/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 ***