/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210608.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 108
Headlines
ACADIA PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ADVISORS MORTGAGE: Harvey Suit Removed to S.D. California
ALEX CRANE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AQUILA SERVICES: Moss et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
AR RESOURCES: Gruberger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 12 Deadline
AXIOM HOLDINGS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 6 Deadline
BLOOMINGBULB.COM: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRICKOVEN PIZZADELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendez Claims
CANAAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 14 Deadline
CE SOLUTIONS: Richardson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 6 Deadline
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Alicea Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 16 Deadline
DENNY'S INC: Parker Slams Tip Credit, Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
ELEGANTE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arias Suit Claims
EM RESTORATION: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Madariaga Claims
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Halperin Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FIBROGEN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 11 Deadline
FIBROGEN INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of June 11 Deadline
FIESTA CAROUSEL: Underpays Party Rental Workers, Navarrete Claims
GREATER CINCINNATI: Bid to Dismiss Kleinhans Suit Denied as Moot
GREGORY RUSS: Walsh Files Suit in S.D. New York
GW PHARMA: Ziegler Files Suit Over Sale to Jazz Pharma
H. DESIGN: Faces Cardon Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Florida
HARRIS & HARRIS: Lorenzo Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
HEALTH AID: Devine Files Suit Over Data Breach
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Thompkins Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
IMAGE 2000: Zakay Law Discloses Securities Class Action
JAMIE YOUNG: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Elshabba Sues Over FDCPA Violation
KENTUCKY DOC: VanHouten Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
KILGORE MARINE: Smith Seeks Unpaid Deck Hands' Overtime Wages
KLARNA INC: Edmundson Files Suit in District of Connecticut
LIBERATED SYNDICATION: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
LIFEMD INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
MRS BPO: Faces Bigos Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letters
NCAA: Faces Romashko Suit Over Football Athletes' Injuries
NCAA: Faces Rozgony Suit Over Football Athletes' Injuries
NEW INDY: Residents File Class Action Lawsuit Over Mill Nuisance
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Rynasko Appeals Class Action Dismissal
NEW YORK: Payne Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Cir.
NORTHEAST NURSERY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NORTHERN TRUST: Liable to Retirement Plan's Losses, Conlon Alleges
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sloatman Suit Says
NOVELTY MANUFACTURING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Thompson Files Suit Over Sale to Microsoft
NUTANIX INC: Norton Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
PAYPAL INC: Moneymaker Files Fantasy Sports Class Action Lawsuit
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Johnson Fistel Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PG&E CORPORATION: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 19 Deadline
PHOENIX, AZ: Hundreds of Protesters File Class-Action Lawsuit
PLUG POWER: Smolicek Class Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
PROVENTION BIO: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline
PROVENTION BIO: Paxton Sues Over 17.78% Drop in Share Price
PURECYCLE TECH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 12 Deadline
ROBERT BAFFERT: Mattera Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
ROSA REX: Disrupts Contract Relationship With Amazon, Beuchel Says
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces Class Suit Over PFOA Exposure
SARUHAN NYC: Ariza Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SKILLZ INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 7 Deadline
SORIN GROUP: Faces National Class Action Over 3T Heater-Coolers
SOS LIMITED: Gross Law Firm Discloses Securities Class Action
STEELE SOLUTIONS: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Thames Suit Says
TABCOM LLC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEMESCAL WELLNESS: Court Won't Review Denial of Bid to Toss Barton
VITAL FARMS: Chickens-PETA Foundation Lawyers Help File Lawsuit
WIPRO LTD: Court Allows Filing of Ruffing's 2nd Amended Class Suit
WISCONSIN DOLLS LLC: Pike Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
*********
ACADIA PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc.
("Acadia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACAD) securities between June
15, 2020 and April 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Acadia
investors have until June 18, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3ptAyV4 to participate.
Acadia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops a drug called
pimavanserin as a treatment for dementia-related psychosis and as
an adjunctive treatment for schizophrenia, as well as an adjunctive
treatment for major depressive disorder. In June 2020, Acadia
submitted a supplemental New Drug Application ("sNDA") with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to expand pimavanserin's
label to include treatment for dementia-related psychosis.
On March 8, 2021, the Company revealed that, as part of its ongoing
review of the sNDA, the FDA "has identified deficiencies that
preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing
requirements/commitments at this time."
On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $20.76 per share, or
45.35%, to close at $25.02 per share on March 9, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.
On April 5, 2021, pre-market, the Company disclosed receipt of a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA indicating that the
pimavanserin sNDA could not be approved in its current form.
Specifically, the press release stated that the CRL "cited a lack
of statistical significance in some of the subgroups of dementia,
and insufficient numbers of patients with certain less common
dementia subtypes as lack of substantial evidence of effectiveness
to support approval."
On this news, Acadia's stock price fell $4.41 per share, or 17.23%,
to close at $21.18 per share on April 5, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin
sNDA contained statistical and design deficiencies; (2)
accordingly, the pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary support
that the Company had led investors to believe it possessed; (3) the
FDA was unlikely to approve the pimavanserin sNDA in its present
form; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Acadia securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than June 18, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Acadia securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ADVISORS MORTGAGE: Harvey Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Brian Harvey, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Advisors Mortgage Group, LLC, Does 1
through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 37-02021-00019330-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the San Diego Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on June 2, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01048-TWR-AGS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Advisors Mortgage Group, LLC -- https://advisorsmortgage.com/ --
provides mortgage services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Lynn Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Kimberly Arouh, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92101-3375
Phone: (619) 239-8700
Fax: (619) 702-3898
Email: kimberly.arouh@bipc.com
ALEX CRANE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alex Crane LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Alex Crane LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04880 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alex Crane -- https://alexcrane.co/ -- offers breezy linen clothes
and makes clothes for working modern folk.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
AQUILA SERVICES: Moss et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MOSS and COREY REEVES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AQUILA SERVICES
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01462 (D. Colo., June 1,
2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, the Colorado Minimum Wages of
Workers Act, the applicable Colorado Minimum Wage Orders, and the
applicable Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders.
Moss and Reeves were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid and
non-exempt security guards from April 22, 2021 to April 29, 2021
and from March 24, 2021 to April 25, 2021, respectively.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated their rights and
the rights of hundreds of other individuals, who were employed by
the Defendant as security guards, by failing to pay them wages and
minimum wages for the time they spent attending mandatory
trainings.
The Plaintiffs seek back wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, reasonable attorney's fees, and litigation
costs for themselves and other similarly situated security guards.
Aquila Services Corporation d/b/a Denver Metro Protective Services
(DMPS) provides security guard and patrol services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
730 17th Street, Suite 750
Denver, CO 80202
Tel: (720) 255-0370
E-mail: chunter@hkm.com
aharrison@hkm.com
AR RESOURCES: Gruberger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AR Resources, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Esther Gruberger, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AR Resources, Inc., John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-11625-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
AR Resources, Inc. -- http://arresources.net/-- is a national debt
collection company that specializes in collection solutions for
business to business, consumer, property management and healthcare
debt recovery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until July 13, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Array Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ARRY), if they purchased the Company's securities
between October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and/or pursuant to the Company's October 2020 initial
public offering, December 2020 secondary public offering, or March
2021 secondary public offering. This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
What You May Do
If you purchased securities of Array and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-arry/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by July 13, 2021.
About the Lawsuit
Array and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period and/or in the
Offering Materials issued in conjunction with the public offerings,
violating federal securities laws. Specifically, the action alleges
that the Company failed to disclose that increases in commodity and
freight costs had been negatively impacting the Company's business
and operations.
On May 11, 2021, the Company disclosed that its first quarter 2021
results had missed profit analysts' expectations and withdrew its
full-year 2021 outlook, due to increases in steel and freight
costs, leading analysts to cut their ratings on the Company.
On this news, shares of Array plummeted 46.1%, or $11.49 per share,
to close at $13.46 per share on May 12, 2021.
The case is Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Array
Technologies, Inc., et al., 21-cv-2396.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
ATERIAN INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Aterian,
Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Aterian, Inc. f/k/a Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER,
MWK)
Class Period: December 1, 2020 - May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's
organic growth is plummeting; (2) the Company's recent, self-lauded
acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from questionable
sources; (3) Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software
is a flawed product that lacks customer interest; (4) Aterian uses
rebate programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their
product offerings; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
AXIOM HOLDINGS: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers and acquirers of securities of Axiom Holdings,
Inc. (OTCMKTS: AIOM):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY AND CERTIFICATION OF CLASS ACTION;
(II) ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST AXIOM HOLDINGS, INC. ON THE
ISSUE OF LIABILITY; AND (III) PROPOSED VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF
CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CURTIS RILEY
TO: ALL PURCHASERS AND ACQUIRERS OF AXIOM HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES
DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 14, 2016 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE
19, 2017 (the "Class Period").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure that a the above-captioned action (the "Action") is
pending before the Honorable John P. Cronan in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"),
and has been certified as a Class Action by an Order of the Court
entered on July 6, 2020. Notice is further given that default
judgment has been entered against Axiom on the issue of liability
only, by an Order of the Court entered on March 11, 2021. Notice is
further given that the Class Representatives have requested an
Order voluntarily dismissing all claims against Riley, without
prejudice, for the reasons described more fully in a more detailed
Long Notice of (I) Pendency and Certification of Class Action, (II)
Entry of Default Judgment Against Axiom Holdings, Inc. on the Issue
of Liability; and (III) Proposed Voluntary Dismissal of Claims
against Defendant Curtis Riley, which is available on the Notice
Administrator's website, www.strategicclaims.net. Defendant Riley
has raised an objection to the proposed dismissal of claims against
him without prejudice and seeks dismissal of such claims with
prejudice, or alternatively that any class members excluding
themselves from the action be required to declare their intent to
the Court immediately and have a time limit of thirty days to file
litigation against Defendant Riley. This Action has not been
settled, a final judgment has not been entered, and the issue of
damages continues to be litigated. Accordingly, no claim form need
be filed at this time.
If you purchased or acquired Axiom securities during the Class
Period and were injured thereby, you may be a member of certified
Class Action (the "Judgment Class") whose rights are affected by
this Action. You also have the right to exclude yourself from the
Judgment Class, or object to the proposed dismissal of claims
against Defendant Riley, in accordance with the directions set
forth in a more detailed Long Notice of (I) Pendency and
Certification of Class Action, (II) Entry of Default Judgment
Against Axiom Holdings, Inc. on the Issue of Liability; and (III)
Proposed Voluntary Dismissal of Claims against Defendant Curtis
Riley, which is available on the Notice Administrator's website,
www.strategicclaims.net. That document describes the Class Action
and your rights with respect thereto.
