/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210628.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, June 28, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 122
Headlines
A.M. CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Najera Suit Says
ACELRX PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of August 9 Deadline
AETNA LIFE: Court Certifies ERISA Class Action Lawsuit
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settlement Class Gets Final Certification
ALL WEB LEADS: Knights Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Agricultural Landowners Gets Class Certification
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought
ALPHA GAS AND ELECTRIC: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Court Strikes MSP Bid for Class Certification
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Faces Class Action 401(k) Retirement Plan
ARKANSAS GENERAL: Holloway's Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Notes of July 13 Deadline
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Niyazov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
BALTIMORE, MD: Wheelchair Users File ADA Class-Action Lawsuit
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Beeman Berry Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Eagle Lake Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Tom Burke Farms Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
BIG EASY: Ramos Must File Class Certification Bid by Dec. 3
CALIFORNIA DOC: Skylit Files Civil Rights Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CASINO NANAIMO: Laid-Off Employees File Class Action Lawsuit
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Young Files FCRA Suit in D. Massachusetts
CETERIS PORTFOLIO SERVICES: Triminio Hits Personal Data Disclosure
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Klein Reminds of July 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Rosen Notes of July 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
COLONIAL HARDWARE: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California
CRACKER BARREL: Gillespie FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DEBTQUEST USA: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
DILWORTH SCHOOL: Sex Abuse Class Action Dropped by Lawyers
DIMENSION SERVICE: Court Enters Initial Pretrial Order in "Johnson"
DOUG SCHULTE: Bid to Strike Memo in Support of Class Cert. Nixed
DRAFTKINGS INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
EML PAYMENTS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Money-Laundering
ENSUREM II: Class Certification Bids Must Be Filed by Jan. 17, 2022
EQUIFAX CANADA: Blake Cassels Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Matatov Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
EVEN HEALTH: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FCA US: Ortiz Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
FEIN SUCH: Class Certification of New Jersey Consumers Sought
FLORISSANT, MO: Oral Argument for Class Cert. Reset to August 13
FORD MOTOR: Weidman et al., Seek to Certify Class
FOREST CITY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Response Extended to July 1
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: August 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
HAWAI'I DPS: Provisional Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
HUNGRYPANDA US: Weng Suit Losses Conditional Collective Cert. Bid
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Joint Stipulation on Class Cert Discovery OK'd
JOSE PEPPER'S: Florece FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
KIMPTON HOTEL: July 23 Deadline to File Class Cert. Sought
LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Reopening of Perchlak Suit Taken Under Submission
LINCOLN LIFE: Vida Longevity Seeks to Certify Class Action
LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Filing of Renewed Class Cert. Bid Due July 13
MAJESTIC DUDE: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 31
MARKEL AMERICAN: MSPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
MINTED INC: September 16 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
MONSANTO COMPANY: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
MSG NETWORKS: Faces Leisz Suit Over Proposed Merger
MYANMAR: CTUM to File Class Action Against Military Council
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Parisi Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
NCAA: Tingelhoff Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NEWARK, NJ: Filing for Class Certification Bids Extended to July 23
NHR HUMAN: FLSA Conditional Certification Bid Partly Granted
NICHOLAS LEVENE: Giambrone & Partners Attorney Discusses Suit
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
OLIVER HOSPITALITY: Class of Servers & Bartenders Get Certification
OPTIMAL ENERGY: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT, Wortham Suit Claims
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Bobo Case Pending Class Cert. Resolution
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Vollert Case Pending Class Cert. Resolution
OUTDOOR SPORTSMAN: Pratt Says Subscriber Data Illegally Disclosed
OVASCIENCE INC: Court Allows Securities Class Action to Proceed
PARAGON METALS: Roberts Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
PHARMACARE US: Court Narrows Claims in Corbett Class Suit
POSTAL FLEET: Gaugh et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
PRIME ENERGY: Roney Seeks Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROGENITY INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Investor Losses
PROVENTION BIO: Gross Announces Securities Class Action Suit
PROVENTION BIO: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline
PURDUE FREDERICK: OxyContin Class Action Moved to District Court
PURECYCLE TECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 12 Deadline
RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz to Represent Investors in Class Suit
READY WIRE: Beaver FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Certification
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 11
RYAN GILBERTSON: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Gruber Suit
SACRAMENTO, CA: $550K Settlement Over 2019 Protest Approved
SAFECO INS: Filing of Class Status Bids Due March 14, 2022
SAFEWAY INC: Sullivan Suit Gets Final OK of Class Action Settlement
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garrett Alleges
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Court Reopens Gaffney Class Suit
SELF-HELP FEDERAL: Poe Hits Illegal Bank Charges
SOLARIS WATER: Misclassifies Inspectors, Jones Suit Claims
SOMCHAI AND COMPANY: Yang Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
SONIC DRIVE: Henderson Seeks Certification of Collective Action
SPREEMO INC: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines by 60 Days Sought
SQUARE A: Giron Loses Bid to Conditionally Certify Class Action
STATE FARM: June 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
STATE FARM: Loses Bid to Stay Sheldon, Hunsberger Class Suit
STATE FARM: Sisia Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Coverage
STEMILT AG: Court Stays All Class Certification Briefing Schedule
SUNSHINE MAKERS: September 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TEAM HEALTH: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Response
TELEXFREE LLC: Opinion from Trustee's Expert Not Admissible
THINK FINANCE: Funders Wants Class Certification Reversed
TOM GIRARDI: Attorney to Prove Erika Jayne Involved in Scheme
TOTAL INSURANCE: August 31 Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
TOTAL RENAL: Hesketh Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Hassell Class Suit
UCAL SYSTEMS: Westfield Says Not Liable to Cover BIPA Suit
UEZU CORPORATION: Abe Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
UNITED ARMOR: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Loses Bid to Strike Experts' Opinions
UNITED STATES: July 2 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
VALEANT PHARMA: Investors' Claims May Advance Under Tolling Rule
VIGI MONT-ROYAL: Class Action Over Covid-19 Deaths Can Proceed
VIRGINIA DOT: Winks Loses Bid to Certify Class
WASHINGTON PRIME: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 23 Deadline
WESTERN UNION: Radulescu Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
WHOLE FOODS: Warren Hits Misleading Coffee Creamer Label
[*] Biometric Privacy Class Action v. Property Companies Tossed
*********
A.M. CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Najera Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN NAJERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A.M. CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR, INC. (D/B/A
A.M. CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR, INC.); ROCIO CEPEDA; and AIMEE
MORALES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05104 (S.D.N.Y., July 9,
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 maintenance
worker.
A.M. CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR, INC. owns and operates a construction
and repair company, located at Bronx, New York under the name "A.M.
Construction and Repair, Inc." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ACELRX PHARMA: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of August 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AcelRx" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ACRX) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-04353, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx securities
between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased AcelRx securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 9, 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.
AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of
acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30
mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of
moderate-to-severe acute pain.
On November 2, 2018, AcelRx announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had approved DSUVIA for the management of
acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid
analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings,
such as hospitals, surgical centers, and emergency departments.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AcelRx had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA;
(ii) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims
and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in
certain advertisements and displays; (iii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that, on February 11, 2021,
the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning
promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having "reviewed an
'SDS Banner Ad' (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display
(PM-US-DSV-0049) (display)," the FDA concluded that "[t]he
promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or
misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy
of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its
distribution violative." The warning letter "request[ed] that
AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act" and "submit a written
response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt."
On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%,
to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
AETNA LIFE: Court Certifies ERISA Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Gianelli & Morris on June 16 disclosed that on June 11, 2021,
United States District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the United States
District Court, Central District of California granted Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case of BRIAN HENDRICKS;
ANDREW SAGALONGOS v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (CV
19-06840-CJC-MRW). Specifically, the court's order certified the
following class, class representatives, and class counsel:
"All persons covered under Aetna Plans, governed by ERISA,
self-funded or fully insured, whose requests for lumbar artificial
disc replacement surgery were denied at any time within the
applicable statute of limitations, or whose requests for that
surgery will be denied in the future, on the ground that lumbar
artificial disc replacement surgery is experimental or
investigational, and whose denials will be subject to abuse of
discretion review by the district court.
Plaintiffs Brian Hendricks and Andrew Sagalongos are appointed as
Class Representatives and their counsel, Gianelli & Morris, are
appointed as Class Counsel."
This class-action lawsuit was filed on August 7, 2019, by the
California insurance law firm Gianelli & Morris on behalf of "[a]ll
persons covered under Aetna Plans, governed by ERISA . . . whose
requests for lumbar [ADR] were denied . . . on the ground that
lumbar [ADR] is experimental or investigational."
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Aetna has a policy of
systematically denying requests for lumbar artificial disc
replacement surgery (L-ADR) to treat degenerative disc disease in
the lumbar spine. According to the Plaintiffs' allegations and
supporting court documents, Aetna routinely denies L-ADR as
"experimental or investigational" and claims the procedure has not
been proven effective in clinical studies to treat lumbar disc
disease.
Plaintiffs, on the other hand, allege that L-ADR is FDA-approved,
endorsed by the North American Spine Society, and performed at
leading medical centers across the country. Plaintiffs' complaint
also documents that L-ADR is covered by several major health
insurers, including Anthem, Cigna, Humana, and United HealthCare.
In granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the court
held that Plaintiffs met all the requirements for class
certification required under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. According to the court:
"Under Rule 23(a), a class may be certified if "(1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(a)."
This court found all four requirements (numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy) were met in the Plaintiffs' complaint. To
satisfy the Typicality requirement, the court limited the class to
those whose claims would be subject to "abuse of discretion review"
by the court as opposed to any claims that would be subject to "de
novo review."
Plaintiffs in their motion presented evidence that Aetna denied
overage for L-ADR on "experimental or investigational" grounds to
239 of its insureds whose denials would be subject to
abuse-of-discretion review by the court, which the court found
"easily satisfies the numerosity requirement" and meets the other
criteria as well.
To be certified, a class must also meet the standards of one of the
subsections of Rule 23(b). In this case, Plaintiffs sought
certification under Rules 23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B), and 23(b)(2).
The court found that Plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of Rule
23(b)(1)(A) and therefore did not need to consider the other
grounds. Rule 23(b)(1)(A) allows certification "if prosecuting
separate actions by . . . individual class members would create a
risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
individual class members that would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for the party opposing the class."
Lead Plaintiffs' attorney Robert S. Gianelli expressed pleasure and
optimism upon receiving news of the court order granting class
certification. "This is the third case in which our firm has
obtained class certification for a health plan's denial of lumbar
artificial disc replacement surgery," Mr. Gianelli said. "In the
prior two cases, after class certification and shortly before
trial, the health plans changed their positions and agreed to cover
the surgery. This health plan, Aetna, is the only major health plan
that does not cover the surgery."
The case is currently scheduled for trial on December 13, 2021.
About Gianelli & Morris
Gianelli & Morris is a California insurance law firm that
concentrates its practice on cases against insurance companies for
the wrongful denials of claims. The firm has succeeded in getting
numerous major insurers to change their practices when they engage
in a pattern or practice of categorically denying certain medical
procedures as "experimental and investigational" despite evidence
to the contrary. [GN]
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Settlement Class Gets Final Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACI HUTTO and JENNIFER
MELNYK, individually and as representatives of the class, v.
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., SERVICE AWARDS ALBERTSON'S LLC,
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, LLC, NEW ALBERTSONS, L.P., ALBERTSONS STORES
SUB HOLDINGS, LLC, AB ACQUISITION LLC, AB MANAGEMENT SERVICES
CORP., AMERICAN FOOD AND DRUG LLC, INK HOLDINGS, LLC, and
ALBERTSON'S HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-07541-MMC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of class action settlement and granting in part and
denying in part plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' fees, costs, and
class representative service awards.
-- Final Class Certification for Settlement Purposes
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the
Court finally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the
following class, to be known as the "Settlement Class:"
"All employees and/or prospective employees of Defendants
within the United States who were the subject of a consumer
report by Defendants anytime between and including October
24, 2017 and November 25, 2019, inclusive."
-- Payment to Settlement Class
The Claims Administrator shall cause payment to be issued to
Settlement Class Members who submitted valid Claim Forms
pursuant to the terms for calculating Individual Settlement
Payments set forth in Paragraph 40 the Agreement. The Claims
Administrator shall either mail settlement checks to
Settlement Class Members at their last known addresses via
first class United States mail or send payments
electronically as requested in the Claim Form submitted
within 21 calendar days of Defendants remitting the Gross
Settlement Sum to the Claims Administrator as set forth in
Paragraph 48(d) of the Agreement.
-- Service Payment to Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs have applied for awards of service payments as
Class Representatives in the amount of $6,000.00 to each
Class Representative (the "Service Awards").
The Plaintiffs' requests for the Service Awards are granted
in part as follows: $5,000.00 is awarded to each Class
Representative. In accordance with the Agreement, the Claims
Administrator shall make these Service Awards payments to
Class Representatives. The Service Awards shall be delivered
to Class Counsel within 21 calendar days after receipt of the
Gross Settlement Sum.
-- Attorneys' Fees to Class Counsel.
Class Counsel has applied for an award of Attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in this Action in the amount of $265,726.83.
Class Counsel's request 5 for attorney's fees and costs is
granted. The Court awards $265,726.83 to Class Counsel for
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this Action. In
accordance with the terms of the Agreement, the Claims
Administrator shall make this payment to Class Counsel within
21 calendar days of after receipt of the Gross Settlement
Sum.
