEREMY PAUL ABSON, MALCOLM S. MCDERMID, KAREN
G. MILLS, BONNIE JONAS, MARK TABAK, DAVID REDMOND, M. KLEIN AND
COMPANY, CHURCHILL SPONSOR III, LLC and KLEIN GROUP LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-01853 (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021) is a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Churchill III securities
between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive (the Class
Period), and all holders of Churchill III Class A common stock
entitled to vote on Churchill III's merger with and acquisition of
Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries consummated
in October 2020.
In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a
preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge
with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York based data analytics
end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S.
healthcare industry. MultiPlan's customers include large national
insurance companies, provider-sponsored health plans, bill review
companies, Taft-Hartley plans, and other entities that pay medical
bills in the commercial healthcare, government, workers'
compensation, auto, medical and dental markets. MultiPlan fees are
generally based on a percentage of savings achieved for its
clients. MultiPlan's revenues are highly concentrated in just a few
clients, with its two largest customers accounting for 35% and 20%,
respectively, of MultiPlan's fiscal 2019 revenues.
The Merger, initially valued at $5.7 billion, would be funded by
the IPO proceeds as well as billions of dollars in new debt and
equity issuances. As a result, the Merger would be substantially
dilutive for Churchill III's existing shareholders, who were
estimated to receive only 4% to 16% of the combined Company
following the Merger, depending on the number of shareholders who
redeemed their shares.
On September 18, 2020, Churchill III issued the proxy statement for
the Merger, which urged shareholders to vote in favor of the deal
and (as detailed below) contained numerous materially false and
misleading statements and omissions (the "Proxy"). The Proxy stated
that Churchill had identified MultiPlan as a potential acquisition
target soon after the IPO. By March 3, 2020 -- only two weeks after
the IPO – Defendant Michael Klein had already contacted
representatives of MultiPlan, including Defendant Tabak, to discuss
a potential deal, the suit says.
On November 11, 2020 -- only one month after the close of the
Merger -- short research investment firm Muddy Waters published a
report on Churchill III titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity
Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab."
As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities
plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A
common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.
On March 10, 2021, the post-Merger company announced its fiscal
year 2020 financial results. These results were significantly below
the projections contained in the Proxy that the Board had adopted
in connection with its "extensive due diligence."
The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in
reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially
inflated prices for Churchill III securities. Plaintiff and the
Class would not have purchased Churchill III securities at the
prices they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market
prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants'
misleading statements, added the suit.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct,
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in
connection with their purchases of Churchill III securities during
the Class Period.
Plaintiff Samuel Paradis purchased Churchill III securities during
the Class Period and suffered damages thereby.
Defendant Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with
MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist. The Company's Class A
common shares trade in New York on the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE) under the symbol MPLN, and its public warrants trade under
the symbol "MPLN.WS." Prior to the Merger, Churchill III Class A
stock traded under the symbol "CCXX," its public warrants traded
under the symbol “CCXX.WS,” and its ownership units, which
contained both stock and fractional warrants, traded under the
symbol "CCXX.U." The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
Facsmile: (212) 279-3655
E-mail: JFruchter@aftlaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Shabazz Suit Over Election Campaign Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Malikah Shabazz, Sonya Harvey, Rosa Sanchez, and Frank Taylor,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New
York City Campaign Finance Board, Amy M. Loprest, solely in her
official capacity, as the Executive Director of the New York City
Campaign Finance Board, Hillary Weisman, solely in her official
capacity as the General Counsel of the New York City Campaign
Finance Board, and the City of New York, Case No. 1:21-cv-03069
(S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) seeks to allow Plaintiffs, and all others
in the same position, to receive the vested right to matching
campaign funds given to their chosen candidate.
The Plaintiffs contend that the New York City Campaign Finance
Board (CFB) -- the agency that administers the public matching
funds program -- refused to undertake its routine assessment of the
contributions or approve matching funds for their's and other
similarly situated contributors' contributions.
Under the New York City Campaign finance law, residents of the City
of New York contribute to municipal candidates with the expectation
that their contributions will be matched by taxpayer dollars at a
ratio of $8 dollars for every $1 that is contributed up to certain
levels depending upon the office sought. And Plaintiffs' campaign
contributions would have gotten that matching until the City
Council changed the rules in the middle of an election, the suit
says.
The CFB claimed that a New York City law (Local Law No. 15) just
signed into law in late February of 2021 (after each Plaintiff had
already made contributions) barred it from providing public
matching funds to a candidate who was purportedly disqualified from
holding municipal office. That is, they relied on a rule changed in
the middle of an election.
But Local Law No. 15 did not bar Monserrate (or any theoretical
candidate who the law might also apply to) from having his
contributors' donations matched from running for office, or from
appearing on the ballot. Even if the law did address the
candidate's right to appear on the ballot in the first instance (it
does not), for perhaps obvious reasons, it is unlikely that there
exists "any legislation that has been found constitutionally sound
when enacted during an election cycle that disqualifies previously
qualifying candidates from appearing on a ballot."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Remy Green, Esq.
COHEN & GREEN P.L.L.C.
1639 Centre Street, Suite 216
Ridgewood, NY 11385
Telephone: (929) 888-9480
Facsimile: (929) 888-9457
E-mail: remy@femmelaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Soybel Sues Over Deceptive Taxi Medallions' Value
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEC SOYBEL and GALINA KAMINKER, on Behalf of Themselves and Others
Similarly Situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY TAXI &
LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, MATTHEW W. DAUS, DAVID YASSKY, MEERA JOSHI,
ALAN FROMBERG, CHARLES FRASER, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, EVGENY FREIDMAN,
VLADIMIR BASIN, and MAMED DZHANIYEV, Case No. 1:21-cv-01846-CBA-LB
(E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021) is a class action suit against the
Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, and for unjust
enrichment.
This claim arises from the alleged fraudulent and illegal scheme by
the City of New York, acting by and through its agency, the New
York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC"), beginning no later
than 2004 and continuing to at least 2017 (the Class Period), to
artificially inflate the value of its taxi medallions by
fraudulent, collusive, and deceptive means in order to maximize its
own profits, with harm continuing to Class members to the present
time.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' conduct was so
egregious that New York State Attorney General, Letitia James,
Esq., felt compelled to open up an investigation into the City of
New York and TLC for their fraudulent practices, which ultimately
resulted in the filing of a Notice of Claim against the City
alleging that the City and TLC had fraudulently inflated the prices
of thousands of taxicab medallions, and profited from this fraud
over a 13-year period.
The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission is an agency of the
New York City government that licenses and regulates the medallion
taxis and for-hire vehicle industries, including app-based
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
JON L. NORINSBERG, ESQ., PLLC
110 E. 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 791-5396
Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
- and -
Joshua P. Fitch, Esq.
COHEN & FITCH, LLP
110 E. 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 374-9115
Facsimile: (212) 406-6890
NEWREZ LLC: Violates Truth in Lending Act, Parker Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEWREZ, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-03256 (S.D.N.Y., April 8,
2021) is a class action complaint alleging violations of the Truth
in Lending Act, and for a breach of contract and violation of the
New York General Business Law.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
class of New York residents seeking redress for Defendant's actions
which violate TILA and/or the New York GBL. The Plaintiff is
seeking actual damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees and
costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
TILA provides consumers, in any consumer transaction in which a
security interest is or will be retained or acquired in any
property which is used as a primary residence, a right to rescind
the transaction until midnight of the third business day following
the consummation of the transaction. If the right of rescission is
exercised, consumers are entitled to a full refund of any amounts
or charges paid, including for fees for a title search or
appraisal.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of the Town of
Greenburgh, Village of Irvington, County of Westchester, State of
New York. The Plaintiff's loan at issue was in connection with a
residential real estate transaction that was primarily for
personal, family or household purposes, and involved the extension
of credit.