As detailed in the Long Notice, the deadline to exclude yourself
from the Judgment Class, or object to the proposed dismissal of
Defendant Riley, is November 3, 2021, and a hearing will be held on
November 16, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable John P.
Cronan, at the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 12D, New York, New York 10007 to
consider the proposed voluntary dismissal of all claims against
Defendant Riley, without prejudice. The Court reserves the right to
hold the hearing telephonically or by other virtual means.
If you have not received a Postcard Notice by mail or email or this
Summary Notice by email, please contact us in writing:
Axiom Securities Litigation Notice Administrator
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 North Jackson Street - Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
Tel.: (866) 274-4004
Fax: (610) 565-7985
info@strategicclaims.net
www.strategicclaims.net
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel, at:
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Murielle J. Steven Walsh
Eric D. Gottlieb
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
mjsteven@pomlaw.com
egottlieb@pomlaw.com
INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK’S
OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL.
Dated: May 5, 2021 (entered May 7, 2021)
New York, New York
By Order of the Court
United States District Court
for Southern District of New York [GN]
BLOOMINGBULB.COM: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bloomingbulb.com. The
case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Bloomingbulb.com, Case No.
1:21-cv-04886 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BloomingBulb.com -- https://bloomingbulb.com/ -- has been offering
flower bulbs and other garden plants to consumers in the United
States since 1998.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
BRICKOVEN PIZZADELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN MENDEZ; and HERMELINDO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRICKOVEN PIZZADELIVERY
INC. d/b/a BRICKOVEN PIZZA 33; RINO LACERRA; and EMILIO LACKERRA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04567 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.
BRICKOVEN PIZZADELIVERY INC. d/b/a BRICKOVEN PIZZA 33 owns and
operates an Italian restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CANAAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Canaan Inc. ("Canaan") (NASDAQ: CAN) between February 10, 2021 and
April 9, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/canaan-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=16308&wire=5
Allegations against CAN include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
they concealed that due to ongoing supply chain disruptions and the
introduction of the Company's next-generation A12 series bitcoin
mining machines - which had cannibalized sales of the older product
offerings - Canaan's 4Q20 sales had declined more than 93%
year-over-year compared to its fourth quarter fiscal year 2019
("4Q19") sales and more than 93% quarter-over-quarter compared to
its third quarter FY20 ("3Q20") sales.
If you suffered a loss in Canaan you have until June 14, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
CE SOLUTIONS: Richardson Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marquis Richardson, Roland Richardson, Yomaira Vasquez and Gary
Arrington, Individually and On Behalf of All Putative Class Members
v. CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, MARVELOUS MARK TRANSPORTATION CO.,
INC., EDUARD SLININ, DORA SLININ, MARK NAHKBO and CONSOLIDATED
EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. ("Con Edison"), Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 653369/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., May
21, 2021), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
premium pay owed to them; unpaid spread-of-hours premiums and for
Defendants' failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statements, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs an
hourly rate that did not include prevailing wages or supplemental
benefits when they performed work on public utility projects on New
York City and New York State public streets, roadways and
sidewalks. Further, the Plaintiffs were not paid wages of any kind
for certain hours that they worked, including but not limited to
for lunch breaks that they were unable to take and time spent
waiting for Con Edison crews to arrive on jobsites, resulting in
significant unpaid regular and overtime wages each week.
The Plaintiffs are former construction flaggers who worked for the
Defendants on public streets, roadways and sidewalks throughout New
York City and New York State.
CE Solutions has employed flaggers and parking coordinators in the
construction industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
Kristen E. Boysen, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 385-9700
Web: www.peltongraham.com
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
ChemoCentryx, Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below
to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI)
Class Period: November 26, 2019 - May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the study
design of the Phase III ADVOCATE trial presented issues about the
interpretability of the trial data to define a clinically
meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; (2) the data from the Phase III
ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for avacopan; (3)
these issues presented a substantial concern regarding the
viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA for avacopan for the treatment of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Alicea Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth
Financial Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin P. Alicea,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., CF Medical Inc. also known
as: CF Medical LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-10921-IT (D.
Mass., June 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Commonwealth Financial Systems of Dickson City, Pennsylvania --
https://cfsi-arm.com/ -- is a regional leader in accounts
receivable management and financial services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott H. Bernstein, Esq.
SKOLNICK LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 305
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (203) 246-2887
Email: scott@skolnicklegalgroup.com
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until July 16, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against ContextLogic Inc.
(NASDAQ: WISH), if they purchased the Company's shares between
December 16, 2020 through May 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and/or pursuant to the Company's December 2020 initial
public offering. This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of ContextLogic and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wish/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by July 16, 2021.
About the Lawsuit
ContextLogic and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period and/or in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in conjunction
with the initial public offering, violating federal securities
laws.
On May 12, 2021, the Company announced its 1Q21 financial results
for the interim period ended March 31, 2021, disclosing a decrease
in monthly active users ("MAUs") of an additional 7% from the
previous period to just 101 million and a decrease in forward sales
guidance for 2Q21 of just $715 million to $730 million, coming in
significantly less than the $759 million the market had been led to
expect and far less than the guidance of $735 to $750 million
provided for 1Q21.
On this news, shares of ContextLogic plummeted 29%, or $3.36 per
share, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021, on unusually
high trading volume. [GN]
DENNY'S INC: Parker Slams Tip Credit, Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Parker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Denny's, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-10886 (D. Mass., May 27, 2021), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages due to invalid tip credit, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Statute and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Defendants own and operate a chain of "Denny's" restaurants where
Parker worked as a server, but was frequently asked to engage in
non-tipped tasks such as prepping the restaurant prior and after
dining hours. Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours worked
despite requiring her to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding
20% of the total hours worked each workweek. She also claims to
have never received wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
David Pastor, Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
Email: dpastor‘wpastorlawolfice.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
Email: james@bswages.com
- and -
Robert J. Gray
Gerald D. Wells, III
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
101 Lindenwood Drive, Suite 225
Malvern, PA 19355
Telephone: (610) 822-3700
Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
Email: gwells@cwglaw.com
rgray@cwelaw.com
- and -
Edwin Kilpela, Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Fax: (412) 231-0246
Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
eavery@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Fax: (480) 304-3805
Email: cliff@bswages.com
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Gross Law Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Ebang International
Holdings Inc. Shareholders who purchased shares in the company
during the date listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding
possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
is not required to partake in any recovery.
Ebang International Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:EBON)
Investors Affected: June 26, 2020 - April 5, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ebang International Holdings Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the proceeds from Ebang's
public offerings had been directed to an low yield, long term bonds
to an underwriter and to related parties rather than used to
develop the Company's operations; (2) Ebang's sales were declining
and the Company had inflated reported sales, including through the
sale of defective units; (3) Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong
Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and
inflated sales figures; (4) Ebang's purported crytocurrency
exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
exchange; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ebang-international-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16303&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
ELEGANTE RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arias Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIO ARIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELEGANTE RESTAURANT, INC. (D/B/A ELEGANTE),
FRANK AMATO, and ANTONIO AMATO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03095
(E.D.N.Y., June 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, failure to pay spread of hours compensation,
failure to adopt wage notice and recordkeeping requirements,
failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to
reimburse business expenses.
Mr. Arias was employed as a pizza maker at the Elegante restaurant
located at 92-01 Rockaway Beach Blvd., Rockaway Beach, New York
from July 2017 until April 11, 2021.
Elegante Restaurant, Inc. is an owner and operator of a pizzeria
under the name Elegante, located at 92-01 Rockaway Beach Blvd.,
Rockaway Beach, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
EM RESTORATION: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Madariaga Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS C. MADARIAGA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. EM RESTORATION, INC., EFRAIN MARTINEZ and JULIANA
MARTINEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22018-JLK
(S.D. Fla., June 1, 2021) brings this complaint as aa collective
action against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act to recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time construction employee from October 27, 2020 to May 8,
2021.
The Plaintiff claims that he worked for a minimum of 48 hours
weekly while he was employed by the Defendants. However, the
Defendants willfully failed to properly pay him overtime
compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance to the
FLSA. Instead, he was only paid by the Defendants at the regular
rate for the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week. In
addition, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate and complete
time records of hours worked by its construction employees, the
Plaintiff alleges.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated construction
employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover payment for half-time
overtime hours, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and
just and/or available pursuant to Federal law.
EM Restoration is a construction company owned by the Individual
Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Halperin Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Rivka Halperin, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-04873 (S.D.N.Y., June
2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. --
https://www.experian.com/corporate/experian-locations -- operates
as an information services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
FIBROGEN INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 11 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against FibroGen, Inc. (NASDAQ: FGEN) ("FibroGen") on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired FibroGen securities and/or sold
put options from October 18, 2017 through April 6, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
FibroGen securitiesduring the Class Period may, no later than June
11, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative
of the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
atinfo@ktmc.com; orclick
https://www.ktmc.com/fibrogen-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=fibrogen
FibroGen is a biopharmaceutical company that develops medicines for
the treatment of anemia, fibrotic disease, and cancer. Its most
advanced product is roxadustat ("Roxa"), an oral small molecule
inhibitor of hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase activity
that acts by stimulating the body's natural pathway for red cell
production.
The Class Period commences on October 18, 2017 when FibroGen
announced that the China Food and Drug Administration ("CFDA") had
accepted its new drug application ("NDA") for Roxa based on two
Phase 3 studies in China, "one study in CKD [chronic kidney
disease] comparing roxadustat against a branded epoetin alfa[] and
one study in CKD non-dialysis comparing roxadustat against
placebo." Both studies had "met their primary efficacy endpoints
with no new or unexpected safety signals identified." FibroGen
touted these studies' positive safety throughout the Class Period.
Having overcome the hurdle of demonstrating to the CFDA that Roxa
was safe enough to submit an NDA, FibroGen proceeded to present
itself as ready to conduct Phase 3 trials sufficient to support an
NDA to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). In 2019,
FibroGen filed its NDA with the FDA for the approval of Roxa for
the treatment of anemia due to CKD.
The truth began to emerge on March 1, 2021 when, after the market
closed, FibroGen announced that the FDA was scheduling an advisory
committee meeting to review Roxa's NDA, well over a year after its
initial submission. An advisory committee meeting this late in the
review process indicates that there is a problem with the
application, and could, at best, delay the FDA's approval decision
and at worst signal that the FDA may not approve the drug.