-- Settlement Expenses
The Court approved the use of American Legal Claims Services,
LLC, as the Claims Administrator. The Court hereby approves
fees and costs to be paid to the Claims Administrator in the
amount of $50,000. In accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, Settlement Expenses shall be paid from the Gross
Settlement Sum.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qtdsOH at no extra charge.[CC]
ALL WEB LEADS: Knights Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Web Leads Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Ben Knights, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. All Web Leads Inc., Does
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-05066
(C.D. Cal., June 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
All Web Leads (AWL) -- http://www.allwebleads.com/-- was founded
in 2005 and is the nation's premier Customer Acquisition Marketing
business focused on the insurance industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Agricultural Landowners Gets Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as H & T Fair Hills, Ltd.,
Norman Zimmerman, Donna Zimmerman, Steven Wherry, Valerie Wherry,
Robert Ruebel, Mary Ruebel, Larry Ruebel, Mark Hein, Debra Hein,
and Nicholas Hein on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Alliance Pipeline L.P. a/k/a Alliance USA, Case No.
0:19-cv-01095-JNE-BRT (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Joan N. Ericksen
entered an order:
1. certifying the following class under Rule 23(b)(3) for the
breach of contract claim and Rule 23(b)(2) for the
declaratory judgment claim:
"All persons or entities who held or hold a land interest on
Defendant's Pipeline Right of Way and who, since 2014, were
or are eligible for crop loss compensation pursuant to
Easements or Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreements."
2. appointing Nicholas Hein, Mark Hein, Robert Ruebel, Steven
Wherry, and Norman Zimmerman as class representatives;
3. declining to appoint the other proposed representatives.
4. appointing Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC and Ball & McCann,
P.C. as class counsel.
5. directing the parties to provide notice of the pendency of
this action as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2); and
6. denying the Defendant's Motion to Strike.
The Court said, "The Defendant argues that the proposed class here
is not cohesive because of issues related to identifying class
members, proving causation related to crop loss, and calculating
damages. The Plaintiffs argue that a declaratory judgment is
essential to confirm the Defendant's obligations under the
easements and AIMAs. Here, Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule
23(b)(2).
Determining what obligations flow from the contracts and whether
the Defendant's program termination letter breached the obligation
to pay for crop losses are questions well-suited to resolution on a
class-wide basis. Although the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
request for an injunction to restore the crop loss program, a
declaratory judgment would be useful to clarify whether Defendant
has an ongoing obligation to pay for crop loss."
Agricultural landowners brought this case against Alliance Pipeline
for its alleged failure to compensate them for crop losses caused
by a pipeline it built through their properties. Prior to
construction, Defendant agreed to compensate these farmers for
pipeline-related crop losses. Defendant met this obligation by
creating a crop loss program that compensated landowners and
tenants for lower crop yields on the pipeline right of way. In
2015, the Defendant ended this program and, in 2019, Plaintiffs
sued.
The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claim for fraudulent inducement and
claims for breach of contract and nuisance that accrued outside the
statute of limitations. Seeking to represent other agricultural
landowners and tenant farmers, the Plaintiffs have now moved under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to certify a class for their
breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims.
The Alliance Pipeline is a natural gas pipeline that runs from
Canada to Illinois through North Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. The
Defendant constructed the pipeline in 1999 after obtaining approval
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Prior to FERC
approval, the Defendant had reached Agricultural Impact Mitigation
Agreements (AIMAs) with the attorneys general of the states crossed
by the pipeline. Iowa and Minnesota entered into a joint agreement
while North Dakota and Illinois each reached separate agreements
with Defendant. Although the AIMAs contain different language, each
provides for compensation to landowners for crop losses caused by
the pipeline.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2T1Cc4g at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Sched Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TISHA HILARIO,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-05459-WHO
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate and ask the Court to enter an
order extending the Class Certification Briefing Schedule, as
follows:
Current Date Proposed New Date
Motion Due June 30, 2021 October 22, 2021
Response Due July 28, 2021 December 3, 2021
Reply Due August 11, 2021 December 27, 2021
Hearing August 25, 2021 January 19, 2022
On December 23, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and provided Plaintiffs 30 days leave to amend the claims.
On January 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class
Action Complaint. On February 19, 2021, the Defendant filed its
Answer to the First Amended Class Action Complaint.
On April 23, 2021, the Defendant provided written responses to
Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests of Production and Plaintiffs'
First Set of Interrogatories. On May 5, 2021, the Defendant
produced some records. On May 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs issued a
letter to Defendant detailing some alleged deficiencies in the
written discovery responses and requesting a telephone conference
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. On May 25, 2021,
the Parties agreed to conduct a 37.2 conference on May 28, 2021. On
May 27, 2021, Defendant produced more records. The Parties then
conducted a Rule 37.2 conference.
The Allstate Corporation is an American insurance company,
headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook
since 1967.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h09IjC at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Shane, Esq.
SHANE LAW
1000 Drakes Landing Rd #200
Greenbrae, CA 94904-3027
Telephone: (414) 464-2020
Facsimile: (415) 464-2024
E-mail: dshane@shanelaw1.com
- and -
Brian Eldridge, Esq.
Steven Hart, Esq.
Jack Prior, Esq.
HART McLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE LLC
22 West Washington St., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 955-0545
Facsimile: (312) 971-9243
E-mail: beldridge@hmelegal.com
shart@hmelegal.com
jprior@hmelegal.com
ALPHA GAS AND ELECTRIC: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Gas and
Electric, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Andrew Perrong,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated v. Alpha Gas and Electric, LLC, a New York
Limited Liability Company; John Doe Corporation; Case No.
1:21-cv-05518-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Alpha Gas and Electric -- https://alphagasandelectric.com/ -- is an
energy supplier in Viola, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th St.
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Court Strikes MSP Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO., Case No.
1:20-cv-24077-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga
entered an order that:
-- Plaintiff, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC's Expedited
Motion
to Allow Plaintiff to File Exhibits to Motion for Class
Certification Under Seal is denied; and
-- and the Motion for Class Certification is stricken.
The Court does not disagree that the Motion for Class Certification
and its exhibits may contain confidential information that is
inappropriate for public disclosure. But the Plaintiff's wish to
present such information for consideration is not a reason to seal
the exhibits in support of the Motion for Class Certification. The
Court issues public decisions based on public records; this is
particularly so where the issue is certification of a class.
Redaction of those portions that contain confidential information
is more appropriate; the Court will not rule on class certification
by considering sealed information it cannot reference publicly in
its decision.
American National offers personalized insurance coverage for life,
home, business, auto and much more.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SoN8c5 at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Faces Class Action 401(k) Retirement Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the American National Red Cross was hit with a
proposed class action in a D.C. federal court alleging the
nonprofit violated federal benefits law by letting its retirement
plan pay excessive fees and letting workers sink their retirement
savings into underperforming funds. [GN]
ARKANSAS GENERAL: Holloway's Class Cert. Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINSTON HOLLOWAY ADC No.
67507, v. ARKANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, et al., Case No.
4:21-cv-00495-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
entered an order that:
1. Mr. Holloway's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is
granted.
2. As Mr. Holloway's present custodian, the Warden of the Varner
Unit or his designee shall collect from Mr. Holloway's
institutional account the $350.00 the filing fee by
collecting monthly payments equal to 20% of the preceding
month's income credited to Mr. Holloway's account each time
the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, and forward the
payments to the Clerk of the Court in accordance with 28
U.S.C. section 1915(b)(2), until a total of $350.00 has been
collected and forwarded to the Clerk. The payments forwarded
on Mr. Holloway's behalf shall be clearly identified by the
name and number assigned to this action.
3. The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to
the:
Warden of the Varner Unit
P.O. Box 600, Grady
Arkansas 71644;
ADC Trust Fund Centralized Banking Office
P.O. Box 8908, Pine Bluff
Arkansas 71611;
and
ADC Compliance Office
P.O. Box 20550,
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71612.
4. Mr. Holloway's claims against the Arkansas General Assembly,
Arkansas Act 1110 of 2021, Ark. Code Ann. sections 12-29-119;
and the Arkansas Division of Correction are dismissed without
prejudice.
5. The Arkansas General Assembly, Arkansas Act 1110 of 2021,
Ark. Code Ann. Section 12-29-119; and the Arkansas Division
of Correction are dismissed as parties to this lawsuit.
6. Mr. Holloway's claims that the deprivation of inmate stimulus
funds pursuant to Act 1110 is arbitrary and capricious and in
violation of Scholl v. Mnuchin are dismissed without
prejudice.
7. Mr. Holloway's equal protection claim, to the extent he made
one, is dismissed without prejudice.
8. Mr. Holloway's Supremacy Clause, Takings Clause, and Due
Process claims will be served on Defendants Mahoney, Madden,
Lindsy, and Barbara Smallwood.
9. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the
Complaint, Summons, and this Order on Defendant Mahoney,
Defendant Madden, Defendant Lindsy, and Defendant Smallwood
without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore.
Service should be attempted through the ADC Compliance
Office, P.O. Box 20550, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71612.
10. Mr. Holloway's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is
denied. The Court will treat the request as a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction. Defendants should respond to the
Motion within 10 days.
11. Mr. Holloway's Request for Class Certification is denied
without prejudice. His request for counsel is held in
abeyance.
12. Mr. Holloway's Emergency Motion is denied.
13. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)
(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would
not be taken in good faith.
Plaintiff Holloway is in custody at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas
Division of Correction. He filed this action pro se. Mr. Holloway
challenges the legality of Arkansas Act 1110 of 2021 and the taking
of his stimulus payments pursuant to Act 1110. He brings his claims
individually and on behalf of a class. Mr. Holloway seeks
injunctive relief, among other relief requested.
The Arkansas General Assembly is the state legislature of the U.S.
state of Arkansas. The legislature is a bicameral body composed of
the upper house Arkansas Senate with 35 members, and the lower
Arkansas House of Representatives with 100 members.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35PSsZ5 at no extra charge.[CC]
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Vincent Wong Notes of July 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Array Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY). If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/array-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17004&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased ARRY: (a)
between October 14, 2020, and May 11, 2021, inclusive and (b)
pursuant, or traceable, or both, to: (i) the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 2020
initial public offering; or (ii) the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's December 2020
offering; or (iii) any combination of the initial public offering,
December 2020 offering, or March 2021 offering.
Defendants repeatedly and consistently painted a materially
misleading picture of the Company's business and prospects that did
not reflect rising steel and freight costs. After the October 2020
initial public offering, the December 2020 offering and the March
2021 offering, and subsequent to the class period, Array disclosed
that it was experiencing increases in steel prices and substantial
increases in the cost of both ocean and truck freight that in turn
were having a material impact on its margins for the foreseeable
future. This caused Array to miss profit expectations and withdraw
its full-year outlook. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, shareholders have suffered significant losses
and damages.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.
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]
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Niyazov Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Niyazov, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Associated Credit
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03516 (E.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Associated Credit Services (ACS) -- https://www.acsrecovery.com/ --
primary focus has been to provide quality collection services to
the creditor industry for over 40 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
BALTIMORE, MD: Wheelchair Users File ADA Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy Lawrence, writing for Baltimore Sun, reports that Susan
Goodlaxson, a 65-year-old resident of Baltimore's Hamilton
neighborhood, has been a wheelchair user for five years. She can't
wheel across the streets on her block -- the sidewalk lacks curb
ramps that connect it to the street.
"If the neighbors are gathering across the street, I can't just
wheel over and join them," Goodlaxson said.
She is one of three wheelchair users who filed a class-action
lawsuit against Baltimore City, alleging "widespread and ongoing"
violations of federal accessibility requirements.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Maryland last week,
says people with disabilities are unable to travel freely around
Baltimore due to inadequately maintained curb ramps and sidewalks.
The plaintiffs filed the federal suit in conjunction with the IMAGE
Center of Maryland, an organization committed to helping people
with disabilities live independently.
Baltimore's curb ramps and sidewalks are "dilapidated and
disintegrating" and "filled with objects such as telephone poles,
trash, and trees," according to the suit.
[More Maryland news] Baltimore County councilman seeks to expand
program cracking down on loud gatherings »
The obstacles make it difficult for people with mobility
disabilities to move around and participate in city life, says the
suit, which alleges the city lacks the accessible walkways
necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The ultimate goal of the lawsuit is to get the city to make
improvements, said Rebecca Rodgers, senior staff attorney at
Disability Rights Advocates, which is one of the firms handling the
case.
"We're not asking for monetary damages," Rodgers said. "We're
asking for a plan."
In a statement, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott acknowledged the
city's accessibility problems and said he was forming a task force
to address the ADA-compliance issues.
"My administration has inherited a host of longstanding challenges
that we are committed to addressing with a true equity approach,"
Scott said. "It's long past time for leaders to commit to building
a more accessible Baltimore that values our neighbors with
disabilities and creates pathways for them to thrive."
A 2019 survey by the Baltimore Department of Transportation found
that approximately 1.3% of the city's 37,086 curb ramps complied
with the ADA. The survey noted damaged and narrow sidewalks as
well, according to the lawsuit. Scott's news release referenced
this report, noting that the transportation department already was
working on a plan to "address outstanding ADA needs in the City,"
regardless of the lawsuit.
Janice Jackson, 61, and Keyonna Mayo, 37, are the other two
plaintiffs named in the suit. All three have stories of plans or
locations that, due to inaccessible sidewalks, are out of reach.
Mayo, who lives in the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood, can't use
sidewalks to reach the post office or the Light Rail. Jackson, a
resident of Loch Raven, can't travel by wheelchair to go shopping.
When Goodlaxson is invited to go somewhere, she said she has to
first get in the car and scout out the area to see if she can make
it over the sidewalk.
These are common experiences among people with mobility
disabilities, Goodlaxson said. According to U.S. Census Data from
2019, an estimated 53,762 people in Baltimore City have an
ambulatory disability.