NewRez, LLC is part of the mortgage banking industry with its
headquarters in Fort Washington, Pennsyvlania. The Defendant
regularly extends consumer credit and is a "creditor" as defined
under TILA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
Ari Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue - Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
Ari@MarcusZelman.com
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court
dismissed the consolidated putative class action suit related to
the company's alleged false COVID-19 statements.
On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v.
Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case
No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J.
Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, as defendants.
Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida naming the same defendants.
On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed by lead plaintiff's counsel.
The complaint asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market and customers about COVID-19.
The complaint sought unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's ordinary shares
between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020.
On April 10, 2021, the case was dismissed and closed.
The plaintiffs have the right to appeal. We believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint were without merit and
intend to defend the matter vigorously if appealed.
We cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action
will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise
therefrom.
In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney General announced
an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Following the announcement of the investigation
by the Florida Attorney General, we received notifications from
other attorneys general and governmental agencies that they are
conducting similar investigations. The Company is cooperating with
these ongoing investigations, the outcomes of which cannot be
predicted at this time.
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. operates a fleet of passenger
cruise ships. The Company offers an array of cruise itineraries and
theme cruises, as well as markets its services through various
distribution channels including retail and travel agents,
international and incentive sales, and consumer direct. Norwegian
Cruise Line Holdings serves customers worldwide. The company is
based in Miami, Florida.
OHIO STATE: Fails to Act on Sexual Abuse Complaints, Alf Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ALF, GARY TILL, CHRIS ARMSTRONG, ALLAN NOVAKOWSKI, AND JOHN
DOES 93-101, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02542-EAS-CMV (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Title IX of the U.S.
Constitution.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to perform its
duties under Title IX to investigate and take corrective action, or
to make appropriate recommendations following complaints of sexual
assault. Despite the complaints and concerns conveyed by athletes
and coaches to the Defendant and its agents and/or representatives,
concerning the sexual abuse and misconduct of Dr. Richard Strauss,
the university's sports team doctor, and other student health
services physician, the Defendant acted with deliberate
indifference by failing to respond to the allegations of sexual
assault, abuse, and molestation in light of the known
circumstances. The Defendant's failure to implement any policies or
procedures for reporting or investigating sexual abuse until at
least 2000 resulted in the Plaintiffs being subject to further
sexual assault, battery, molestation, harassment and a sexually
hostile environment, the suit asserts.
The Ohio State University is an undergraduate and graduate research
university in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Simina Vourlis, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF SIMINA VOURLIS
856 Pullman Way
Columbus, OH 43212
Telephone: (614) 487-5900
Facsimile: (614) 487-5901
E-mail: svourlis@vourlislaw.com
- and –
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Larkin Walsh, Esq.
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
5301 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
lwalsh@midwest-law.com
sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
- and –
Robert Allard, Esq.
CORSIGLIA, MCMAHON AND ALLARD, LLP
96 North Third Street, Suite 620
San Jose, CA 95112
Telephone: (408) 289-1417
Facsimile: (408) 289-8127
E-mail: rallard@cmalaw.net
- and –
Stephen Estey, Esq.
ESTEY & BOMBERGER LLP
2869 India Street
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 295-0035
Facsimile: (619) 295-0172
E-mail: steve@estey-bomberger.com
- and –
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
KARON LLC
700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-1851
E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com
OLD DOMINION: Rowe Seeks Delivery Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 7:21-cv-04021 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant alleging
that the Defendant engaged in an unlawful employment practices and
systematic scheme of failing to timely pay wages in violation of
the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked as a pick-up and delivery truck driver
from late 2016 through November 2019.
The Plaintiff contends that he was required by the Defendant to
work approximately 60 hours per week. However, despite working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendant intentionally failed to pay
him appropriate NYLL mandated minimum wage, overtime and spread of
hours compensation for the hours he worked. Allegedly, the
Defendant has a practice of fabricating false time records which
understated the true number of hours he and other similarly
situated truck drivers worked each week. Moreover, the Defendant
failed to pay them all wages due and owing at the time of
termination of their employment as required by NYLL, added the
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks for himself and other similarly situated truck
drivers all damages caused by the Defendant's unlawful conduct,
that includes all unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and
spread of hours pay, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and all
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. is a North American
less-than-truckload (LTL) motor carriers, providing regional,
inter-regional and national LTL services through an expansive
network service centers located throughout the continental U.S.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
Shelly A. Leonard, Esq.
BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC
23 Green Street, Suite 105
Huntington, NY 11743
Tel: (631) 458-1010
E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com
sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com
POLSKIE LINIE: Samborska Alleges Delay of Passengers' Air Carriage
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIYA SAMBORSKA v. POLSKIE LINIE LOTNICZE LOT S.A d/b/a LOT POLISH
AIRLINE, a foreign corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-01842 (N.D. Ill.
April 6, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated seeking compensable economic actual, general,
punitive, statutory, incidental and consequential damages for
violation of the Article 19 of Montreal Convention for the
Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air
(Warsaw Convention).
The lawsuit is a civil action arises under the Treaty of the United
States known as the Warsaw Convention. The Plaintiff seeks damages
caused by delays of international air carriage of its passengers.
The Plaintiff purchased international airfare transportations with
reference No. VMASRI (lo) RP/48715/19/ALI from Chicago to and from
Lviv, Ukraine via connecting stops at Warsaw, Poland to be
performed on June 10, 2019 on board of LO flight 002; and on June
11, 2019 on the board of LO 765, which were at all times material
hereto operated by LOT from Chicago to Warsaw and thereafter from
Warsaw, Poland to Lviv, Ukraine.
LOT Polish Airlines, legally incorporated as Polskie Linie Lotnicze
LOT S.A., is the flag carrier of Poland. Based in Warsaw and
established on 29 December 1928, it is one of the world's oldest
airlines in operation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Esq .
GOROKHOVSKY LAW OFFICE, LLC
10919 North Hedgewood Ln.
Mequon, WI 53092
Telephone: (414)-581-1582
E-mail: gorlawoffice@yahoo.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Velezmoro Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Alberto Velezmoro,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00379-JES-NPM
(M.D. Fla., May 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yosef Steinmetz, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI, LLP
300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Email: yosef@cml.legal
POSTMATES LLC: Failed to Protect Drivers from Phishing, Benz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Benz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POSTMATES, LLC; DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01199767-CU-NP-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., May 3,
2021), is brought for damages and all other due and proper relief
against the Defendant for the Defendant's failure to protect its
drivers such as the Plaintiff from phishing scams which the
Defendant is well aware of, and could easily prevent.
According to the complaint, the Defendant uses drivers to accept
and execute delivery of such items, referred to as "Postmates
Fleet". According to the Defendant's website, the Defendant has
over 500,000 Fleet members. The Defendant offers Fleet members no
formal training or guidance in terms of protecting their earnings
from potential fraud or theft. The Defendant does not have direct
contact with individuals who sign up to be drivers, but instructs
them to download the Postmates Fleet App. The Defendant
incentivizes individuals to sign up as Postmates Fleet, offering
the ability to log on and earn money whenever they wish, and
instantly cash out their earnings through the app.
Beginning as early as 2018, Postmates Fleet members were targeted
by scammers seeking to steal the funds they had earned making
deliveries. The scammers often employ phishing methods such as
emails which appear authentic, web pages designed to mimic the
appearance of the Defendant's website, or text messages sent
pretending to be for the purpose of two-factor authentication. The
complaint alleges that despite the fact that the Defendant has had
knowledge of the scam and its efficacy for years, the Defendant has
failed to implement any number of measures which could easily put a
stop to it.
The Plaintiff was making deliveries as a Postmates Fleet driver on
June 20, 2020.
POSTMATES, LLC offers local delivery of a variety of food,
beverage, and other items from numerous merchants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
PRECIGEN INC: Abailla Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Precigen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated purported shareholder class action suit
entitled, Abailla v. Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al.