Following this news, FibroGen's stock price fell by $12.46 per
share, or 25%.
Then, on April 6, 2021, after the market closed, FibroGen issued a
press release that revealed that FibroGen's previously disclosed
safety data included undisclosed post-hoc changes to the
stratification factors and did not include analyses based on the
pre-specified stratification factors. As a result of these changes,
the complaint alleges that FibroGen was forced to concede that
Roxa, contrary to prior representations, did not reduce the risk of
cardiovascular events or hospitalization as compared to a currently
approved anemia injection used as a control based on pre-specified
stratification factors. Following this news, FibroGen's stock price
fell $14.90, or 43%, to close at $19.74 per share on April 7,
2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements or failed to
disclose that: (1) based on the safety data from FibroGen's two
Phase 3 trials in China, any safety data obtained from the global
Phase 3 trials would require post-hoc changes to the stratification
factors to meet the FDA's requirements; (2) FibroGen's disclosures
of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the Roxa global
Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia submitted in connection
with CKD included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors;
(3) FibroGen's analyses with the pre-specified stratification
factors resulted in higher hazard ratios (point estimates of
relative risk) and 95% confidence intervals; (4) based on these
analyses, FibroGen could not conclude that Roxa reduces the risk of
(or is superior to) MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in
incident dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa; (5) as a result,
FibroGen faced significant uncertainty that its NDA for Roxa as a
treatment for anemia of CKD would be approved by the FDA; and (6)
as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' statements about
FirboGen's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
FibroGen investors may, no later than June 11, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
FIBROGEN INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of June 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities and/or sold put
options of FibroGen, Inc. ("FibroGen" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:FGEN) between October 18, 2017 and April 6, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired FibroGen securities and/or
sold FibroGen put options during the Class Period, you may move the
Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than June 11,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of
any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision
of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain
Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
FibroGen investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the FibroGen Securities Class Litigation
FibroGen, headquartered in San Francisco, California, is a
pharmaceutical company that develops medicines for the treatment of
anemia, fibrotic disease, and cancer. One of its flagship products
is roxadustat, a drug used to treat of anemia caused by chronic
kidney disease ("CKD"). In 2019, FibroGen filed its New Drug
Application ("NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for the approval of roxadustat. The action alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1) that certain
safety analyses submitted in connection with FibroGen's NDA for
roxudustat included post-hoc changes to stratification factors; (2)
that based on analyses using the pre-specified stratification
factors, the Company could not conclude that roxadustat reduces the
risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to standard of
care epoetin-alfa; (3) as a result, there was significant risk that
the FDA would not approve Fibrogen's NDA for roxadustat as a
treatment for anemia of CKD; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
The truth emerged on April 6, 2021 when FibroGen revealed that
certain of its prior disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular
safety analyses from the roxadustat phase 3 program for the
treatment of anemia of CKD included undisclosed and improper
post-hoc changes to stratification factors and did not include
analyses based on the pre-specified stratification factors. The
Company further revealed that based on analyses using pre-specified
stratification factors, "we cannot conclude that roxadustat reduces
the risk of (or is superior to)" a competing drug made by another
manufacturer. Following this news, FibroGen's stock price fell
$14.90, or 43%, from its closing price of $34.64 on April 6, 2021,
to close at $19.74 per share on April 7, 2021.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. [GN]
FIESTA CAROUSEL: Underpays Party Rental Workers, Navarrete Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SATURNINO NAVARRETE, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. FIESTA CAROUSEL, INC., and MIGUEL R.
HECHAVARRIA, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22024-BB
(S.D. Fla., June 1, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from February 2003 to
October 27, 2020 as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee in
the position of party rental leadman at the Defendant's warehousing
facilities.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
a total of 114 hours every week without even taking a bonafide
lunch periods, and was reduced to an average of 7 days with 70
working hours weekly in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However,
despite working more than 40 hours every week, the Defendants did
not pay him for all his working hours. The Plaintiff claims that he
was only paid 40 regular hours plus an undermined number of
overtime hours at his regular wage. The Defendant allegedly failed
to pay him the correct number of overtime hours at the rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked
over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated employees seeking to recover actual
damages for unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court
deems equitable and just and/or available pursuant to Federal law.
Fiesta Carousel is a party equipment rental company handling the
logistics of all kinds of events, including the rental of tents,
deco, and furniture. Miguel R. Hechavarria is the owner/officer and
manager of Fiesta Carousel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GREATER CINCINNATI: Bid to Dismiss Kleinhans Suit Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AUSTIN KLEINHANS, Plaintiff v. GREATER CINCINNATI
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-070 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
recommended that Defendant GCBHS' motion to dismiss the original
complaint be denied as moot.
The Plaintiff filed the original complaint in the action in Jan.
2021, alleging claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
putative class-action claims under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.
On April 2, 2021, Defendant GCBHS filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim for relief. It argued that the Plaintiff's claims lacked
factual support.
The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against GCBHS on April 23,
and GCBHS filed an answer to the amended complaint on May 7, 2021.
Judge Litkovitz explains that the Plaintiff's amended complaint
supersedes the original complaint and is the 'legally operative
complaint' in the matter. Hence, Defendant GCBHS' motion to
dismiss the original complaint is, therefore, moot. Accordingly,
Judge Litkovitz recommended that Defendant GCBHS's motion to
dismiss the original complaint be denied as moot.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), within 14 days after being
served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may
serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the
Court on timely motion for an extension.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/t8hvxmk5 from
Leagle.com.
GREGORY RUSS: Walsh Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gregory Russ. The
case is styled as Vanessa Walsh, Nina Crawford, Samantha Coleman,
Milton Cruz, Lydia Gonzalez Diaz, Maryanne Hayes, William Hearn,
Francisco Hernandez, Gail Jones, Marc Polite, Ralph Waiters,
Latrina Williams, on behalf of a class of similarly situated
tenants of the New York City Housing Authority v. Gregory Russ, as
Chairman of the New York City Housing Authority, Case No.
1:21-cv-04872-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Accommodations for
Violation 5th & 14th Amendment.
Gregory Russ --
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nycha/about/board-members/chair-greg-russ.page
-- was appointed Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the New York
City Housing Authority by Mayor Bill de Blasio.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
225 Broadway, Suite 1902
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 285-1400
Fax: (212) 285-1410
Email: aschwartz@advocatesny.com
GW PHARMA: Ziegler Files Suit Over Sale to Jazz Pharma
------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Ziegler, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GW Pharmaceuticals, PLC, Justin Gover,
Geoffrey Guy, Cabot Brown, David Gryska, Catherine Mackey, James
Noble, Alicia Secor and Lord William Waldegrave, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-01019 (S.D. Cal., May 27, 2021), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed acquisition
of GW by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, PLC and its subsidiaries, rescinding
it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory
damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Holders of GW ordinary shares will receive $16.662/3 in cash plus
an amount of Jazz ordinary shares equal to an exchange ratio that
will be calculated based upon Jazz's share price, and holders of GW
American Depositary Shares will receive approximately $200 per
share in cash and $20 in Jazz stock in consideration for their
shares.
GW is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering,
developing, and commercializing novel therapeutics from their
proprietary cannabinoid product platform in a broad range of
disease areas.
The complaint alleges that the merger's proxy statement allegedly
provided a materially false and misleading valuation picture of GW
by disseminating unreasonably low financial projections for
2021-2035 despite the fact that the merger consideration
significantly undercompensated GW shareholders by providing them
with substantially less than the intrinsic fair value of their
shares. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
David E. Bower, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Tel: (213) 446-6652
Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
H. DESIGN: Faces Cardon Wage-and-Hour Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN A. CARDON, DEVIS O. LOBO MARTINEZ, and FRANCISCO ROMERO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. H. DESIGN GROUP, LLC, E-DEVELOPMENT GROUP CORP, JORGE
A. HOYOS, and PABLO ARCE, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00432 (M.D.
Fla., June 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
their failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated construction workers appropriate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek and for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were hired by the Defendants as construction workers
in Florida from February 10, 2021, to March 10, 2021.
H. Design Group, LLC is a general contractor and real estate
developer based in Florida.
E-Development Group Corp is a general contractor and real estate
developer based in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
HARRIS & HARRIS: Lorenzo Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
LUZ LORENZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02775 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2021) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
Harris & Harris Ltd. operates as credit rating agency. The Company
offers credit reporting and management, and debt collection
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Celetha Chatman, Esq.
Michael Wood, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP. LTD.
980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312)757-1880
Facsimile: (312)265-3227
E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
HEALTH AID: Devine Files Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Kathleen Devine and Richard Rydzinski, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Health Aid of Ohio,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. CV-21-948117 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, May 28,
2021), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief resulting
from negligence, intrusion into seclusion, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust
enrichment.
Health Aid is a full-service provider of home medical equipment
serving individuals throughout Ohio and operates two locations, one
in Parma, Ohio and in Columbus, Ohio. On February 19, 2021, Health
Aid became aware of a cybersecurity incident, which resulted in the
Data Breach that exposed customers' Private Information including
those of the Plaintiffs'. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.corn
zschaengold@msdlegal.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 640-1160
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 283-3814
Email: gklinger@masonllp.com
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Thompkins Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT THOMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOST INTERNATIONAL INC., dba HMS
HOST; and DOES 150, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV20440
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 1, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay wages
including overtime, failure to provide meal periods or provide
premium in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or provide
premium in lieu thereof, failure to pay all wages earned and owed
upon separation, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failure to provide suitable seating.
Mr. Thompkins was employed by the Defendants as a busser and server
in Los Angeles, California from April 2019 until October 2020.
Host International Inc., doing business as HMS Host, is a food and
beverage service provider with dining locations at airports and
motorways across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
IMAGE 2000: Zakay Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and
JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Image
2000 for allegedly failing to accurately pay employees' wages for
all their time worked. The Image 2000 class action lawsuit, Case
No. 21STCV19193, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint
can be read here.
According to the lawsuit, Image 2000 allegedly violated California
Labor Code Sections Sec 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 226, 226.7, 510,
512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay
minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal
and rest periods; (4) reimburse employees for required business
expenses; (5) provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6)
provide wages when due; and (7) provide sick pay and provide sick
leave balance. The lawsuit also alleges Image 2000 violated the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which gives rise to civil
penalties as a result of Image 2000's conduct. PAGA allows
aggrieved employees to file a lawsuit to recover civil penalties on
behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California
for Labor Code violations.
California Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish
its employees an accurate itemized wage statement in writing
showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked, (3) the
number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate,
(4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates
of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the
employee and only the last four digits of the employee's social
security number or an employee identification number other than a
social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal
entity that is the employer and, (9) all applicable hourly rates in
effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours
worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Image 2000 allegedly
failed to provide its employees with accurate itemized wage
statements that complied with all the requirements of California
Labor Code Section 226.
If you would like to know more about the Image 2000 lawsuit, please
contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom today by calling (619) 255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and
employment law firms with offices located in California that
dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been
wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices.
Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with
workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination,
retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN]
JAMIE YOUNG: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jamie Young Company.
The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Jamie Young Company, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03138 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jamie Young Company -- https://www.jamieyoung.com/ -- can offer
designed products and expertise in manufacturing from all over the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Elshabba Sues Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Tariq Elshabba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
PAS-L-001676-21 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passaic Cty., May 23, 2021), is
brought against the Defendant for their violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
This action arises as a result of the Defendant communicating
private information about the Plaintiff, including their status as
debtors, the amounts allegedly owed, and the entity to whom the
debt was originally incurred but is currently owned by Jefferson,
to third parties for the purpose of creating and mailing collection
letters in an attempt to collect debts from Plaintiff and the
members of the class the Plaintiff seeks to represent in violation
of the FDCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who was a citizen of the State of
New Jersey, residing in Passaic County, New Jersey.
The Defendant is in the business of purchasing defaulted debts
incurred by natural persons arising from transactions primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes for less than the balance
due and attempting to collect those debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
401 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 273-7117
KENTUCKY DOC: VanHouten Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kentucky Department
of Corrections, et al. The case is styled as Lifseyvind Reinier
vanHouten, also known as: James Mark Dunn, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated; Gary Bancroft also known as: Alaska; Iri
Harkness also known as: Stephen Harkness; James Fulz also known as:
Helgi; Anthony Harvey also known as: KID also known as: Sigmund;
Daniel Dunaway also known as: Sinfjotli; Tommy Fletcher; Josh
Roberts;Ethan Reid also known as: Sorli; Brandon Lannum also known
as: B.T. also known as: Klein Bart; Kevin Rowe; Russell Clemons
also known as: Hodor; Glenn Summitt v. Kentucky Department of
Corrections; Core Civic also known as: Lee Adjustment Center;
Cookie Crews, Commissioner of Kentucky Department of Corrections,
In her Individual Capacity; Janet Conover, Director of Adult
Institutions, In her Individual Capacity; Alicia Boyd, Religious
Program Administrator for Kentucky Department of Corrections;
Daniel Akers Warden, Lee Adjustment Center; Case No.
5:21-cv-00153-KKC (E.D. Ky., June 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions (Prison
Condition) for Prisoner Civil Rights.
The Kentucky Department of Corrections --
https://corrections.ky.gov/ -- is a state agency of the Kentucky
Justice & Public Safety Cabinet that operates state-owned adult
correctional facilities, provides oversight for and sets standards
for county jails.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Lifseyvind Reinier vanHouten
LEE ADJUSTMENT CENTER
168 Lee Adjustment Center Drive
Inmate Mail/Parcels
BEATTYVILLE, KY 41311
122945
PRO SE
KILGORE MARINE: Smith Seeks Unpaid Deck Hands' Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SMITH, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KILGORE MARINE SERVICES, LLC (formerly
KILGORE OFFSHORE CREWBOATS, INC.) and KILGORE OFFSHORE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:21-cv-01487 (W.D. La., June 1, 2021) brings
this collective action complaint against the Defendants pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Deck Hand from
approximately November 1, 2018 to June 15, 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that although he and other similarly situated
Deck Hands regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in any given
workweek throughout their employment with the Defendants, the
Defendants deprived them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per week. Instead,
the Defendants allegedly paid them a day rate or a flay amount for
each day worked regardless of the number hours they worked.
The Corporate Defendants operates an oil and energy company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Tel: (225) 925-5297
Fax: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
KLARNA INC: Edmundson Files Suit in District of Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Klarna, Inc. The case
is styled as Najah Edmundson, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Klarna, Inc, Case No.
3:21-cv-00758-KAD (D. Conn., June 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Klarna -- https://www.klarna.com/us/ -- offers direct payments, pay
after delivery options and installment plans in a smooth one-click
purchase experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, McKENNA & DINSEMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: (860) 522-8888
Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
LIBERATED SYNDICATION: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Liberated Syndication Inc. (OTC: LSYN) resulting
from allegations that Libsyn may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Libsyn securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2103.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 18, 2021, Libsyn filed a notice with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, stating that the Company's
"Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2018, the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December
31, 2018, the Statement of Stockholders' Equity for the year ended
December 31, 2018, and the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for
the year ended December 31, 2018, all as presented in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
27, 2020" as well as "[t]he related interim financial statements
and interim financial statements for the first three quarters of
2018" "should no longer be relied upon due to errors in recording
local sales and income tax, errors in recording VAT and General
Sales Taxes, errors in recording withholding tax related to
restricted stock vesting events, and errors associated with
deferred tax calculations[.]" Libsyn advised that "[t]he Company
will correct the financial statements for 2018 and 2019 and the
quarterly reports for 2020 in forthcoming amendments to the
applicable Annual Reports on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q."
On this news, Libsyn's stock price fell $0.31 per share, or 7%,
over the next three days to close at $4.08 per share on May 21,
2021.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
LIFEMD INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against LifeMD, Inc. f/k/a Conversion Labs, Inc. and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under
21-cv-04004, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
LifeMD securities between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased LifeMD securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 15, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
LifeMD is a direct-to-patient telehealth company. It offers a
telemedicine platform that purports to help patients access
licensed providers for diagnoses, virtual care, and prescription
medications.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) many of
LifeMD's executives were associated with Redwood Scientific
Technologies, Inc. ("Redwood Scientific") when it was charged for
unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false claims, and
that they employed similar practices at the Company; (ii) LifeMD
engaged in autoshipping products to unwilling customers to record
recurring revenue and the Company made it difficult to cancel such
subscriptions; (iii) certain of the purportedly licensed physicians
on the Company's platform were not in fact licensed and faced
disciplinary action; (iv) as a result of the foregoing practices,
the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny
and/or reputational harm; and (v) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On April 14, 2021, Culper Research ("Culper") issued a report
alleging that "LifeMD appears to use unlicensed doctors to dispense
OTC medications, has implemented an autoshipping/autobilling
scheme, failed to honor guarantees, and put in place abusive
telemarketing practices." The report also alleged that several of
the Company's executives were involved in "wide ranging fraud" at
Redwood Scientific, which was charged by the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission for "unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and
false claims." Specifically, according to Culper, "many customers
are effectively duped into purchasing subscriptions rather than
one-time purchases" and LifeMD "makes cancellations difficult if
not impossible."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.84, or 24%, to
close at $9.00 per share on April 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
MRS BPO: Faces Bigos Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------
LEONITA BIGOS f/k/a LEOITA ERICKSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC d/b/a MRS
ASSOCIATES OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant, Case No. 2021L000597 (Ill.
18th Jud. Cir. Ct., June 1, 2021) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter, dated October 14, 2020, in an attempt to collect
an alleged debt incurred to Verizon Wireless primarily for a
wireless services contract. However, the Defendant's collection
letter provided a settlement offer which is in the idiom of
limited-time or one-time sale offers, clearance sales,
going-out-of-business sales, and other temporary discounts that
create false sense of urgency. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant's collection letter has deceived her into believing that
if she will not accept the Defendant's settlement offer as quickly
as possible, she may lose the opportunity to settle her debt for
less than the full balance. Thereby, the Defendant has violated 15
U.S.C. Section 1692e by using language that implied that the
Plaintiff only had a limited time to take advantage of the
Defendant's settlement offer, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant
from additional violations, as well as actual damages, litigation
costs together with reasonable attorney's fees, and other relief as
the Court deems just and proper.
MRS BPO, LLC d/b/a MRS Associates of New Jersey is a debt
collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH P. DOYLE LLC
105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203
Schaumburg, IL 60193
Tel: (847) 985-1100
E-mail: jdavidson@fightbills.com
- and –
Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA
7521 North Milwaukee Ave.
Niles, IL 60714
Tel: (847) 647-2106
E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com
- and –
Rusty A. Payton, Esq.
PAYTON LEGAL GROUP LLC
4422 North Ravenswood Avenue
Chicago, IL 60640
Tel: (773) 682-5210
E-mail: info@payton.legal
NCAA: Faces Romashko Suit Over Football Athletes' Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER ROMASHKO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01283-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind.,
May 21, 2021) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a
result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of Valparaiso University ("Valpo")
student-athletes.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other Valpo football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and
for profit, the Plaintiff asserts.
As a direct result of the Defendant's alleged acts and omissions,
the Plaintiff and countless former Valpo football players suffered
brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from up to 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
-and-
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
-and-
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Faces Rozgony Suit Over Football Athletes' Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH M. ROZGONY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01276-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
May 21, 2021) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a
result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of California University of Pennsylvania
("Cal U") student-athletes.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other Cal U football players from the
long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and
for profit, the Plaintiff contends.
As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former Cal U football players suffered
brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletes from up to 1,268 North
American institutions and conferences. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-9099
Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com
-and-
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
-and-
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NEW INDY: Residents File Class Action Lawsuit Over Mill Nuisance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Newell at wbtv.com reports that there is a new lawsuit
against New Indy Containerboard that was filed recently.
WBTV has been telling you about the paper mill in York County that
the Department of Health and Control says is stinking up
neighborhoods with a rotten egg smell.
Now, people living 30 miles from the plant in four counties have
taken action -- with a class-action lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims New Indy is putting profits over people.
This class action is called a "nuisance" action.
It means the stench is disrupting the lives of as many as one point
six million people living near the mill.
That 30-mile radius touches from about Uptown Charlotte all the way
past York South Carolina.
The lawsuit claims New Indy is polluting the air with hydrogen
sulfide, sending the rotten egg stink into homes.
It goes on to call New Indy reckless, willful and wanton for its
handling of the smells.
The class action asks for punitive damages and money for the
injuries people have suffered, like coughing, migraines, and other
health concerns.
A big concern about people living in the area is property values.
Lawyer Gary Mauney, who is just one part of a two-lawyer team on
this suit, says the money will help buffer any property value
losses.
All of this comes in month five, 17,000 complaints and two orders
later.