"If I run into someone else in a wheelchair, we end up discussing
the difficulties," Goodlaxson said. "It would be nice if the city
were primarily accessible instead of primarily inaccessible for my
wheelchair."
Rodgers said the plaintiffs hope the city of Baltimore will work
with them to ensure all sidewalks and curb ramps are compliant.
Making these changes would benefit everybody, including people
without disabilities, Rodgers said.
"If you've got a suitcase, if you've got a stroller, this is a
design that will benefit everyone," Rodgers said. "Disability
rights make the world a better place for everybody." [GN]
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Beeman Berry Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Beeman Berry Farm, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer CropScience L.P.,
Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Cargill Incorporated, BASF
Corporation, Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC, Univar
Solutions, Inc., Federated Co-Operatives Ltd., CHS Inc., Nutrien AG
Solutions, Inc., Growmark Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc., Tenkoz
Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-00719,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00747-SEP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization.
Bayer Crop Science -- https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/ -- is
working to help farmers grow food more sustainably.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan R Mencel, Esq.
Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
MCSWEENEY LANGEVIN LLC
2116 2nd Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 746-4646
Fax: (612) 454-2678
Email: jon@westrikeback.com
RAM@WeStrikeBack.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard G. Jensen, Esq.
FABYANSKE AND WESTRA PA
333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 359-7600
Fax: (612) 359-7602
Email: rjensen@fwhtlaw.com
- and -
Karla M. Vehrs, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP - Minneapolis
2000 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2119
Phone: (612) 371-2449
Email: vehrsk@ballardspahr.com
- and -
Davida Sheri McGhee, Esq.
X. Kevin Zhao, Esq.
GREENE ESPEL PLLP
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 373-8374
Email: dwilliams@greeneespel.com
kzhao@greeneespel.com
- and -
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David J. Lender, Esq.
WEIL GOTSHAL LLP - New York
767 Fifth Avenue, Concourse
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8281
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
- and -
Lara Bach, Esq.
WEIL GOTSHAL LLP - Miami
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 577-3135
Email: lara.bach@weil.com
- and -
Mary Fee, Esq.
Todd A. Wind, Esq.
FREDRIKSON AND BYRON PA
200 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
Phone: (773) 710-6226
Email: mfee@fredlaw.com
twind@fredlaw.com
- and -
James J. Long, Esq.
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
332 Minnesota Street
2200 First National Bank Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (612) 223-6536
- and -
Jevon Bindman, Esq.
MASLON LLP
90 S. Seventh Street
3300 Wells Fargo Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254
Phone: (612) 672-8371
Email: jevon.bindman@maslon.com
- and -
Jonathan C. Miesen, Esq.
LAND O'LAKES, INC.
4001 Lexington Ave N
Arden Hills, MN 55126
Phone: (651) 375-5985
Fax: (651) 234-0535
Email: JCMiesen@landolakes.com
- and -
Jon M. Woodruff, Esq.
Peter J. Schwingler, Esq.
STINSON LLP - Minneapolis
50 S. 6th St., Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 335-1830
Email: jon.woodruff@stinson.com
peter.schwingler@stinson.com
- and -
Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
BLACKWELL BURKE PA
431 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2500
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone: (612) 343-3256
Fax: (612) 343-3205
Email: bhulse@blackwellburke.com
- and -
Emily Elizabeth Chow, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER LLP - Minneapolis
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 S. Seventh St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 766-8012
Email: emily.chow@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Kathy Osborn, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 N. Meridian St., Ste. 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 237-8261
Email: kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Luke Westerman, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP - Denver
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-0218
Email: luke.westerman@bclplaw.com
- and -
F. Matthew Ralph, Esq.
Jaime Stilson, Esq.
Michael A. Lindsay, Esq.
DORSEY AND WHITNEY Minneapolis
50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
Phone: (612) 492-6964
Fax: (612) 340-2868
Email: ralph.matthew@dorsey.com
stilson.jaime@dorsey.com
lindsay.michael@dorsey.com
- and -
Andrew Thomas Dufresne, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP - Madison
33 East Main Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3095
Phone: (608) 663-7460
Fax: (608) 663-7499
Email: adufresne@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Brandon J. Wheeler, Esq.
David L. Hashmall, Esq.
FELHABER LARSON PA
220 South 6th Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4504
Phone: (612) 373-8431
Fax: (612) 338-0535
Email: bwheeler@felhaber.com
dhashmall@felhaber.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Eagle Lake Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eagle Lake Farms Partnership, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer CropScience
L.P., Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Cargill Incorporated,
BASF Corporation, Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC,
Univar Solutions, Inc., Federated Co-Operatives Ltd., CHS Inc.,
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc., Growmark Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub,
Inc., Tenkoz Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., Case No.
0:21-cv-00543, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00743-SEP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Bayer Crop Science -- https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/ -- is
working to help farmers grow food more sustainably.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan R Mencel, Esq.
Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
MCSWEENEY LANGEVIN LLC
2116 2nd Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 746-4646
Fax: (612) 454-2678
Email: jon@westrikeback.com
RAM@WeStrikeBack.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard G. Jensen, Esq.
FABYANSKE AND WESTRA PA
333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 359-7600
Fax: (612) 359-7602
Email: rjensen@fwhtlaw.com
- and -
Karla M. Vehrs, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP - Minneapolis
2000 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2119
Phone: (612) 371-2449
Email: vehrsk@ballardspahr.com
- and -
Davida Sheri McGhee, Esq.
X. Kevin Zhao, Esq.
GREENE ESPEL PLLP
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 373-8374
Email: dwilliams@greeneespel.com
kzhao@greeneespel.com
- and -
Adam C. Hemlock, Esq.
David J. Lender, Esq.
WEIL GOTSHAL LLP - New York
767 Fifth Avenue, Concourse
New York, NY 10153
Phone: (212) 310-8281
Fax: (212) 310-8007
Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com
david.lender@weil.com
- and -
Lara Bach, Esq.
WEIL GOTSHAL LLP - Miami
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1200
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 577-3135
Email: lara.bach@weil.com
- and -
Mary Fee, Esq.
Todd A. Wind, Esq.
FREDRIKSON AND BYRON PA
200 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
Phone: (773) 710-6226
Email: mfee@fredlaw.com
twind@fredlaw.com
- and -
James J. Long, Esq.
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
332 Minnesota Street
2200 First National Bank Building
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (612) 223-6536
- and -
Jevon Bindman, Esq.
MASLON LLP
90 S. Seventh Street
3300 Wells Fargo Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254
Phone: (612) 672-8371
Email: jevon.bindman@maslon.com
- and -
Jonathan C. Miesen, Esq.
LAND O'LAKES, INC.
4001 Lexington Ave N
Arden Hills, MN 55126
Phone: (651) 375-5985
Fax: (651) 234-0535
Email: JCMiesen@landolakes.com
- and -
Jon M. Woodruff, Esq.
Peter J. Schwingler, Esq.
STINSON LLP - Minneapolis
50 S. 6th St., Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 335-1830
Email: jon.woodruff@stinson.com
peter.schwingler@stinson.com
- and -
Benjamin W. Hulse, Esq.
BLACKWELL BURKE PA
431 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2500
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Phone: (612) 343-3256
Fax: (612) 343-3205
Email: bhulse@blackwellburke.com
- and -
Emily Elizabeth Chow, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER LLP - Minneapolis
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 S. Seventh St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 766-8012
Email: emily.chow@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Kathy Osborn, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 N. Meridian St., Ste. 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 237-8261
Email: kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Luke Westerman, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP - Denver
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-0218
Email: luke.westerman@bclplaw.com
- and -
F. Matthew Ralph, Esq.
Jaime Stilson, Esq.
Michael A. Lindsay, Esq.
DORSEY AND WHITNEY Minneapolis
50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
Phone: (612) 492-6964
Fax: (612) 340-2868
Email: ralph.matthew@dorsey.com
stilson.jaime@dorsey.com
lindsay.michael@dorsey.com
- and -
Andrew Thomas Dufresne, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP - Madison
33 East Main Street, Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703-3095
Phone: (608) 663-7460
Fax: (608) 663-7499
Email: adufresne@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Brandon J. Wheeler, Esq.
David L. Hashmall, Esq.
FELHABER LARSON PA
220 South 6th Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4504
Phone: (612) 373-8431
Fax: (612) 338-0535
Email: bwheeler@felhaber.com
dhashmall@felhaber.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Tom Burke Farms Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tom Burke Farms, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Bayer CropScience L.P., Bayer
CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Cargill Incorporated, BASF
Corporation, Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC, Univar
Solutions, Inc., Federated Co-Operatives Ltd., CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag
Solutions, Inc., Growmark Inc., Growmark FS, LLC, Simplot AB Retail
Sub, Inc., Tenkoz Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01049, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00751-SEP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
Bayer Crop Science -- https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/ -- is
working to help farmers grow food more sustainably.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 MARKET ST., Suite 2801
Philadelphia, PA 19701
Phone: (215) 923-9300
Fax: (215) 923-9302
Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
GERARD A. DEVER, ESQ.
JESSICA DAVIS KHAN, ESQ.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
PHILA., PA 19107
Phone: (215) 567-6565
Fax: (215) 568-5872
Email: gdever@finekaplan.com
jkhan@finekaplan.com
- and -
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
MAGER AND WHITE, P.C.
165 Township Line Road, Suite 2400
One Pitcairn Place
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Phone: (215) 481-0273
- and -
PATRICK HOWARD, ESQ.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY
1650 MARKET ST., 52ND FL
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 575-3895
Email: phoward@smbb.com
The Defendants are represented by:
CRAIG D. MARGOLIS, ESQ.
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 942-6127
Email: Craig.Margolis@arnoldporter.com
- and -
JASON A. LECKERMAN, ESQ.
LESLIE E. JOHN, ESQ.
BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
1735 MARKET STREET, 51ST FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 864-8266
Email: leckermanj@ballardspahr.com
john@ballardspahr.com
BIG EASY: Ramos Must File Class Certification Bid by Dec. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramos, et al., v. Big Easy
Foods of Louisiana, LLC et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01298 (W.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge Kathleen Kay entered an order that the Plaintiffs
are to file their motion for class certification on or before
December 3, 2021 at which time additional deadlines will be set to
deal with the certification issue.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Big Easy is doing business in wholesale food distribution.[CC]
CALIFORNIA DOC: Skylit Files Civil Rights Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al. The case is styled as
Syiaah Skylit, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly
situated individuals v. California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Does 1–3, F.Ramos, K.Allison, M.Franco,
M.Marquez, Case No. 34-2021-00302405-CU-CR-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., June 11, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Civil Rights."
CDCR -- https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ -- manages the State of
California's prison system with an emphasis on public safety,
rehabilitation, community reintegration and restorative
justice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Orthwein, Esq.
MEDINA ORTHWEIN LLP
230 Grand Ave., Ste. 201
Oakland, CA 94610-4559
Phone: 510-823-2040
Fax: 510-217-3580
Email: jorthwein@medinaorthwein.com
CASINO NANAIMO: Laid-Off Employees File Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Yu, writing for Nanaimo News Bulletin, reports that laid-off
casino Nanaimo employees have filed a class-action lawsuit in
Supreme Court in B.C., claiming the company acted in bad faith and
wrongfully dismissed them during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to court documents filed April 6, Catherine Fanning,
Kimberly Bussiere and Samantha Heffel are leading the civil suit
against Casino Nanaimo operators Great Canadian Casinos Inc. and
Great Canadian Gaming Corporation.
They claim the casino "failed to discharge their obligations of
good faith, honesty and fair dealings with class members in
effecting the terminations" of casino workers.
Business was halted March 16, 2020, due to COVID-19, at which time
Casino Nanaimo operators laid off employees. Great Canadian also
issued a memorandum stating workers were not allowed to "draw down
on banked statutory vacation pay." Utilizing accumulated vacation
time "was suspended," and "long-term disability pay and benefits,
for which [the corporation] self-insured, were terminated"
immediately, the suit claims.
The plaintiffs allege that when they cleaned out their lockers in
July, certain employees who were owed tips received envelopes with
cash from a trunk of a manager's vehicle.
Another memo distributed in September contained "false information"
the plaintiffs allege, and outlined a "forced buyout process,"
which would be equal to termination pay under the B.C. Employment
Standards Act, amounting to one week of pay per year of service up
to a maximum of eight weeks, disregarding years of service.
This past January, the company again offered a buyout, said the
plaintiffs, but this time capped payouts at $2,500 and changed
requirements that settlement money be taken as severance. This
would make them ineligible to receive employment insurance, they
allege, and in addition, they say another proposal wouldn't be
coming until this summer.
The plaintiffs say that the company should have known that it was
"conducting a mass termination of employees without adequate
compensation for the longer notice period applicable under the
[act]."
The lawsuit said the company is claiming the workers are still
employed, as it is continuing to pay for benefits, but the premiums
were waived by Manulife Financial and the B.C. government. Bussiere
said she and the plaintiffs have been removed from e-mail lists and
Facebook pages.
Bussiere also said she couldn't comment on the monetary
compensation sought.
"Some of us have been working there for 30-plus years and myself,
22 years," said Bussiere. "At my age, it's hard to get another job
and get trained to a position where I would be making what I was
making as an employee of the casino. You put in 22 years, you've
put a lot of time in and you're expecting to retire and have a
pension and all of a sudden you're unable to access any of that."
Bussiere said Nanaimo is the only Great Canadian Gaming Corporation
casino without a union.
The plaintiffs are being represented by Martin Sheard and Geraldine
Teixeira. The News Bulletin has reached out to both for comment.
