/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210526.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 26, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 99 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Beeley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: Deater Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Figueroa Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF 3M COMPANY: G.M. Kennedy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Griffin Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF ALABAMA: Dismissal of Reagan v. ABC Board & Revenue Dep't. Affirmed AMAZON.COM: Won Sues to Recoup Unpaid Wages and Lost Earnings AMC NETWORKS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMERIFIELD INC: Bewley Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ANDRE PROST: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APPLE INC: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Maldonado Suit ARS NATIONAL: Pena Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ARS NATIONAL: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York AVON PRODUCTS: Approval of Settlement in Class Suit Final BEALL'S INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BLUESOURCE LLC: Fernandez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages BOINGO WIRELESS: Hawkins Sues Over False and Misleading Statements BROADPATH LLC: Thomas Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 CANADA GOOSE: Bid to Dismiss Cheng Class Suit Pending CANADA GOOSE: Bid to Dismiss Lee Putative Class Suit Pending CANADA GOOSE: Lam Putative Class Suit to be Discontinued CAVALRY PORTOFOLIO: Krausz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York CITIZEN SUPPLY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Suits Over Misleading Press Releases Underway COMMUNITY OPTIONS: Moreria Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations CONOPCO INC: Muller Suit Removed to Eastern District of Missouri COURTNEY'S TREAT: Harrison Sues Over Excessive Sales Tax Charges FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Dismiss Garrett-Alfred Class Suit Granted FERRARA CANDY: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FORD MOTOR: Hawkins Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Destination Fee FORSGREN INC: Petrose Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas GOANTIQUES LLC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOHEALTH INC: Consolidated Putative Securities Class Suit Underway GOJO INDUSTRIES: Robles Sues Over Deceptive & False Advertisements GRAND DESIGN: Faces Gorecki Suit Over Defective RVs HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Franchisees Sue Over Unfair Business Practices HOME DEPOT: Fridman Suit Removed to S.D. Florida INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Larkin Sues Over Abuse of Monopoly Power KALLBERG INDUSTRIES: Ojeda Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages LINEAGE CELL: Ross Putative Class Action Ongoing MDL 2878: Classes in Ranbaxy Generic Drug Antitrust Suit Certified MERLIN GLOBAL: Westmorlan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MERRICK GARLAND: O'Neill Files Suit in District of Columbia MICHAEL CARR: Norman Files Suit in Northern District of Texas MRS BPO: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NATIONAL VISION: FirstSight Vision Continues to Defend Class Suit NORTHRUP GRUMMAN: Behar Files Suit in C.D. California OSMOTICA PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Consolidated NJ Suit PERRIGO CO: Acetaminophen Products Related Suits Ongoing PERRIGO CO: Continues to Defend Roofers' Pension Fund Suit PERRIGO CO: Court Extends Stay of Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv PERRIGO CO: Discovery Ongoing in Desonide & Econazole Suits PERRIGO CO: Litigation Over Contaminated Ranitidine Ongoing PFIZER INC: Class Suits Related to Zantac Underway PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen Antitrust Class Suits PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Underway PFIZER INC: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sale PHENIXFIN CORP: Kahn Purported Class Action Underway PHENIXFIN CORP: Objections to Solomon Revised Agreement Due June 9 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Provide Refunds POLARITYTE INC: Court Junks Consolidated Securities Class Suit PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Faces Purported Class Suit in Maryland QUICK KEY: Hadden Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations RA MEDICAL: Derr Putative Class Action Underway RACHMA CONTRACTING: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RADIUS GLOBAL: Almeida Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida RAMM HOSPITALITY: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REPRO MED: Faces Putative Class Action in New York RUBY LANE: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SELLAS LIFE: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Abstral Promos STEREOTAXIS INC: Barre Indicates Voluntary Dismissal of Suit STONEMOR INC: Fried Putative Class Action Stayed T-MOBILE USA: Filing of First Amended Chetwood Class Suit Allowed TIAS.COM INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UBIQUITI INC: Molder Slams Share Price Drop from Data Breach UNIT CORP: Deal Reached to Settle Chieftain Royalty Class Suit UNIT CORP: Settlement Deal Between Subsidiary & Cockerell Reached UNITED STATES: Roddy Slams Unsafe Workplace VERMONT BREAD: Chaney Seeks Damages for WARN Act Violations YUMANITY THERAPEUTICS: Paid Mootness Fee in Merger Related Suits ZOSANO PHARMA: Consolidated Stockholders Class Suit Underway ********* 3M COMPANY: Beeley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF --------------------------------------------------- Peter Beeley, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01378-RMG (D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. 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. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. 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. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, asserts the complaint. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[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 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 3M COMPANY: Deater Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Deater, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01392-RMG (D.S.C., May 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. 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. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. 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. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with prostatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, asserts the complaint. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[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 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 3M COMPANY: Figueroa Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF ------------------------------------------------------------ Ernesto Figueroa, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01414-RMG (D.S.C., May 11, 2021), is brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for decades. According to the complaint, the action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF compounding includes Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (commonly known as "PFOS"), Perfluorooctanoic Acid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are man made organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants) . The compounds are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for example, jet fuel fires. AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The manufacturing processes involved in this action are asserted to have used flourocarbon surfactants which are believed to include PFOS and PFOA (and/or other perfluorinated compounds known as "PFC"' are also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in PFOS and PFOA). The Plaintiff joined the US Army in 1999, was subsequently assigned to Camp Pendleton, CA (2000-2003/2004-2007). The Plaintiff lived on Base at Camp Pendleton, CA using and drinking the water, except for assignments. Camp Pendleton has a PFAS environmental contamination level of 820.8ppt (EPA max of 70ppt). In 2019, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer which was ultimately removed (right kidney) shortly after discovery/diagnosis. The Plaintiff did not discover that PFAS was a cause of the harm until mid-2020, when he saw internet information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Army, who during his service was stationed at Camp Pendleton, California, a military installation identified as being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals which are the subject of this action. 3M did and does business nationwide, including within California inclusive with U.S. Military Bases/Posts as to firefighting foam products which 3M manufactured, distributed and/or sold, which firefighting foams contained toxic chemicals known as, inter alia, PFOS, PFOA and/or other PFC's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq. BANNER LEGAL 445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100 Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: (760) 479-5404 Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com - and - S. James Boumil , Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA, 01852 Phone: (978) 458-0507 Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com - and - Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (800) 934-2921 Email: kon@kyroslaw.com 3M COMPANY: G.M. Kennedy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- Garett McClain Kennedy, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01382-RMG (D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. 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. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. 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. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with testicular cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, says the complaint. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[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 Phone: 205-328-9200 Facsimile: 205-328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Phone: 843-546-2408 Facsimile: 843-546-9604 3M COMPANY: Griffin Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic AFFF ----------------------------------------------------------- James Griffin, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01388-RMG (D.S.C., May 7, 2021), is brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for decades. According to the complaint, this action deals with Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were designed, manufactured and sold as firefighting compounds. AFFF compounding includes Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (commonly known as "PFOS"), Perfluorooctanoic Acid (commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl substances (together, with PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS") which are man made organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly referred to as fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants) . The compounds are designed to lower the surface tension of water so as to create a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off oxygen), for example, jet fuel fires. AFFF is created by mixing fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming substances (chemical agents designed for a particular purpose) with fluorinated surfactants and mixing that with water which creates an aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The manufacturing processes involved in this action are asserted to have used flourocarbon surfactants which are believed to include PFOS and PFOA (and/or other perfluorinated compounds known as "PFC"' are also believed to be in the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in PFOS and PFOA). The Plaintiff joined the US Navy in 1974, and after Basic at Great Lakes, was assigned to Treasure Island, CA (1974-1975). The Plaintiff lived on Base at Treasure Island, using and drinking the water, except for assignments, e.g. San Diego. Griffin attended firefighting training thereat. On information and belief, Treasure Island has a PFAS environmental contamination level of 10,750 ppt (EPA max of 70ppt). In 2014, during a physical exam, it was discovered that the Plaintiff had a mass on his right kidney. The kidney was cancerous and removed shortly after discovery/diagnosis. The Plaintiff did not discover that PFAS was a cause of the harm until mid-2020, when he saw internet information, says the complaint. 3M did and does business nationwide, including within California inclusive with U.S. Military Bases/Posts as to firefighting foam products which 3M manufactured, distributed and/or sold, which firefighting foams contained toxic chemicals known as, inter alia, PFOS, PFOA and/or other PFC's.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq. BANNER LEGAL 445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100 Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: (760) 479-5404 Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com - and - S. James Boumil , Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA, 01852 Phone: (978) 458-0507 Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com - and - Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (800) 934-2921 Email: kon@kyroslaw.com ALABAMA: Dismissal of Reagan v. ABC Board & Revenue Dep't. Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Cary Reagan, Jr. v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; Mac H. Gipson, individually and in his official capacity as administrator for the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; Robert W. Lee, individually and in his official capacity as chairman of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; Samuetta H. Drew, individually and in her official capacity as a member of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; Michael Ingram, M.D., individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; Alabama Department of Revenue; and City of Tuscaloosa, Case No. 1200213 (Ala.), Judge William Burwell Sellers of the Supreme Court of Alabama affirms the judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing Reagan's action against the Alabama Department of Revenue, the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, the members of the Board, including its chairman, the administrator of the Board, and the City of Tuscaloosa. The Defendants' motions to dismiss were based principally on the doctrine of sovereign or State immunity. Reagan claims that the Board and the Department have been improperly calculating and collecting sales taxes from customers of retail liquor stores operated by the Board. He asked the trial court to certify a class consisting of himself and other customers of the Board's stores and to direct the defendants to deposit the allegedly overpaid taxes into a court-approved account for the benefit of the class members, to be administered by the trial court and from which attorney fees presumably would be paid. Multiple tax statutes apply to the Board's sale of spirituous and vinous liquors. Sections 28-3-200 through 28-3-205, Ala. Code 1975, impose taxes in the total amount of 56% of "the selling price" of such liquors. In addition, Section 40-23-2(1), Ala. Code 1975, Alabama's general sales-tax statute, applies to retail sales of tangible personal property in Alabama (including sales by the Board), and imposes a 4% tax on "the gross proceeds of sales." Finally, Section 28-3-280, Ala. Code 1975, imposes "an additional state sales tax in the amount of two percent of the retail price, excluding taxes, on the sales of alcoholic beverages sold at retail" by the Board. Mr. Reagan asserts that the Board and the Department have been improperly calculating the amount owed under the 2% tax imposed by Section 28-3-280 and the 4% tax imposed by Section 40-23-2(1). Specifically, he asserts that the Board and the Department calculate the amounts owed pursuant to those statutes by adding a total of 6% to an amount customers are charged that already includes the 56% state liquor taxes imposed under Sections 28-3-200 through 28-3-205. According to him, the 4% tax and the 2% tax should be calculated using a tax base that excludes the state liquor taxes. In other words, he asserts that the Board should collect from customers a total of 6% of only the amount the Board pays to purchase a product from its suppliers plus the retail markup added by the Board. In his complaint, Reagan sought a judgment declaring that the sales taxes in question have been, and are being, improperly calculated. He also asserted causes of action alleging fraud and "misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance of duty" on the part of the individual defendants. He asked the trial court to direct the Defendants to deposit the allegedly excessive taxes they have collected into a court-approved account "until such funds are returned to Reagan and the class members." He also asked the trial court to "establish a procedure by which purchasers from the Board retail stores can make a request for the monies illegally, improperly and wrongfully collected." Finally, he sought an award of attorney fees. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the trial court granted. Reagan appealed. The applicable standard of review requires the Supreme Court to view the allegations of Reagan's complaint most strongly in his favor and to determine whether, based on those allegations, Reagan can prove any set of circumstances that would entitle him to relief. Judge Sellers explains that as the appellant, Reagan has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred to reversal by concluding that Reagan's action is barred by sovereign immunity. He has failed to satisfy that burden. In his briefs to the Court, Reagan makes no mention of Patterson, which the Defendants relied on in arguing to the trial court that Reagan's direct action seeking a tax refund implicates sovereign immunity. In his opening brief, Reagan simply provides a quotation from Ex parte Moulton, which lists certain "exceptions" to sovereign immunity, including requests for declaratory judgments. Reagan, however, provides no detailed discussion of those "exceptions." Nor does Reagan clearly address the defendants' argument to the trial court that, even though his complaint requests a declaratory judgment, the "true nature" of his action is one for the recovery of a monetary award against the State. He does not cite or discuss Lyons, on which the Defendants relied in arguing that Reagan essentially has recast an action seeking a money judgment as a declaratory-judgment action. As for any other "exception" to sovereign immunity that might apply in the case, such as, for example, actions brought to compel State officials to perform their legal duties or to enjoin them from engaging in fraudulent acts, Reagan simply identifies those "exceptions" by quoting Moulton and does not provide persuasive argument in support of their application to the case. In sum, Judge Sellers opines that Reagan fails to acknowledge that the Alabama Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and Uniform Revenue Procedures Act Section 40-2A-1, et seq., Ala. Code 1975, provides the exclusive means of seeking a refund of taxes without violating principles of sovereign immunity. And, he has not established that his request for a declaratory judgment is anything more than a claim for a refund of sales taxes and an attempt to mask the substance of the monetary relief he seeks. Thus, he has not demonstrated that the trial court erred by concluding that this action is barred by sovereign immunity, and, therefore, the Judge affirms the trial court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/4sk9af4j from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM: Won Sues to Recoup Unpaid Wages and Lost Earnings ------------------------------------------------------------- Caonaissa Won, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON.COM SALES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02867-RPK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021), is brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid wages and lost earnings and other benefits of employment, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, on behalf of current and former employees of Amazon throughout the United States, who took short-term military leave (i.e., military leaves that last 30 days or less) from October 10, 2004 through the present. The complaint alleges that since at least October 10, 2004, Amazon has maintained a policy and practice of failing to pay employees when they take short-term military leave, but paying wages or salaries to employees who take short-term nonmilitary leaves, including but not limited to leaves for jury duty or bereavement. Amazon's failure to implement the same pay policies for short-term military leave as it provides for short term nonmilitary leave, such as jury duty or bereavement leave, constitutes a violation of USERRA's prohibition on treating military leave less favorably than other similar types of leave. The Plaintiffs further seek declaratory relief in the form of an order declaring that Amazon violated USERRA by failing to provide paid leave to Plaintiffs for their short-term military leave to the same extent that Amazon provided pay to other employees for comparable short-term nonmilitary leave, and an order requiring Amazon to pay its employees during short-term military leave in the future to the same extent that Amazon pays for other comparable short-term nonmilitary leaves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of New York and was formerly employed by Amazon from July 1, 2019 until September 6, 2019. Amazon.com Services LLC is a Delaware limited liability company registered to do business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 943-9080 Fax: (212) 943-9082 Email: llusher@vandallp.com AMC NETWORKS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMC Networks, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMC Networks, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04592 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. AMC Networks Inc. -- http://www.amcnetworks.com/-- is an American entertainment company headquartered in 11 Penn Plaza, New York, that owns and operates the cable channels AMC, IFC, We TV and SundanceTV; the art house movie theater IFC Center in New York City; the independent film companies IFC Films and RLJE Films; and premium subscription streaming services Acorn TV, Allblk, Shudder and Sundance Now.