"It's been pretty much every day for the last three or four
months," said Jill Katsoulis.
Katsoulis said she wants the smell done. She is a part of a
community group trying to get that done.
"I don't know what other neighborhoods are doing but our
neighborhood seems very pro getting this fixed," said Katsoulis.
Mauney is encouraged by the community groups and the relationship
some bigger ones are trying to build with New Indy to get this
issue solved.
Mauney encourages community groups like Katsoulis to continue
organizing and building a relationship with the company. However,
he is also taking their complaints to the courts.
"This is exactly why the class action rule was invented," Mauney
said. "If New Indy had gone to the community and worked with them,
we probably wouldn't be here today."
Mauney, and his South Carolina lawyer teammate, filed this class
action lawsuit against New Indy.
The suit uses evidence from both the Environmental Protection
Agency and the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control to make its case.
Both agencies have said multiple times that New Indy is the
culprit.
"You don't have the right to take your desire to make a profit and
harm someone else in order to do that. And so that's what we're
trying to stop," said Mauney.
Mauney said New Indy used cheaper methods to get rid of the rotten
egg smell in order to keep profits up.
The company is putting emissions, like hydrogen sulfide, into an
"open-air lagoon" within the company's fence line. However, the
open-air part is, according to the lawsuit, causing the stink. That
in addition to a switch from white paper to brown and increased
productivity.
"It's the only way people in the United States can have a voice and
take action against a powerful company like New Indy," said
Mauney.
Mauney said he has four plaintiffs and has gotten calls from at
least 100 people who want to jump on the suit. [GN]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Rynasko Appeals Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christina Rynasko filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Christina Rynasko, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 7, 2020, the
lawsuit seeks to recover refund for the tuition and fees paid to
the Defendant for the Spring 2020 academic semester.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition
and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at NYU, and who,
because of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic, lost the benefit of the
education for which they paid, and/or the services or which their
fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to
them.
On March 9, 2020, NYU, through a news release, announced that
because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, all in-person classes
would be suspended beginning March 11, 2020. The announcement
informed students that beginning March 11, 2020, classes would
instead be held remotely through online formats. Online classes
were to continue through March 27, 2020. On March 16, 2020, NYU
announced that it would be closing residence halls and holding
classes remotely through the end of the semester Students were
required to be out of the residence halls by March 22, but
preferably within 48 hours. Students were directed home for the
remainder of the semester.
As a result of the closure of the Defendant's facilities, the
Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities,
access and/or opportunities that the Plaintiff contracted and paid
for, according to the complaint. The online learning options being
offered to NYU students are subpar in practically every aspect,
from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to faculty.
Students have been deprived of the opportunity for collaborative
learning and in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique. The remote
learning options are in no way the equivalent of the in-person
education that she and the putative class members contracted and
paid for, the Plaintiff contends.
The Plaintiff seeks a review from the Court's Memorandum Decision
and Order denying a Motion to Amend/Correct; granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and the Clerk's Judgment regarding the Order on
Motion to Amend/Correct, Order on Motion to Dismiss in favor of New
York University.
The appellate case is captioned as Rynasko v. New York University,
Case No. 21-1333, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on May 21, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINA RYNASKO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
- and -
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
NEW YORK: Payne Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York,
Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Decision
and Order dated April 28, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled In
Re: New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, Case
No. 20-cv-8924, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (New York City).
According to the complaint, six consolidated cases arise from
civilian interactions with New York Police Department (NYPD)
officers during protests for racial justice and police reform that
occurred throughout the summer of 2020. The lawsuits allege that
the NYPD behaved unconstitutionally in responding to the protests,
and that officers used excessive and unnecessary force against
nonviolent protestors, journalists, and bystanders. The Plaintiffs
claim that these responses are reflective of a pattern of
unconstitutional conduct by the NYPD in responding to peaceful
protests.
The six consolidated civil rights actions were filed between
October 2020 and March 2021 against the City of New York, the NYPD,
leaders of both entities, and multiple individual NYPD officers,
including Mayor Bill De Blasio.
The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Order, denying the
motions to intervene filed by labor unions representing three large
groups of police officers: the Sergeant's Benevolent Association,
the Police Benevolent Association, and the Detectives' Endowment
Association. The Court had held that "Denial is without prejudice
to renewal until the Court reach a point in the litigation where
there might be some "practical impact" on the unions'
collective-bargaining rights."
The appellate case is captioned as Payne v. de Blasio, Case No.
21-1316, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on May 19, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant Police Benevolent Association of the City of
New York, Inc. is represented by:
Richard H. Dolan, Esq.
SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP
26 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 344-5400
E-mail: rhd@schlamstone.com
- and -
Robert S. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. SMITH
7 Times Square, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10036-6516
Telephone: (917) 225-4190
E-mail: robert.smith@rssmithlaw.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees Jarrett Payne; Andie Mali; Camila Gini; Vidal
Guzman; Charlie Monlouis-Anderle; Jaime Fried; Micaela Martinez;
Julian Philips; Nicholas Mulder; Colleen McCormack-Maitland; Vivian
Matthew King-Yarde; Charles Henry Wood; People of the State of New
York; Adama Sow, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated; Samira Sierra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; Amali Sierra, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; Ricardo Nigaglioni, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; Alex Gutierrez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; David
Jakevic, on behalf of themselves and othes similarly situated;
Alexandra de Mucha Pino, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated; Oscar Rios, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated; Barbara Ross, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated; Matthew Bredder; Sabrina Zurkuhlen;
Maria Salazar, on behalf of themselves and others simillarly
situated; Dara Pluchino, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated; Savitri Durkee, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated; and Cameron Yates are represented by:
Christopher Thomas Dunn, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 344-3005
E-mail: cdunn@nyclu.org
- and -
Corey Stoughton, Esq.
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
199 Water Street
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (646) 884-2316
E-mail: cstoughton@legal-aid.org
- and -
Douglas Edward Lieb, Esq.
KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 660-2332
E-mail: dlieb@kllflaw.com
- and -
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Luna Droubi, Esq.
BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 277-5875
E-mail: ldroubi@blhny.com
- and -
Remy Green, Esq.
COHEN & GREEN P.L.L.C.
1639 Centre Street
Ridgewood, NY 11385
Telephone: (929) 888-9480
E-mail: remy@femmelaw.com
- and -
Lance A. Clarke, Esq.
HAMILTON CLARKE, LLP
48 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 729-0952
E-mail: lc@hamiltonclarkellp.com
- and -
Joshua Moskovitz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA MOSKOVITZ, P.C.
392 Central Avenue, # 7803
Jersey City, NJ 07307
Telephone: (201) 565-0961
E-mail: josh@moskovitzlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Spiegel, Esq.
48 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 587-8558
E-mail: mikespieg@aol.com
- and -
Elena Louisa Cohen, Esq.
365 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (413) 329-3238
E-mail: elenacohenesq@gmail.com
- and -
Masai I. Lord, Esq.
LORD LAW GROUP, PLLC
14 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (718) 701-1002
E-mail: lord@nycivilrights.nyc
- and -
Jessica Massimi, Esq.
99 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (646) 241-9800
E-mail: jessica.massimi@gmail.com
- and -
Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq.
277 Broadway
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (646) 263-3495
E-mail: gideon@gideonlaw.com
- and -
Wylie M. Stecklow, Esq.
WYLIE STECKLOW PLLC
231 West 96th Street
New York City, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 566-8000
E-mail: gideon@gideonlaw.com
- and -
Andrew B. Stoll, Esq.
STOLL, GLICKMAN & BELLINA LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 852-3710
E-mail: astoll@stollglickman.com
NORTHEAST NURSERY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeast Nursery,
Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Northeast Nursery,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04887 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Northeast Nursery of Peabody -- https://www.northeastnursery.com/
-- has been supplying North Shore homeowners and landscapers with
plants, mulch, hardscapes and more for over 32 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
NORTHERN TRUST: Liable to Retirement Plan's Losses, Conlon Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS J. CONLON and NICOLE TRAVIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE NORTHERN TRUST
COMPANY; THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE; and DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02940 (N.D.
Ill., June 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to prudently select and monitor the Northern
Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan's investment options.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to regularly monitor plan
investments and remove or replace ones that become imprudent.
Instead, in disregard of their fiduciary duties, the Defendants
loaded the plan with poorly performing proprietary funds called the
Northern Trust Focus Target Retirement Trusts, and then kept these
funds on the plan's investment menu throughout the Class Period
despite their continued underperformance. Despite a market flush
with better-performing alternatives, the Defendants selected the
Northern Trust Focus Funds to be the plan's target date asset class
investment option. As a result of the Defendants' decision to
retain the said funds, the Plaintiffs project the plan lost tens of
millions of dollars in retirement savings since 2015, the suit
alleges.
The Northern Trust Company is a banking corporation with its
principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.
The Northern Trust Company Employee Benefit Administrative
Committee is a retirement plan administrator based in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
1603 Orrington, Suite 600
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (312) 263-0272
E-mail: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
eliveris@mmulderlaw.com
- and –
Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
8068 East Del Acero Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: (480) 889-3514
E-mail: gwotkyns@scott-scott.com
- and –
Geoffrey M. Johnson, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
Telephone: (216) 229-6088
E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com
- and –
Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
Jing-Li Yu, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
E-mail: tkorkhov@scott-scott.com
jyu@scott-scott.com
- and –
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
Daniel J. Carr, Esq.
Kevin P. Conway, Esq.
Jamie L. Falgout, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY LLP
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
E-mail: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com
dcarr@peifferwolf.com
kconway@peifferwolf.com
jfalgout@peifferwolf.com
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Sloatman Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SLOATMAN III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC;
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04255 (C.D.
Cal., May 21, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls.
NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC provides a full-service
receivables debt collection solution. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
NOVELTY MANUFACTURING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Novelty Manufacturing
Co. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Novelty Manufacturing Co.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04888 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Novelty Manufacturing Co., established in 1922 --
https://www.noveltymfg.com/ -- manufactures and distributes
decorative planters and lawn and garden accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Thompson Files Suit Over Sale to Microsoft
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Lloyd Carney, Mark
Benjamin, Daniel Brennan, Thomas Ebling, Robert Finocchio, Laura
Kaiser, Michal Katz, Mark Laret and Sanjay Vaswani, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-00772 (D. Del., May 27, 2020), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Nuance
by Microsoft Corporation through its subsidiary Big Sky Merger Sub
Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Nuance stockholder
will be entitled to receive $56.00 in cash for each share of Nuance
common stock they own.