In an e-mail, Chuck Keeling, Great Canadian Gaming Corporation
executive vice-president of stakeholder relations and responsible
gaming, said the corporation wasn't able to say much as it is a
legal matter.
"As the matter is before the courts, we do not have a comment,"
Keeling said. "We would note, however, we are eagerly anticipating
the reopening of Casino Nanaimo as early as July 1, subject to
receiving approval from the provincial government and [Dr. Bonnie
Henry] to do so. We have been closed due to a government mandated
suspension of operations since March 16, 2020, to support the
province's efforts to contain the spread of COVID.
"To support the property's reopening, we have already called back
approximately 75 of our team members, and we are looking forward to
having them back on the job."
The corporation has 21 days after it is served with the notice to
file a response.
None of the claims have been proven in a court of law. [GN]
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Young Files FCRA Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Certegy Payment
Solutions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Megan A. Young, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Certegy
Payment Solutions, LLC, Complete Payment Recovery Services, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-11037-IT (D. Mass., June 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Certegy -- https://certegy.com/ -- enables low-risk, low-cost
transactions between consumers and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq.
PO Box 479
Pawtucket, RI 02862
Phone: (401) 728-6060
Fax: (401) 728-6534
Email: court@lefebvrelaw.com
CETERIS PORTFOLIO SERVICES: Triminio Hits Personal Data Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Triminio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ceteris Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-01449 (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2021), seeks statutory
damages, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Ceteris is a licensed Consumer Collection Agency by the Florida
Office of Financial Regulation, holding license number CCA9904258.
It sought to collect an alleged consumer debt owed by Triminio with
a national financing company. However, rather than preparing and
mailing written collection correspondence on its own, Ceteris sent
information regarding Triminio and her debt to a third-party vendor
in order to outsource the process. Triminio never consented to
having her personal and confidential information, concerning her
debt or otherwise, shared with anyone else. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Legg, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER W. LEGG, P.A.
499 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Ste. 228
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (954) 235-3706
Email: Chris@theconsumerlawyers.com
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Klein Reminds of July 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CCXI) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: November 26, 2019 and May 6, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in CCXI:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/chemocentryx-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17010&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that ChemoCentryx, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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 New Drug Application
("NDA") for avacopan for the treatment of ANCA-associated
vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
Shareholders have until July 6, 2021 to petition the court for lead
plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the CCXI lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Contact:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
E-mail: : jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Tel: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
Web site: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/[GN]
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Rosen Notes of July 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATER). Shareholders who purchased shares in
the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.
Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATER)
Investors Affected: December 1, 2020 - May 3, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Aterian, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's organic growth is plummeting; (ii)
the Company's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments
for flawed assets from questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's
purported artificial intelligence software is a flawed product that
lacks customer interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid
or artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v)
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/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17018&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.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Tel: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
COLONIAL HARDWARE: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colonial Hardware
Corp. The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Colonial Hardware Corp.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05514 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Colonial Hardware Corporation of New Jersey --
https://blackbookoftools.com/ -- manufactures machine tools and
equipment. The Company distributes hardware products such as
electrical, plumbing, heating, as well as hardware hand tools, and
other equipment.[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
COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Cortes Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Yasmin Cortes, individually, on a representative
basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
COMMUNICATIONS TEST DESIGN, INC, a Pennsylvania Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2108718 was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on June 11, 2021, and assigned Case No.
5:21-cv-01001-AB-KK.
The Complaint asserts the following Class Action Claims: (1)
Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
(3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (4) Failure to Provide Rest
Breaks, (5) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages, (6) Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and (7) Unfair and
Unlawful Competition. The Complaint also asserts the following PAGA
Claims: (8) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (9) Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages, (10) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (11) Failure
to Provide Rest breaks, (12) Failure to Timely Pay Wages Each
Period, (13) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages; (14) Failure to
Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, and (15) Failure to
Provide Safe and Healthful Working Conditions.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James E. Hart, Bar No. 194168
Leah E. Peterson
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: 949.705.3000
Fax: 949.724.1201
Email: jhart@littler.com
lwhitehead@littler.com
CRACKER BARREL: Gillespie FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ashley Gillespie; Tonya
Miller; Tami Brown; Sarah Mangano, individually and behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. Cracker
Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00940-DJH (D.
Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this lawsuit as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);
2. authorizing Named Plaintiffs to mail, email, text, and post
notices to potential class members;
3. approving the Proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms; and
4. requiring that, within 21 days of the Court's ruling on this
Motion, the Defendant produce the names, mailing addresses,
email addresses, cell phone numbers, last four digits of
social security numbers, and dates of employment of all
current and former servers who worked for the company from
June 22, 2018 to the present and worked in a state where
Cracker Barrel paid them less than minimum wage and/or took a
tip credit.
This case is about Cracker Barrel violating the FLSA by: 1) failing
to pay servers minimum wage for work performed on non-tipped duties
that exceeded 20% of their work time; 2) failing to timely inform
its servers of the 29 U.S.C. section 203(m) notification
requirements (i.e. the amount of the tip credit it would be taking,
that the tip credit claimed cannot exceed the amount of tips
actually received by the employee, and that all tips received by
the employee are to be retained by the employee); and 3) requiring
or allowing servers to work off-the-clock. 1 Making matters worse,
at a time when the nation was suffering the ravages of COVID-19,
Cracker Barrel amplified its servers' suffering by increasing their
non-tipped duties and eliminating a night maintenance position.
Cracker Barrel is an American chain of restaurant and gift stores
with a Southern country theme. The company was founded by Dan Evins
in 1969; its first store was in Lebanon, Tennessee.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wXhf9l
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated,
are:
Nitin Sud, Esq.
SUD LAW P.C.
6750 West Loop South, Suite 920
Bellaire, TX 77401
Telephone: (832) 623-6420
Facsimile: (832) 304-2552
E-mail: nsud@sudemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Monika Sud-Devaraj, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MONIKA SUD-DEVARAJ, PLLC
141 E. Palm Lane, Ste. 100
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 234-0782
E-mail: monika@msdlawaz.com
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the deadlines
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 these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Danimer Scientific Inc. (NYSE: DNMR)
Class Period: October 5, 2020 – May 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 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) Danimer had
deficient internal controls; (2) as a result, the Company had
misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and regulatory
compliance; (3) Defendants had overstated Nodax's biodegradability,
particularly in oceans and landfills; 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.
Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARRY)
Class Period: October 14, 2020 - May 11, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021
Investors with losses exceeding $100,000 are encouraged to contact
the firm
The complaint filed alleges that in the registration statements for
the Offerings and 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) dating back to the first quarter of
2020, prices of certain commodities such as steel was in the
process of more than doubling, and Array was facing increasing
freight costs; (2) the increases in commodity and freight costs had
been negatively impacting the Company's business and operations;
and (3) 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.
ContextLogic Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH)
Class Period: December 16, 2020 - May 12, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2021
Investors with losses exceeding $50,000 are encouraged to contact
the firm
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) ContextLogic's
fourth quarter 2020 MAUs had declined materially and were not then
growing; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, defendants
materially overstated the Company's business metrics and financial
prospects.
Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI)
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - March 30, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 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, in their statements concerning
the data breach, failed to speak fully and truthfully because they
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had
downplayed the data breach in January 2021; (2) that attackers had
obtained administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained
access to, among other things, all databases, all user database
credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO)
cookies; (3) that, as a result, intruders already had credentials
needed to remotely access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
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]
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 16 disclosed that
purchasers of Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR) securities
between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021 (the "Class Period") have
until July 13, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
Danimer Scientific class action lawsuit. The first-filed case is
Rosencrants v. Danimer Scientific, Inc., No. 21-cv-02708, and it is
assigned to Judge Margo K. Brodie of the Eastern District of New
York.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Danimer Scientific securities during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Danimer
Scientific class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the
movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by
the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Danimer Scientific class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Danimer Scientific class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Danimer Scientific
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Danimer
Scientific class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Danimer Scientific class action lawsuit,
please provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via
e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Danimer Scientific class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than July 13, 2021.
In December 2020, Live Oak Acquisition Corp., a publicly traded
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), consummated a
business combination with Meredian Holdings Group, Inc., a
performance polymer company specializing in bioplastic replacements
for traditional petrochemical-based plastics. Following the
business combination, Live Oak changed its name to "Danimer
Scientific, Inc.," changed its business to legacy Danimer
Scientific's business, and replaced its management with legacy
Danimer Scientific's management. Since 2020, Danimer Scientific has
sold polyhydroxyalkanoates ("PHAs") commercially under its
proprietary "Nodax" brand name for usage in a wide variety of
plastic applications including water bottles, straws, and food
containers, among others. Danimer Scientific has touted Nodax as a
100% biodegradable, renewable, and sustainable plastic, which is
purportedly superior to traditional plastics because of its
advanced biodegradability. Danimer Scientific attributes Nodax's
advanced biodegradability to microorganisms in nature that eat the
bioplastic.
The Danimer Scientific class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Danimer Scientific had
deficient internal controls; (ii) as a result, Danimer Scientific
had misrepresented, among other things, its operations' size and
regulatory compliance; (iii) defendants had overstated Nodax's
biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; and (iv) as
a result, Danimer Scientific's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 20, 2021, The Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") published an
article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the
Ocean, Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things,
Danimer Scientific's claims that Nodax breaks down far more quickly
than fossil-fuel plastics. The WSJ article alleged that, according
to several experts on biodegradable plastics, "many claims about
Nodax are exaggerated and misleading." While Danimer Scientific
reportedly asserts its claims are factual, the article cites at
least one expert as stating that making broad claims about Nodax's
biodegradability "is not accurate" and is "greenwashing." On this
news, Danimer Scientific's stock price fell nearly 13%, damaging
investors.
Then, on April 22, 2021, analyst Spruce Point Capital Management
issued a report on Danimer Scientific writing that Danimer
Scientific represented "Another Go Around At Plastic Alternatives
With Several Corporate Governance Red Flags: 65%-100% Downside
Risk." In this report, Spruce Point alleged that "Danimer's growth
expansion story is likely to fail as did others that have
previously tried. The most surprising aspect of Danimer's business
is not its lackluster technology, as highlighted by the Wall Street
Journal's March 2021 article, but the several corporate governance
red flags we have found involving the past and current CEOs, the
CTO and current Danimer executives and Directors." Spruce Point
continued: "We question the independence of Danimer's scientific
research as Danimer has been a financial backer of the University
of Georgia Lab and several professors who authored the supporting
research . . . . We also believe Danimer has concealed, through
numerous website changes and omission of past press releases, a
pattern of conflicting and irreconcilable statements on capacity,
facility size, and capex costs . . . ." On this news, Danimer
Scientific's stock price fell an additional 8%.
Finally, on May 4, 2021, Spruce Point issued a follow up report
writing that: "Insights From Danimer FOIA Show Smoking Gun Evidence
of Pricing Inflation And Slackness in Capacity." Spruce Point
continued that "with the benefit of a recently released [FOIA]
request from the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection,
we have evidence that suggests Danimer's production figures, its
pricing, and rosy financial projections are wildly overstated.
Monthly Kentucky PHA production figures have been restated by up to
100% after coming public. Danimer's PHA average selling price
appears to be 30% - 42% below management's claims. Moreover,
Danimer's recently reported production figures are so far below
their actual capacity, that it calls into question why is Danimer
telling investors it needs hundreds of millions of dollars in
capacity expansion?" On this news, Danimer Scientific's shares
further fell an additional 6%, damaging investors.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion
-- in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 619-231-1058
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
DEBTQUEST USA: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DebtQuest USA LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DebtQuest USA LLC, Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-05101 (C.D. Cal., June
23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Debt Quest USA LLC -- https://debtquest.com/ -- is a debt
settlement company that was founded in 2018 in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
DILWORTH SCHOOL: Sex Abuse Class Action Dropped by Lawyers
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Binning, writing for NZ Herald, reports that a class
action taken by men who suffered historic abuse at one of the
country's wealthiest schools has been dropped by lawyers who say
court battles can be expensive and lengthy, especially against
"deep-pocketed defendants" like Dilworth.
The decision has come as a major blow to former students who feel
the school should be compensating them for the abuse they suffered
during the 1970s through to 2000.
"I decided to be part of [the class action] because Dilworth itself
needs to be held accountable for gross negligence and a failure in
duty of care," one victim told the Herald.
Now he's "angry and disappointed" at the decision not to proceed.
"At the end of the day, it's always about money. That's the bottom
line, so the human factor comes second to that."
It's understood around 40 former students had banded together in
the hope of taking a class action against the private boarding
school after the extent of the historic sexual abuse emerged last
year as part of Operation Beverly.
The ongoing police investigation has uncovered more than 100
victims and resulted in the arrests of 11 former staff and tutors,
one of whom has pleaded guilty and been sentenced and three of whom
have since died.
GCA Lawyers principal Grant Cameron claimed late last year that a
class action was justified on the basis that Dilworth had breached
its fiduciary duty.
"Basically there was a systemic failure on the part of the school
to provide the protective environment that was lawfully required."
However, today the law firm has contacted the former students to
say it had decided not to proceed with the case.
Cameron said there was a chance the school could "do the right
thing" and agree to a private settlement but the reality of a
substantive legal battle had to be considered.
That meant the firm had to look at factors like the time, risk and
cost of litigation and the high degree of stress for victims to
make a decision on whether to proceed.
"In turn, those factors have to be weighed against the typical
defendant's strategy of 'delay, deny, defend'. Put simply, this
means that a deep-pocketed defendant (and Dilworth is one of those)
will often simply delay things, deny everything, and then when
faced with actual proceedings, will choose to fight/defend, for as
long as possible.