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal AMERIFIELD INC: Bewley Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------- MICAH BEWLEY, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. AMERIFIELD INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-1419 (S.D. Tex., April 29, 2021) is brought against the Defendant for failing to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation and improperly treated him as "exempt" from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, during his entire employment and during weeks covered by the lawsuit, Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per workweek. In fact, Plaintiff worked 7 days a week, and regularly worked over 80 hours per workweek. Defendant knew that Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week during weeks covered by the lawsuit. Defendant paid Plaintiff a salary for this work or otherwise treated him as exempt from the FLSA and failed to pay any overtime pay despite him regularly working overtime hours, the complaint alleges. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff is entitled to receive overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendant was aware of the FLSA's overtime requirements, received complaints regarding excessive work hours and insufficient pay, but refused to pay Plaintiff overtime. Defendant knowingly, willfully or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal practice of failing to pay Plaintiff overtime, the complaint adds. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in a variety of capacities including as a frac sand equipment operator, coordinator and mechanic. Defendant Amerifield describes itself as a "Leading Contender in the Frac Sand Industry".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meredith Black-Mathews , Esq. J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC N. St. Paul St., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com ANDRE PROST: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andre Prost, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Andre Prost, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04596 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Andre Prost, Inc. -- https://andreprost.com/ -- is an importer and distributor of fine foods and confectionery throughout the USA and Canada, servicing all major food and candy distributors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal APPLE INC: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Maldonado Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VICKY MALDONADO, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04067-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Apple's Motion to Decertify the Class. When a consumer purchases an iPhone or iPad from Defendant Apple, she can also choose to purchase an AppleCare or AppleCare+ ("AC/AC+") plan for the device. If her device has hardware issues, AC/AC+ obligates Apple to repair it or to replace it with a device that is new or "equivalent to new in performance and reliability." Apple replacements can either be all-new or "remanufactured" with some previously used components taken from other Apple devices. According to the Plaintiffs, Apple breaches the AC/AC+ contracts every time it gives a consumer a remanufactured device because the strain already placed on the used parts ensures those devices can never be equivalent to new in performance or reliability. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint in July 2016 and an amended complaint in November 2016. In March 2017, Judge Orrick granted in part and denied in part Apple's motion to dismiss. At the parties' request, discovery and the case schedule were repeatedly extended. In February 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class. In March 2019, Apple moved for summary judgment. Because of the overlap, Judge Orrick heard the motions together in August 2019. In September 2019, he denied Apple's motion for summary judgment and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The Judge narrowed the Plaintiffs' proposed class period and otherwise accepted their class definition: "All individuals who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+, either directly or through the iPhone Upgrade Program, on or after July 20, 2012, and received a remanufactured replacement Device." Discovery continued and the schedule was again extended at the parties' requests. The Judge approved a class notice plan in July 2020. In January 2021, he denied the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the class definition to include individuals who had not received devices. In late January, Apple moved to decertify the class and both parties filed their Daubert motions on an extended briefing schedule. Briefing ended in late March and I held a hearing on April 14. Judge Orrick asked the parties for supplemental briefs on standing and choice of law, which were submitted at the end of April. Discussion I. Motion to Decertify Class Apple argues that the class must be decertified because developments since class certification show that a breach of contract cannot be proven on a class-wide basis and that some class members are unharmed. It separately contends that the consumer protection claims must be decertified because they may only be brought by California residents. The Plaintiffs counter that these arguments were or should have been made at class certification, that they are "rehashes" of arguments that were made then, and that they are meritless in any event. Judge Orrick agrees that they lack merit. He finds that (i) much of Apple's argument depends on evidence that was developed after class certification such as merits depositions of the Plaintiffs' experts; (ii) the Plaintiffs' met the predominance bar because it is binary: Remanufactured devices are per se not equivalent to new or they are; (iii) analysis shows that the opinions of Dr. Robert Bardwell, the Plaintiffs' statistical expert, are appropriate for class-wide treatment on the Plaintiffs' theory of damages; (iv) Apple's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' damages expert, Dr. Lance Kaufman, is irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' benefit-of-the-bargain damages theory; (v) common issues predominate whether the Plaintiffs are right or wrong on the merits of their evidence; and (vi) the named Plaintiffs were (allegedly) injured, their injuries are fairly traceable to Apple's alleged breach, and damages would redress their injuries. For these reasons, Apple's Motion to Decertify the Class is denied. II. Motions to Exclude Technical and Statistical Experts A. Motion to Exclude Pecht Apple moves to exclude the testimony of Dr. Michael Pecht for failing to "fit" the case or apply a proper methodology. Pecht renders opinions about the reliability of Apple's remanufactured devices. The basic outline of his core opinion is that "every iPhone or iPad used by a consumer will be subjected to some load conditions. Most importantly, Pecht concludes that, due to the load conditions placed on the components of devices that are then placed into remanufactured devices, a remanufactured device "cannot be equal to a new device in reliability." Put another way, "remanufactured devices containing used components can never be as reliable as new devices containing all new components." Judge Orrick denied this motion. He holds that (i) whether or how devices with de minimis loads violate the contract is not an issue requiring exclusion under Daubert; (ii) Pecht's opinions have the usual hallmarks of reliability that Daubert calls for; and (ii) Pecht's opinion is reliable because it follows from a scientific principle that all electronic devices are strained by load. B. Motion to Exclude Bardwell Apple moves to exclude portions of the testimony of Dr. Robert Bardwell, the Plaintiffs' statistical expert, on two grounds. Apple first argues that Bardwell's own data shows a "legally insufficient" risk of failure to establish causation. Its second argument is narrow: It objects to Bardwell classifying "returns" as "failures." Mr. Bardwell holds a Ph.D. in mathematics and has worked in statistics as a university instructor, programmer, and consultant. He has been retained as an expert in many cases. According to Bardwell, "remanufactured devices fail earlier and more frequently than new devices during the entire plan term." His finding that remanufactured devices are more likely to fail, he says, is statistically significant, including after controlling for factors such as memory or months from release data. Further, the remanufactured devices had shorter lifespans than new ones during the AC/AC+ period for each model: averages of 9.0 fewer weeks for iPhones, 6.2 fewer weeks for iPads over those periods. And during the first four years of a device (that is, longer than the AC/AC+ period), he finds that remanufactured iPhones last an average of six months less than new ones and iPads last an average of approximately four months less than new ones. Judge Orrick denied Apple's motion. He finds that a jury is capable of understanding that Bardwell used return rates as a proxy for failure rates, so Apple has not met its heavy burden for excluding the label as misleading. Apple is also incorrect that Bardwell is rendering an opinion that must be grounded in reliability engineering or some other field outside of his ken. He simply treats one variable (return rates) as a proxy for another, related one (failure rates). Even if the two are not identical, the choice is reasonable because the record shows returns generally are likely to be due to failures and this was the data Apple provided. He does not opine that, from an engineering perspective, returning a device guarantees that it failed. C. Motion to Exclude Briant and Stark The Plaintiffs move to exclude the testimony of Apple's technical rebuttal expert, Dr. Paul Briant, and statistical expert, Dr. Philip Stark. Mr. Briant holds a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in chemical engineering. See Expert Rebuttal Report of Paul L. Briant, Ph.D., P.E. tensive experience in mechanical testing and fatigue/reliability analysis of devices across many industries, ranging from the automotive industry to medical devices to consumer electronics." He has published various articles and book chapters related to engineering. In the case, Briant conducted a laboratory study to assess performance and reliability of iPhones. He studied new and remanufactured phones and put them through internal performance tests and reliability stress tests. Out of a pool of 60 iPhone SEs from Apple, he performed the tests on 14 new and 14 remanufactured phones. According to him, his tests demonstrated that the iPhones "containing some new and some recovered components had better performance overall than service units containing all new parts, including higher average processor evaluation scores and fewer functional failures during the testing." Apple argues that this opinion tends to rebut Pecht's theory. Judge Orrick denied the Plaintiffs' motion. He holds that Briant's lack of knowledge of whether they were randomized or representative is a matter for cross-examination. For his tests to be helpful to the jury, they need not have been representative of all iPhone SEs, especially in light of the Plaintiffs' broad theory of why the devices are inferior. That issue goes to weight. The Judge also holds that so long as Briant's opinions are reliable, it does not matter what countervailing evidence other experts introduce; that is a matter for the jury to weigh. D. Motion to Exclude Rhinehart The Plaintiffs move to exclude the testimony of Apple's technical rebuttal expert, Dr. R. Russell Rhinehart. They argue that he is unqualified to render rebuttal opinions to Pecht and that his opinions in response to Pecht and in support of Briant are unreliable on various grounds. Mr. Rhinehart holds a B.S. in chemical engineering, an M.S. in nuclear engineering, and a Ph.D. in chemical engineering. He has taught chemical engineering at universities for decades. Since 2016, he has worked as a consultant and "engineering coach" at a company he founded. Rhinehart offers three types of opinions: criticism of Pecht, criticism of Bardwell, and support for Briant. Judge Orrick denied the Plaintiffs' motion. He finds that (i) Apple has not met its burden to show that a chemical (or nuclear) engineer has the knowledge, training, skill, or experience to opine about reliability science without any other expertise in that field merely because he is also a type of engineer; (ii) because Bardwell will not be relying on the initial report at trial, Rhinehart cannot "rebut" it; (iii) the issue is not that Rhinehart did not "outline each and every criticism" he could have, it is that the criticisms he actually makes are unsupported and unreliable; and (iv) Rhinehart cannot bolster Briant's testing without ever having reviewed that testing. III. Motions to Exclude Damages Experts A. Motion to Exclude Gaskin and Weir Apple moves to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiffs' damages experts, Steven Gaskin and Colin Weir. Mr. Gaskin executed two market research surveys that, he says, can "assess the difference in market value" between new and remanufactured iPhones and iPads. According to him, "iPhones and iPads experienced a reduction in market value, for the class during the class period, of 15.7% per iPhone, and 14.1% per iPad, due solely to the fact that the devices were remanufactured, rather than new, at the time and point of first purchase. Judge Orrick denied Apple's motion. First, he holds that Apple's arguments about supply-side considerations and market realities are for rebuttal experts, cross-examination, and argument. The use of a methodologically sound conjoint and real-world historical supply data yields a sufficiently reliable result to go to the jury. Second, he holds an electronic device "failing," is self-explanatory. Third, there is no evidence that an interview-based pretest is anything but usual and reliable. Lastly, the use of an "equivalent" proxy is sufficient under Daubert as the Judge already found this measure adequate at class certification. B. Motion to Exclude Kaufman and Weir Apple moves to exclude or limit the testimony of two of the Plaintiffs' damages experts. Like Weir, Kaufman seeks to calculate the economic harm from Apple's alleged breach of contract. He attempts to measure the economic harm as the difference in value between new and remanufactured devices. Accordingly, he uses data from Apple's "certified refurbished" sales to calculate the harm. He calculates how much Apple sold refurbished devices to consumers for and uses that as a measure of the market value of remanufactured devices compared to new. Apple argues that (i) Kaufman's model gives class members a windfall because it fails to account for their "resale, exchanges, returns, or disposal"; (ii) Kaufman's use of Apple's retail prices for refurbished devices sold to consumers is an "irrelevant metric" because the relevant market is the one in which consumers would resell their devices; (iii) Kaufman failed to consider the costs of repair; and (iv) because Kaufman does not limit damages to this amount, his opinions are predicated on legal error. Judge Orrick denied Apple's motion. He finds that (i) Apple cites no authority for the proposition that an expert's damages model is unreliable under Daubert merely because it does not take into account that the defendant may argue an affirmative defense that shows the plaintiffs are entitled to less than they claim; (ii) that Apple has a sales market in these remanufactured products likely means that Kaufman has a better indicator of their value to consumers than in most cases where there is no functioning market for the inferior or allegedly defective product; (iii) the lack of cost-of-repair damages does not render the opinions unreliable; and (iv) it appears that the Plaintiffs are wrong that limitation on damages provisions are affirmative defenses that must be pleaded. C. Motion to Exclude Butler The Plaintiffs move to exclude part of the testimony of one of Apple's damages rebuttal experts, Sarah Butler. Butler offers rebuttal opinions to Gaskin and Weir. The Plaintiffs argue that she is not qualified to offer opinions about economics. Ms. Butler holds a B.A. in sociology and history, an M.Phil., and an M.A. in sociology. She was an adjunct professor for several years before becoming a researcher and consultant. Her work has specifically included conjoint surveys. Butler replicated (with one change) Gaskin's survey and critiques his methodology. She opines that Weir's "approach is also not a proper reflection of damages in this matter as it does not among other things not challenged take into account supply side or marketplace considerations." She elaborates on why supply-side considerations must be taken into account. Judge Orrick granted the Plaintiffs' motion. He holds that while Butler may offer opinions about flaws in the survey design, and though Apple tries to couch the opinion as pointing out flaws in the survey, it is not. Boiled down, it is that a method for measuring consumer willingness to pay is an inadequate measure of market price because it fails to account for changes in supply. That opinion may be right, wrong, or debatable as a matter of economic theory, but it is a matter of economic theory. Butler is not an economist nor does she purport to be. She has no training, education, skill, or experience in economics, nor does she purport to. Apple cannot slide in opinions within the ken of an economist under the guise of faulting the survey design. D. Motion to Exclude Simonson The Plaintiffs move to exclude part of the testimony of one of Apple's damages rebuttal experts, Dr. Itamar Simonson. Like Butler, Simonson offers rebuttal opinions to Gaskin and Weir. The Plaintiffs argue that, like Butler, he is not qualified to offer opinions about economics. Judge Orrick denied this motion. He finds that as a business school professor, Simonson has significant teaching experience that includes how competitors and firms interact with consumer decisions. Additionally, he has at least some experience in behavioral economics; he need not be so hyperspecialized as to be, for instance, a macroeconomist who specializes in the interaction of supply and demand. The Plaintiffs seek to separate out "supply side economics" from the rest of the field, but that level of specialization, again, is unnecessary given Simonson's other experience. IV. Motion to Seal The parties have filed a set of motions to seal that the Court rules on in a forthcoming order. Judge Orrick holds that everything now under seal will remain that way until he rules. Several pieces of information that are redacted in the briefs are unredacted because the movant did not meet the compelling-reasons standard. Conclusion Judge Orrick denied Apple's Motion to Decertify the Class. He resolved the Daubert motions as explained. A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/n6p4tc9a from Leagle.com. ARS NATIONAL: Pena Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services Inc. The case is styled as Jaimy Pena, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARS National Services Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04571 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ARS National Services, Inc. -- https://www.arsnational.com/ -- accounts receivable management services. The Company provides collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ARS NATIONAL: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services Inc. The case is styled as Sarah Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARS National Services Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02869 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Ars National Services, Inc. -- https://www.arsnational.com/ -- accounts receivable management services. The Company provides collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com AVON PRODUCTS: Approval of Settlement in Class Suit Final --------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the judgment made in the consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation, is now final. On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain former officers of the Company. The complaint was subsequently amended and recaptioned "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation". The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of Avon common stock between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading statements and alleged market manipulation with respect to, among other things, changes made to Avon's credit terms for Representatives in Brazil. Avon and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss which the court denied. During 2020, the parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of $14.5 million. Approximately $2 million of the settlement was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance policies) and the remainder of the settlement was paid by the Company's insurers. On August 31, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on February 3, 2021, the court entered an order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement. This judgement is now final. Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America, North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BEALL'S INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beall's, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Beall's, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02889 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bealls Inc. -- https://www.beallsinc.com/ -- is an American retail corporation of over 500 stores founded in 1915 in Bradenton, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com BLUESOURCE LLC: Fernandez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Rivas Fernandez, on of behalf himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bluesource, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-11514 (D. N.J., May 19, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute. Louis Berger was awarded multiple contracts for power generation and repair. It deployed more than 300 staff and independent contractors on the ground in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Postal Service and Defense Logistics Agency missions to bring manpower, equipment and supplies to residents of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands following the massive devastation caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Louis Berger was the prime contractor and subcontracted this work through Bluesource and other subcontractors. Fernandez worked for Bluesource from November 2017 to October 2018. He was hired as a master electrician through Bluesource and performed work on electric generators. He would normally work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, but he was not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com BOINGO WIRELESS: Hawkins Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------ Geordie Hawkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BOINGO WIRELESS, INC., LANCE ROSENZWEIG, MAURY AUSTIN, ROY H. CHESTNUTT, MICHELE V. CHOKA, CHUCK DAVIS, MIKE FINLEY, DAVID HAGAN, TERRELL JONES, and KATHY MISUNAS, Case No. 2:21-cv-04218 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2021), is brought against Boingo Wireless, Inc. and the members of Boingo's Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Boingo will be acquired by an affiliate of Digital Colony Partners II, LP through the affiliate's subsidiaries White Sands Parent, Inc. and White Sands Bidco, Inc., with regard to the false and misleading Proxy Statement. According to the complaint, on March 1, 2021, Boingo issued a press release announcing that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 26, 2021. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Boingo stockholder will be entitled to receive $14.00 in cash for each share of Boingo common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $854 million. On April 28, 2021, Boingo filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Boingo stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the financial projections for Boingo and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, TAP Advisors, LLC ("TAP Advisors"); and (ii) the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of the Exchange Act. In short, unless remedied, Boingo's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of Boingo. Boingo is a leading global provider of wireless connectivity solutions for smartphones, tablets, laptops, wearables and other wireless enabled consumer devices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: 310/208-2800 Facsimile: 310/209-2348 Email: jelkins@weisslawllp.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212/682-3025 Facsimile: 212/682-3010 BROADPATH LLC: Thomas Seeks Overtime Pay for Hours Worked Over 40 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Derwin Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Broadpath, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00410, (E.D. Ark., May 14, 2021) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees for failure to pay lawful minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Broadpath is a provider of services to companies in the healthcare, financial services, travel and hospitality, and other industries. Broadpath employed Thomas as a remote call center member advocate. He regularly worked in excess of forty hours per weekly pay period without being paid overtime, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Greg Ivester, Esq. WH LAW, PLLC 1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 891-6000 Email: chris@wh.law greg@wh.law CANADA GOOSE: Bid to Dismiss Cheng Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Canada Goose Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Cheng v. Canada Goose Holdings, Inc., et al., 19-cv-08204, is pending. In September 2019, a purported company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. That action was captioned Cheng v. Canada Goose Holdings, Inc., et al., 19-cv-08204. In December 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed a different purported shareholder as the lead plaintiff in the Action to represent the proposed class of company shareholders. On February 18, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims against the company, certain of its officers, and Bain Capital, LP and certain related entities, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made certain false and misleading statements and/or omissions relating to the company's levels of inventory and the demand for its products. The company intends to vigorously defend against this action and has filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims asserted in the amended complaint. The motion has been fully briefed and is pending before the Court. Canada Goose said, "However, we are unable to predict the outcome of this action or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, at this time." Canada Goose Holdings Inc. is a Canadian holding company of winter clothing manufacturers. The company was founded in 1957 by Sam Tick, under the name Metro Sportswear Ltd. CANADA GOOSE: Bid to Dismiss Lee Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Canada Goose Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Lee v. Canada Goose US, Inc., 20-cv-09809, is pending. In November 2020, a plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against Canada Goose US, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the consumer protection laws of the District of Columbia and numerous U.S. states. The complaint alleges that the labeling on certain of the company's fur products contained false and misleading statements regarding the company's sourcing of coyote fur and regulations governing fur trappers. That action is captioned Lee v. Canada Goose US, Inc., 20-cv-09809. The company intends to vigorously defend against this action and, on February 26, 2021, moved to dismiss all of the claims asserted in the complaint. Canada Goose said, "However, we are unable to predict the outcome of this action or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, if any, at this time." Canada Goose Holdings Inc. is a Canadian holding company of winter clothing manufacturers. The company was founded in 1957 by Sam Tick, under the name Metro Sportswear Ltd. CANADA GOOSE: Lam Putative Class Suit to be Discontinued -------------------------------------------------------- Canada Goose Holdings Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court has issued an order dated April 8, 2021 discontinuing the action, Lam v. Canada Goose Holdings Inc., CV-20-00633971-0000, by no later than July 1, 2021. In January 2020, a purported company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act, 1992, against the company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging statutory claims for misrepresentations in the primary market and secondary market contrary to the Securities Act (Ontario) as well as common law liability. The plaintiff alleges that the company made misrepresentation concerning the sourcing of down and fur products used in its clothing and that it omitted to disclose an investigation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission which artificially inflated the price of the company's shares. The court has issued an order dated April 8, 2021 discontinuing the action, Lam v. Canada Goose Holdings Inc., CV-20-00633971-0000, by no later than July 1, 2021. Canada Goose Holdings Inc. is a Canadian holding company of winter clothing manufacturers. The company was founded in 1957 by Sam Tick, under the name Metro Sportswear Ltd. CAVALRY PORTOFOLIO: Krausz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC. The case is styled as Gita Krausz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-04147-CS (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC -- https://www.cavalryportfolioservices.com/ -- provides financial resolution services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection account and debt control.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tamir Saland, Esq. STEIN SAKS 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com CITIZEN SUPPLY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citizen Supply Ltd. Co. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Citizen Supply Ltd. Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-04601 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Citizen Supply -- https://citizensupply.com/ -- is an Atlanta startup that opened in 2015 to bridge the gap between 200+ small businesses and the local community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Suits Over Misleading Press Releases Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Co-Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend securities class action suits related to the company's false and misleading press releases to increase the price of its stock to improperly benefit the officers and directors of the Company. In July and September 2020, securities class action complaints were filed by certain stockholders of the Company against the Company claiming that the Company promulgated false and misleading press releases to increase the price of its stock to improperly benefit the officers and directors of the Company. The plaintiffs demand compensatory damages sustained as a result of the Company's alleged wrongdoing in an amount to be proven at trial. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the cases vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision in these cases. As of the date of this report, the Company does not believe it is probable that these cases will result in an unfavorable outcome; however, if an unfavorable outcome were to occur in these cases, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable. Co-Diagnostics, Inc. a Utah corporation, is developing robust and innovative molecular tools for detection of infectious diseases, liquid biopsy for cancer screening, and agricultural applications. COMMUNITY OPTIONS: Moreria Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Moreria, Ofelia Martinez, Denise Morini, Chaz-Elliot Prout, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY OPTIONS, INC., and COMMUNITY OPTIONS NEW YORK, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-04545 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Federal Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiffs and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from the Defendants: compensation for unpaid off-the-clock work, including unpaid overtime premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs frequently worked a total of more than 40 hours each workweek. However, the Defendants did not pay them all of their overtime premium for those hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek, due to a policy of time shaving. The Plaintiffs and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to the Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them overtime premium at one and one half times their straight time base hourly rates for each hour worked in excess of 40 per workweek due to a policy of time shaving. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate nonprofit corporations that provide housing, employment services, and specialized assistance for people with disabilities nationwide, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 CONOPCO INC: Muller Suit Removed to Eastern District of Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Michael Muller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conopco, Inc. doing business as: Unilever, Case No. was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on May 20, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00583 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever -- https://www.conopco.com/ -- provides personal care products. The Company offers perfumes, soaps, and shampoos, as well as food products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: James Muehlberger, Esq. SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City 2555 Grand Blvd., 19th Floor Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 474-6550 Fax: (816) 421-5547 Email: jmuehlberger@shb.com COURTNEY'S TREAT: Harrison Sues Over Excessive Sales Tax Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD B. HARRISON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. COURTNEY'S TREAT STORE III, LLC, d/b/a DQ GRILL & CHILL RIVERVIEW, and AMERICAN DAIRY QUEEN CORPORATION,, Case No. 125835779 filed in the 13th Judicial Court of Hillsborough County, Florida on April 29, 2021, is a civil action seeking monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for the Defendant's deceptive trade practices in violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendants jointly own and operate a DQ Grill & Chill restaurant at 10503 Gibsonton Drive, Riverview, FL 33578 under the fictitious name "DQ Grill & Chill Riverview." According to the complaint, on March 16, 2021, Defendants received notice from the Florida Department of Revenue directing them to stop collecting the 8.5 percent sales tax and to return to the previous amount of 7.5 percent. Defendants ignored the Florida Department of Revenue directive and, instead, chose to willfully continue collecting the 8.5 percent sales tax. On April 26, 2021, Plaintiff purchased two banana splits from the Defendants' store at 10503 Gibsonton Drive, Riverview, FL. Defendants charged Plaintiff an 8.5 percent "sales tax" on his purchase. However, the excess 1 percent so-called "sales tax" was, in fact, not a sales tax but instead is going directly to Defendants' bottom line. Defendants provided Plaintiff with a receipt which set forth the 8.5 percent "tax." Notably, the receipt does not identify the owner or operator of the store, only listing the fictitious name "DQ Grill & Chill," making it difficult or impossible for a layperson to determine the identity of the company that is misappropriating their money. Defendants are not going to, and cannot, remit the excess 1.0 percent sales tax to Hillsborough County but, instead, have retained and will retain the funds as profit. Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendants' unlawful practice, the complaint alleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. JAY P. LECHNER, P.A. Fifth Third Center 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 412 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 842-7071 E-mail: jplechn@jaylechner.com admin@jaylechner.com - and - Ralph B. Fisher, Esq. FISHER'S LAW OFFICE, P.A. 18125 Highway 41 N., Suite 109 Lutz, FL 33549 Telephone: (813) 949-2749 E-mail: ralphfisher@yahoo.com FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Dismiss Garrett-Alfred Class Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEBRYNNA GARRETT-ALFRED, et al., Plaintiffs v. FACEBOOK, INC. and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-0585-KKM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division: (i) granted Defendant Facebook's Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Cognizant's Motion to Dismiss; and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' request attorneys' fees under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Plaintiffs' employment with Cognizant where they performed content moderation services for Facebook. Cognizant is a professional services vendor incorporated under the laws of Delaware with headquarters in Texas, and Facebook is a social media and technology company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California. As most Americans know, Facebook is a social networking platform that enables people to connect and share content across the internet. The named Plaintiffs, who were living in Arizona or Florida while employees of Cognizant, bring the putative class action claim on behalf of all Florida and Arizona citizens who performed content moderation as employees of Cognizant within the last three years. Facebook's administration of social networking platforms includes content moderation. Content moderation involves reviewing media content reported by platform users and removing content that violates the platform's terms of use. Cognizant contracts with Facebook as a third-party vendor to handle Facebook's content moderation. The Plaintiffs, as employees of Cognizant, were responsible for reviewing graphic content such as murders, tortures, child pornography, and rapes. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs detail the risks of repeated exposure to images of extreme violence and support their claims by citing numerous studies conducted by scientific organizations and government task forces. These studies specifically highlight that psychological trauma may result in both mental and physical symptoms as well as greater risk of substance abuse. As a result of their employment, the Plaintiffs allege that they are at an "increased risk of developing serious mental health injuries, including but not limited to, PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder], and associated physical injuries." Facebook helped create the Technology Coalition, a group that crafts industry standards for minimizing harm to content moderators. Some of the practices recommended to support content moderators include using clear terms in interviews and allowing candidates to ask questions before hiring; limiting exposure and providing counseling sessions; and permitting breaks and time off as a response to trauma. dditionally, these guidelines advise internet sites contracting with third-party vendors to clearly outline procedures to limit harmful exposure to graphic content. The Plaintiffs allege that neither Facebook or Cognizant adhered to these standards Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Cognizant concealed from employees the danger of viewing graphic images. Cognizant did not conduct psychological evaluations on new hires and did not provide real counseling services to employees. Facebook pushed high standards for accuracy and timeliness, and Cognizant, in turn, placed pressure to perform on its employees. Facebook and Cognizant also demanded content moderators sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs), which prohibited them from speaking about the content that they viewed. Further, the Plaintiffs allege that Cognizant advertised the content moderator jobs as "prestigious careers in high technology that simply required them to become knowledgeable about 'leading social media products and community standards,' to 'assist our community and help resolve inquiries empathetically, accurately and on time,' and to 'make well balanced decisions and personally driven to be an effective advocate for our community.'" The cause comes before the Court on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs oppose both motions and request attorneys' fees. Facebook opposes their request for fees. Judge Mizelle concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to establish that the Court has personal jurisdiction over either the Defendant with regards to the Arizona Plaintiffs' claims. Further, the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for all counts in the Amended Complaint. Finally, the Plaintiffs' requests for attorneys' fees under FDUTPA will be denied. First, the California Superior Court has not approved the settlement agreement yet, so no party has secured a final judgment providing relief. Second, under the text of section 501.2105, Florida Statutes, which governs attorneys' fees in FDUTPA claims, a party must obtain a judgment in the instant litigation to be considered a prevailing party. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot recover attorneys' fees in the case unless and until they obtain a final entry of judgment in the action. They have not done so; in fact, the Defendants have now secured a dismissal with prejudice of all the claims. Accordingly, Judge Mizelle granted Defendants Facebook and Cognizant's Motions to Dismiss in their entirety. Plaintiffs Alexander C. Roberts and Michael Wellman's claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Count I (fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment) is dismissed without prejudice as to Plaintiffs Debrynna Garrett, Timothy Dixon, Jr., Konica Ritchie, Lamond Richardson, Angela Cansino, Johnny Olden, Katrina Evans, Todd Alexander, Elton Gould, Lameka Dotson, Nicholas Collins, Remeal Eubanks, Tania Paul, Gabrielle Murrell, and Courtney Nelson. Counts II and III (negligence) are dismissed with prejudice. Count IV (FDUTPA) is dismissed with prejudice as to all claims against Facebook and as to the claims between Cognizant and Plaintiffs Debrynna Garrett, Timothy Dixon, Jr., Konica Ritchie, Lamond Richardson, Angela Cansino, Johnny Olden, Katrina Evans, Todd Alexander, Elton Gould, Lameka Dotson, Nicholas Collins, Remeal Eubanks, Tania Paul, Gabrielle Murrell, Courtney Nelson. The Judge denied the Plaintiffs request for attorneys' fees without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to administratively close the case, terminate all pending motions, and terminate all parties except those whose proceedings were stayed by the Court's Order dated June 11, 2020, namely Plaintiffs Jessica Young, Daniel Walker, and Dawnmarie Armato, and Defendant Cognizant. A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/p98s8p6y from Leagle.com. FERRARA CANDY: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ferrara Candy Company. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-04556 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ferrara Candy Company -- https://www.ferrarausa.com/ -- is an American candy manufacturer, based in Chicago, Illinois, and owned by the Ferrero Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal FORD MOTOR: Hawkins Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Destination Fee ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Hawkins, on behalf of herself and all other similarly Situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-00881 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2021), is brought concerning Ford's deceptive and unfair practice of misleading consumers into overpaying for its vehicles by inflating the amount customers must pay for the delivery of their vehicles (i.e., the "destination fee") when purchasing or leasing a new vehicle at one of Ford's authorized dealerships. According to the complaint, Ford has added the Destination & Delivery fee to the price of each new Ford- and Lincoln-branded vehicle that has been offered for sale in the United States (the "Class Vehicles"). Unfortunately for consumers, the amount of Ford's Destination & Delivery fee increased sharply over the years and currently sits at a whopping $995.00 per Class Vehicle. Ford discloses the Destination & Delivery fee, along with other essential pricing information, on the window sticker of each Class Vehicle ("Monroney sticker") and require that the specific amount of the Destination & Delivery fee be passed through to consumers, who are not allowed to negotiate the amount as part of the Class Vehicle's overall price. As a result, consumers who desire to purchase or lease one of Ford's vehicles are forced to pay the exorbitant Destination & Delivery fee and do so based on the belief that it is a legitimate charge directly related to the cost of delivering the Class Vehicle. Despite the general understanding of the automotive industry and the reasonable expectations of consumers, however, Ford includes a significant amount of profit in its Destination & Delivery fee and, in doing so, deceives customers into paying far more than the actual cost of vehicle delivery when purchasing or leasing one of the Class Vehicles. In fact, Ford's Destination & Delivery fee has little correlation to the cost of delivering the Class Vehicles to their intended destination (i.e., Ford's dealerships) at all, and instead, has become a huge profit center for Defendants. The Destination & Delivery fee allows Ford to extract hidden markups on the sale of the Class Vehicles from unsuspecting consumers, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a new 2019 Lincoln MKX on July 27, 2019, at Norm Reeves Ford Lincoln, one of Ford's authorized dealers located in Cerritos, California. Ford designs, engineers, manufactures and sells vehicles under the Ford and Lincoln brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: alperstein@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com FORSGREN INC: Petrose Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forsgren, Inc. The case is styled as Maurce Petrose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forsgren, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02097-PKH-MEF (W.D. Ark., May 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Forsgren Inc. -- https://www.forsgreninc.com/ -- provides engineering and consulting services. The Company offers grading, excavating, asphalt, concrete paving, utility work, drainage, commercial projects, residential projects, project consulting, and municipal entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Burks, Esq. WH LAW, PLLC 1 Riverfront Dr., Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Phone: (501) 255-7577 Fax: (501) 222-3027 Email: chris@wh.law GOANTIQUES LLC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GoAntiques LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. GoAntiques LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04557 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. GoAntiques -- https://www.goantiques.com/ -- is a destination for antiques, art, collectibles, coins and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GOHEALTH INC: Consolidated Putative Securities Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ GoHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated purported securities class action suit entitled, In re GoHealth, Inc. Securities Litigation. In September 2020, three purported securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters, private equity firms, and investment vehicles alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On December 10, 2020 the court in the earliest filed action consolidated the three complaints, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action In re GoHealth, Inc. Securities Litigation. Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 25, 2021. Defendants filed responsive pleadings on April 26, 2021 to dismiss the complaint. The Company disputes each and every of plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend the matter vigorously. GoHealth, Inc. is a leading health insurance marketplace whose mission is to improve access to healthcare in America. The company's proprietary technology platform leverages modern machine-learning algorithms powered by nearly two decades of insurance behavioral data optimize the process for helping individuals find the best health insurance plan for their specific needs. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. GOJO INDUSTRIES: Robles Sues Over Deceptive & False Advertisements ------------------------------------------------------------------ Krista Robles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A PURELL, an Ohio Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 8:21-cv-00928 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2021), is brought regarding the Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices with their hand-sanitizers which do not perform as advertised. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members are reasonable consumers who purchased Purell Hand Sanitizer because they believed that they would be protected from almost all disease-causing germs. Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers rely on statements made by well-known and long-standing brands such as Purell. Reasonable consumers do not independently verify the accuracy of claims made on the front labels of products. Reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff, pay a price premium for Purell products because of statements that suggest that the hand sanitizer kills more than 99.99% of germs that can cause illness. GOJO charges consumers more for Purell Hand Sanitizers because it knows that consumers will pay a price premium for a product that promises to protect them from nearly all disease-causing germs. Had Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers known the truth regarding Purell products, they would have purchased hand sanitizer products that cost less and achieve the same results. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive and misleading practices, Plaintiff and the Class members were induced to purchase hand-sanitizers which do not perform as advertised. Defendant has made millions of dollars in fraudulent sales to individuals who Defendant told were receiving a product which had been proven, with a high degree of certitude, to kill almost every illness-causing germ. The Defendant's customers did not receive the benefit of their bargain. The products do not kill many types of germs that may cause illness, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Purell hand sanitizers multiple times throughout the year. GOJO is the manufacturer, distributor, and marketer of Purell Hand Sanitizer, an alcohol-based hand sanitizer, which consists of 70 ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, as its primary ingredient.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Robert Dart, Esq. Cinela Aziz, Esq. Jessica Behmanesh, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com cinela@wilshirelawfirm.com jbehmanesh@wilshirelawfirm.com GRAND DESIGN: Faces Gorecki Suit Over Defective RVs --------------------------------------------------- GREGORY GORECKI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRAND DESIGN RV, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01023-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla., April 29, 2021) is an action brought to remedy violations of applicable law in connection with Defendant's design, manufacture, promotion, and sale of one of its Imagine model RVs. According to the complaint, the RV is expensive by any measure, with base models starting at approximately $29,000. The RV is purported to be of extremely high quality with Grand Design promoting its unmatched customer service. In reality, the RV suffers from a Slide-Box Exterior Seal Defect, which causes water intrusion, water damage, and ultimately, mold growth, when a consumer uses their RV in the ordinary course. And the Defect substantially decreases the effectiveness of the RVs' protection against water intrusion and against the elements -- the sole purpose for which they are sold. To make matters worse, Grand Design systematically denies warranty coverage, asserts the Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that Grand Design has actual knowledge of the Slide-Box Exterior Seal Defect in the RV. Grand Design has known about the Defect for an extended period of time due to direct customer complaints, warranty repairs, and numerous Internet complaints. Rather than honor its warranty and replace the defective components of the RV with non-defective parts or an RV of similar value, Grand Design pretends that certain "fixes" will cure the water intrusion problem caused by the Defect. Plaintiff purchased the RV at issue at Grand Design's authorized dealer, LazyDays RV, in Tampa, Florida. Grand Design manufactures, markets, operates and sells travel trailers to consumers located in all 50 U.S. states and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. Erika Willis, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com mpeterson@varnellandwarwick.com ewillis@varnellandwarwick.com kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com - and - William H. Anderson, Esq. Stephen Pearson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 4730 Table Mesa Drive Suite G-200 Boulder, CO 80305 Telephone: (303) 800-9109 Facsimile: (844) 300-1952 E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com spearson@hafjustice.com HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Franchisees Sue Over Unfair Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- Park 80 Hotels LLC and PL Hotels, LLC, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals and entities, Plaintiffs, v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC, Six Continents Hotels, Inc. and IHG Owners Association, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-00974 (E.D. La., May 19, 2021), seeks monetary damages, injunctive and other relief for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and recovery for violations of the Sherman Act. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. does business under the name "InterContinental Hotels Group," operating approximately some 5,600 hotels across more than 15 brands, owning, franchising and/or managing hotels for third parties, with Holiday Inn as its mainstay chain, under such brands as Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express and Holiday Inn Resorts. It also owns, manages and/or franchises other hotel brands such as Crowne Plaza, InterContinental, Staybridge Suites, Candlewood Suites, Hotel Indigo, Regent and Kimpton. InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) also owns Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC (HHF), its affiliate which offers and sells Holiday Inn brand franchises including, but not limited to, Holiday Inn where HHF enters into franchise agreements including that with Park 80 Hotels and PL Hotels. IHG and HHF are alleged of using certain mandated vendors and suppliers for the purchase of goods and services necessary to run a hotel that impose well above-market procurement costs. IHG/HHF also forces its franchisees to frequently undertake expensive renovations, remodeling and construction and in so doing manipulates and shortens the warranty periods on mandated products the franchisees must purchase, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq. Daniel J. Carr, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC 1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523-2434 Facsimile: (504) 608-1465 Email: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com dcarr@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew P. Bleiman, Esq. Mark Fishbein, Esq. MARKS & KLEIN, LLP 1363 Shermer Road, Suite 318 Northbrook, IL 60062 Tel: (312) 206-5162 Fax: (732) 219-0625 Email: andrew@marksklein.com mark@marksklein.com - and - Justin M. Klein, Esq. MARKS & KLEIN, LLP 63 Riverside Avenue Red Bank, NJ07701 Tel: (732) 747-7100 Fax: (732) 219-0625 Email: justin@marksklein.com - and - Justin E. Proper, TA, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395 Phone: (215) 864-7165 Email: properj@whiteandwilliams.com HOME DEPOT: Fridman Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Michael Fridman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 21-008112-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on May 20, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21892-XXXX to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. The Home Depot, Inc., commonly known as Home Depot -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is the largest home improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools, construction products, and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Brian Levin, Esq. LEVIN LAW, P.A. 2665 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse 2B Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 539-0593 Email: brian@levinlawpa.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Brandon Rogers, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131-4332 Phone: (305) 358-5171 Fax: (305) 358-7470 Email: drogers@shb.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Larkin Sues Over Abuse of Monopoly Power ------------------------------------------------------------ Larkin Community Hospital, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03825 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2021), is brought under the Sherman Act, involving abuse of monopoly power claims, including a tying and monopoly leveraging scheme implemented by Intuitive in the sale of its da Vinci Surgical Robot System. According to the complaint, Intuitive has obtained patents giving it monopoly power in the U.S. surgical robot market, but unlawfully leveraged that power to restrict competition in the separate (a) da Vinci surgical robot service aftermarket, and (b) da Vinci surgical robot instrument service aftermarket, by, among other things as alleged, tying the sale of the da Vinci to the service of the robot and the necessary robot instruments. Intuitive conditions the sale or lease of the da Vinci on the purchaser's acceptance of Intuitive's mandatory service contract. The service contract requires the purchaser to use Intuitive as the sole service provider for all da Vinci systems, and prohibits the purchaser from either servicing the robot itself or hiring an independent robot repair company ("IRRC") to service the da Vinci. The Plaintiff Larkin leased two da Vincis, an Xi and an Si, from Defendant Intuitive in June 2017. Intuitive is the creator and manufacturer of the da Vinci, along with its accessories and instruments, including the EndoWrist line of surgical instruments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Seth R. Gassman, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 Email: bsweeney@hausfeld.com sgassman@hausfeld.com - and - Brent W. Landau, Esq. Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-985-3270 Fax: 215-985-3271 Email: blandau@hausfeld.com gsmith@hausfeld.com KALLBERG INDUSTRIES: Ojeda Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Ojeda, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kallberg Industries, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-11512 (D. N.J., May 19, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute. Louis Berger was awarded multiple contracts for power generation and repair. It deployed more than 300 staff and independent contractors on the ground in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Postal Service and Defense Logistics Agency missions to bring manpower, equipment and supplies to residents of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands following the massive devastation caused by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Louis Berger was the prime contractor and subcontracted this work through Kallberg and other subcontractors. Ojeda worked for Louis Berger through Kallberg. He was a diesel mechanic for Kallberg from January of 2018 until September of 2018 in Puerto Rico. He would normally work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, but he was not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com LINEAGE CELL: Ross Putative Class Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------------ Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822. On October 14, 2019, another putative class action lawsuit was filed challenging the Asterias Merger. This action (captioned Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822) was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and names Lineage, the Asterias board of directors, one member of Lineage's board of directors, and certain stockholders of both Lineage and Asterias as defendants. The action was brought by a purported stockholder of Asterias, on behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under Delaware law. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the process leading up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted, that the Asterias Merger consideration was inadequate, and that the proxy statement filed by Asterias with the Commission omitted certain material information, which allegedly rendered the information disclosed materially misleading. The complaint seeks, among other things, that a class be certified, the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 20, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants filed their replies on March 13, 2020. On June 23, 2020, a hearing on the motions to dismiss occurred. On September 21, 2020, the Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss as to Lineage and certain members of the Asterias board of directors, and it granted the motion to dismiss as to all other defendants. On October 30, 2020, the remaining defendants filed an answer to the complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing novel cell therapies for unmet medical needs. The company's focus is to develop therapies for degenerative retinal diseases, neurological conditions associated with demyelination, and aiding the body in detecting and combating cancer. The company is based in Carlsbad, California. MDL 2878: Classes in Ranbaxy Generic Drug Antitrust Suit Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re: Ranbaxy Generic Drug Application Antitrust Litigation, This Document Relates To: All Actions, MDL No. 19-md-02878-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts the motions of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Plaintiffs for class certification. The case involves five actions which were centralized in the Court and then divided into two putative class actions against Ranbaxy Inc. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited. Direct purchaser plaintiffs ("DPPs"), such as wholesalers, purchase generic drugs directly from the drug manufacturer. End-payor plaintiffs ("EPPs") are third-party payors ("TPPs") such as health plans and insurance companies that indirectly purchase (and/or provide reimbursement for generic drugs at the end of the distribution chain) from retailers and other financial intermediaries such as pharmaceutical benefit managers ("PBMs"). The DPPs and EPPs ("Plaintiffs") bring claims against Ranbaxy for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), federal and state antitrust law and state consumer protection law. The Plaintiffs allege that Ranbaxy violated RICO, federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by submitting multiple Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") with missing, incorrect or fraudulent information, thereby wrongfully acquiring exclusivity periods and delaying the market entry of generic Diovan, Nexium and Valcyte. They assert that but for the Defendants' allegedly anti-competitive conduct, generic versions of those three drugs would have entered the market and been available at lower prices much sooner. As a result, the Plaintiffs contend they paid artificially inflated prices for generic versions of Diovan, Nexium and Valcyte during the Class Periods. Pending before the Court are the motions of the DPPs and EPPs for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). The DPPs seek certification of the following three classes: (1) All persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Diovan and/or AB-rated generic versions of Diovan directly from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer at any time during the period Sept. 21, 2012, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Diovan Class Period); (2) All persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Valcyte and/or AB-rated generic versions of Valcyte directly from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer, but excluding those purchasers who only purchased branded Valcyte, at any time during the period Aug. 1, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Valcyte Class Period); and (3) All persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Nexium and/or AB-rated generic versions of Nexium directly from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer at any time during the period May 27, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Nexium Class Period). The EPPs seek to certify the following three nationwide RICO classes: (1) All persons or entities in the United States and its territories that indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Diovan and/or AB-rated generic versions of Diovan from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer at any time during the class period Sept. 28, 2012, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Diovan Class Period); (2) All persons or entities in the United States and its territories that indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of AB-rated generic versions of Nexium from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer, other than for resale, at any time during the class period May 27, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Nexium Class Period); and (3) All persons or entities in the United States and its territories that indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Valcyte and/or AB-rated generic versions of Valcyte from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer, other than for resale, at any time during the class period Aug. 1, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Valcyte Class Period). The EPPs also seek certification of the following three state law classes: (1) All persons or entities in the Indirect Purchaser States that indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Diovan and/or AB-rated generic versions of Diovan from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer, other than for resale, at any time during the class period Sept. 28, 2012, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Diovan Class Period); (2) All persons or entities in the Indirect Purchaser States that indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of AB-rated generic versions of Nexium from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer, other than for resale, at any time during the class period May 27, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Nexium Class Period); and (3) All persons or entities in the Indirect Purchaser States that indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Valcyte and/or AB-rated generic versions of Valcyte from any of the Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer, other than for resale, at any time during the class period Aug. 1, 2014, through and until the anticompetitive effects of the Defendants' conduct cease (the Valcyte Class Period). The Defendants have filed oppositions to class certification to which each group of the Plaintiffs filed replies. The Court heard oral argument on the motions in April 2021. Analysis III. DPPs' Motion for Class Certification A. Rule 23(a) Requirements Of the four Rule 23(a) requirements, dthe Dfendants explicitly challenge only the DPPs' showing of adequacy of representation under Rule 23(a)(4). Given that the analysis of commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation tend to merge, Judge Gorton assumes that the Defendants' reliance on typicality relates to the elements of commonality and adequacy as well. Although the Defendants do not expressly contest the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1), they refer to the size of the proposed classes in the context of the superiority requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the Judge examines each of the Rule 23(a) requirements. The Judge finds that (i) the DPPs have shown that the proposed Diovan class contains 62 members, the proposed Nexium class contains at least 51 members and the proposed Valcyte class contains 39 member; (ii) because the DPPs have shown that their claims focus on the Defendants' conduct, commonality has been sufficiently pled; (iii) all class members allege that they suffered an overcharge injury because Ranbaxy improperly delayed entry of generic drugs in violation of the Sherman Act and RICO, which is sufficient to satisfy the typicality requirement; (iv) the DPPs' counsel is qualified and able to litigate the claims vigorously under Rule 23(a)(4) and the DPPs have shown that their counsel has extensive experience litigating similar antitrust class actions. B. Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance The Defendants assert that the DPPs cannot show that common issues predominate because individualized inquiries will be required to determine whether each class member suffered an antitrust injury. Judge Gorton is satisfied that the DPPs have met their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) to demonstrate that antitrust impact is capable of proof by common evidence. Even if the proposed DPP classes include a de minimis number of uninjured members, that fact alone is not fatal to class certification at this early stage. In sum, the DPPs have sufficiently shown that classwide injury and damages can be demonstrated through evidence common to the class and that common issues predominate over individualized inquiries. C. Rule 23(b)(3) Superiority The Defendants contend that representative litigation is not superior because 1) the proposed DPP classes are small in number, 2) the alleged damages are large and concentrated in only three DPPs and 3) there are fundamental intra-class conflicts. Judge Gorton notes that the DPPs have shown, using data provided by Ranbaxy's expert, that many members of the proposed classes would likely have negative value claims if forced to litigate in separate actions. Even if some class members do have economic incentives to litigate their claims individually, the counsel for the DPPs noted at oral argument that some members would still be dissuaded from doing so out of fear of retaliation by their suppliers. Finally, class resolution is particularly appropriate hgiven that "in the complex context of delayed generic entry the benefits of Rule 23 have been widely recognized." IV. EPPs' Motion for Class Certification As to the EPPs, the Defendants do not oppose certification of their classes under the Rule 23(a) requirements. Nevertheless, the Judge Gorton concludes that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation are met here. The Judge says the proposed classes are sufficiently numerous such that joinder would be impracticable considering that each class is comprised of thousands of TPPs who paid for prescriptions of the subject drugs during the class hearings. Commonality is satisfied because the EPPs allege injury from the same allegedly unlawful conduct of the Defendants. The EPPs have shown that the claims and defenses of the class representatives are typical of those of the class because all EPP claims arise from the same anti-competitive scheme. Finally, the EPPs have satisfied the representation requirement by explaining that the interests of the class representatives are aligned with those of the other class members. Ranbaxy does, however, oppose certification of the EPPs' proposed classes for failure to satisfy the predominance and ascertainability requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Hence, the Judge examines those issues seriatim. He holds that (i) the EPPs have demonstrated by virtue of Dr. Conti's careful and thorough analysis that all or virtually all class members suffered an overcharge injury which is provable by common evidence; (ii) the variety of state laws applicable to the EPPs' claims does not overwhelm predominance; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' expert has established that the requisite data exists and has proffered a detailed approach for using it to identify class members. Order For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gorton allowed the motions of the DPPs and EPPs for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4nbhj5p5 from Leagle.com. MERLIN GLOBAL: Westmorlan Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- David Westmorlan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MERLIN GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC; AEVEX AEROSPACE; and DOES #1 through #50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00970-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 20, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other hourly drone mechanics employed by the Defendants regularly worked in excess of 8 hours in a day and 40 hours in a week. But the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff and the other employees the proper overtime rate for all of these hours. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff and the other employees the same hourly rate, even when they should have received an overtime premium. Further, the Defendants did not provide required meal and rest periods to the Plaintiff and the other workers, as mandated by California law. This action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendants to these employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a drone mechanic in September 2, 2018. Merlin and Aevex are both defense industry contractors assisting the government in intelligence collection through the use of unmanned drones, among other things.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Phone: 310 928 1228 Email: matt@parmet.law - and - Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, PC 700 West Summit Dr. Wimberley, TX 78676 Phone: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Email: doug@morelandlaw.com MERRICK GARLAND: O'Neill Files Suit in District of Columbia ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MERRICK GARLAND, et al. The case is styled as Chritine I. O'Neill, ESTATE OF JOHN P. O'NEILL SR., MARK MORABITO, ESTATE OF LAURA LEE MORABITO, ANNE M. WODENSHEK, ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER W. WODENSHEK, SHARON PREMOLI, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated eligible 9/11 claimants under 34 U.S.C. section 20144 v. MERRICK GARLAND, as attorney general of the United States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; JANET L. YELLEN, as Secretary of Treasury; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; MARY PATRICE BROWN, as Special Master of the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund; Case No. 1:21-cv-01288-JEB (D.D.C., May 10, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision. Merrick Brian Garland is an American attorney and jurist serving as the 86th United States attorney general since March 2021.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Strong, Esq. Jerry S. Goldman, Esq. ANDERSON KILL P.C. 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 278-1034 Fax: (212) 278-1733 Email: bstrong@andersonkill.com jgoldman@andersonkill.com - and - Stephen D. Palley, Esq. ANDERSON KILL, P.C. 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 416-6552 Email: spalley@andersonkill.com MICHAEL CARR: Norman Files Suit in Northern District of Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael Carr, et al. The case is styled as Alexis C. Norman, and others similarly situated v. Michael Carr, Warden, FMC Carswell; Dr. Charles Langham, Medical Director, FMC Carswell; BOP Covid-19 Team and Medical Director; Michael Carvajal, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; Case No. 4:21-cv-00669-P (N.D. Tex., May 20, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Pet/Other Civil Rights for Prisoner Civil Rights. Michael Carr is the warden of FMC Carswell.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Alexis C Norman P.O. BOX 27137 Fort Worth, TX 76127 #49210-177 BOP Carswell FMC PRO SE MRS BPO: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The case is styled as Sarah Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-02865 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MRS BPO -- https://www.mrsbpo.com/ -- is a financial services company offering accounts receivable business and accounts billing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com yzelman@marcuszelman.com NATIONAL VISION: FirstSight Vision Continues to Defend Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that FirstSight Vision Services, Inc., a company subsidiary continues to defend a purported class action suit in the the Southern District of California. The company's subsidiary, FirstSight Vision Services, Inc., is a defendant in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that alleges that FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused the illegal delivery of eye examinations and that FirstSight thereby violated, among other laws, the corporate practice of optometry and the unfair competition and false advertising laws of California. The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a defendant in 2016. In March 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss previously filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the district court, and, in November 2018, FirstSight filed a motion to dismiss. On March 23, 2020, the district court granted FirstSight's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. FirstSight filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on May 8, 2020. On February 4, 2021, the district court granted FirstSight's motion in part and denied it in part. FirstSight's answer to the remaining claims was filed February 18, 2021. National Vision said, "We believe that the claims alleged are without merit and intend to continue to defend the litigation vigorously." National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth, Georgia. NORTHRUP GRUMMAN: Behar Files Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northrup Grumman Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Jed Behar, Alisa Behar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northrup Grumman Corporation, Northrup Grumman Systems Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-03946-FMO-SK (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. Northrop Grumman Corporation -- https://www.northropgrumman.com/ -- is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gideon Kracov, Esq. Jordan Reid Sisson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GIDEON KRACOV 801 South Grand Avenue 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 629-2071 Email: gk@gideonlaw.net jordan@gideonlaw.net - and - Michael A Akselrud LANIER LAW FIRM PC 21550 Oxnard Street 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (310) 277-5100 Fax: (310) 277-5103 Email: michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com OSMOTICA PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Consolidated NJ Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that an agreement in principle has been reached to settle the consolidated putative class action suit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County. On April 30, 2019, the Company was served with a complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County No. SOM-L-000540-19. On May 10, 2019, a Complaint entitled Jeffrey Tello, et al., v. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County No. SOM-L-000617-19 was filed in the same court as the Shumacher action. The complaints named the Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering as defendants in putative class actions alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of ordinary shares. On July 22, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint consolidating the two actions, reiterating the previously pled allegations and adding an additional individual defendant. The parties participated in a mediation and reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation on December 15, 2020. The agreement in principle calls for a payment by the Company of $5.25 million (a portion of which we expect would be covered by applicable insurance of approximately $2.6 million recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheets under trade accounts receivable, net) and would fully resolve all claims asserted in the litigation against all defendants named in the litigation, including the Company. Osmotica said, "No party would admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed settlement, which was reached to avoid the further cost and distraction of litigation. The agreement in principle contemplates the negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement. The settlement is also subject to preliminary approval by the Superior Court of New Jersey, notice to the putative class, and subsequent final approval by the Superior Court of New Jersey." Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States, Argentina, and Hungary. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. PERRIGO CO: Acetaminophen Products Related Suits Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that the company continues to defend and receive requests for indemnification involving its store-brand infants' and children's acetaminophen products. The Company has received requests for indemnification and defense of several consumer fraud claims involving its store brand infants' and children's acetaminophen products. In September 2020, the Company was directly named as a defendant in one suit filed in the Central District of California. The Company was recently named in a cross complaint by a retailer for contractual indemnity in California Superior Court, Alameda County. The Company has also received 16 different claims for indemnification or defense from 10 different retailers for lawsuits filed in California, Illinois, Florida and Pennsylvania, with nationwide class action allegations. The Plaintiffs generally allege that the children's and infants' acetaminophen products have identical drug concentration amounts, yet the infants' product costs more than the children's product and consumers have been misled into purchasing the more expensive product. The Company will aggressively defend the suits in which it is named and is continuing to assess whether, or to what extent, the Company may contribute in the lawsuits filed against its retail customers. Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PERRIGO CO: Continues to Defend Roofers' Pension Fund Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that the company continues to defend the consolidated securities class action suit entitled, Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al. On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016. On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class action against the company and its former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold put options on the company's shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case number. In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs for the consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative class. In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order. On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case. In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent three classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased shares during the period from April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on the U.S. exchanges; (ii) shareholders who purchased shares during the same period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and (iii) shareholders who owned shares on November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan tender offer) regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their shares. The amended complaint names as defendants the company and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O'Connor). The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the company and the former executives to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure throughout the entire class period related to purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate of damages. During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denying the motions to dismiss in part. The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O'Connor, and Marc Coucke. The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the Tysabri(R) accounting issue described above and claims alleging incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above. The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company plc, Joe Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not dismissed relate to the integration issues regarding the Omega acquisition, the defense against the Mylan tender offer, and the alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. The defendants who remain in the case (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of litigation began in late 2018. Discovery in the class action ended on January 31, 2021. In early April 2021, the defendants filed various post-discovery motions, including summary judgment motions; the schedule provides that briefing will not be completed until early July 2021. Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PERRIGO CO: Court Extends Stay of Baton Class Suit in Tel Aviv -------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that the court in Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al., extended the stay to mid-May 2021. On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its former CFO Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al.). The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York federal court. This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. In 2019, the court granted two requests by Perrigo to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the United States. Perrigo filed a further request for a stay in February 2020, and the court granted the stay indefinitely. The plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay then later agreed that the case should remain stayed through February 2021. In late February 2021, Perrigo filed a motion to extend the stay to mid-May 2021, and plaintiff later agreed to the request. The court extended the stay to mid-May 2021. Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PERRIGO CO: Discovery Ongoing in Desonide & Econazole Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that discoveries are ongoing in the class action suits related to overarching conspiracy allegations related to the sales of Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole. The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions alleging single-product conspiracies to fix or raise the prices of certain drugs and/or allocate customers for those products starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013. The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a) direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers. The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole. The court denied motions to dismiss each of the complaints alleging "single drug" conspiracies involving Perrigo, and the cases are proceeding in discovery. The Clobetasol cases have been designated to proceed on a more expedited schedule than the other cases. That schedule has not yet been set. Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PERRIGO CO: Litigation Over Contaminated Ranitidine Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated consumer class action suit related to ranitidine. After regulatory bodies announced worldwide that ranitidine may potentially contain N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a known environmental contaminant, the Company promptly began testing its externally-sourced ranitidine API and ranitidine-based products. On October 8, 2019, the Company halted shipments of the product based upon preliminary results and on October 23, 2019, the Company made the decision to conduct a voluntary retail market withdrawal. In February 2020, the resulting actions involving Zantac(R) and other ranitidine products were transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zantac(R)/Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2924) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After the Company successfully moved to dismiss the first set of Master Complaints in the MDL, it now includes three: 1) an Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint; 2) a Consolidated Amended Consumer Economic Loss Class Action Complaint; and 3) a Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint. All three name the Company. Plaintiffs appealed one of the original Master Complaints, the Third-Party Payor Complaint, and two individual plaintiffs appealed their individual personal injury claims on limited grounds. The Company is not named in the appeals. As of April 11, 2021, the Company has been named in one hundred eighty-seven of the MDL's consolidated personal injury lawsuits tied to various federal courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancers or are placed at higher risk of developing cancer as a result of ingesting products containing ranitidine. The Company is named in these lawsuits with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac(R) and other manufacturers of ranitidine products, as well as distributors, repackagers, and/or retailers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some instances seek applicable remedies under state consumer protection laws. The Company has also been named in a Complaint brought by the New Mexico Attorney General based on the following theories: violation of a New Mexico public nuisance statute, NMSA 30-8-1 to -14; common law nuisance; and negligence and gross negligence. The Company is named in this lawsuit with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac® and other manufacturers of ranitidine products and/or retailers. Brand name manufactures named in the lawsuit also face claims under the state's Unfair Practices & False Advertising acts. Likewise, the Company has also been named in a Complaint brought by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, along with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac(R) and other manufacturers of ranitidine products and/or retailers. This action brings claims under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act against the brand name defendants only, as well as public nuisance and negligence for the remaining defendants. The Company was originally able to consolidate the New Mexico and Baltimore Actions to the MDL, however both actions were recently remanded to state court. Some of the Company's retailer customers are seeking indemnity from the Company for a portion of their defense costs and liability relating to these cases. Perrigo said, "We intend to defend all of these lawsuits vigorously." Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PFIZER INC: Class Suits Related to Zantac Underway -------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2021, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to Zantac. A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer, purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac. The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the product. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement. In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. From June to December 2020: (i) plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a consolidated consumer class action complaint alleging, among other things, violations of the RICO statute and consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a consolidated third-party payor class action complaint alleging violation of the RICO statute and seeking reimbursement for payments made for the prescription version of Zantac; (ii) Pfizer received service of two Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the defendants' sale of Zantac in Canada; (iii) the State of New Mexico filed a civil action against Pfizer and many other defendants, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants' alleged sale of Zantac in New Mexico; and (iv) Pfizer received service of a suit filed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore naming Pfizer and other defendants alleging various claims under Maryland law. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen Antitrust Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2021, that the company continues to defend antitrust class suits related to EpiPen. Beginning in 2017, purported class actions were filed in various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan, and Mylan former Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. In 2020, a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, King, Meridian and the Mylan entities on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices directly from the defendants (the 2020 Lawsuit). Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal and various state antitrust laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Plaintiffs also filed various federal antitrust, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2011. In 2017, all of these actions, except for the 2020 Lawsuit, were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties. In July 2020, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of indirect purchasers. Plaintiff represents a putative U.S. nationwide class of persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of certain refill or replacement EpiPens since 2010. Plaintiff alleges that Pfizer and Meridian misrepresented the shelf-life and expiration date of EpiPen, in violation of the federal RICO statute. Plaintiff seeks treble damages for alleged unnecessary replacement or refill purchases of EpiPens by members of the putative class. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2021, that the company continues to defend itself from purported class action suits over sales of Lipitor. Beginning in 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain Pfizer affiliates, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy and certain Ranbaxy affiliates. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of the direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the Court of Appeals. In 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Also, in 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2021, that the parties in the consolidated class action suit related to Array BioPharma's NRAS-mutant melanoma program reached an agreement in principle to resolve the suit. In 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that Array BioPharma Inc., which the company acquired in 2019 and is the company's wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers violated federal securities laws in connection with certain disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant melanoma program. In 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single proceeding. In March 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the litigation on terms not material to the company, which is subject to Court approval. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2021, that Wyeth Holdings Corporation and its affiliates continue to defend a class action lawsuit related to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. Beginning in 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PHENIXFIN CORP: Kahn Purported Class Action Underway ---------------------------------------------------- PhenixFIN Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Kahn v. PhenixFIN Corporation, et al. On or about January 28, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Kahn v. PhenixFIN Corporation, et al., was filed against the Company and its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Plaintiffs allege that a provision in the Company's bylaws, which provides that directors may be removed from office for cause by the affirmative vote of 75% of capital stock entitled to vote, is inconsistent with provisions of the Delaware General Corporate Law, which plaintiffs allege would permit removal for cause by a simple majority of capital stock entitled to vote. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the bylaw provision is invalid and to enjoin the defendants from enforcing it, as well as a reasonable allowance of attorneys' fee. On February 10, 2021, the Board of the Company approved an amendment to the Company's Bylaws, which, among other things, allows for the removal of directors for cause by affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the capital stock entitled to vote at an election of directors. This amendment was made without any admission of legal necessity, causation or liability with respect to the Kahn action. Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. PhenixFIN Corporation is a non-diversified closed-end management investment company that operates as a business development company. The Company's investment objective is to generate current income and capital appreciation, primarily through investments in privately negotiated debt and equity securities of middle market companies. PHENIXFIN CORP: Objections to Solomon Revised Agreement Due June 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ PhenixFIN Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that objections to the revised settlement agreement in Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, are due by June 9, 2021, and the Court has set a Final Approval Hearing for July 9, 2021. Medley LLC, the Company, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15, 2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and the Company were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No. 3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and the Company were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy, Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc. (as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747. The Company and Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles McDaniel v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP, and Red Stone, Inc., filed on August 7, 2020 and amended on October 22, 2020 in the First Judicial Circuit of Ohio County, West Virginia, Case No. 20-C-169, which case was then removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on December 15, 2020. The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, the Company, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and the Company (in the West Virginia Class Action), allege that those defendants in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in, American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October 29, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims. On October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania Class Action filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of all claims against all defendants with prejudice, and on November 2, 2020, the Court presiding over the Pennsylvania Class Action ordered Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice. On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff in the West Virginia Class Action filed a motion to stay proceedings to permit revision and final approval of a revised settlement agreement in Class Action 1, and also on January 29, 2021, the Court presiding over the West Virginia Class Action granted that motion and stayed the West Virginia Class Action. On April 16, 2020, the parties to Class Action 1 reached a settlement reflected in a Settlement Agreement that has been publicly filed in Class Action 1. Among other things, upon satisfaction of the conditions specified in the Settlement Agreement and upon the Effective Date, the Settlement Agreement: (1) requires Plaintiffs to seek certification of a nationwide settlement class of all persons in the United States to whom American Web Loan lent money from February 10, 2010 through a future date on which the Court may enter a Preliminary Approval Order as to the Settlement Agreement (which certification Defendants have agreed not to oppose); (2) requires American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to pay Monetary Consideration of $65,000,000 (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are paying any Monetary Consideration pursuant to the Settlement Agreement); (3) requires American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to cancel (as a disputed debt) and release all claims that relate to or arise out of the loans in its Collection Portfolio, which is valued at Seventy-Six Million Dollars ($76,000,000) and comprised of loans to more than 39,000 borrowers (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube have any interest in any of the loans that are being cancelled); (4) requires American Web Loan and Curry to provide certain Non-Monetary Benefits (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are conferring any Non-Monetary Benefits pursuant to the Settlement Agreement); (5) fully, finally, and forever releases Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube from any and all claims, causes of action, suits, obligations, debts, demands, agreements, promises, liabilities, damages, losses, controversies, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees of any nature whatsoever, whether arising under federal law, state law, common law or equity, tribal law, foreign law, territorial law, contract, rule, regulation, any regulatory promulgation (including, but not limited to, any opinion or declaratory ruling), or any other law, including Unknown Claims, whether suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, foreseen or unforeseen, actual or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, punitive or compensatory, as of the date of the Final Fairness Approval Order and Judgment, that relate to or arise out of loans made by and/or in the name of AWL (including loans issued in the name of American Web Loan, Inc. or Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (with the exception of claims to enforce the Settlement or the Judgment). On March 31, 2021, the parties to Class Action 1 and the Objectors filed a revised settlement agreement publicly in Class Action 1. As relevant to Medley LLC, the Company, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube, the terms of the Revised Settlement Agreement do not differ from the terms of the original Settlement Agreement. On April 7, 2021, the Court presiding over Class Action 1 held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the Revised Settlement Agreement, and entered an order granting preliminary approval of the revised settlement. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, objections to the revised settlement agreement are due by June 9, 2021, and the Court has set a Final Approval Hearing for July 9, 2021. PhenixFIN Corporation is a non-diversified closed-end management investment company that operates as a business development company. The Company's investment objective is to generate current income and capital appreciation, primarily through investments in privately negotiated debt and equity securities of middle market companies. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: Lopez Sues Over Failure to Provide Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Juvy Ann Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, Case No. 3:21-cv-03821 (N.D. Cal., May 20, 2021), is brought regarding the Defendant's failure to provide full refunds to customers whose flights were cancelled or were subject to a significant schedule change and not refunded as a result of COVID-19. According to the complaint, given the outbreak of the coronavirus, Philippine Airlines (PAL) has cancelled a vast percentage of its internal and U.S. flights. However, PAL has refused to issue refunds for flights that it cancelled or significantly altered. PAL's inexplicable and continuous withholding of passengers' refunds stands in direct contravention of its Contract of Carriage as well as other representations made to passengers. PAL's treatment of the Plaintiff is no exception. On March 4, 2020, Plaintiff purchased two roundtrip tickets departing on April 19, 2020 from San Francisco to Manila, the Philippines. However, on April 5, 2020, PAL cancelled Plaintiff's flights. Plaintiff immediately attempted to secure a refund. On July 15, 2020, the Plaintiff was informed by "Relyn," a PAL representative, that her refund "had already processed." The Plaintiff was instructed to "please allow 5 months from the date the refund was processed (or an average of 5 billing cycles) for the amount to be credit back to the account used." After waiting five months as instructed, Plaintiff emailed PAL on December 29, 2020 requesting the status of her refund. "Janessa," a PAL representative responded that "we have sent a follow-up to our Support Desk and we are still awaiting feedback. Rest assured that you will be notified promptly as soon as we have an update." On January 10, 2021, the Plaintiff followed up again via email, setting out her ticket number and booking reference number and informing PAL that she has waited nearly one year and "I haven't received my refund." The Plaintiff then requested that PAL "please expedite my refund and credit back to my credit cards." PAL responded, stating that "this is to acknowledge your report regarding your refund concern. Rest assured, that I shall look into this matter." Plaintiff followed up again on January 12, 2021 but did not receive a further response to her inquiry. PAL's representations to the Plaintiff never materialized. Instead, PAL led the Plaintiff, like others similar situated, through a test of exhaustion. As this complaint will demonstrate, PAL breached both its Contract of Carriage as well as subsequent representations to its consumers who desperately sought a refund amidst a global pandemic and economic recession. In doing so, PAL abused the trust and loyalty of its consumers, garnering interest free loans while depriving Plaintiff and Class Members of their refunds, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been as resident of Tracey, California. Philippine Airlines, Inc. is a business organized under the laws of the Philippines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blair E. Reed, Esq. Sean L. Litteral, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: breed@bursor.com slitteral@bursor.com POLARITYTE INC: Court Junks Consolidated Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court issued an order dismissing the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation with Case No. 2:18-cv-00510. On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP. On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No. 2:18-cv-00541-PMW. On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the Moreno and Lawi cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation with Case No. 2:18-cv-00510. The gravamen of the consolidated complaint in the Consolidated Securities Litigation was that defendants made statements or disseminated information to the public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder, specifically that the defendants misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent applications while touting the unique nature of the Company's technology and its effectiveness. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June 3, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss was filed on August 2, 2019, and the Company filed a reply to the opposition on September 13, 2019. Following a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss the Court issued an order on November 22, 2020, dismissing the complaint in the Consolidated Securities Litigation with prejudice. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Faces Purported Class Suit in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- Prosper Marketplace, Inc. (PMI) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company together with Prosper Funding LLC (PFL) faces a purported class action suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Case No. 484731V. In March 2021, PMI and PFL accepted service of a complaint via email. PMI, PFL and Velocity Investments, LLC, an accounts receivable management company, were each named in a purported class action lawsuit brought by two individual plaintiffs in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, Case No. 484731V, filed February 3, 2021. The complaint asserts, on behalf of the plaintiffs and the class members, claims for violation of certain Maryland state laws and seeks damages. The plaintiffs also seek a declaration of requirement for Maryland licensure and that PMI, PFL, and Velocity did not have the right to collect money from the plaintiffs and the class members on the loan accounts. PMI and PFL plan to vigorously contest these claims. Prosper Marketplace said, "At this time, we cannot predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the amount of damages, if any, that may be awarded." Prosper Marketplace, Inc. provides online peer-to-peer lending marketplace services. The Company enables borrowers to list loan requests and individual lenders the option to invest loans based on credit scores, ratings, histories, personal loan descriptions, endorsements, and community affiliations. Prosper Marketplace serves customers in the United States. The company is based in San Francisco, California. QUICK KEY: Hadden Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Hadden and Ramon Acosta, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. QUICK KEY, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, GAL DRUCKER AND ORON NURIEL, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02746 (N.D. Ill., May 20, 2021), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for unpaid overtime compensations. During the Plaintiffs' entire employment, the Defendants compensated the Plaintiffs on an improper salary basis and denied them overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per work week. Additionally, for a portion of the Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants improperly classified him as an independent contractor while continuing to pay the Plaintiffs via improper salary, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as locksmiths. QUICK KEY, INC. is a business that provides locksmith services to corporate and residential customers, including emergency lock-out services, lock and key installations, re-keying of locks, repairs, etc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. John W. Billhorn, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 853-1450 RA MEDICAL: Derr Putative Class Action Underway ----------------------------------------------- RA Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative securities class action suit entitled, Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action no. 19CV1079 LAB NLS). On June 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the company, certain current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO). Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and the filing of a subsequent amended complaint, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions in the company's registration statement in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between September 27, 2018 and November 27, 2019, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter defendants without prejudice. On March 13, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 24, 2021, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the Securities Act in full and certain claims under the Exchange Act, and denying defendants' motion to dismiss certain Exchange Act claims. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on April 19, 2021, realleging the Securities Act claims and certain of the previously dismissed Exchange Act claims. Management intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. RA Medical said, "At this time, we cannot predict how a court or jury will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable, the liability could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and our results of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred." RA Medical Systems, Inc. designs, develops, and produces medical devices. The Company offers excimer lasers for the treatment of dermatologic and cardiovascular diseases. RA Medical Systems serves patients in the United States. The company is based in Carlsbad, California. RACHMA CONTRACTING: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rachma Contracting Inc. The case is styled as Guillermina Martinez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rachma Contracting Inc., Case No. BCV-21-101151 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 20, 2021). The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." RACHMA CONTRACTING is in the Farm Labor Contractors and Crew Leaders industry in Delano, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC 8822 W Olympic Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-553-3600 Fax: 310-553-3603 Email: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com RADIUS GLOBAL: Almeida Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Orlando Almeida, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00885 (M.D. Fla., May 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Radius Global Solutions LLC -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- provides debt recovery services and customer contact solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yosef Steinmetz, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Email: yosef@cml.legal RAMM HOSPITALITY: Anderson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RAMM Hospitality, et al. The case is styled as Liliana Anderson, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. RAMM Hospitality, a California Corporation; PRIME HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC; a California Limited Liability Company; Case No. BCV-21-101048 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 10, 2021). The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." RAMM Hospitality, Inc. is a fast-growing, privately-owned hotel management and development company located in Bakersfield, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG, & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Fax: (858) 551-1232 Phone: (858) 551-1223 Email: norm@bamlawca.com REPRO MED: Faces Putative Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------- Repro Med Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 26, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Executive Officer, alleging they made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, in the Company's earnings communications and Form 10-Q filed during the period August 4, 2020 and January 25, 2021. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Repro Med said, "Because the litigation is in its early stages, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonable possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter." Repro Med Systmes, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets proprietary portable and innovative medical devices primarily for the ambulatory infusion market as governed by the United States Food and Drug Administration quality and regulatory system and international standards for quality system management. The company is based in Chester, New York. RUBY LANE: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruby Lane, Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Ruby Lane, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04558 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ruby Lane -- https://www.rubylane.com/ -- is the world's largest curated marketplace for antiques, vintage collectibles, vintage fashion, fine art and jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SELLAS LIFE: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Abstral Promos ----------------------------------------------------------- SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company has reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated putative shareholder securities class action suit related to Abstral(R). On February 13, 2017, certain putative shareholder securities class action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other things, that Galena and certain of Galena's former officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered Galena's statements about its business misleading. The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an amended complaint. On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 13, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice to file an amended complaint. On December 20, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On January 29, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 5, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice to file an amended complaint. On February 18, 2021, the lead plaintiffs filed a third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company has reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in this action which is subject to final documentation and court approval. SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS is headquartered in New York. STEREOTAXIS INC: Barre Indicates Voluntary Dismissal of Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Stereotaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that plaintiff Richard Barre withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction and indicated that the plaintiff intends to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, all claims set forth in the complaint, subject to court approval and reserving the right to apply for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April 29, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in Delaware Chancery Court by Richard Barre, a purported shareholder. The defendants are the Company and its current directors. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty against the defendants based on alleged disclosure deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement filed by the Company on April 9, 2021 relative to the vote at the Company's 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 20, 2021 seeking stockholder approval of issuance of shares under the Performance Share Unit Award (the "CEO Performance Award") granted to David L. Fischel, the Company's chief executive officer. The complaint seeks various remedies, including a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the vote at the 2021 Stockholder Meeting to approve the issuance of shares for the CEO Performance Award. Following discussions with the plaintiff's counsel and the Delaware Chancery Court, the parties agreed to an expedited discovery and briefing schedule, with the Chancery Court scheduled to hear arguments on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on May 18, 2021. Although the Company believes that the claims were wholly without merit and that no further disclosure was required to supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable law, the Company filed a supplement to the Proxy Statement on May 10, 2021 addressing the alleged disclosure claims in order to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. On May 12, 2021, the plaintiff withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction and indicated that the plaintiff intends to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, all claims set forth in the complaint, subject to court approval and reserving the right to apply for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Stereotaxis, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets robotic systems and instruments for the treatment of abnormal heart rhythms in the United States and internationally. It was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. STONEMOR INC: Fried Putative Class Action Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Stonemor Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class action suit entitled, Fried v. Axelrod, et al., C.A. No. 2020-1065-SG, has been stayed. Fried v. Axelrod, et al., C.A. No. 2020-1065-SG, pending in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware and filed on December 16, 2020. The plaintiff in this case brought an action he seeks to have certified as a class action that asserts claims against Axar, Andrew M. Axelrod and the other individuals who were directors at the time of the transactions in question and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint includes direct claims against all individual defendants and derivative claims against the individual defendants other than Mr. Axelrod for breach of fiduciary duty in approving certain transactions in connection with the Company's sale of preferred and common stock to Axar and certain accounts managed by Axar. The complaint also includes derivative claims against Axar for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment in connection with those same transactions as well as direct claims against both Axar and Mr. Axelrod for breach of fiduciary duty with respect to those transactions. Finally, the complaint includes a derivative claim against all individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the approval of a related-party investment disclosed by the Company. The plaintiff seeks rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Axar Stock Purchase and the related-party investment and/or an award of damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On January 6, 2021, a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on behalf of the Company and the individual defendants other than Mr. Axelrod and on January 11, 2021, a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on behalf of Axar and Mr. Axelrod. On April 2, 2021, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which included additional factual background regarding the plaintiff's claims and alleged demand futility, but did not add additional defendants, claims or relief sought. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendants filed a joint stipulation to stay the Fried litigation pending the resolution of a separate pending action, which the court granted on April 28, 2021. Stonemor Inc. provides consumer services. The Company offers cemeteries and funeral homes. Stonemor serves customers inn the United States. The company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. T-MOBILE USA: Filing of First Amended Chetwood Class Suit Allowed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KRISTINA CHETWOOD and SANDRA CASTELLON-GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00458-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, allowed the Plaintiffs to file the proposed first amended complaint. On Jan. 8, 2021, the parties negotiated and reached agreement on the basic terms of a class and collective settlement at a private mediation. During the mediation, the Plaintiffs asserted and the parties agreed to resolve several claims that were not pled in the initial complaint that was filed on March 28, 2019. The First Amended Complaint adds those claims along with additional class representatives. Similarly, the parties agreed to dismissal of certain claims initially included in the complaint and those claims are removed from the First Amended Complaint. Since the parties' mediation on Jan. 8, 2021, the parties have negotiated the terms of a detailed settlement agreement, as well as the contents of various other related documents and filings. Having now executed the settlement agreement, they will be filing a motion for the Court's preliminary approval of their settlement provided that the Court permits the Plaintiffs to file their proposed First Amended Complaint. Given their good faith and ongoing efforts to negotiate a resolution of the matter following their mediation on Jan. 8, 2021, and the their recent execution of a settlement agreement, the parties stipulate that there is "good cause" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), Local Rule 16(b)(6), and the Court's Minute Order Setting Trial Date & Related Dates dated April 21, 2020, to allow for the filing of the Plaintiffs' proposed First Amended Complaint after the March 7, 2021, deadline for filing amended pleadings as specified in the Minute Order. The parties stipulate and agree that, by stipulating to the filing of the Amended Complaint, the Defendant does not waive any argument or defense against any potential later claim (should the parties' settlement agreement not become effective for any reason the Plaintiffs that the state-law class claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint should relate back to the date of the filing of the initial Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). The parties have also agreed that, if the Court declines to allow the Plaintiffs to file of the First Amended Complaint, the parties' settlement agreement will be null and void and without effect. The matter is before the Court on the Stipulation of the parties. Having reviewed the Stipulation and being otherwise duly advised of the circumstances, Judge Lasnik ordered that the Plaintiffs may file the proposed First Amended Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and Local Rule 15. A full-text copy of the Court's May 14, 2021 Stipulation & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/zr8wvcbu from Leagle.com. TIAS.COM INC: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tias.Com, Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Tias.Com, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04559 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. TIAS.com -- http://www.tias.com/-- is an online retail marketplace for antiques and collectibles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal UBIQUITI INC: Molder Slams Share Price Drop from Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Nils Molder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ubiquiti Inc., Robert J. Pera and Kevin Radigan, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01419 (S.D. N.Y., May 19, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ubiquiti develops and markets equipment and technology platforms for high-capacity Internet access, unified information technology, and consumer electronics. Ubiquiti allegedly downplayed a data breach in January 2021 where the hacker had accessed "privileged credentials that were previously stored in a "LastPass" account of a Ubiquiti IT employee, and gained root administrator access to all Ubiquiti Amazon Web Services accounts, including all S3 data buckets, all application logs, all databases, all user database credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on. On this news, Ubiquiti's stock price fell $50.70, or 14.5%, to close at $298.30 per share on March 31, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Molder purchased Ubiquiti securities and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com - and - Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com UNIT CORP: Deal Reached to Settle Chieftain Royalty Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that an agreement to settle the class action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company vs. Unit Petroleum Company, has been reached. On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Company (UPC) styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleges that UPC breached its duty to pay royalties on natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are or were royalty owners in the company's Oklahoma wells. In August 2020, UPC reached an agreement to settle the class action. Under the settlement, UPC agreed to recognize class proof of claims in the amount of $15.75 million for Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd. vs. Unit Petroleum Company, and $29.25 million in Chieftain Royalty Company vs. Unit Petroleum Company. This settlement is subject to certain conditions, including approval by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division in Case No. 20-32740 under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et al. Under the Plan, these settlements will be treated as allowed general unsecured claims against UPC. And, in accordance with the Plan, the settlement amounts will be satisfied by distribution of the plaintiffs' proportionate share of New Common Stock. Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNIT CORP: Settlement Deal Between Subsidiary & Cockerell Reached ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that an agreement to settle the class action suit entitled, Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company, has been reached. On March 11, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Compan (UPC) styled Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. The company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleges that UPC wrongfully failed to pay interest with respect to late paid oil and gas proceeds under Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty and working interest owners in our Oklahoma wells. In August 2020, UPC reached an agreement to settle the class action. Under the settlement, UPC agreed to recognize class proof of claims in the amount of $15.75 million for Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd. vs. Unit Petroleum Company, and $29.25 million in Chieftain Royalty Company vs. Unit Petroleum Company. This settlement is subject to certain conditions, including approval by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division in Case No. 20-32740 under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et al. Under the Plan, these settlements will be treated as allowed general unsecured claims against UPC. And, in accordance with the Plan, the settlement amounts will be satisfied by distribution of the plaintiffs' proportionate share of New Common Stock. Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNITED STATES: Roddy Slams Unsafe Workplace ------------------------------------------- Marquita Roddy, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The United States of America, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01372, filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims on May 18, 2021, seeks unpaid wages due and premium payments due, unpaid hazardous duty pay and environmental differential pay, liquidated damages and recovery of Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Back Pay Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Marquita Roddy worked for the Defendant as a postal service employee and as a mail processing clerk for the United States Postal Service in Dayton, Ohio and in the Washington Township, Ohio. Roddy has been employed by Defendant since October 2018. She claims to have performed work with or in close proximity to objects, surfaces, and/or individuals infected with the novel coronavirus. Roddy claims not to be paid the hazardous duty pay differential for exposure to virulent biologicals set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations or the environmental differential for exposure to hazardous micro-organisms. She claims that the USPS did not provide sufficient personal protective equipment, such as gloves and hand sanitizer and did not implement any safety policies, such as for social distancing. USPS allegedly also did not install any safety equipment, such as filters in federal Post Offices to eliminate the risk of the virus. In addition, she claims to be denied overtime for hours of work in excess of 40 hours per work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. David W. Hodges HODGES & FOTY, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com dhodges@hftrialfirm.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Phone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com VERMONT BREAD: Chaney Seeks Damages for WARN Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW CHANEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VERMONT BREAD COMPANY, SUPERIOR BAKERY, INC., KOFFEE KUP BAKERY, INC., KOFFEE KUP DISTRIBUTION LLC, and AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-00120-wks (D. Vt., April 29, 2021) seeks to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and employee benefits by reason of Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act). According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were employed by Defendants as a single employer at the Burlington facility as well as other facilities until their termination without cause on April 26, 2021 and thereafter at which time Defendants ordered a mass layoff and/or plant closing of the facilities. Prior to their terminations, neither the Plaintiff nor other similarly situated employees received a written notice that complied with the requirements of the WARN Act. Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days following their respective terminations and failed to make 401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance coverage and other employee benefits, the complaint alleges. Defendants maintained, owned and operated the facilities where Plaintiffs worked until April 26, 2021.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas P. Aicher, Esq. CLEARY SHAHI & AICHER, PC 110 Merchants Row, Third Floor Rutland VT 05701 Tel: (802) 775-8800 Fax: (802) 775-8809 TPA@clearyshahi.com - and - Stuart J. Miller, Esq. Jonathan Miller, Esq. LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP 100 Church Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 581-5005 Fax: (212) 581-2122 - and - Mary E. Olsen, Esq. M. Vance McCrary, Esq. THE GARDNER FIRM 182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103 Mobile, AL 36602 Phone: (251) 433-8100 Fax: (251) 433-8181 YUMANITY THERAPEUTICS: Paid Mootness Fee in Merger Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yumanity Thereapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the mootness fee was paid by the Company on the suits related to its merger with Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. (PTI), Yumanity, Inc. and Merger Sub. Between October 14 and December 7, 2020, following the announcement of the proposed merger among PTI, Yumanity, Inc. and Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of PTI, nine lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of PTI challenging the Merger. The first lawsuit, brought as a putative class action, is captioned Aniello v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-08578 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 14, 2020). The remaining eight lawsuits, brought by the plaintiffs individually, are captioned Culver v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-08595 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 15, 2020); Donolo v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-01400 (D. Del. filed Oct. 16, 2020); Straube v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-08653 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 16, 2020); Beck v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-08783 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 21, 2020); Dreyer v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-05193 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 28, 2020); Kopkin v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-12103 (D. Mass. filed Nov. 23, 2020); Merritt v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-10275 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 6, 2020); and Koh v. Proteostasis Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-10296 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 7, 2020). All of the complaints named PTI and the individual members of PTI's board of directors as defendants. The Aniello complaint also named Yumanity, Inc. as an additional defendant, and the Donolo complaint named Yumanity, Inc. and Merger Sub as additional defendants. The complaints asserted violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against PTI and its directors, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against PTI's directors. The Donolo complaint asserted an additional violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Yumanity, Inc. The Aniello complaint asserted additional claims for breach of fiduciary duty against PTI's directors and aiding and abetting against PTI and Yumanity, Inc.. The plaintiffs contended that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by PTI with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2020 or the proxy statement/prospectus on Form 424B3 filed by PTI with the SEC on November 12, 2020 omitted or misrepresented certain material information regarding the Merger. The complaints sought injunctive relief, rescission, or rescissory damages, dissemination certain information requested by the plaintiffs, and an award of plaintiffs' costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. While PTI and Yumanity, Inc. believed that the disclosures set forth in the Registration Statement and Definitive Proxy complied fully with all applicable law and denied the allegations in the pending actions described above, in order to moot plaintiffs' disclosure claims, avoid nuisance and possible expense and business delays, and provide additional information to its stockholders, on December 9, 2020, PTI filed a Form 8-K voluntarily to supplement certain disclosures in the Definitive Proxy related to plaintiffs' claims with the supplemental disclosures. Following the filing of the Supplemental Disclosures, all of the actions discussed above were voluntarily dismissed by the respective plaintiffs. On March 18, 2021, the parties executed a confidential fee and settlement agreement, pursuant to which all claims were released by plaintiffs and their counsel and an immaterial payment of a mootness fee will be paid to plaintiffs' counsel, a portion of which will be paid by the Company's insurer. On April 1, 2021 the mootness fee was paid by the Company. Yumanity Thereapeutics, Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of innovative, disease-modifying therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. ZOSANO PHARMA: Consolidated Stockholders Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Zosano Pharma Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated stockholder class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 29, 2020 and November 6, 2020, two stockholders filed alleged class action lawsuits against the company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Carr v. Zosano Pharma Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07625, and Becerra v. Zosano Pharma Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-07850. The complaints were filed purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between February 13, 2017 and September 30, 2020. The complaints allege that the company and certain of its current and former executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees and other unspecified relief. On February 4, 2021, the Carr and Becerra actions were consolidated and the court appointed two Co-Lead Plaintiffs and two law firms as Co-Lead Counsel in the consolidated action. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint on March 30, 2021, which alleges the same claims as the previous complaints and extends the Class Period through October 20, 2020. The company anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Zosano said, "Pursuant to a stipulated court order, we expect to file the motion by May 14, 2021; the Co-Lead Plaintiffs are expected to file their opposition by June 14, 2021; and we expect to file a reply brief by July 6, 2021. The earliest date upon which the court may hear the motion is July 20, 2021." Zosano Pharma Corporation is a clinical stage specialty pharmaceutical company based in Fremont, California. The Company has developed a proprietary transdermal microneedle patch system, which delivers proprietary formulations of existing drugs through the skin for the treatment of a variety of indications. The company is based in Fremont, California. ********* 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 ***