The complaint alleges that the proxy statement, which recommends
that Nuance stockholders vote in favor of the merger, omits or
misrepresents the company's financial projections and the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinion provided by Nuance's financial advisor, Evercore
Group LLC and Evercore's potential conflicts of interest.
Nuance is a provider of conversational AI and cloud-based ambient
clinical intelligence for healthcare providers.[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
Email: BDLong@longlawde.com
NUTANIX INC: Norton Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
John P. Norton, on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD
11/15/2002 and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Nutanix, Inc., Dheeraj Pandey and Duston M. Williams,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04080 (N.D. Cal., May 28, 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.
Nutanix is a cloud computing software company headquartered in San
Jose, California known for its "core" hyper-converged
infrastructure software technology, which combines the components
of data center computing (server, storage, and virtualization) into
a single scalable machine through software.
Defendants allegedly tried to conceal from investors Nutanix's
rapidly declining sales pipeline and revenue from lead generation
activities that include digital marketing, activities through web
traffic, executed campaigns, brand awareness, promotions, trade
shows and partner programs and the like. Defendants had kept
critical spending for lead generation activities flat so that
Nutanix could divert those funds to the research and development of
its public cloud product, "Xi," that was unable to compete with its
top competitors. By April or May 2018, Nutanix's sales pipeline was
reportedly materially depleted.
Following this news, Nutanix's stock dropped from a closing price
of $50.09 on February 28, 2019 to a closing price of $33.70 per
share on March 1, 2019, on usually high trading volume. As
eventually disclosed in the company's 2019 Definitive Proxy
Statement filed on October 30, 2019, Nutanix missed its targeted
number of new customer additions in the 2019 operating budget. On
May 30, 2019, reports say that Nutanix had missed revenue and
billing targets due to continuing sales execution issues that were
far worse than what Defendants had previously represented on
February 28, 2019. Upon this news, Nutanix's stock dropped from a
closing price of $32.67 per share on May 30, 2019 to $28.07 on May
31, 2019, on unusually high trading volume.
John P. Norton, on behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD
11/15/2002, transacted in Nutanix securities. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam C. McCall, Esq.
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
Kristina Mentone, Esq.
Gregory Potrepka, Esq.
Andrew Rocco, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Tel: (203) 992-4523
Email: shopkins@zlk.com
kmentone@zlk.com
gpotrepka@zlk.com
arocco@zlk.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
Adam C. McCall, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
388 Market Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 373-1671
Email: aapton@zlk.com
amccall@zlk.com
PAYPAL INC: Moneymaker Files Fantasy Sports Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Moneymaker is not messing around. PayPal messed with his
fantasy sports action, and he's not going to take it.
It's more complicated than that, obviously. And Moneymaker isn't
alone. But it was a fantasy sports league transaction that prompted
the decision to take on PayPal. Poker players have long complained,
mostly quietly, about the fine print of the payment processor's
rules regarding funds that may or may not pertain to gambling.
Moneymaker now wants those players to speak up.
As he began to post about this situation on social media, others
became more vocal with their complaints. This is shaping up to be a
significant class action lawsuit if they all team up.
What Had Happened Was . . . .
Evidently, Chris Moneymaker likes fantasy sports. Millions of
people do.
He and 11 friends put in $1K each to participate in a fantasy
sports league in 2020 for that year's NFL (National Football
League) season. Moneymaker used his personal PayPal account to hold
the funds, and his friends trusted him to do so.
In November of that year, PayPal notified Moneymaker that the
company put his account on a "limited" status because he violated
its user agreement. Essentially, they froze the account,
referencing their 62-page document that explains acceptable uses of
PayPal accounts.
Moneymaker was unable to access the funds and heard no other word
from PayPal until May 2021. He hoped that PayPal would simply
return the funds to all of the individuals that sent money to him,
no matter what the company did with the funds in his own account.
Instead, PayPal took the entire $12K, confiscating it with no
particular justification.
Moneymaker Versus PayPal
After Moneymaker posted his dilemma on Twitter, other members of
the poker and betting communities contacted him to commiserate.
PayPal had, in some cases, seized their funds as well.
He reached out to the Bensamochan Law Firm to discuss his options.
And if the Bensamochan name sounds familiar, it is because this
firm, headed up by Eric Bensamochan, represented Todd Witteles in
his defense against Mike Postle. Bensamochan not only filed an
anti-SLAPP claim in the case but won it when Postle attempted to
walk away from the lawsuit. Just a few weeks ago, the Superior
Court of California Sacramento awarded $26,982 in legal fees for
Witteles.
The goal in this situation is to file a lawsuit in Federal Court
against PayPal Holdings for a breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and bad faith.
Bensamochan told me, "PayPal has been confiscating customer funds
with seemingly complete impunity and will no longer be tolerated.
The firm is honored to be representing Mr. Moneymaker in this
action."
He would appreciate others with similar experiences to contact the
Bensamochan Law Firm. They are putting the class action lawsuit
together now. Moneymaker added, "I'm going to continue to use my
status and my social media channels to expose these immoral and
illegal practices and ask others to join my lawsuit against
PayPal."
While Moneymaker doesn't seem opposed to retrieving the $12K seized
by PayPal, he indicated a larger principle at stake. "This is less
about the money -- though $12,000 is a lot of money -- it's about
the principle of stealing other people's money and hiding behind
thousands of words of legal mumbo jumbo that no one reads."[GN]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Johnson Fistel Reminds of June 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP discloses that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Peloton Interactive, Inc.
common stock. The class action is on behalf of shareholders who
purchased Peloton between September 11, 2020 and April 16, 2021,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no
later than June 28, 2021.
The Peloton class action lawsuit charges Peloton and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
According to the lawsuits, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) in addition to the tragic death of a child, Peloton's
Tread+ had caused a serious safety threat to children and pets as
there were multiple incidents of injury to both; (2) safety was not
a priority to Peloton as Defendants were aware of serious injuries
and death resulting from the Tread+ yet did not recall or suggest a
halt of the use of the Tread+; (3) as a result of the safety
concerns, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC")
declared the Tread+ posed a serious risk to public health and
safety resulting in its urgent recommendation for consumers with
small children to cease using the Tread+; (4) the CPSC also found a
safety threat to Tread+ users if they lost balance; and (5)
defendants' statements about Peloton's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Then on May 5, 2021, CEO John Foley said the Company's voluntary
decision to recall its Tread+ and Tread treadmills after one
child's death and other reports of injuries was the "right thing to
do" for the Company's members and their families.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Peloton recalled the $4,295 Tread+ and the $2,495 tread, noting
that people who bought either piece of equipment should stop using
it immediately and contact the Company for a full refund.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Peloton class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Peloton
class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential
future recovery of the Peloton class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in
learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
PG&E CORPORATION: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of July 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
TO: All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E
Corporation ("PG&E") common stock between December 13, 2018, and
October 28, 2019, (the "Class Period") inclusive.
EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS, THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
OF PG&E AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, AND THEIR FAMILIES
AND AFFILIATES.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that a hearing will be
held on September 16, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., before the Hon. Haywood
S. Gilliam Jr., Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 2 - 4th Floor, 1301
Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. At this hearing, the Court will
consider (i) whether the Settlement of the Settlement Class's
claims against the Defendants for $10,000,000 is fair, reasonable,
and adequate, and should be approved by the Court; (ii) whether the
Order and Final Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should
be entered, dismissing the Complaint on the merits and with
prejudice, and to determine whether the release by the Settlement
Class of the Released Persons as set forth in the Stipulation,
should be ordered; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable and should be approved by the Court; (iv) the
application of Lead Counsel for an award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses of no more than 25% of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement
of expenses of no more than $100,000, and Awards to Plaintiffs of
no more than $5,000 each, or $15,000 in total; (v) Settlement Class
Members' objections to the Settlement, whether submitted previously
in writing or presented orally at the Settlement Hearing by
Settlement Class Members (or by counsel on their behalf); and (vi)
such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.1
If you purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E common stock trading
during the Class Period, your rights may be affected by this Action
and the Settlement thereof. The detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), Motion for
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses,
and Proof of Claim and Release Form are available for download at
www.PGESecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator, by mail at: PG&E Corp. Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O Box 173052, Milwaukee, WI
53217; by telephone at (877) 933-2882; or by email at
info@PGESecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later
than July 19, 2021, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no later
than August 26, 2021. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than August 26, 2021.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Settlement Class: Louis C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP,
10 South LaSalle Street, Ste. 3505, Chicago, IL 60603, Telephone:
(312) 377-1181 or Jonathan Horne, the Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 275
Madison Avenue, 40th Floor, New York, NY 10016, Telephone: (212)
686-1060.
INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE
CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
DATED:
April 20, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Source
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016 [GN]
PHOENIX, AZ: Hundreds of Protesters File Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Torres at azcentral.com reports that Corrections &
Clarifications: A previous version of this article incorrectly
identified the police department involved in the death of Freddie
Gray and misspelled Freddie Gray's name.
The People's Law Firm filed a federal class-action lawsuit against
Phoenix for 124 protest arrests made in May 2020.
The suit comes after judges in Phoenix threw out the cases brought
against hundreds of protesters detained. They found no credibility
in the arrests since the probable cause statements or reasons for
the arrests had been "copied and pasted" for all 124 arrested on
May 30, 2020.
In the lawsuit, defendants are listed as City of Phoenix, Police
Chief Jeri Williams, "Field Force commander" Lieutenant Benjamin
Moore, Supervisor of the Tactical Response Unit Sergeant Douglas
McBride, and the Commander of the Phoenix Police Department Dennis
Orender.
Phoenix hired 21CP Solutions, a consulting firm, to independently
examine the Phoenix Police Department's policies and procedures
when dealing with public demonstrations, according to Phoenix
Director of Communications Daniel Wilson.
"The City is committed to the safety, security and constitutionally
protected rights of all its residents and visitors," Wilson said in
a statement.
As soon as Phoenix is served the complaint and has looked it over,
Wilson explained, "it would file the appropriate response pursuant
to the Rules of Civil Procedure which govern all federal civil
lawsuits."
Among other things, the lawsuit claims gross negligence,
indiscriminate use of force and violations of First and Fourth
Amendment rights after police arrested people without cause.
"These are examples of what the Police Department does, and further
of what it does without probable cause," she said.
Her story represented one of the 23 similar arrest stories filed in
the claim.
With a determined voice, Mimi Arrayaa, co-director at Black Lives
Matter Phoenix Metro, laid out the context of the lawsuit.