"Such strategy is designed to wear down the plaintiff and cause
them to run out of money or motivation, whereupon the problem just
'goes away'.
"Unfortunately, where there is an inequality of arms, such a
strategy can often be very effective, and there is certainly an
inequality of arms here."
Cameron said the only option was to try and find a finance company
that would support a worthy and commercially attractive case - but
he felt that was unlikely in this case.
He said the school's legal team was approached in November about
having a meeting but "I was told that they were not interested at
this time."
The law firm has been approached for comment.
Another former student said it was frustrating Dilworth, which has
apologised for the historic offending, hadn't been proactive in
offering compensation in the first place.
"There's been a lot of good reasons why a class action wouldn't
succeed [but] it has been particularly galling that the Dilworth
School Trust Board hasn't taken the initiative and formulated an
offer of compensation themselves.
"This is especially so given that the old boys who were sexually
abused over the course of many decades by teachers, senior staff,
clergy and senior pupils of Dilworth School have had to live with
the deep-rooted consequences of the abuse every day for the whole
of our lives."
The man says he has struggled with relationships, had anger issues
and suffered PTSD as a result of the abuse he suffered as a
9-year-old.
"I live with the consequences of this every day, every waking
moment," he said.
"For most of my life I have felt guilt, fear, shame, humiliation
and embarrassment over the abuse."
The man said the boys lived in a constant climate of silence, fear
and retribution at the boarding school.
"When I felt brave enough to approach and tell a senior Dilworth
staff member about what was happening he told me to stop lying. I
was threatened with the cane if I spoke about it again.
"The abuse from the time it first happens robs you of your
identity, who you are, your core self, and you can spend the rest
of your life searching but not finding or being your real self.
That's the legacy of Dilworth School."
He is now pleading with the school to do the right thing.
"What would mean so much more would be if an offer of compensation
came from the Trust Board of Dilworth School, them saying 'guys,
we're listening, we believe you, the school was supposed to look
after you and we're sorry we got it so wrong'."
Dilworth Trust Board chairman Aaron Snodgrass said the school
wasn't aware of any class action proceedings, besides what it had
heard in the media.
Snodgrass was vague when asked whether the school would consider
negotiating a settlement outside of court.
"Dilworth has reached out to old boys acknowledging and apologising
for any historical abuse, and has offered assistance in the form of
free, independent and confidential listening and counselling
services," he said.
"We have also invited old boys to get in touch directly should they
wish to talk to us about their particular circumstances."
Were you abused? Where to get help:
* The Operation Beverly team handling the Dilworth investigation
can be reached on (09) 302 6624 or email
operation.beverly@police.govt.nz
* If it's an emergency and you feel that you or someone else is
at risk, call 111.
* If you've ever experienced sexual assault or abuse and need to
talk to someone call the confidential crisis helpline Safe to Talk
on: 0800 044 334 or text 4334. (available 24/7)
* Mosaic - Tiaki Tangata: 0800 94 22 94 (available 11am-8pm)
* Dilworth has a free and confidential listening and counselling
service and is happy to meet with anyone who wants to talk. Contact
the school for more information.
If you have been abused, remember it's not your fault. [GN]
DIMENSION SERVICE: Court Enters Initial Pretrial Order in "Johnson"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER N. JOHNSON, v.
DIMENSION SERVICE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-02444-ALM-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered a
preliminary pretrial order:
-- Initial Disclosures
The parties shall make initial disclosures by June 29, 2021.
-- Venue and Jurisdiction
There are no contested issues related to venue or
jurisdiction at this time.
-- Parties and Pleadings
Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional
parties shall be filed by December 17, 2021. If the case is
a
class action, the parties agree that the motion for class
certification shall be filed by May 23, 2022.
-- Issues
Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by placing calls to her cell
phone in violation of the TCPA as her number was registered
on the national do-not-call registry. She seeks to represent
a class of persons who also received these calls despite
being registered on the national do-not-call registry.
Plaintiff seeks damages of $500 per call individually and for
the putative class members. She seeks up to $1,500 per call
individually and for the putative class members if
the violations are determined to be willful.
Plaintiff has made a jury demand. Defendant denies the
allegations.
-- Discovery Procedures
All discovery shall be completed by MARCH 14, 2022. For
purposes of complying with this order, all parties shall
schedule their discovery in such a way as to require all
responses to discovery to be served prior to the cut-off
date, and shall file any motions relating to discovery
within the discovery period unless it is impossible or
impractical to do so.
If the parties are unable to reach an agreement on any matter
related to discovery, they are directed to arrange a
conference with the Court.
-- Dispositive Motions
Any dispositive motion shall be filed by May 23, 2022.
-- Expert Testimony
Primary expert reports must be produced by APRIL 1, 2022.
Rebuttal expert reports must be produced by MAY 2, 2022. If
the expert is specifically retained, the reports must conform
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), unless otherwise agreed to by
the parties. If the expert is not specifically retained, the
reports must conform to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C), unless
otherwise agreed to by the parties. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(b)(4)(A), leave of court is not required to depose a
testifying expert.
-- Settlement
Plaintiff (s) will make a settlement demand JANUARY 17, 2022.
Defendant will respond by February 2, 2022. The parties agree
to make a good faith effort to settle this case. The parties
understand that this case will be referred to an attorney
mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement
conference in March 2022. In order for the conference to be
meaningful, the parties agree to complete all discovery that
may affect their ability to evaluate this case prior to the
settlement conference. The parties understand that they will
be expected to comply fully with the settlement order which
requires inter alia that settlement demands and offers be
exchanged prior to the conference and that principals of the
parties attend the conference.
Dimension Service is located in Dublin, Ohio, and is part of the
property/casualty insurance carriers industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Sr6OMv at no extra charge.[CC]
DOUG SCHULTE: Bid to Strike Memo in Support of Class Cert. Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaw, et al., v. Doug
Schulte, Brandon McMillan and Herman Jones Schulte, Case No.
6:19-cv-01343 (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered
an order overruling as moot motion to strike supplemental
memorandum of law in support of plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The motion to strike is found moot as plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is also moot and has already been overruled, says
Judge Vratil on June 22, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that DraftKings Inc.
won preliminary approval in the District of Massachussetts of a
proposed $8 million settlement of class action claims that it
engaged in advertising campaigns that misrepresented the difficulty
of daily fantasy sports contests and the terms of promotional
offers.
Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. also granted provisional certification
of a settlement class comprised of all people in the U.S. who made
a first-time deposit into their DraftKings Daily Fantasy Sports
account before Jan. 1, 2018, and who have taken a net loss.
The parties filed the proposed settlement in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. [GN]
EML PAYMENTS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Money-Laundering
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Queensland tech firm
EML Payments could face a class action for allegedly failing to
disclose a money-laundering probe into its Irish subsidiary to
shareholders.
Maurice Blackburn lawyers say EML's shares plummeted 45 per cent on
the Australian Stock Exchange on May 19 when it announced that the
Central Bank of Ireland had "significant regulatory concerns" about
its subsidiary PFS Card Services (Ireland) Ltd.
The central bank said it was concerned about the EML unit's
compliance with Irish anti-money laundering and counter terrorism
financing rules.
Maurice Blackburn said the Queensland firm announced days later
that it had actually had "increased interaction" with the Irish
central bank since mid-December.
Maurice Blackburn senior associate Michael Donelly says EML should
have disclosed that information to the market and shareholders
immediately, rather than waiting until after the Central Bank of
Ireland's announcement in May.
"Under Australian law, companies are required to inform the market
of all relevant developments to ensure transparency," Mr Donelly
said in a statement on June 11.
"On any reasonable interpretation, it appears the company should
have disclosed its interaction with the Central Bank of Ireland at
the first available opportunity."
He said EML may have breached continuous disclosure laws or engaged
in "misleading or deceptive conduct".
Mr Donelly said the Irish central bank's investigation was of
"grave concern" for EML shareholders.
"An object of the anti-money laundering laws is to promote public
confidence by the disruption of money laundering," he added.
"Shareholders are entitled to expect that a company involved in
international finance would have best practice governance and risk
control frameworks and not run foul of regulators."
Maurice Blackburn has called anyone who held shares in EML between
November 11, 2019 and May 18 this year to register for the class
action. [GN]
ENSUREM II: Class Certification Bids Must Be Filed by Jan. 17, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BALTIMORE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. ENSUREM II, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-10443-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani
entered a Scheduling Order:
1. Initial Disclosures
Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and
by this court's Notice of Scheduling Conference were to be
served by June 4, 2021.
2. Amendments to Pleadings
Except for good cause shown, no motions seeking leave to add
new parties or to amend the pleadings to assert new claims or
defenses may be filed after August 27, 2021.
3. Fact Discovery -- Final Deadline
All discovery, other than expert discovery, must be completed
by October 13, 2021.
4. Expert Discovery.
a. Plaintiff's trial expert(s) must be designated and the
information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) must
be disclosed by November 3, 2021.
b. Defendant's trial experts must be designated and the
information contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) must
be disclosed by December 3, 2021.
c. Expert depositions must be completed by January 3, 2022.
5. Status Conference
A status conference will be held on January 4, 2022, at 2:30
p.m.
6. Class Certification
Any motion for class certification must be filed by January
17, 2022.
7. Dispositive Motions
Dispositive motions, such as motions for summary judgment or
partial summary judgment and motions for judgment on the
pleadings, must be filed by February 28, 2022.
Ensurem is a licensed and certified representative of Medicare
Advantage HMO, PPO and PPFS organizations and stand-alone
prescription drug plans.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35TRYkJ at no extra charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX CANADA: Blake Cassels Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Henderson, Esq., of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that on June 9, 2021, in Owsianik v
Equifax Canada Co (Equifax), 2021 ONSC 4112, a majority of the
Divisional Court overturned the certification of intrusion upon
seclusion as a common issue in a class proceeding involving a
cyberattack. The decision represents the first time an appellate
court has considered the scope of the tort since the Ontario Court
of Appeal first recognized it as a cause of action in Jones v Tsige
(Jones).
BACKGROUND
In 2017, hackers accessed Equifax's computer network without
authorization, allegedly exposing personal and financial
information of consumers across North America to the hackers.
The plaintiffs commenced a class action alleging various causes of
action, including the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. In the
pleadings, the plaintiffs claimed that Equifax knew that its
computer network was vulnerable to cyberattacks and chose to do
nothing, and that those omissions constituted an intentional or
reckless intrusion upon seclusion. This claim represented a novel
application of the tort against a defendant who was the victim of a
cyberattack perpetrated by a third party.
The tort of intrusion upon seclusion was first recognized in Jones
in 2012. To make out a claim for intrusion upon seclusion, the
plaintiff must show that:
1. The defendant committed an intentional (or reckless) and
unlawful intrusion into the plaintiff's affairs;
2. The matter intruded upon was private;
3. The intrusion would be highly offensive to the reasonable
person; and
4. The intrusion caused the plaintiff distress, humiliation, or
anguish.
Since Jones, intrusion upon seclusion has been certified as a
common issue in several privacy class actions, although some courts
had expressed doubt that such a claim could succeed against a
defendant who was not itself an "intruder." A central issue in
Equifax was whether it was plain and obvious that the plaintiff's
intrusion upon seclusion claim was doomed to fail, because the
defendant was the victim rather than the perpetrator of the
cyberattack.
The motion judge certified the plaintiff's claim for intrusion upon
seclusion on the basis that it represented a novel application of
the tort. He found that the question of whether a defendant who
recklessly permits a cyberattack to occur is liable for intrusion
upon seclusion had not yet been settled. For this reason, he
concluded it was not plain and obvious that the claim would fail.
DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION
A majority of the Divisional Court held that the plaintiff's claim
for intrusion upon seclusion did not disclose a reasonable cause of
action and should not have been certified. Accepting the pleaded
facts as true, the majority found that Equifax was not an intruder
because it was the hackers that perpetrated the cyberattack.
Considering that Jones requires the defendant to commit the
intrusion, the plaintiffs' claim amounted to more than an
incremental development in the law and was doomed to fail. The
majority also emphasized that the tort of negligence adequately
addressed the conduct alleged by the plaintiff, provided that class
members could prove they suffered compensable damages.
The majority relied on recent guidance from the Supreme Court of
Canada in Atlantic Lottery Corp Inc v Babstock (Babstock) (see
Blakes Bulletin: SCC Waves Goodbye to Waiver of Tort) that claims
-- even novel claims that are doomed to fail should be disposed of
at an early stage of the proceedings. Babstock underscored that
such claims present "no legal justification for a protracted and
expensive trial." The majority in Equifax found that the
plaintiff's intrusion upon seclusion claim needed to be vetted at
the pleadings stage.
The dissenting judge did not consider Babstock to be applicable to
this case because the plaintiff alleged a novel application of a
recognized tort rather than an entirely new cause of action. She
would have found that such a claim constituted an incremental
development of the law that should be allowed to proceed to trial
for adjudication on its merits.
DISCUSSION
While there may be further appeals, the Equifax case represents a
significant development in Canadian privacy law, with the majority
confirming the status of intrusion upon seclusion as an intentional
tort that should not be conflated with negligence. The defendant
must be the party to commit the intrusion - intrusion upon
seclusion is not a viable cause of action where the plaintiff
alleges only that the defendant failed to act to prevent a
cyberattack.
The majority judgment also reaffirms the cause of action
certification criterion as a meaningful screening tool. Equifax
confirms that novel claims, including a novel application of a
recognized cause of action, should be fully vetted at the pleadings
stage if it is possible to do so. [GN]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Matatov Files FCRA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services LLC. The case is styled as Kenia Matatov, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information
Services LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01078-DMF (D. Ariz., June 22,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Equifax Information Services LLC --
https://www.equifax.com/personal/ -- provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Ali Chami, Esq.