In October 2020, several purported shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.
The complaints name as defendants the Company and certain of its
current and former officers. The plaintiff's claims track the
allegations in the SEC's administrative order described above and
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest, and an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
In April 2021, the court granted an order consolidating the claims
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the case,
captioned Abailla v. Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al.
In December 2020, a derivative shareholder action, captioned Edward
D. Wright, derivatively on behalf of Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon
Corp. v. Alvarez et al, was filed in the Circuit Court for Fairfax
County in Virginia on behalf of Precigen, Inc.
The complaint names as defendants current directors and certain
current and former officers.
The plaintiff's claims track the allegations in the SEC's
administrative order described above and assert claims under state
law.
The plaintiff seeks damages, forfeiture of benefits received by
defendants, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits.
Precigen, Inc. is a dedicated discovery and clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company advancing the next generation of gene and
cell therapies with the overall goal of improving outcomes for
patients with significant unmet medical needs. The company is based
in Germantown, Maryland.
R. M. PALMER: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against R. M. Palmer Company.
The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. R. M. Palmer Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-04349-AJN (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
R.M. Palmer Company -- https://rmpalmer.com/ -- crafts seasonal
chocolate novelties for Easter, Christmas, Valentine's Day,
Halloween and Everyday fun.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
RESPONDUS INC: Veiga BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LUCIUS VEIGA, MICHAEL STERCHELE, and ALEX PARKER
ZIMMERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. RESPONDUS, INC., Case No. 2021-CH-01544, was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 14,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02620 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting biometric
information and identifiers from the Plaintiffs and Class members
without their consent and failing to make proper disclosures with
respect to the collection of said biometric identifiers and their
retention schedule.
Respondus, Inc. is a developer of assessment applications for
electronic learning, with its principal place of business in
Redmond, Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606-2841
Telephone: (312) 416-6200
E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
- and –
Joel Griswold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
Orlando, FL 32801-3432
Telephone: (407) 649-4088
E-mail: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Fails to Present Mortgage Satisfaction, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANA HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-00472-LJV (W.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021) seeks to redress the
Defendant's systematic failure to timely present to the county
clerks of New York State proof that mortgages have been satisfied.
According to the complaint, the N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law section
1921 and N.Y. Real Prop. Law section 275 require that mortgagees
like the Defendant present to the proper county clerk a
satisfaction of mortgage when a mortgagor has paid the entire
principal and interest due on a mortgage. The statutes each provide
that a mortgagee who fails to do so within 30 days is liable to the
mortgagor for $500; a mortgagee who fails to do so for more than 60
days is liable to the mortgagor for $1,000; and a mortgagee who
presents a mortgage satisfaction more than 90 days late is liable
to the mortgagor for $1,500.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this putative class action on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, and
seeks compensatory damages from Defendant.
Plaintiff Harris is a citizen of New York who resides in
Wellsville, New York.
Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a loan servicing company
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
fklorczyk@bursor.com
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Ciccio Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ciccio, et al. v.
SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D. Tenn.).
In September 2019, a putative class action on behalf of a consumer
and three orthodontists was brought against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ciccio, et al.
v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00845 (M.D.
Tenn.).
The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranty, false
advertising under the Lanham Act, common law fraud, and various
state consumer protection statutes relating to the Company's
advertising.
Following a proactive voluntary dismissal by the majority of
consumer plaintiffs, one consumer has since sought to rejoin the
Middle District of Tennessee litigation or, in the alternative, to
intervene, which the Court granted.
That ruling has been appealed, and the Court has stayed the
consumer claims pending the appeal.
Litigation is in the pleading stage and discovery as to the
purported provider class has commenced.
A preliminary Case Management Order has been entered setting trial
for some time in March 2022. The Company denies any alleged
wrongdoing and intends to defend against this action vigorously.
SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which includes marketing, aligner
manufacturing, fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring
through completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state-licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
SMILEDIRECTCLUB INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend purported class action suits related to its Initial
Public Offering (IPO).
From September to December 2019, a number of purported stockholder
class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee and in state courts in Tennessee,
Michigan and New York against the Company, members of the Company's
board of directors, certain of its current officers, and the
underwriters of its IPO.
The following complaints have been filed to date: Mancour v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-1169-IV (TN Chancery Court filed
9/27/19), Vang v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2316 (TN Circuit Court
filed 9/30/19), Fernandez v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19c2371 (TN
Circuit Court filed 10/4/19), Wei Wei v. SmileDirectClub, Inc.,
19-1254-III (TN Chancery Court filed 10/18/19), Andre v.
SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-12883 (E.D. Mich. filed 10/2/19),
Ginsberg v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-cv-09794 (S.D.N.Y. filed
10/23/19), Franchi v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19- cv-962 (M.D. Tenn.
filed 10/29/19), Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., 19-177527-CB
(Oakland County, MI Circuit Court filed 10/30/19), Sasso v.
Katzman, et al., No. 657557/2019 (NY Supreme Court filed 12/18/19),
Nurlybayev v. SmileDirectClub, Inc., No. 652603/2020 (Supreme Ct.
N.Y. Cty. filed June 19, 2020).
The complaints all allege, among other things, that the
registration statement filed with the SEC on August 16, 2019, and
accompanying amendments, and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on
September 13, 2019, in connection with the Company's initial public
offering were inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated therein. The
complaints seek unspecified money damages, other equitable relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs. All of the actions are in the
preliminary stages.
The Company denies any alleged wrongdoing and intends to vigorously
defend against these actions. On March 31, 2021 the Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Complaint.
Defendants motion to dismiss the new complaint is due on or before
May 14, 2021.
In December 2019, the Fernandez, Vang, Mancour and Wei Wei actions
were consolidated and re-captioned In re SmileDirectClub, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 19-1169-IV (Davidson County, TN Chancery
Court). Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
December 20, 2019, and Defendants moved to stay or dismiss the
action on February 10, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the court denied that
motion.
Defendants subsequently moved for permission to seek an
interlocutory appeal of that decision. On June 22, 2020, the court
granted that motion.
On August 3, 2020, Defendants filed an application for
interlocutory appeal with the court of appeals, which was denied.
On September 21, 2020, Defendants filed an application for
interlocutory appeal with the Tennessee Supreme Court, which was
denied. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for class
certification, which Defendants opposed on January 25, 2021.
On April 28, 2021, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs class
certification. The Company filed its notice of Appeal on April 28,
2021.
The Andre and Ginsberg actions were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, where they
were consolidated with the Franchi action.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 21,
2020, and Defendants moved to dismiss the action on March 23, 2020.
That motion remains pending.
In the Nurlybayev action, on January 10, 2020, the Defendants moved
to dismiss or stay the entire action in favor of the related
actions pending in Tennessee, which motion was granted and the case
was dismissed on February 26, 2020.
On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff Nurlybayev filed a substantially
similar action in New York state court.
On August 21, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that
action, which is fully briefed and remains pending. Oral argument
is set to be heard on May 25, 2021.
In the Sasso action, Plaintiff agreed to stay the action pending
resolution of any motions to dismiss in any of the related actions.
The Court so-ordered the parties' stipulation to that effect on
January 22, 2020.
SmileDirectClub, Inc. operates a teledentistry platform that
provides members with a customized clear aligner therapy treatment
in the United States and internationally. The company manages the
end-to-end process, which includes marketing, aligner
manufacturing, fulfillment, treatment by a doctor, and monitoring
through completion of their treatment proprietary with a network of
approximately 240 state-licensed orthodontists and general dentists
through its teledentistry platform, SmileCheck. It offers aligners,
impression kits, whitening gels, and retainers. The company was
founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Steele Suit Seeks Refund of Withheld TSA Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Steele, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Southwest Airlines, Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-01176-MEH
(D. Colo.,April 28, 2021) is a class action seeking to obtain
refunds of improperly withheld September 11th Security Fees (TSA
Fee) for passengers who either cancelled their reservations with
Southwest prior to travel or otherwise did not travel.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all other class members
entered into valid and enforceable written contracts with Southwest
for air transportation. Each such contract specified that the
passenger would be charged a TSA Fee, which would be used to pay
the United States government's cost for providing federal civil
aviation security services. The contract further provided that the
TSA fee is refundable. Plaintiff and all members of the Class
accepted Southwest's offer and fully performed their obligations
under the contract. Southwest nonetheless refused and failed to
refund the TSA fee. In breach of its contracts with class members,
Southwest represented that the TSA Fee was nonrefundable and issued
a Southwest "Travel Funds" credit instead of refunding the TSA Fee.