"Tuesday marked the one-year anniversary of the murders of Dion
Johnson and George Floyd by the violent system we call policing,"
she said, "One year since community members marched in the streets
in one of the largest civil rights movements this world has seen to
demand justice for the Black lives taken too soon by the state.
"One year and we still have people who are suffering with
trumped-up charges due to the Phoenix Police Department's response
to people saying that Black lives matter."
She was also out protesting the night of the arrests.
"I was chased down in the streets like an animal and had pepper
balls thrown at me by police officers for saying that my Black life
matters and acting like it," she said.
Billy Murphy Jr. of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy, the firm that
represented the Freddie Gray family in 2015 against the Baltimore
police officers involved in his death, joined The People's Law Firm
as counsel in the suit.
Murphy Jr. explained they were impressed by The People's Law Firm
and the "exceptional young Black and Latino leaders" in Phoenix,
but that it was the "ugly" and "brazen" actions of the police that
caught the firm's eye.
"To charge people, who had committed no crime, to charge them
falsely is an abomination," he said. "To plan to arrest the leaders
of the demonstration before they did anything wrong shows a level
of bias and brazenness that is hard to top."
The suit lays out a history of force used on protesters by police
from 2010 to 2020, which includes the use of pepper spray, pepper
bullets, tear gas and other "projectiles," claiming these actions
abused and infringed on people's First Amendment rights.
"You've got a regime here that has always been this way and wants
to stay this way. And there's a new generation of young people who
are not going to permit that to happen," Murphy said.
The suit claims this repetitive behavior by police shows that the
officers were aware of their actions, and were motivated to silence
protesters during the night of the arrests.
The firm is looking for financial compensation for the plaintiffs,
and looking to prevent the city from repeating similar actions
through an injunction.
Murphy explained the power class-action lawsuits such as these give
to the community.
"We have the right to force them to admit the truth of things in
ways that make it more likely that the truth will come out," he
said. "We have the right to apply the law to these ugly facts so
that the police and those that participated in the planning of the
police response will be brought to justice." [GN]
PLUG POWER: Smolicek Class Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRANISLAV SMOLICEK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PLUG POWER INC., ANDREW MARSH, and
PAUL B. MIDDLETON, Case No. 2:21-cv-02402, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June
1, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-04832-JSR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission regarding Plug Power's business,
operations, and prospects to artificially inflate the prices of
Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021.
Plug Power Inc. is a provider of comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell
turnkey solutions, with its principal executive offices located in
Latham, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and –
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
PROVENTION BIO: Gross Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Provention Bio, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PRVB).
Shareholders who purchased shares of PRVB during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16333&from=5
CLASS PERIOD : November 2, 2020 to April 8, 2021
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the teplizumab Biologics
License Application ("BLA") was deficient in its submitted form and
would require additional data to secure U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval; (ii) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA
lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led investors to
believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus overstated the
teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization
timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
PROVENTION BIO: Paxton Sues Over 17.78% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADAM PAXTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROVENTION BIO, INC.; ASHLEIGH PALMER; and
ANDREW DRECHSLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11613 (D.N.J., May
21, 2021) is a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Provention securities between November 2, 2020
and April 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, on November 2020, Provention completed
the rolling submission of a Biologics License Application ("BLA")
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for teplizumab for
the delay or prevention of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals (the
"teplizumab BLA").
On April 8, 2021, Provention issued a press release "announcing
that the Company received a notification on April 2, 2021 from the
FDA, stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the Company's
BLA for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of clinical type one
diabetes ("T1D"), the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements and
commitments at this time."
On this news, Provention's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or
17.78%, to close at $8 per share on April 9, 2021.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (i) the teplizumab BLA was deficient in its
submitted form and would require additional data to secure FDA
approval; (ii) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA lacked the
evidentiary support the Company had led investors to believe it
possessed; (iii) the Company had thus overstated the teplizumab
BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization timeline
for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Provention Bio, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company focuses on development of novel therapeutics and
cutting-edge solutions to intercept and prevent immune-mediated
disease. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
PURECYCLE TECH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. Investors have until the deadline
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT)
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the management
team bringing PureCycle public had previously brought six other
failed business public only to have each implode thereafter; (2)
the management team bringing PureCycle public had characterized
rank speculation as financial projections to investors in the past;
(3) the primary motivation of the management team bringing
PureCycle public was to complete any transaction, good or bad, to
obtain tens of millions of dollars in cash and tradable shares; (4)
PureCycle faces higher competition for high quality feedstock than
it has led investors to believe, materially undermining the
management team's financial projections; (5) PureCycle's patent is
nowhere as cogent or valuable as it has led investors to believe,
and the technology underlying its business operations is unproven
and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (6) in reality,
PureCycle's flammable pressurized process is not yet functional,
especially at scale, and is dangerous; (7) PureCycle purports to be
advancing to commercial production scale despite still having
operational issues at a lab scale; and (8) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
ROBERT BAFFERT: Mattera Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Mattera, individually; and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Robert A. Baffert, Bob Baffert Racing,
Inc., Churchill Downs, Inc., Case No. 21-CI-002819, was removed
from the Jefferson Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky on May 21, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00330-RGJ to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Robert A. Baffert (born January 13, 1953) is an American racehorse
trainer who trained the 2015 Triple Crown winner American Pharoah
and 2018 Triple Crown winner Justify.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William D. Nefzger, Esq.
BAHE COOK CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
1041 Goss Avenue
Louisville, KY 40217
Phone: (502) 587-2002
Fax: (502) 587-2006
Email: will@bccnlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Chadwick A. McTighe, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Moad, Esq.
Philip W. Collier, Esq.
STITES & HARBISON, PLLC - Louisville
400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
Louisville, KY 40202-3352
Phone: (502) 587-3400
Fax: (502) 587-3691
Email: cmctighe@stites.com
jmoad@stites.com
pcollier@stites.com
ROSA REX: Disrupts Contract Relationship With Amazon, Beuchel Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
AURORA BEUCHEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROSA REX TENOSO, GEOFFREY LABOS, GEORGE LIM,
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV20336 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 1, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for intentional interference with contractual
relations and fraud.
The case arises from the Defendants' intentional series of actions
designed to interfere and induce a breach or disruption of the
contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and Amazon.com Inc.
The Defendants made false representations that they were in fact
the Beautederm corporation to Amazon.com, Inc., and Walmart Inc.,
and others and/or that they had exclusive rights to sell Beautederm
items and that the Plaintiff was not authorized to sell Beautederm
products and/or that any Beautederm products she was selling or had
sold were in fact not genuine Beautederm products. As a result of
the Defendants' alleged actions, the Plaintiff's reputation was
damaged and caused her to incur a monetary loss in excess of
$100,000.
The Plaintiff is a distributor of Beautederm products and has at
all relevant times been authorized by the Beautederm Corporation to
sell their products internationally including inside the U.S. She
is selling the products on online platforms including Amazon.com
Inc. and Walmart.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Grant Beuchel, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GRANT BEUCHEL
420 S. San Pedro Street, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (661) 428-7365
E-mail: Gbeuchel@yahoo.com
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces Class Suit Over PFOA Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you have owned real property in or around Bennington or North
Bennington, Vermont, in the area of PFOA exposure, your rights may
be affected by a class action lawsuit.
You may be affected by a class action lawsuit called Sullivan, et
al. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, No.
5:16-cv-125, in the United States District Court for the District
of Vermont. Residents of Bennington and North Bennington have sued
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation ("Saint-Gobain").
They allege that Saint-Gobain contaminated their property and
drinking water with a chemical called Perfluorooctanoic Acid
("PFOA"). The Court has allowed the lawsuit to proceed as a class
action. The Property Class includes any natural person (not a
corporate entity) who owned real property on March 14, 2016 in the
Zone of Concern, an area delineated by the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation ("DEC") in and around Bennington and
North Bennington, or who purchased real property after March 14,
2016 that was subsequently added to the Zone of Concern by the
Vermont DEC. The Property Class is seeking compensation for loss of
value of real property and other property-related damages. A map of
the Zone of Concern can be found at
www.BenningtonVTClassAction.com.
If you are a property owner in the Zone of Concern, your legal
rights are affected, and you must decide whether to stay in the
lawsuit and be bound by the results of the lawsuit OR ask to be
excluded no later than August 2, 2021 and maintain your right to
pursue your own separate lawsuit against Saint-Gobain.
More information, including a detailed notice, is available at:
www.BenningtonVTClassAction.com or by calling 855-711-2079. [GN]
SARUHAN NYC: Ariza Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adalberto Ariza, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the class v. SARUHAN NYC CORP, d/b/a ANGELO BELLINI and
ALPARSLAN SARUHAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-04562-KPF (S.D.N.Y. May 21,
2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law. Plaintiff says that he is entitled to recover
from Defendants: unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, unpaid
spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
Although the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants
never paid him overtime premium for weeks that he worked in excess
of 40 hours, as required under the FLSA and NYLL. There was never
any agreement that the fixed weekly salary that the Defendants paid
the Plaintiff covered the overtime hours in excess of 40 that the
Plaintiff worked each week. Similarly, FLSA collective the
Plaintiffs and Class members also worked similar hours that
regularly exceeded 40 hours per week and were similarly paid at a
straight time rate, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a delivery person
for Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants collectively own and operate the Italian restaurant
SARUHAN NYC CORP d/b/a ANGELO BELLINI located in New York
City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1180
Fax: 212-465-1181
SKILLZ INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Skillz
Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: SKLZ)
Class Period: December 16, 2020 - April 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) three games responsible for a majority of Skillz's
revenues had declined substantially; (2) Skillz's revenue
recognition policy misrepresented the financial condition of the
company; (3) unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android
market; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
SORIN GROUP: Faces National Class Action Over 3T Heater-Coolers
---------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action has been certified against Sorin Group
Deutschland GMBH and its Canadian distributor, LivaNova Canada
Corp. The action alleges that the Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System was
contaminated by a bacterium known as M. chimaera that posed a
unique risk of infection to patients who underwent open chest
surgery. The claim alleges that M. chimaera is a slow growing
bacterium, and also alleges that it can take anywhere from two
weeks to five or six years before an infection becomes manifest.