PRICE LAW GROUP APC
8245 N 85th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone: (818) 600-5515
Fax: (866) 401-1457
Email: david@pricelawgroup.com
EVEN HEALTH: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Even Health, Inc. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Even Health, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05508 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Even Health -- https://www.even.health/ -- is a mental resilience
company creating technology that offers support and anonymity for
life's expected and unexpected challenges.[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
FCA US: Ortiz Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael J. Ortiz, J & J Trucking Services,
L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. FCA US LLC, John Does 1-10, Case No. CAM L 001354 21 was removed
from the Superior Court of Camden County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on June 10, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-12406-NLH-MJS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
FCA US -- https://www.fcagroup.com/ -- designs, engineers,
manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger
cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as
well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lee M. Perlman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LEE PERLMAN
1926 Greentree Road, Suite 100
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Phone: (856) 751-4224
Email: leemperlman@comcast.net
- and -
Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
26 Newton Avenue
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Phone: (856) 845-1968
Email: lewisadler@verizon.net
The Defendants are represented by:
James Simon Coons, Esq.
ANSA ASSUNCAO, LLP
100 Matwan Road, Suite 410
Matawan, NJ 07747
Phone: (732) 993-9858
Fax: (732) 993-9851
Email: james.coons@ansalaw.com
FEIN SUCH: Class Certification of New Jersey Consumers Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALE SMITH, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. FEIN, SUCH, KAHN &
SHEPARD, P.C., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-05921-CCC-AME
(D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
1. granting conditional certification of a settlement class
defined as:
"All New Jersey consumers who were sent letters and/or
notices from FEIN SUCH, between May 15, 2019 and May 15,
2020, concerning a debt owed to another, which stated an
amount due that included "Attorney's Fees" prior to any court
having awarded such attorney's fees;"
2. approving conditionally the settlement of this action upon
the terms and conditions set forth in the Class Action
Settlement Agreement;
3. conditionally approving the defined Class for the purposes of
Settlement;
4. approving the form and substance of, and the directing the
manner of service of, the notice to the Class;
5. Setting a date, time and place for a Fairness Hearing; and
6. granting the parties to this action and the Class such other
and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
Fein, Such, Kahn, & Shepard, P.C. operates as a law firm.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wW4zQh at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin Wolf, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregg Tabakin, Esq.
FEIN, SUCH, KAHN & SHEPARD, P.C.
7 Century Drive, Suite 201
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (973) 867-4507
E-mail: gtabakin@fskslaw.com
FLORISSANT, MO: Oral Argument for Class Cert. Reset to August 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BAKER, et al., v.
CITY OF FLORISSANT, Case No. 4:16-cv-01693-NAB (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Nannette A. Baker entered an order that the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification is reset for oral argument on the
record on Friday, August 13, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. in the courtroom
of the undersigned in the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Thirteenth
Floor North.
As represented by counsel, this hearing shall be limited to three
hours in total length, with the time to be split evenly between
Plaintiffs and Defendant. The undersigned anticipates the hearing
will break for approximately one hour at 12:00 p.m.
Counsel has a scheduling conflict with the current hearing date of
July 16, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gQD8ld at no extra charge.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Weidman et al., Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL WEIDMAN, et al., v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 2:18-cv-12719-GAD-EAS (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the following Injunctive Relief Class pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2):
"All persons in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, and
Texas who currently own or lease a 2013-2018 Ford F-150
equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore master cylinder not
included in Safety Recall 20S31;"
2. certifying the following Classes pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3):
-- Alabama Class
"All persons who purchased or leased in Alabama a 2013-
2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore
master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31;"
-- California Class
"All persons who purchased or leased in California a
2013-
2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore
master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31;"
-- Florida Class
"All persons who purchased or leased in Florida a 2013-
2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore
master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31;"
-- Georgia Class
"All persons who purchased or leased in Georgia a 2013-
2018 Ford F-150 equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore
master cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31;" and
-- Texas Class
"All persons who purchased or leased in Texas a 2013-2018
Ford F- 150 equipped with a Hitachi made step-bore master
cylinder not included in Safety Recall 20S31;"
3. appointing the Plaintiffs Paul Weidman, Jean Louis Thuotte,
Sr., Steve Mitchell, Marty Cobb, Amanda Gollott, and Teresa
Perry as Class Representatives; and
4. appointing E. Powell Miller, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Adam
J. Levitt, and Mark P. Chalos as Co-Lead Class Counsel
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
This case involves model years 2013-2018 Ford F-150 trucks that
suffer from a common, latent defect: a central component of their
braking system -- the brake master cylinder -- is susceptible to
sudden loss of hydraulic brake fluid pressure (the "Brake System
Defect" or the "Defect"). When that happens, drivers experience an
unexpected loss of braking power and increase in stopping distance
and pedal travel, risking crashes and injury to themselves and
others. Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford") knew about the Brake
System Defect as early as 2011 -- well before the sale of the Class
Vehicles --but, putting profits over safety, intentionally
concealed its existence from the public. As a result, Plaintiffs
and Class members unknowingly bought over one million vehicles with
the Brake System Defect.
The Plaintiffs have purchased or leased Class Vehicles in Alabama,
California, Florida, Georgia, and Texas and have brought claims
against Ford for its unfair and deceptive marketing practices, and
for its fraudulent omission and concealment of the Brake System
Defect. All Plaintiffs experienced brake system failure due to the
Brake System Defect, the complaint says.
Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford, is an American
multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn,
Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and
incorporated on June 16, 1903.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2T5qS7d
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
Melvin Butch Hollowell, Jr., Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 West University Drive, Ste. 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
mbh@millerlawpc.com
- and -
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
jtangren@dlcfirm.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Annika K. Martin, Esq.
Evan J. Ballan, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Ave S, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
akmartin@lchb.com
eballan@lchb.com
FOREST CITY: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Response Extended to July 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rapp v. Forest City
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02059 (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker entered an order granting
extension of time to file response/reply to motion to extend the
time to file a response to plaintiff Mark Rapp's motion for
conditional class certification and appointment of class counsel
until July 1, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Forest City Technologies processes and applies pre-applied
adhesives, sealants and coatings.[CC]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: August 2 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Wong Law Offices recently reminded certain shareholders
about the commencement of important class action. The law offices
said that anyone who has suffered a loss and wants the court to
appoint them as a lead plaintiff has until the lead-plaintiff's
deadline. There won't be any cost or obligation to them.
Frequency Therapeutics (NASDAQ: FREQ)
August 2, 2021, is the Lead Plaintiff Deadline
November 16, 2020, to March 22, 2021, was the Class Period
Allegations against Frequency Therapeutics include that: the Phase
2a trial results the company got did not meet the company's
expectations as there wasn't any discernable difference between the
placebo and FX-322. However, despite the disappointing results the
company got, they continued to conduct the trial while giving
positive statements in pharmaceutical presentations, SEC filings,
press releases, earning calls about the potential of FX-322. These
statements misled the market, but it inflated the value of the
company's common stock. [GN]
HAWAI'I DPS: Provisional Certification of Class & Subclasses Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CHATMAN, FRANCISCO
ALVARADO, ZACHARY GRANADOS, TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH DEGUAIR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAX
N. OTANI, Director of State of Hawai'i, Department of Public
Safety, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00268-JAO-KJM
(D. Haw.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
provisionally certifying the proposed Classes and subclasses for
the purposes of the preliminary injunctive relief.
The Hawaii Department of Public Safety is a department within the
executive branch of the government of the U.S. state of Hawaii.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2T7YUrv
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric A. Seitz, Esq.
Gina Szeto-Wong, Esq.
Jonathan M.F. Loo, Esq.
Kevin Yolken
ERIC A. SEITZ
ATTORNEY AT LAW
A LAW CORPORATION
820 Mililani Street, Suite 502
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
Telephone: (808) 533-7434
E-Mail: eseitzatty@yahoo.com
szetogina@gmail.com
jloo33138@yahoo.com
kevinyolken@gmail.com
HUNGRYPANDA US: Weng Suit Losses Conditional Collective Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Weng v. HungryPanda US,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11882-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order that the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional collective certification is denied without
prejudice to its renewal following resolution of dispositive motion
practice.
The Court is in receipt of Defendants' letter motion dated June 17,
2021, requesting that the Court deny Plaintiff's pending motion for
conditional collective certification, as well as Plaintiff's above
reply to Defendants' letter. The Court deems it prudent to resolve
Defendants' anticipated motion for judgment on the pleadings, which
may be dispositive of the matter, before taking up the issue of
collective certification. Accordingly, the Court again concludes
that Plaintiff's motion is premature. The Court is mindful of the
concerns Plaintiff raises regarding the running of the statute of
limitations for potential opt-in members, but notes Plaintiff's
ability to request, and the Court's authority to grant, equitable
tolling of the limitations period as appropriate to account for
delays in reaching the collective certification stage of the
litigation.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j4HYgi at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Joint Stipulation on Class Cert Discovery OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Batchelar v. Interactive
Brokers, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01836 (D. Conn.), the Hon.
Judge Alvin W. Thompson entered an order approving the joint
stipulation regarding class certification discovery:
-- The Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Modify the
Scheduling Order Dated March 10, 2021 is granted.
-- The deadline for completion of non-expert document discovery
related to class certification is June 28, 2021. However,
access to Source Code repositories shall continue under terms
of existing orders.
-- The deadline for completion of fact depositions related to
class certification is July 28, 2021.
-- The deadline for plaintiff's designation of class
certification experts and expert reports is August 25, 2021.
-- Plaintiff must produce experts for depositions by September
24, 2021.
-- The deadline for defendants' designation of class
certification experts and expert reports is October 13,
2021.
-- The Defendants must produce experts for depositions by
October 27, 2021.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by
December 1, 2021.
-- The Defendants' opposition to the motion for class
certification is due by December 29, 2021.
-- Plaintiff's reply to the opposition to the motion for class
certification is due by January 12, 2022.
The nature of suit states Diversity -- Breach of Contract.
Interactive Brokers is an American multinational brokerage firm. It
operates the largest electronic trading platform in the U.S. by
number of daily average revenue trades.[CC]
JOSE PEPPER'S: Florece FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRA FLORECE on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, v. JOSE PEPPER'S
RESTAURANTS, L.L.C. and EDWARD J. GIESELMAN, Case No.
2:20-cv-02339-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. granting conditional class certification for settlement
purposes under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) for the following class of persons:
"All persons who worked as hourly nonexempt servers at
Defendants' thirteen restaurant locations in the state of
Kansas from May 21, 2018 through May 21, 2021;"
2. granting conditional class certification for settlement
purposes under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 for the following class of
persons:
"All persons who worked as hourly nonexempt servers at
Defendants' four restaurant locations in the state of
Missouri from July 7, 2017 through May 21, 2021;"
3. preliminarily approving the terms and conditions -- including
the notice, objection, and claim process -- set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement Agreement and Release.
Jose Pepper's Restaurants is located in Overland Park, Kansas. This
organization primarily operates in the Mexican Restaurant
business.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated June 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35RRZW8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brendan J. Donelon, Esq.
DONELON PC
4600 Madison, Suite 810
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 221-7100
Facsimile: (816) 709-1044
E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com
- and -
Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
Erin D. Lawrence, Esq
BOULWARE LAW LLC
1600 Genessee, Suite 416
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 492-2826
Facsimile: (816) 492-2826
E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com
erin@boulware-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tyler C. Hibler, Esq.
Jessica L. Barranco, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
Kansas City, MO 64112-2551
Telephone: (816) 983-8325
Facsimile: (816) 983-8080
E-mail: Tyler.Hibler@huschblackwell.com
Jessica.barranco@huschblackwell.com
KIMPTON HOTEL: July 23 Deadline to File Class Cert. Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKE THOMAS, et al., v.
KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01860-MMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated and agreed that the new
briefing and hearing schedule for the Motion for class
certification shall be as follows:
-- July 23, 2021 Shall be the new deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their Motion;
-- August 20, 2021 Shall be the new deadline for
Defendant to file its opposition to
the Motion;
-- September 9, 2021 Shall be the new deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their reply in
support of the Motion; and
-- October 1, 2021 Shall be the new hearing date for the
Motion, or such other time thereafter
at the Court's earliest convenience.
Kimpton Hotel is a San Francisco, California, based hotel and
restaurant brand owned by the Intercontinental Hotels Group.
Founded in 1981 by Bill Kimpton and led by Chief Executive Officer
Mike DeFrino, the group was the largest chain of boutique hotels in
the United States in 2011.
A copy of Parties' stipulation dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gQzEPN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class, are:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Robert J. Dart, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group,
LLC, are:
Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGARD & SMITH, LLP
633 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Michael K. Johnson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGARD & SMITH, LLP
2185 North California Boulevard, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 478-3273
Facsimile: (925) 478-3260
Michael.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com
LIDDLE & LIDDLE: Reopening of Perchlak Suit Taken Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Perchlak v. Liddle
& Liddle, Case No. 2:19-cv-09461-JFW-AFM (C.D. Cal., Filed May 19,
2021), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter entered an order:
1. taking under submission joint motion to reopen case; and
2. taking under submission joint motion for class certification
and preliminary approval of class settlement.