As a direct result of Southwest's breach of the Contract, Plaintiff
and all other members of the Class suffered actual damages in the
form of being denied their refundable TSA Fees and incurred
reasonable and foreseeable economic harm.
Plaintiff used the Southwest Airlines website -- southwest.com --
to purchase an airline ticket in February 2020.
Southwest Airlines is one of the largest airlines in the United
States headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Stern, Esq.
481 S. Monaco Pkwy,
Denver, CO 80224-1256
Telephone: (303) 500.5023
E-mail: jsternesq@gmail.com
- and -
Oren Giskan, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
New York, New NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
E-Mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com
SPA CASTLE: So Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIN OK SO and JINGZI LI, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. SPA CASTLE INC., SPA CASTLE PREMIER 57 INC.,
SPA CASTLE TEXAS INC. and STEVE S. CHON, Case No. 1:21-cv-03062
(E.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) is a class action for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the New York Labor Law, and "overtime wage order".
The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants employed as
Chefs. The Plaintiffs contend that they worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable
minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per
week that they worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
their hours worked, failed to pay them the applicable minimum wage,
and failed to pay them appropriately for any hours worked over 40,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium, the Plaintiffs add.
SpA Castle was founded in 2007. The company's line of business
includes operating health clubs, spas, and other physical fitness
facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Henry Hong Jung, Esq.
JUNG & ASSOCIATES, PC
470 Park Avenue South (Suite 7 North)
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 481-0800
STRATHMORE INSURANCE: Select Hospitality Appeals Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Select Hospitality, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Select Hospitality, LLC,
Plaintiff v. Strathmore Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-11414-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Apr. 20, 2021, Judge
Nathaniel M. Gorton of the District of Massachusetts allowed the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
The case is a putative class action brought by Select, on behalf of
itself and several putative classes of other persons and entities,
who own interests in businesses insured by Strathmore that suffered
business interruption losses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Select is a Massachusetts limited liability company that owns and
operates the Grand Tour restaurant in downtown Boston,
Massachusetts. Grand Tour was covered by a commercial property
insurance policy issued by Strathmore for a one-year term beginning
on Jan. 24, 2020.
The Policy provides for Business Income (and Extra Expense)
Coverage for income lost and expenses incurred during a necessary
"suspension" of operations caused by "direct physical loss of or
damage to" the insured property. Additional coverage is provided by
the Policy for losses "caused by action of civil authority that
prohibits access" to the insured premises when a Covered Cause of
Loss "causes damage to property other than" the insured location as
long as two additional conditions are met. Those conditions need
not be addressed to resolve this motion. The Policy does not
contain a coverage exclusion for losses caused by viruses, bacteria
and other disease-causing agents.
The Plaintiff filed its complaint on July 27, 2020, on behalf of
itself and several other putative classes of persons and entities
that owned interests in businesses currently insured by the
Defendant under insurance policies lacking express virus
exclusions; and suffered business interruption losses as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Order entered by Judge
Gorton dismissing the complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as Select Hospitality, LLC v.
Strathmore Insurance Company, Case No. 21-1380, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 13,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that docketing
statement and appearance form are due on May 28, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SELECT HOSPITALITY, LLC, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michelle H. Blauner, Esq.
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Seaport East, 2 Seaport Ln
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
E-mail: mblauner@shulaw.com
ehaber@shulaw.com
astewart@shulaw.com
Defendant-Appellee STRATHMORE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.
Jonathan Edward Small, Esq.
Gregory P. Varga, Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
280 Trumbull St
Hartford, CT 06103-3597
Telephone: (860) 275-8388
E-mail: wackerman@rc.com
jsmall@rc.com
gvarga@rc.com
- and -
Julianna M. Charpentier, Esq.
ROBINSON & COLE LLP
1 Boston Pl., Ste 2500
Boston, MA 02108-4404
Telephone: (617) 557-5930
E-mail: jcharpentier@rc.com
Interested Party LEGAL SEAFOOD is represented by:
Michael S. Levine, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
2200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20037-1701
Telephone: (202) 955-1857
E-mail: mlevine@hunton.com
SYNAPSE GROUP: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SYNAPSE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-03047-JMF
(S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.magazinediscountcenter.com, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a discount magazine subscription company, and owns
and operates the website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
SYNERGY COMPANIES: Faces Coss Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT COSS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THE SYNERGY COMPANIES, INC., and RUBBER, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00574 (E.D. Wis., May 5, 2021) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged unlawful compensation system that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in September 2020 as an
hourly-paid, non-exempt employee into the position of Capital
Equipment Specialist working at the Defendants' Wisconsin location.
His employment with the Defendants ended in January 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly-paid, non-exempt employees regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. But, because the Defendants allegedly
failed to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation, such
as monetary bonuses, commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other
rewards and payments, in their regular rates of pay, the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt employees were
not properly compensated for the overtime hours they have worked at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated hourly-paid, non-exempt employees in the
form of reimbursements for unpaid overtime wages for all time spent
performing compensable work for which they were not paid, as well
as liquidated damages, litigation costs and attorneys' fees, pre-
and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems
just and equitable.
The Synergy Companies, Inc. is a human resource management company.
Rubber, Inc. is a self-described warehouse distributor selling to
the automotive, commercial, and "off the road" industries.
Defendant Synergy Companies contracted with Defendant Rubber, Inc.
to provide it with a variety of Professional Employer (PEO) and
Human Capital Management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
TANGIBLE PLAY: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jaquez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JAQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TANGIBLE PLAY, INC., Case No. :21-cv-03013 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
THe Defendant is an educational entertainment company that owns and
operates the Website, www.playosmo.com, offering features which
should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which
Defendant ensures the delivery of throughout the United States,
including New York State.
On October 2020, Plaintiff visited the Website, using a popular
screen reading software called NonVisual Desktop Access, with the
intent of browsing and potentially making a purchase. Despite his
efforts, however, the Plaintiff, a visually impaired or blind
person, was denied access similar to that of a sighted individual
due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from being able
to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant's public
accommodation.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
Telephone: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com
TOOTSIE ROLL: Faces Sosa Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
YONY SOSA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03794
(S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for its
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
products and services offered is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and
legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the
assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a
proficient Job Access With Speech (JAWS) screen-reader user and
uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the
Defendant's website -- https://tootsie.com/ -- on separate
occasions using the JAWS screen-reader. During Plaintiff's visits
to the website, in an attempt to purchase a product from the
Defendant, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered
to the public and made available to the public; and that denied
Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the
website. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a
denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past, and now
deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the website.
Tootsie Roll Industries operates the Tootsie online retail store as
well as the Tootsie website and advertises, markets, and operates
in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: 212.228.9795
Fax: 212.982.6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
TOP KICK: Hohn Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVAN HOHN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. TOP KICK INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-448 (E.D. Wisc.,
April 8, 2021) is a collective and class action brought pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other
relief the Court may deem appropriate.
The Plaintiff brought this case on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees of the Defendant Top Kick.
The Defendant allegedly operated (and continues to operate) an
unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate
the Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-03048-AJN (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.buyatoyota.com, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation
of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a car manufacturing company, and owns and operates
the website, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the
delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Peterson Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit entitled, Peterson v. JBS USA Food
Company Holdings, et al., is pending.