The 3T Heater-Coolers are used to regulate blood temperature during
open chest surgery. The Plaintiff's claim alleges that the
Defendants were negligent in the design, manufacture, pre-market
and after-market testing, and/or distribution of the 3T
Heater-Coolers, and that they failed in their alleged duty to
recall the contaminated HCUs. Particularly, the claim alleges that
in some cases, contaminated vapour was vented from the 3T
Heater-Coolers, causing infections in the surgical patient. The
claim alleges that severe infections have been reported, including
several deaths in the most extreme circumstances.
The class action seeks damages on behalf of: Every person in
Canada, who underwent open chest cardiac surgery during which the
Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler System was used at one of a specified list
of 34 cardiac surgery institutions between January 1, 2010 and the
last date that the implicated 3T Heater-Cooler System was used at
that institution (the Patient Class). The action is also brought on
behalf of the immediate family members of the Patient Class.
The allegations contained in the Statement of Claim have not been
proven in Court, and the Defendants deny the Plaintiff's claims.
More information about the class proceeding is available on Class
Counsels' websites: www.livanovaclassaction.com or
https://waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/LivaNova-class-action/
including the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim, and the Defendants'
defence. [GN]
SOS LIMITED: Gross Law Firm Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of SOS Limited.
Shareholders who purchased shares in the company during the date
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
SOS Limited (NYSE:SOS)
Investors Affected: July 22, 2020 - February 25, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
SOS Limited. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) SOS had misrepresented the true nature,
location, and/or existence of at least one of the principal
executive offices listed in its SEC filings; (ii) HY and FXK were
either undisclosed related parties and/or entities fabricated by
the Company; (iii) the Company had misrepresented the type and/or
existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have purchased; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/sos-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=16303&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
STEELE SOLUTIONS: Shortchanges Workers' Wages, Thames Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Thames, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Steele Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-00664 (E.D. Wis., May 27, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, compensation for missed breaks, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or
any such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Steele Solutions is a designer and manufacturer of steel mezzanines
and work platforms where Thames worked as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt Quality Control Inspector. He claims that Steele
Solutions failed to include work-to-home travel when he was
performing company work on special assignments as compensable
income. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
TABCOM LLC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TABcom, LLC. The case
is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. TABcom, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04889
(S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TABcom LLC -- https://www.tabcom.com/ -- operates as an internet
company. The Company specializes in developing domains and websites
offering products, social engagement, and interactive
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
TEMESCAL WELLNESS: Court Won't Review Denial of Bid to Toss Barton
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANE BARTON, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEMESCAL WELLNESS, LLC,
Defendant, Case Civil Action No. 20-40114-TSH (D. Mass.), Judge
Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied the Defendant's motion to reconsider his March
8, 2021-order denying its motion to dismiss.
The case is a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class
action concerning text messages allegedly sent by or on behalf of
the Defendant to cell phones registered to Plaintiff and the
putative class members, who had previously registered their cell
phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
On March 8, 2021, Judge Hillman denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, finding that the overwhelming weight of precedent holds
that text messages are calls for the purposes of the TCPA" and that
the Plaintiff had sufficiently pled that the robotexts at issue are
calls within the meaning of the TCPA, which makes is unlawful "for
any person to make any call (other than a call made for emergency
purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called
party) using any automatic telephone dialing system to any
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service."
The Defendant has asked Judge Hillman to reconsider his prior
ruling in light of the Supreme Court's April 1, 2021 decision in
Facebook v. Daguid. 141 S.Ct. 1163 (Apr. 1, 2021).
Judge Hillman has reviewed Daguid, in which the Supreme Court held
that a device must have the capacity either to either store a
telephone number using a random sequential generator, or to produce
a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.
He finds that there was no extended discussion of whether the TCPA
regulates text messages, even though the entire case was premised
on whether text messages sent by Facebook to its users violated the
TCPA. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the majority, merely observed
in a footnote that because neither party disputes that the TCPA's
prohibition also extends to sending unsolicited text messages.
Judge Hillman therefore assumes that he does without considering or
resolving that issue.
AS Judge Hillman discussed in his prior order, the First Circuit,
whose opinions bind the Court, has already determined that Justice
Ginsburg's remarks in Campbell-Ewald mean that "the TCPA also
applies to other forms of communications, such as text messages,"
citing Breda v. Cellco Partnership, 934 F.3d 1, n. 1 (1st Cir.
2019) (emphasis added). Duguid did no more than reinforce
Campell-Ewald, and therefore does not supersede the First Circuit's
interpretation in Breda. Absent any new, contradictory authority
from the Supreme Court, Jdge Hillman adopts the First Circuit's
reasoning and reiterates his prior ruling that text messages fall
within the ambit of the TCPA.
Hence, the Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4nx77cw7 from Leagle.com.
VITAL FARMS: Chickens-PETA Foundation Lawyers Help File Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
peta.org reports that you may have heard of Vital Farms eggs-you
may have even spent upwards of $7 on a dozen of the brand's eggs
because of boasts it makes in the packaging. Well, we're not buying
it, and neither should you. PETA has assisted misled consumers in
filing a class action lawsuit against Vital Farms, Inc., because of
the company's allegedly false claims that it treats animals in an
ethical and humane manner.
Chicks Are Slaughtered and Hens Are Debeaked for Egg Production
Male chickens don't lay eggs and therefore can't be exploited for
them. Dropping live chicks from a conveyor belt into a grinder is
an industry-standard way of disposing of them. The lawsuit alleges
the following:
Vital Farms obtains hens from hatcheries that kill all male chicks
at birth.
Vital Farms supports the burning or cutting off of hens' highly
sensitive beaks, an industry-standard practice performed to prevent
stressed, severely crowded, confined hens from pecking at each
other-which wouldn't be an issue if they had adequate living
conditions, including enough space.
The birds at Vital Farms suppliers are kept in conditions that
cause many of them to spend most or all their time indoors-not in
"pastures," as the company would lead you to believe with the words
and images displayed on its products.
Hens Are Forced to Lay Far More Eggs Than They Naturally Would
The consumers are also alleging that Vital Farms causes hens to lay
far more eggs than they naturally would, taxing their bodies and
leading to health issues such as osteoporosis. Based on admissions
made by Vital Farms' founder and executive chair, Matthew O'Hayer,
the consumers also allege that when hens stop laying enough eggs to
be profitable, they're sold to pet food companies and killed for
cheap meat, likely right alongside hens raised in factory farms.
Despite all this, Vital Farms deceptively touts its "humane
treatment of farm animals" in every carton, alongside photos that
misleadingly show hens free to roam on green grass.
Using Chickens for Eggs Isn't Humane
More than 99% of hens used for food in the U.S. live on farms where
workers cut off the tips of their sensitive beaks with a hot blade
before cramming the birds into filthy sheds. They never get to
breathe fresh air or feel the sun on their backs until they're
loaded into a transport truck heading for slaughter. The hens get
lung lesions, ammonia burns, and breast blisters from sitting on
urine- and feces-covered floors. "Organic," "pasture-raised,"
"cage-free," "free-range," and factory farms typically use the same
slaughterhouses, where birds are hung upside down and their throats
are cut. Many of them are still conscious and can feel pain when
they're submerged in the scalding-hot water of the defeathering
tanks.
The very idea that hens exist to provide humans with eggs is
speciesist. Even at $7 per dozen, which is more than twice the cost
of other brands, Vital Farms eggs are the product of pain and
suffering. They come from gentle and curious hens who are confined,
tormented, and ultimately killed. There is no retirement home for
"spent" birds who are exploited for food-including for "backyard
eggs" and eggs sold at farmers markets. It's all about profit. As
soon as the animals can't "pay rent" anymore, it's off to the
slaughterhouse for them. Being vegan is the only ethical way to
eat, and no compassionate consumer should be duped by marketing
gimmicks that claim otherwise.
Anyone who cares about animals needs to make the connection: There
is no humane way to exploit them. [GN]
WIPRO LTD: Court Allows Filing of Ruffing's 2nd Amended Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID RUFFING, v. WIPRO LIMITED, Civil Action No.
20-5545 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania allowed the Plaintiff to
file a second amended complaint covering non-exempt information
technology employees but limited to those who work or worked in
Pennsylvania.
The case is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and
a putative class action under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. Sections 260.1, et seq. The
Plaintiff seeks to file a second amended complaint to broaden the
definition of the putative collective action members and the
putative class to include plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees who are or were employed by defendant WIPRO, Ltd. as
"non-exempt information technology employees" during the time
period of three years prior to the filing of the action. The
amended complaint more narrowly limited the putative class and
putative collective members to "non-exempt data center employees."
Like the amended complaint, the proposed second amended complaint
encompasses not only employees who live or work in Pennsylvania but
also those who are outside of the Commonwealth.
Judge Bartle notes that the action is in its early stage. Leave to
amend will be freely given when justice so requires, particularly
when, as in the case, there has been no undue delay. Nonetheless,
the court need not allow an amendment when it would be futile to do
so.
The Court has already dismissed in part the amended complaint on
the ground that it does not have personal jurisdiction over the
Defendant for claims by employees outside of Pennsylvania. Thus
any effort by the Plaintiff to include this latter group of
employees in his second amended complaint would be contrary to the
Court's ruling and would be futile. Accordingly, Judge Bartle is
allowing the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint covering
"non-exempt information technology employees" but limited to those
who work or worked in Pennsylvania.
The Court has certified to the Court of Appeals, for immediate
appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), its order limiting the
putative collective action under the FLSA to those who are or were
employed in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff has timely applied to the
Court of Appeals for an immediate appeal, but that Court has not
yet decided whether to permit the appeal. Should the Court of
Appeals decide to do so and hold that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over defendant for claims by those employees of the
Defendant who worked or work outside of Pennsylvania, the
Plaintiff, of course, may again file a motion to amend his
pleading.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 26, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2smyp7jz from Leagle.com.
WISCONSIN DOLLS LLC: Pike Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
----------------------------------------------------
Deanna Pike, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wisconsin Dolls, LLC, James Halbach and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00356,
(W.D. Wis., May 27, 2021) seeks damages for violations of the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for illegally withholding tips.
Defendants operate as "Dolls," an adult-oriented entertainment
facility located in Dell Prairie, Wisconsin where Pike worked as an
exotic dancer. She was compensated exclusively through tips from
customers and did not receive payment for any hours worked at their
establishment. However, they was required to share her tips with
other non-service employees who do not customarily receive tips,
including the managers, disc jockeys, and the bouncers, says the
complaint. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay Urban, Esq.
URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
Urban Taylor Law Building
4701 N. Port Washington Rd.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: (414) 906-1700
Email: jurban@wisconsininjury.com
- and -
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
Email: john@kristensenlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***