A copy of the Court's Civil Minutes -- General dated June 17, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gWGUbD at no
extra charge.[CC]
LINCOLN LIFE: Vida Longevity Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIDA LONGEVITY FUND, LP,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. LINCOLN
LIFE & ANNUITY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:19-cv-06004-ALC-DCF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying this action, which consists of class claims for breach
of contract, as a class action on behalf of the following class:
"All current and former owners of universal life insurance
policies issued by Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York
with the marketing names SUL I (New York), SUL IV (New York), UL
I (New York), UL II (New York), UL III (New York), and UL LPR
(New York) that were assessed a cost of insurance charge at any
time on or after June 27, 2013."
For the avoidance of doubt, the term "owners" in this definition
are owners of record with Defendant Lincoln Life & Annuity Company
of New York as well as the entitlement holder for a Securities
Intermediary in the event that a Securities Intermediary is the
owner of record. The Class does not include Lincoln NY, its
officers and directors, members of their immediate families, and
the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the foregoing.
The Plaintiff also moves for the appointment of itself as class
representative and for the appointment of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as
class counsel.
Lincoln Life operates as an insurance firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SmNyQ6
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Kirkpatrick, Esq.
Seth Ard, Esq.
Nicholas C. Carullo, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
sard@susmangodfrey.com
ncarullo@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Filing of Renewed Class Cert. Bid Due July 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joshua Hawkins, et al., v.
Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00352 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Apr. 16, 2020), the
Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order that the Plaintiffs
may have until July 13, 2021, to file their renewed motion for
class certification.
As a result, the parties will not be able to comply with the July
19 deadline for filing dispositive motions. Accordingly, that
deadline and the rest of the schedule is struck. The court will
reset the schedule after resolving the issue of class
certification, says Judge Peterson on June 21, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]
MAJESTIC DUDE: Deadline to File Class Cert Bid Extended to Oct. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HOUSE, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. MAJESTIC DUDE RANCH; and
ROBERT A. BUCKSBAUM, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-01505-KLM (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an order
granting the Third Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Class
Certification Deadlines.
The discovery deadline is extended to September 30, 2021. The
deadline for Motion for Collective/Class Certification is extended
to October 31, 2021, says Judge Mix.
A copy of the Court's minute order dated June 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h9kELU at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARKEL AMERICAN: MSPA Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, et
al., v. MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-24063-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) certifying the following
class:
"All Medicare Advantage Plans and downstream actors (or their
assignees) that have borne the cost of a conditional payment in
providing benefits under Medicare Part C, in the United States
of America and its territories, who made payments for a
Medicare
Enrollee's medical expenses where Defendant:
(1) is the primary payer by virtue of having settled a claim
with a Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollee;
(2) settled a dispute to pay for medical expenses with a
Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollee; and
(3) failed to reimburse Medicare Advantage Plans and downstream
actors (or their assignees) for their conditional payments
upon settling with a Medicare Enrollee.
This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its officers,
directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; and
(b) any judges or justices involved in this action and any members
of their immediate families.
The Defendants, Markel American Insurance Company, and Markel
Insurance Company, are primary insurers that issue commercial line
auto and general liability policies. By virtue of those policies,
the Defendants are made primary payers by the MSP Act and are
responsible to either pay the medical expenses of Medicare
beneficiaries before Medicare Advantage Organization class members
pay anything or, if the putative class members pay first for any
reason, Defendants must reimburse them. The class members are,
essentially, private Medicare entities that "stand in the shoes" of
Medicare and are entitled to the same rights and protections when
it comes to their reimbursement rights.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35Q07Xa
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
E-Mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
- and -
John H. Ruiz, Esq.
Frank C. Quesada, Esq.
Shayna K. Hudson, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 Le Jeune Road, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
Facsimile: (866) 582-0907
E-mail: jruiz@msprecoverylawfirm.com
serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
fquesada@msprecoverylawfirm.com
shudson@msprecoverylawfirm.com
MINTED INC: September 16 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL NOTICE
If you were a Minted account holder or have provided Minted your
personal information you could get benefits from a class action
settlement
A class action settlement has been proposed in litigation against
Minted, Inc. ("Minted") relating to a data breach on or about May
6, 2020 in which malicious actors allegedly accessed Minted
customers' personal information. The settlement will provide
payments and credit services to U.S. residents who were Minted
online account holders, or provided Minted their name, email
address, street address and/or other personal information via
email, the Minted website, or other online communications, on or
before June 27, 2020. If you qualify, you may submit a claim form
requesting benefits, or you can exclude yourself from or object to
the settlement. The Court will have a hearing to consider whether
to approve the Settlement, so that the benefits may be paid.
WHO'S AFFECTED?
Residents of the United States who had a Minted online account, or
provided Minted their name, email address, street address and/or
other personal information via email, the Minted website, or other
online communications, on or before June 27, 2020.
WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?
The lawsuit claimed that in or about May of 2020, malicious actors
accessed Minted customers' personal information. The stolen
personal information included names, email addresses and hashed and
salted passwords, and for individuals who provided that
information, telephone numbers, billing and shipping addresses and
dates of birth. Plaintiffs claimed that Minted failed to adequately
protect customers' sensitive personal information. Minted denies
all allegations and has asserted many defenses. The settlement is
not an admission of wrongdoing or an indication that any law was
violated.
WHAT CAN YOU GET FROM THE SETTLEMENT?
Under the Settlement, Minted will pay $5,000,000 (five million
dollars) into a settlement fund to provide payments and other
benefits to Settlement Class Members. From the total settlement of
$5 million, Class Counsel will request no more than 24% to cover
the attorneys' fees and costs, approximately $200,000 will be used
for claims administration and notice to the Settlement Class,
approximately $50,000 will be used to pay the cost of credit
monitoring services for the Settlement Class, and Class Counsel
will seek service awards of $5,000 each for the Class
Representatives. The estimated remaining total to be distributed to
the Settlement Class is approximately $3,540,000. Class members who
submit a valid Claim Form can get:
(1) Payment: A payment of approximately $43.00, subject to an
increase or decrease depending on how many people participate; and
(2) Credit Services: Two Years of Credit Services, including credit
monitoring, fraud alerts, and identity restoration services.
HOW DO YOU GET A PAYMENT?
A detailed notice and claim form provides everything you need. Just
visit the settlement website at www.MintedSettlement.com to get
more information and file a claim. Claim forms are due by September
16, 2021.
WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?
If you do not want to receive a cash payment or other services and
you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude yourself by September 16, 2021, or you won't be able to
sue, or continue to sue, Minted about the legal claims in this
case. If you do not opt out, you are releasing all claims against
Minted based only on the identical facts in this case. If you opt
out, you will not be eligible to receive a cash payment or other
services from this settlement. If you stay in the Class, you may
object to the settlement by September 16, 2021. The detailed Notice
describes how to exclude yourself or object. The Court will hold a
hearing in this case (Atkinson, et al. v. Minted, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:20-cv-03869-VC) on December 2, 2021 to consider whether
to approve the settlement and attorneys' fees and expenses totaling
no more than $1.2 million. You may appear at the hearing, but you
do not have to. For more details, call toll free 888-777-9145, go
to www.MintedSettlement.com, or write to Minted Settlement, c/o
A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217.
1-888-777-9145
https://www.mintedsettlement.com [GN]
MONSANTO COMPANY: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF LONG BEACH, a
municipal corporation; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political
subdivision; CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
SAN DIEGO, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SAN JOSE, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
BERKELEY, a municipal corporation; CITY OF SPOKANE, a municipal
corporation; CITY OF TACOMA, a municipal corporation; CITY OF
PORTLAND, a municipal corporation; PORT OF PORTLAND, a port
district of the State of Oregon; BALTIMORE COUNTY, a political
subdivision; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; all individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY; SOLUTIA INC.; and PHARMACIA LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03493-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move
the Court on July 22, 2021 to enter an order for:
1. Certification of Settlement Class,
2. Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,
-- The Plaintiffs and Defendants Monsanto have reached a
proposed nationwide class action settlement to resolve
allegations that the Defendant's design, manufacture,
sale, promotion, and supply of chemicals known as
polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs") resulted in the
contamination of Plaintiffs' stormwater and other
resources, necessitating treatment and/or remediation to
remove PCBs.
-- Subject only to any potential Litigating Entity Sediment
Site Entity opt-out, the Defendant has agreed to pay $550
million as a net class benefit to be distributed to 2,528
class members across the United States.
-- The Defendant also has agreed to separately pay class
counsel attorneys' fees and expenses, special master
costs, and class administration and notice costs.
3. Approval of Notice Plan,
4. Appointment of Class Action Settlement Administrator, and
5. Appointment of Class Counsel.
-- The Court should appoint Scott Summy, John Fiske, and
Carla Burke Pickrel of Baron & Budd, P.C. as Lead Class
Counsel, and John Gomez of Gomez Trial Attorneys, John R.
Wertz, Esq., and Richard Gordon and Martin Wolf of Gordon
Carney & Wolf as Co-Class Counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d84OQd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class, are:
Scott Summy, Esq.
Carla Burke Pickrel, Esq.
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Ave, No. 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
11440 W. Bernardo Court, Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
E-mail: SSummy@baronbudd.com
cburkepickrel@baronbudd.com
Fiske@baronbudd.com
MSG NETWORKS: Faces Leisz Suit Over Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY LEISZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MSG NETWORKS, INC.; JAMES L. DOLAN; CHARLES
F. DOLAN; KRISTIN A. DOLAN; PAUL J. DOLAN; AIDEN J. DOLAN; THOMAS
C. DOLAN; BRIAN G. SWEENEY; HANK RATNER; WILLIAM J. BELL; STEPHEN
C. MILLS; JOSEPH M. COHEN; JOSEPH J. LHOTA; JOEL M. LITVIN; JOHN L.
SYKES and MADISON SQUARE GARDEN ENTERTAINMENT CORP., Defendants,
Case No. 2021-0504 (Del. Ch.; June 9; 2021) is a shareholder class
action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of MSG Network
stockholders against Defendants for violations of statutory law,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and other violations of state law
arising out of their efforts to effectuate the sale of MSG Network
to a related entity, Madison Square Garden.
According to the complaint, on March 25, 2021, MSG Network, Madison
Square Garden, and Broadway Sub Inc. a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of Madison Square Garden ("Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the
Company surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Madison Square
Garden (the "Proposed Merger"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, MSG Network Class A stockholders will receive 0.172
shares of Madison Square Garden Class A common stock for each share
of MSG Network Class A common stock that they own and MSG Network
Class B stockholders will receive 0.172 shares of Madison Square
Garden Class B common stock for each share of MSG Network Class B
common stock that they own (the "Merger Consideration").
Moreover, the Board intends to submit the Proposed Merger to
stockholders in violation of Section 203 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, which requires a supermajority vote of all MSG
Network stockholders not affiliated with the Dolan Family Group.
Specifically, on May 7, 2021, the Board authorized the filing of a
Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC'), which was subsequently amended on June 2, 2021
by Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4 Registration Statement
(collectively, the "Registration Statement"). The Registration
Statement fails to disclose that the Proposed Merger is governed by
Section 203 and misrepresents the number of affirmative votes of
MSG Network common stockholders required under Section 203 to
complete the Proposed Merger.
The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the Proposed
Merger, or, in the event that the shareholder vote is held, enjoin
the consummation of the Proposed Merger, until such time as the
Company receives the requisite number of shares required by Section
203 for the consummation of the Proposed Merger.
MSG Networks Inc. provides sporting and entertainment services. The
Company offers sports coverage, content management, television
broadcasting, and script writing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
-and-
Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
Brian C. Mears, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
brian.mears@ksfcounsel.com
-and-
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Telephone: (212) 971-1341
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
MYANMAR: CTUM to File Class Action Against Military Council
-----------------------------------------------------------
BNI Multimedia Group reports that Myanmar's highest independent
labour organization has taken steps to file a class-action lawsuit
against the military council to compensate over 70,000 government
workers dismissed by the military junta.
Representing the mass of workers in Myanmar, the Confederation of
Trade Unions Myanmar (CTUM), with about 100,000 members nationwide,
had been working as a member of the tripartite group with the
government and employers since 2015 to settle labour issues,
disputes and amending laws related with labour.
"On behalf of them, we will file a class-action lawsuit against
members of the military council including Junta Chief Min Aung
Hlaing in a foreign court," said Maung Maung, Chairman of the
CTUM,"
The suit will take aim at the properties of military leaders and
their families in foreign countries.
"Their properties are not only in Myanmar but also in Singapore,
Australia, US and in other foreign countries. The money to
compensate over 70,000 governmental employees will come from
selling their properties in foreign countries," he added.
This attempt comes after the CTUM won in a move to reject the
military council's presence at the coming ILO conference by
throwing its weight behind the ILO's credential committee
nomination from countries to be at the ILO conference.
"We do not have enough money to carry out this process. But we have
free international lawyers, pro bono, who can help us," he said.
CTUM has learnt how to proceed from a class-action lawsuit in the
United States against an oil company. It took nine years to settle
that lawsuit at the federal court in the US.
"It can take time. But, we are confident that those who are sacked
from their jobs will be compensated someday," Maung Maung told
Mizzima.
According to a survey carried out by an economic university in
Thailand, over 600,000 workers in Myanmar have lost their jobs
after the Myanmar military coup.
And the survey also estimated that the exports from Thailand to
Myanmar would decrease to 2 billion Thai Baht. In fact, the number
of job losses caused by the military coup is more than that number,
according to the CTUM.
The military council sacked over 50,000 university faculty members
and teachers from their jobs causing a crisis in the education
sector and terminated the livelihoods of health professionals and
workers which is the main reason for the current health crisis.
"Termination happened suddenly and we cannot get another job in
this situation," said a 40-year-old teacher living in Thanlyin. He
claimed he lost his job after joining the Civil Disobedience
Movement (CDM).