On April 26, 2019, a group of plaintiffs, acting on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers
of beef for personal use filed a class action complaint against the
company, other beef packers, and Agri Stats in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants conspired to
reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants, limiting
their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their procurement of
cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so as to reduce
beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices of beef.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief.
The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in which the claims
against Agri Stats were dismissed and subsequently filed a second
amended complaint on November 22, 2019.
The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The indirect consumer purchaser litigation is styled Peterson v.
JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al.
Additional complaints have been filed on behalf of a putative class
of direct purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act based on an alleged conspiracy to artificially fix,
raise, and stabilize the wholesale price for beef, as well as on
behalf of a putative class of commercial and institutional indirect
purchasers of beef alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, various state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an
alleged conspiracy to artificially inflate the price for beef.
On September 28, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint. On December 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints.
On February 18, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaints.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Pork Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Pork
Antitrust Litigation.
On June 18, 2018, a group of plaintiffs acting on their own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities who
indirectly purchased pork filed a class action complaint against
the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well as
several other pork processing companies, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota. Subsequent to the
filing of the initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar
claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers were also filed in the same court.
The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.
The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust
Litigation.
Since the original filing, putative class members have filed
individual direct actions making similar claims, and others may do
so in the future.
The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf
of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes
of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes. On August 8, 2019, this matter was dismissed
without prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 6, 2019, in
which the plaintiffs again have alleged that the defendants
conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the
price of pork and pork products in violation of state and federal
antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment common laws,
and the plaintiffs again are seeking treble damages, injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
on behalf of the putative classes.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on behalf of its citizens, has
also initiated a civil lawsuit against the company, certain of its
subsidiaries, and several other pork processing companies alleging
activities in violation of the Puerto Rican antitrust laws.
This lawsuit was transferred to the District of Minnesota and an
amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2019. The company moved
to dismiss the amended complaints, and on October 16, 2020, the
court granted the motion with respect to certain state law claims
but denied the motion with respect to the plaintiffs' federal
antitrust claims. The parties are now conducting discovery.
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Settlement in Broiler Chicken Suit Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlements with the putative Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff Class and the putative End-User Plaintiff
Class, respectively, in the consolidated action entitled, In re
Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.
On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on its own
behalf and on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of
poultry products, filed a class action complaint against the
company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several
other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of
Illinois.
Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers.
The consolidated actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust
Litigation.
Since the original filing, certain putative class members have
opted out of the matter and are proceeding with individual direct
actions making similar claims, and others may do so in the future.
All opt out complaints have been filed in, or transferred to, the
Northern District of Illinois and are proceeding on a coordinated
pre-trial basis with the consolidated actions.
The operative complaints, which have been amended throughout the
litigation, allege, among other things, that beginning in January
2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,
and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United
States antitrust laws.
The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect
purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair
competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment
common laws.
The plaintiffs also allege that defendants "manipulated and
artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the
Georgia Dock." The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the
putative classes.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the
putative classes.
The parties have briefed the issue of class certification, and the
defendants are scheduled to file summary judgment motions in late
calendar year 2021. If necessary, trial will occur after rulings on
class certification and any summary judgment motions in calendar
year 2022.
On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs notified the company that the
U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") Antitrust Division issued a
grand jury subpoena to them requesting discovery produced by all
parties in the civil case.
On June 21, 2019, the DOJ filed a motion to intervene and sought a
limited stay of discovery in the civil action, which the court
granted in part.
Subsequently, the company received a grand jury subpoena from the
DOJ seeking additional documents and information related to the
chicken industry.
On June 2, 2020 a grand jury for the District of Colorado returned
an indictment charging four individual executives employed by two
other poultry processing companies with conspiracy to engage in
bid-rigging in violation of federal antitrust laws.
On June 10, 2020, the company announced that it uncovered
information in connection with the grand jury subpoena that it had
previously self-reported to the DOJ and have been fully cooperating
with the DOJ as part of its application for leniency under the DOJ'
Corporate Leniency Program.
On October 7, 2020, the DOJ announced a superseding indictment
adding charges against six more individuals to charge a total of 10
executives and employees at poultry processing companies in a
conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products
from at least 2012 until at least early 2019.
Plaintiffs in the civil action filed complaints or motions that
expressly referenced the conduct in the DOJ's indictments and
argued that bid-rigging conduct was encompassed by prior
complaints. On September 22, 2020, the court ruled that bid-rigging
claims would be consolidated into the existing action but
bifurcated from the original supply reduction and Georgia Dock
claims.
The original claims will proceed on their current schedule and the
bid-rigging claims, including any related discovery, are stayed
until the supply reduction and Georgia Dock claims are resolved.
On January 19, 2021, the company announced that it had reached
agreement to settle all class claims related to the Broiler
Antitrust Civil Litigation.
Settlement terms were reached with the putative Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff Class, the putative Commercial and Institutional Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiff Class and the putative End-User Plaintiff
Class.
Under the terms of the settlements, we have agreed to pay the
Classes an aggregate amount of $221.5 million in settlement of all
outstanding claims brought by the Classes.
On February 23, 2021 and March 22, 2021, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlements with the putative Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff Class and the putative End-User Plaintiff
Class, respectively.
The settlement with the putative Commercial and Institutional
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class remains subject to court
approval.
The foregoing settlements do not settle claims made by plaintiffs
who opt out of the Classes in the Broiler Antitrust Civil
Litigation. In the first quarter of fiscal 2021, the Company
recorded an aggregate legal contingency accrual of $320 million for
the above-referenced settlements and to resolve the remaining
claims brought by opt-out plaintiffs.
Tyson Foods said, "We are currently pursuing settlement discussions
with the opt-out plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims.
While we do not admit any liability as part of the settlements, we
believe that the settlements were in the best interests of the
Company and its shareholders in order to avoid the uncertainty,
risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation."
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
TYSON FOODS: Settlement Reached in Turkey Purchasers' Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that an agreement to settle
has been reached in the putative class action suits initiated by
turkey purchasers.
On December 19, 2019, Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. and
John Gross and Company, Inc., acting on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of all persons and entities who purchased turkey
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, filed a class
action against the company, turkey suppliers, and Agri Stats, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
entered into an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive
information regarding turkey supply, production and pricing plans,
all with the intent to artificially inflate the price of turkey, in
violation of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.
On April 13, 2020, Sandee's Catering filed a similar complaint in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of itself and a putative class of all commercial
and institutional indirect purchasers of turkey that purchased
directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator during the
class period of January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2017, alleging claims
based on the Sherman Act and various state law causes of action.
The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative
class.
The company moved to dismiss the complaints, and in decisions on
October 19 and 26, 2020, the court partially denied the motions.
In April 2021, the company reached agreement to settle all claims
related to these class actions on terms not material to the
Company. These settlements are subject to court approval.
Tyson Foods said, "While we do not admit any liability as part of
the settlements, we believe that the settlements were in the best
interests of the Company and its shareholders in order to avoid the
uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted
litigation."
Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. Tyson Foods, Inc. was founded in
1935 and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
ULTIMATE CARE: Torres Seeks to Recover Damages Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KARINA TORRES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ULTIMATE CARE, INC., CHESTER SPITZER and CAROL SHAFIR,
Case 1:21-cv-02351 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2021) seeks to recover
damages based on Defendants' violations of the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, throughout her employment as a
scheduling coordinator with Defendant, Plaintiff regularly worked
more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiff regularly worked Monday
through Friday from 6 AM to 9 AM and from 5 PM to 10 PM. At the
start of her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff also worked every
other Saturday and Sunday from 6 AM to 9 AM and from 2 PM to 10 PM.
During most of her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked
every weekend. Thus, Plaintiff regularly worked 62 hours per
workweek. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime at the rate of one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. Instead, Defendant paid Plaintiff for up to 40 hours by check
at her regular rate of $21.63 per hour and a fixed amount of $350
for 22 hours worked on Saturday and Sunday. Defendant also failed
to pay her for all hours worked each workweek at her regular rate
of pay as a result of deducting 30 minutes per day for a break that
Plaintiff did not take or receive.
Defendants Spitzer and Shafir are corporate officers of Defendant
Ultimate Care Inc., a company engaged in interstate commerce, where
Plaintiff worked from September 2018 to April 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel. (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
UNITED HEALTHCARE: 10th Cir. Appeal Filed in Fedor FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants UNITED HEALTHCARE, INC. and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES,
INC. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled DANA FEDOR, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff
v. UNITED HEALTHCARE, INC., and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00013-MV-KBM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico - Albuquerque.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks overtime pay, pre- and post-judgment interest for attorneys'
fees, costs and disbursements and additional relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Wage Law.
The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated May 7, 2021, granting in part and denying in part
their Motion to Dismiss, Strike Class and Collective Action Claims,
and Compel Arbitration, or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings.
The appellate case is captioned as Fedor v. United Healthcare, et
al., Case No. 21-2051, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on May 14, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
appearance are due on May 28, 2021 for United Healthcare Services,
Inc. and United Healthcare, Inc.; and
-- Notice of appearance is due on May 28, 2021 for Dana
Fedor.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants UNITED HEALTHCARE, INC. and UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC. are represented by:
Robert Francois Friedman, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1500, Lock Box 116
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 880-8100
E-mail: rfriedman@littler.com
- and -
John Mark Ogden, Esq.
Cory Glen Walker, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900
Phoenix, AZ 85016-4242
Telephone: (602) 474-3600
E-mail: mogden@littler.com
cgwalker@littler.com
Plaintiff-Appellee DANA FEDOR, and all others similarly situated,
is represented by:
J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
LEE & BRAZIEL
1801 North Lamar Street, Suite 325
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 749-1400
E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
- and -
Karla Gilbride, Esq.
Stephanie K. Glaberson, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE
1620 L Street NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 797-8600
- and -
David Hollis Seligman, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
PO Box 371680, Pmb 44465
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 248-8426
- and -
Jack Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP
2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 790-4454
UNITED STAFFING: Faces Magtoles TVPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
MARY GRACE MAGTOLES, AIRA C. TAN, ANA MYRENE ESPINOSA, and ANA
MERVINE ESPINOSA, individually and on behalf of all others v.
UNITED STAFFING REGISTRY, INC. d/b/a United Home Care, and BENJAMIN
H. SANTOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01850 (E.D.N.Y., April 6, 2021) is an
action for damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and
other remedies for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act, and for breach of contract, fraud, and unjust enrichment under
New York law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are foreign labor
recruiters who have recruited more than 100 nurses and other health
care professionals from the Philippines to work for them in this
District under contracts of indentured servitude. The Defendants'
standard employment contract allegedly contains draconian penalties
designed to keep Filipino health care professionals working for
them and their clients, including: (a) a $90,000.00 indenture that
the health care professional must either pay or work off before she
will be permitted to stop working; (b) a non-compete penalty that
purports to prohibit the health care professional from working in
the healthcare field anywhere in the United States for a period of
three years if she fails to pay or work off the $90,000.00
indenture; and (c) an express, written threat that the Defendants
will report the health care professional to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and have her deported if she stops working before
she pays or works off the $90,000.00 indenture.
While the Defendants characterize the $90,000.00 indenture as
"liquidated damages," there is no basis for this claim. The
Defendants pay nothing towards the recruitment, visa applications,
or training of the health care professionals. Indeed, the
Defendants not only require the health care professionals to pay
all of these costs, but also charge them for other expenses
including labor certification fees that the employer is required by
law to pay and may not pass on to the employee, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants refuse to pay them for
all the hours they work or the wages required by their employment
contracts and the immigration laws. To keep them from leaving, the
Defendants threaten them with serious harm, including enforcement
of the draconian penalties in the employment contract and the
threat to have them deported.
On behalf of themselves and all other Filipino healthcare
professionals who have been employed by Defendants since April 5,
2011, Plaintiffs seek a judgment against each Defendant, jointly
and severally, for: compensatory and punitive damages for
violations of the TVPA; compensatory damages for breach of contract
and unjust enrichment; compensatory and punitive damages for fraud;
pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 9% on all
damages awarded for violations of New York laws; an injunction
prohibiting the Defendants from threatening to enforce or enforcing
the indenture and non-compete clauses in the employment contracts;
a declaration that the indenture and non-compete clauses are
unenforceable under the TVPA, the Anti-Peonage Law, 42 U.S.C.
section 1994, and New York law; an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs as authorized by 18 U.S.C. section 1595(a) and the
parties' employment contracts; and such other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
The Plaintiffs are Registered Nurses licensed to practice in the
State of New York and an employee of the Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Howley, Esq.
THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10105
Telephone: (212) 601-2728
USIC LLC: Underpays Locate Technicians, Martell Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JACQUELYN MARTELL, individually and on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USIC, LLC, a Foreign
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00363-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2021), arises from the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime pay in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Locate Technician
from approximately August 2010 until approximately March 2019.
The Plaintiff asserts that she and other similarly situated
employees worked in excess of 40 hours in various work weeks
throughout the duration of their employment with the Defendant,
including several off-the-clock hours. However, they were not
properly compensated by the Defendant for all their overtime hours
worked at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay. Instead, the Defendant systematically paid, and continue to
pay, them substantially fewer hours than they actually worked. IN
addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to keep accurate time
records, the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint aa a collective action seeking
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' and expert fees,
and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
USIC, LLC provides underground utility damage prevention and a full
suite of utility services throughout the U.S. and Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 400
Plantation, FL 33324
Tel: (954) 318-0268
Fax: (954) 327-3039
E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com
VEESTRO INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VEESTRO, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-03049-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
April 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.veestro.com, and therefore denial
of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a meal delivery company, and owns and operates the
website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
VIRTUOUS VICES: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VIRTUOUS VICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03050-LJL
(S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.vices.com, and therefore denial of
its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is a luxury items subscription box company, and owns
and operates the website, offering features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant
ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States,
including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
WALGREEN PHARMACY: Faces Lemons Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAYLOR LEMONS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, WALGREEN
PHARMACY SERVICES EASTERN, LLC, and WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES
WESTERN, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00511-MO (D. Oreg., April 6, 2021)
seeks to recover penalty wages for all current and former employees
of Walgreen Pharmacy Service Midwest, LLC, Walgreen Pharmacy
Services Eastern under the Oregon wage and hour laws.
According to the complaint, around January 1, 2008, WPSW or WPSE
began operating Walgreens pharmacies in Oregon and became the
employer of most or all of Walgreen Co.'s employees in Oregon.
Employees were not told that their employment with Walgreen Co. was
terminated and that their new employer was WPSW or WPSE. Pursuant
to ORS 652.140, WPSW or WPSE was required to pay all wages owed to
all employees whose employment was terminated on December 31, 2015
by the end of the next business day, the suit adds.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff and class members were not paid all wages
owed until January 14, 2016. On January 26, 2016, WPSW and WPSE
merged with WPSM. Additionally, WPSW and WPSE no longer exist, and
are unable provide adequate relief directly to the Plaintiff and
the class.
Walgreens is one of the largest drugstore chains in the U.S., with
more than 9,200 stores in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The company had fiscal
2014 sales of more than $76 billion. Walgreens operates
approximately 76 drug stores in Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl Post, Esq.
John Burgess, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER
1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400
Portland, OR 97205
Telephone: (503) 241-3617
Facsimile: (503) 241-2249
E-mail: carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com
WORKHORSE GROUP: Continues to Defend Farrar and Kinney Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Workhorse Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend putative class action suits initiated by Sam Farrar and
John Kinney.
On March 8, 2021, Sam Farrar, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the Company's securities, filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company, Duane Hughes
and Steve Schrader in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (Case 2:21-cv-02207) claiming
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On March 11, 2021, John Kinney, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the Company's securities, filed a
substantively identical putative class action complaint against the
Company, Duane Hughes and Steve Schrader in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case
2:21-cv-02207-JFW-GJS) also claiming violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
In each case, which the company expect will be consolidated,
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the securities laws
by intentionally or recklessly making material misrepresentations
and/or omissions regarding the prospect of the United States Postal
Service awarding the contract to an electric vehicle manufacturer
given that electrifying the USPS's entire fleet allegedly would be
impractical and expensive.
Plaintiffs seek certification of a class and monetary damages in an
indeterminate amount.
The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 or set a deadline
for the filing of a consolidated amended complaint.
The Company believes these actions are without merit and vigorously
intends to pursue all legal avenues to defend itself fully.
Workhorse Group Inc. is a technology company focused on providing
sustainable and cost-effective solutions to the commercial
transportation sector. As an American manufacturer, the company
create all-electric delivery trucks and drone systems, including
the technology that optimizes the way these mechanisms operate. The
company is based in Loveland, Ohio.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Has $320MM Reserves at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. records total reserves for asbestos
claims at $320 million at March 31, 2021 compared to $335 million
at September 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ashland is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990
in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley) and
the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a
former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing
components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of
Hercules' former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.
"To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims,
Ashland retained Nathan Associates Inc. (Nathan). The methodology
used by Nathan to project future asbestos costs is based largely on
recent experience, including claim-filing and settlement rates,
disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and litigation
defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules are
separately compared to the results of previously conducted third
party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information,
Nathan estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and
receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the
discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income (Loss)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3u41k6X
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Still Defends PI Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries have
been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos allegedly integrated into certain
Carrier products or business premises, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Carrier Global states, "While the Company has never manufactured
asbestos and no longer incorporates it into any
currently-manufactured products, certain products that the Company
no longer manufactures contained components incorporating asbestos.
A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed without payment or have been covered in full or in part
by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were
litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The
amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate in any period.
"The amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities are based on
currently available information and assumptions that the Company
believes are reasonable and are made with input from outside
actuarial experts. Where no amount within a range of estimates is
more likely, the minimum is accrued. These amounts are undiscounted
and exclude the Company's legal fees to defend the asbestos claims,
which are expensed as incurred. In addition, the Company has
recorded an insurance recovery receivable for probable
asbestos-related recoveries."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3wjiGOF
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garrett Motion Settles Honeywell's Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc., on January 11, 2021, announced that it had
agreed to settle Honeywell's claims as part of a broader revised
Plan, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "This settlement would extinguish our
obligations to Honeywell under the Honeywell Indemnity Agreement.
"Under the Plan, Honeywell would receive a $375 million payment and
Series B Preferred Stock payable in installments of $35 million in
2022, and $100 million annually 2023-2030. The Company would have
the option to prepay the Series B Preferred Stock in full at any
time at a call price equivalent to $584 million as of the Emergence
date (representing the present value of the installments at a 7.25%
discount rate). The Company will also have the option to make a
partial payment of the Series B Preferred Stock, reducing the
present value to $400 million, at any time within 18 months of
Emergence.
"In connection with the Spin-Off, Garrett ASASCO, a wholly owned
indirect subsidiary of the Company, entered into the Honeywell
Indemnity Agreement with Honeywell on September 12, 2018. As of the
Spin-Off date of October 1, 2018, Garrett ASASCO is obligated to
make payments to Honeywell in amounts equal to 90% of certain
Honeywell asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable,
primarily related to the Bendix business in the United States, as
well as certain environmental-related liability payments and
accounts payable and non-United States asbestos-related liability
payments and accounts payable, in each case related to legacy
elements of the Business, including the legal costs of defending
and resolving such liabilities, less 90% of Honeywell's net
insurance receipts and, as may be applicable, certain other
recoveries associated with such liabilities. Pursuant to the terms
of this Honeywell Indemnity Agreement, Garrett ASASCO is
responsible for paying to Honeywell such amounts, up to a cap of an
amount equal to the Euro-to-U.S. dollar exchange rate determined by
Honeywell as of a date within two business days prior to the date
of the Distribution (1.16977 USD = 1 EUR) equivalent of $175
million in respect of such liabilities arising in any given
calendar year. The payments that Garrett ASASCO is required to make
to Honeywell pursuant to the terms of the Honeywell Indemnity
Agreement will not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax
purposes. The Honeywell Indemnity Agreement provides that the
agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (x) December 31, 2048
or (y) December 31st of the third consecutive year during which
certain amounts owed to Honeywell during each such year were less
than $25 million as converted into Euros in accordance with the
terms of the agreement. During the first quarter of 2020, Garrett
ASASCO paid Honeywell the Euro-equivalent of $35 million in
connection with the Honeywell Indemnity Agreement. Honeywell and
Garrett agreed to defer the payment under the Honeywell Indemnity
Agreement due May 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 (the "Q2 Payment"),
however we do not expect Garrett ASASCO to make payments to
Honeywell under the Honeywell Indemnity Agreement during the
pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases. The Plan, as confirmed by the
Bankruptcy Court, includes a global settlement with Honeywell
providing for, among other things, the full and final satisfaction,
settlement, release, and discharge of all liabilities under or
related to the Indemnity Agreements.
"On December 2, 2019, the Company and its subsidiary Garrett
ASASCO, filed a Summons with Notice in the Commercial Division of
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the
"NY Supreme Court") commencing an action (the "Action") against
Honeywell, certain of Honeywell's subsidiaries and certain of
Honeywell's employees for declaratory judgment, breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duties, corporate waste, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. On January 15, 2020,
the Company and Garrett ASASCO, filed a Complaint in the NY Supreme
Court in connection with the Action. The lawsuit arises from the
Honeywell Indemnity Agreement. The Company is seeking declaratory
relief; compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at
trial; rescission of the Honeywell Indemnity Agreement; attorneys'
fees and costs and such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper. There can be no assurance as to the time and
resources that will be required to pursue these claims or the
ultimate outcome of the lawsuit. Among other claims, Garrett
asserts that Honeywell is not entitled to indemnification because
it improperly seeks indemnification for amounts attributable to
punitive damages and intentional misconduct, and because it has
failed to establish other prerequisites for indemnification under
New York law. Specifically, the claim asserts that Honeywell has
failed to establish its right to indemnity for each and every
asbestos settlement of the thousands for which it seeks
indemnification. The Action seeks to establish that the Honeywell
Indemnity Agreement is not enforceable, in whole or in part. On
March 5, 2020, Honeywell filed a "Notice of Motion to Dismiss
Garrett's Complaint". On September 20, 2020, Garrett and certain of
its subsidiaries each filed the Chapter 11 Cases. On September 23,
2020, Garrett removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, and on September 24, 2020,
the case was referred to the Bankruptcy Court, where the case is
currently pending. On October 13, 2020, Honeywell filed a motion to
dismiss in the Bankruptcy Court. Garrett does not believe
Honeywell's motion has merit. A pre-trial conference took place on
October 22, 2020. The Court heard argument on Honeywell's pending
motion to dismiss on November 18, 2020; the Court has not yet
issued a decision. On November 2, 2020, the Garrett entities that
are Debtors and Debtors in Possession filed a Motion Pursuant to
Sections 105(a) and 502(c) To Establish Procedures For Estimating
The Maximum Amount Of Honeywell's Claims And Related Relief
("Motion"). The Court heard argument on the Motion on November 18.
The Court ordered an estimation proceeding to take place to
estimate all of Honeywell's claims against the Garrett entities
that are Debtors and Debtors in Possession.
"On December 18, 2020, Honeywell filed proofs of claim in the
Chapter 11 Cases, asserting that the Company owes at least $1.9
billion in respect of such claims. The Bankruptcy Court was
scheduled to estimate the amount of Honeywell's claims in an
estimation proceeding that was scheduled to commence on February 1,
2021."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3vbwAm8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety's Subsidiary Faces 3,043 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated's subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC ("MSA LLC"), was named as a defendant in 1,632
cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 3,043 claims at March 31,
2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Cumulative trauma product liability claims
involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and
coal dust) that occurred years ago and may have developed over long
periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis,
mesothelioma or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. The products at issue
were manufactured many years ago and are not currently offered by
MSA LLC. A reserve has been established with respect to estimated
amounts for cumulative trauma product liability claims currently
asserted but not yet resolved and incurred but not reported
("IBNR") cumulative trauma product liability claims. Because our
cumulative trauma product liability risk is subject to inherent
uncertainties, including unfavorable trial rulings or developments,
an increase in newly filed claims, or more aggressive settlement
demands, and since MSA LLC is largely self-insured, there can be no
certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur losses in excess of
presently recorded liabilities. These losses could have a material
adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial
condition and liquidity.
"MSA and its subsidiaries face an inherent business risk of
exposure to product liability claims arising from the alleged
failure of our products to prevent the types of personal injury or
death against which they are designed to protect. In the event the
parties using our products are injured or any of our products prove
to be defective, we could be subject to claims with respect to such
injuries. In addition, we may be required to or may voluntarily
recall or redesign certain products that could potentially be
harmful to end users. Any claim or product recall that results in
significant expense or negative publicity against us could have a
material adverse effect on our business, operating results,
financial condition and liquidity, including any successful claim
brought against us in excess or outside of available insurance
coverage."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3v62IY3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Still Defends PI Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation has been named as defendants in lawsuits
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "While we have never manufactured any
asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate
asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical
products have contained components manufactured by third parties
incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were
covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and
for the periods ended March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020.
"The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending
and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is
approximately $23 million to $45 million as of March 31, 2021 and
December 31, 2020. Because no amount within the range of estimates
is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded the
minimum amount of $23 million, which is principally recorded in
Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Amounts are on a
pre-tax basis, not discounted, and excludes the Company's legal
fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be
expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an
insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related
recoveries of approximately $5 million, which is principally
included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3xXQRxj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell and Subsidiaries Faces PI Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc., including its subsidiaries, have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of its products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Currently there are a few thousand claimants
in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show
that they worked with our products or products of divested
businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we
have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity
of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.
"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
asbestos liability. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation
make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of
asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility
of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim
litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these
uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos
claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material
effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations.
"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses. In
connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some instances the
divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities
if the divested business is unable to do so. We do not believe
these liabilities will have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations.
"In many countries we provide a limited intellectual property
indemnity as part of our terms and conditions of sale. We also at
times provide limited intellectual property indemnities in other
contracts with third parties, such as contracts concerning the
development and manufacture of our hardware and software products.
As of March 31, 2021, we were not aware of any material
indemnification claims that were probable or reasonably possible of
an unfavorable outcome. Historically, claims that have been made
under the indemnification agreements have not had a material impact
on our business, financial condition or results of operations;
however, to the extent that valid indemnification claims arise in
the future, future payments by us could be significant and could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition
or results of operations in a particular period. During the first
quarter of fiscal 2021, we reached a favorable settlement agreement
regarding ongoing litigation of a trademark infringement and false
advertising matter and received $70 million. The settlement gain is
recorded in other (expense) income in the Consolidated statement of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3bhyqtG
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 347 Pending Cases at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of March 31, 2021, was a party to 347
pending cases involving an aggregate of 4,676 claimants primarily
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing
materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and
otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons
division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily
in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
TriMas Corp. states, "The Company may be subjected to significant
additional asbestos-related claims in the future, and will
aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost
of settling cases in which product identification can be made may
increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in
respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket
distributors. The cost of claims varies as claims may be initially
made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or
by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary
relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large
majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,676
claims pending at March 31, 2021, 34 set forth specific amounts of
damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or
maximum). At March 31, 2021, of the 34 claims that set forth
specific amounts, there was one claim seeking more than $5 million
for punitive damages.
"Relatively few claims have reached the discovery stage and even
fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement
costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of
which were filed over 25 years ago, have been approximately $10.3
million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in
nature. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of
claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification,
the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does
not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.
There has been significant volatility in the historical number of
claim filings and costs to defend, with previous claim counts and
spend levels much higher than current levels. Management believes
this volatility was associated more with tort reform, plaintiff
practices and state-specific legal dockets than the Company's
underlying asbestos-related exposures. From 2017 to 2019, however,
the number of new claim filings, and costs to defend, had become
much more consistent, ranging between 143 to 173 new claims per
year and total defense costs ranging between $2.2 million and $2.3
million.
"The higher degree of consistency in census data and spend levels,
as well as lower claim activity levels and an evolving defense
strategy, has allowed the Company to more effectively and
efficiently manage claims, making process or local counsel
arrangement improvements where possible. Given the consistency of
activity over a multi-year period, the Company believed a trend may
have formed where it could be possible to reasonably estimate its
future cash exposure for all asbestos-related activity with an
adequate level of precision. As such, the Company commissioned an
actuary to help evaluate the nature and predictability of its
asbestos-related costs, and provide an actuarial range of estimates
of future exposures. Based upon its review of the actuarial study,
which was completed in June 2020 using data as of December 31, 2019
and which projected spend levels through a terminal year of 2064,
the Company affirmed its belief that it now has the ability to
reasonably estimate its future asbestos-related exposures for
pending as well as unknown future claims.
"During the second quarter 2020, the Company elected to change its
method of accounting for asbestos-related defense costs from
accruing for probable and reasonably estimable defense costs
associated with known claims expected to settle to accrue for all
future defense costs for both known and unknown claims, which the
Company now believes are reasonably estimable. The Company believes
this change is preferable, as asbestos-related defense costs
represent expenditures related to legacy activities that do not
contribute to current or future revenue generating activities, and
recording an estimate of the full liability for asbestos-related
costs, where estimable with reasonable precision, provides a more
complete assessment of the liability associated with resolving
asbestos-related claims. This accounting change was reflected as a
change in accounting estimate effected by a change in accounting
principle.
"Following the change in accounting estimate, the Company's
liability for asbestos-related claims will be based on a study from
the Company's third-party actuary, the Company's review of the
study, as well as the Company's own review of asbestos claims and
claim resolution activity. The study from the Company's actuary,
based on data as of December 31, 2019, provided for a range of
possible future liability from $31.5 million to $43.3 million. The
Company did not believe any amount within the range of potential
outcomes represented a better estimate than another given the many
factors and assumptions inherent in the projections, and therefore
recorded a $23.4 million charge in second quarter 2020 to increase
the liability estimate to $31.5 million, at the low-end of the
range. As of March 31, 2021, the Company's total asbestos-related
liability is $27.9 million, and is included in accrued liabilities
and other long-term liabilities, respectively, in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet.
"The Company's primary insurance, which covered approximately 40%
of historical costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos
litigation, expired in November 2018, upon which the Company became
solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments. The
Company is party to a coverage-in-place agreement (entered into in
2006) with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage
to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims. The
coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and
indemnity insurance coverage available to the Company that might
otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology
for the administration of such expenses. The Company will continue
to be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments
prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement, the
duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards
and settlements paid. Based upon the Company's review of the
actuarial study, the Company does not believe it is probable that
it will reach the threshold of qualified future settlements
required to commence excess carrier insurance coverage under the
coverage-in-place agreement."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3f4GRLi
*********
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 ***