The CDM supporting team formed by the National Unity Government
(NUG) and private Myanmar donors living in foreign countries easily
reach employees who lost their jobs for their support of the CDM
due to banking system chaos in Myanmar. Every dismissed employee is
struggling in this difficult time.
CTUM is preparing statistics on government employees who were
sacked from their jobs by the military council. It is estimated
that over 70,000 government employees have been sacked from their
jobs.
After the military coup, the military council has issued an arrest
warrant for 28 members of the CTUM's central committee and declared
their passports null and void.
Some have fled the country and live in exile and some are hiding to
escape arrest.
After the military coup, several leaders of the member labour
unions of the CTUM were arrested by the military council.
CTUM released a statement on 29 January that they did not accept
any attempts to disrupt democratic 16 practices. The military coup
happened on 1 February. On 3 February, the CTUM released a
statement and denounced the military coup and declared that they
dissociated from the tripartite committee with the government.
"The message we want to give is that the military council which
carried out the coup has no ability to bring about the good of the
country," CTUM's Maung Maung told Mizzima. [GN]
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: Parisi Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DEPARTMENT OF
ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU. The case is styled as MICHAEL
PARISI, AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PETITIONERS ON THE ANNEXED
SCHEDULE A v. DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU,
Case No. 607795/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June 22, 2021).
The case type is stated as "OTHER."
The Department of Assessment --
https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/1501/Assessment -- is responsible
for developing fair and equitable assessments for all residential
and commercial properties in Nassau County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
132 SPRUCE STREET
CEDARHURST, NY 11516
Phone: (516) 569-8100
The Defendant is represented by:
NASSAU COUNTY ATTORNEY
1 WEST STREET
MINEOLA, NY 11501
Phone: (516) 571-3056
NCAA: Tingelhoff Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Martin
Tingelhoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01815-JMS-MG (S.D. Ind., June 17, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
NEWARK, NJ: Filing for Class Certification Bids Extended to July 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aziz, et al., v. CITY OF
NEWARK, Case No. 2:20-cv-10309 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John
Michael Vazquez entered an order as follows:
1. The deadline for completion of fact discovery shall remain
Oct. 15, 2021.
2. The deadline for filing Motions for Class Certification is
extended through and including July 23, 2021.
3. A Telephone Status Conference is scheduled for Sept. 30, 2021
at 9:30 a.m., wherein the Court will address the status of
completing fact discovery and determine deadlines for expert
discovery.
4. The parties are instructed to dial 1-888-684-8852 and enter
Access Code 9972150 No. at the time of the Conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Newark is a New Jersey city, home to Newark Liberty International
Airport. The New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) hosts
big-name concerts, dance performances and other shows. Newark
Museum's broad art collection features American paintings and
sculptures.[CC]
NHR HUMAN: FLSA Conditional Certification Bid Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ORTEGA HERNANDEZ v.
NHR HUMAN RESOURCES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03109-PGG-DCF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Debra Freeman entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of an
FLSA collective action and Court-authorized notice (Dkt. 34)
is granted in part and denied in part;
2. The Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is granted in part
and denied in part; and
3. The parties' joint request for an extension of time for
Plaintiff to file a motion for Rule 23 class certification
and to complete discovery is granted.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class
certification shall be filed no later August 30, 2021. Fact
discovery shall be completed no later than September 1, 2021. The
parties are directed to submit to this Court a joint status report
on the progress of discovery and the potential for the settlement
of this action no later than July 30, 2021. The parties are further
directed to submit a joint letter within one week of the Court's
resolution of Plaintiff's anticipated Rule 23 class certification
motion, with a proposed plan for expert discovery, if any."
On October 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification of an FLSA collective and facilitation of notice
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). By this motion, the Plaintiff
seeks to proceed in this case on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons employed by Defendants at any time in
the six years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 18, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35O2s54 at no
extra charge.[CC]
NICHOLAS LEVENE: Giambrone & Partners Attorney Discusses Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Bailey, Esq., of Giambrone & Partners, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that the features common to the majority of
financial frauds are demonstrating to the courts that fraud has
actually taken place and finding the money extracted from the
victims by the fraudsters.
Nearly all perpetrators of investment scams have a history of fraud
and each scam generally involves targeting a large number of
people. Except in the case of investment clubs, the victims are
often unaware that there a considerable number of other people who
have also lost money in the same scam. The ease of and relative
safety of conducting a fraud online was swiftly recognised by
fraudsters who lost no time in devising plausible approaches and
maximising online advertising through social media platforms to
promote their scams.
Superintendent Sanjay Andersen, from the City of London Police's
National Fraud Intelligence Bureau, recently commented, "Reports of
investment fraud have increased significantly since the start of
the coronavirus pandemic, which is unsurprising when you think the
vast majority of us have had to conduct nearly every aspect of our
lives on a computer or mobile phone. Being online means criminals
have a greater opportunity to approach unsuspecting victims with
their scams."
Frequently the shock of losing their money and the realisation that
they have been deceived so easily coupled with the fact that they
are well aware that they voluntarily handed over their money
combines to create the view that there is nothing they can do to
recover their lost funds.
A class action turns the tables, the repeated testimony of the
victims reveals to the court how they were each cynically targeted,
due to their novice status and lack of knowledge of how the markets
function and lured into parting with their money by a combination
of fake friendship, flattery and fabrications regarding the huge
success of their rising "investments". All this, together with the
fact that often the fraudsters use false names, makes it very clear
that the whole exercise was a scam.
Once the fraud has been established and successfully prosecuted
through the courts, the next step is finding the victims' lost
funds. It is no surprise to discover that both the scammed money
and the fraudsters' assets are well hidden through a serpentine
route of off-shore vehicles created to prevent their victims from
gaining compensation for their losses.
Joanna Bailey, an associate in Giambrone's banking and financial
litigation team, pointed out "it is beyond frustration for all
concerned to come up empty-handed after extensive efforts are made
to track down the lost funds" Joanna further commented, "however
there is now another asset the funds from which can be applied to
the compensation of victims following a court ruling that pension
funds can be seized and paid out to victims of financial fraud."
A former City trader, Nicholas Levene, set up a Ponzi scheme to
fund his lavish lifestyle was the subject of a civil class action
by a group of his victims. The Serious Fraud Office obtained a
confiscation order relating to his assets which were assessed as
£1. Whilst Mr. Levene had obviously managed to hide the majority
of his assets but The Serious Fraud Office was able to apply for a
restraint order in relation to Mr. Levene's self-invested personal
pension (SIPP) and the court ruled that the funds could be used to
compensate Mr. Levene's victims when the SIPP matured. The court
decision has placed another asset in the hands of defrauded victims
of scams. The lawyers in Giambrone's banking and financial
litigation team have evolved a number of strategies for accessing
investment fraudsters' assets. [GN]
NORTON HEALTHCARE: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA DISSELKAMP, et al.,
v. NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00048-GNS-CHL
(W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiffs Donna Disselkamp, Erica Hunter, Sey
Momodou Bah, Kathy Reed, and Curtis Cornett, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated move for final approval of the class
action settlement.
The Settlement Class is defined as follows:
"All persons, other than Defendants, who were participants as
of
January 22, 2012, in the Norton Healthcare 403(b) Retirement
Savings Plan ("Plan"), including: (i) beneficiaries of deceased
participants who, as of January 22, 2012, were receiving benefit
payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments in the
future, and (ii) alternate payees under a Qualified Domestic
Relations Order who, as of January 22, 2012, were receiving
benefit payments or will be entitled to receive benefit payments
in the future; and (iii) all persons, other than the Defendants,
who have been participants or beneficiaries in the Plan and had
account balances in the Plan at any time between January 22,
2012, through the date of preliminary approval of the
Settlement."
The Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by causing the Plan injury
through: (i) selecting and maintaining “higher cost share
class” investment options in the Plan, for which substantially
identical investments were available at a lower cost; (ii)
selecting and maintaining a general account stable value fund that
was not sufficiently diversified and that offered below-market
crediting rates as an investment option; (iii) failing to select
the most cost effective share class of mutual fund options; (iv)
paying excessive administrative expenses for administrative
services; (v) failing to include more than one short-term fixed
income option; (vi) failing to monitor other fiduciaries; and,
(vii) failing to supply requested information in violation of ERISA
section 104(b).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gRg6Lb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John S. Friend, Esq.
Robert W. "Joe" Bishop, Esq.
Lauren Freeman, Esq.
BISHOP FRIEND, PSC
6520 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 6
Louisville, KY 40222
E-mail: firm@bishoplegal.net
- and -
Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq.
TOMLINSON LAW, LLC
2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
Birmingham, AL 35203
E-mail: hilton@tomlawllc.com
- and -
James H. White, IV, Esq.
JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC
2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600
Birmingham, AL 35203
E-mail: james@whitefirmllc.com
OLIVER HOSPITALITY: Class of Servers & Bartenders Get Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRSTEN E. JOSE, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. OLIVER
HOSPITALITY, LLC, and CH TENNESSEE, LLC d/b/a CHARLESTOWNE HOTELS,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00269 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge
Jeffery S. Frensley entered an order granting the parties' joint
motion and stipulation for conditional class certification and
notice to putative collective action members and for extension on
deadline to answer first amended collective action complaint:
-- The following class of individuals is conditionally
certified
in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"):
"All current and former servers and bartenders paid an hourly
rate lower than $7.25 employed at the Fairlane Hotel in
Nashville, Tennessee at any time since April 1, 2018;"
-- The Notice and Consent Form to the Parties' Joint Motion are
approved for distribution to potential Opt-In Plaintiffs and
shall be used to opt into this action;
-- The Defendants shall, within 21 days of the date this Order
is entered, provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel an Excel
spreadsheet containing the name, last known mailing
address(es), last known e-mail address(es), dates of
employment for each current or former employee in the
conditionally certified class ("Class List");
-- The Plaintiffs and their counsel shall cause the approved
Notice and Consent Forms to issue to potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs via U.S. Mail and e-mail within seven days of
receipt of the Class List at their initial expense without
prejudice to seek reimbursement and shall include a self-
addressed, postage-prepaid envelope with the initial mailing.
Plaintiffs and their counsel may re-issue the Notice and
Consent Form to those mailing addresses returned
undeliverable, or upon request by a potential Opt-In
Plaintiff. Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs must consent to opt-in
to this litigation within 60 days from the mailing and e-
mailing of the Notice and Consent Forms. Any Consent Form
postmarked on or before 60 days from the date of the mailing
of the Notice and Consent Forms, or transmitted to
Plaintiffs' counsel via e-mail or facsimile on or before such
date, shall be deemed timely; and
-- the Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective Action Complaint on or
before 14 days following the close of the 60 day notice
period set by this Order.
Oliver Hospitality is a Nashville, Tennessee based full-service
hospitality concept, development and management group.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TUQrrO at no extra charge.[CC]
OPTIMAL ENERGY: Fails to Pay Inspectors' OT, Wortham Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WORTHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPTIMAL ENERGY RESOURCES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01685 (D. Colo., June 18, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as an Inspector,
asserts that the Defendant classified him and other similarly
situated inspectors as exempt from overtime and paid them a salary
only regardless of the number of hours worked. Despite regularly
working in excess of 40 hours each week, the Defendant denied them
their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges.
Optimal Energy Resources, Inc. provides qualified inspection
personnel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjospehson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Bobo Case Pending Class Cert. Resolution
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Darren Bobo No.
16717753, v. Kate Brown etc.. al, Colette Peters, OR Dept of
Corrections Sup. Hendricks (SCI), Case No. 6:21-cv-00499-SB (D.
Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying this
case pending the resolution of the motion for class certification
in Maney et al. v. Brown et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00570.
This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) and/or related persons in
the District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay
of all individual federal cases that could fit within the putative
classes of plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney. This is one of those cases.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gOGJA7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 947-4700
Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
OREGON: Seeks to Stay Vollert Case Pending Class Cert. Resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY NATHANIEL VOLLERT
No. 18211004, v. KATE BROWN, COLLETTE PETERS, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, SRCI MENTAL HEALTH/MEDICAL STAFF, Case No.
2:21-cv-00585-SB (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an
order staying this case pending the resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570.
This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) and/or related persons in
the District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay
of all individual federal cases that could fit within the putative
classes of plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney. This is one of those cases.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2T3Aa3A at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Esq.
Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 947-4700
Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
OUTDOOR SPORTSMAN: Pratt Says Subscriber Data Illegally Disclosed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Pratt and Larry Jones, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Outdoor Sportsman Group,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-11404, (E.D. Mich., June 15, 2021)
seeks redress for violations of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy
Act.
Pratt and Jones are subscribers to "Guns & Ammo," "RifleShooter,"
and "Handguns magazines." Outdoor Sportsman Group allegedly rented,
exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information about
his magazine subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders,
data cooperatives and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed their information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies. As a result, Plaintiffs
received unwanted junk mail.
Outdoor Sportsman Group, Inc. is the publisher of the magazines
Firearm News, Rifleshooter, Shooting Times, Hunting, In-Fisherman,
and Game & Fish, as well as its flagship publication Guns & Ammo
magazine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
William Kalas, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Tel: (248) 841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
wk@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
David W. Hall, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (305) 357-2107
Fax: (305) 200-8801
Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
dhall@hedinhall.com
OVASCIENCE INC: Court Allows Securities Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Desjourdy, Esq., Batoul Husain, Esq., Morgan Mordecai,
Esq., Emily Notini, Esq., Nicholas Reider, Esq., and Dylan
Schweers, Esq., of Goodwin, in an article for JD Supra, report that
on May 28, 2021, in Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., the
District of Massachusetts allowed alleged control person liability
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
to proceed against certain outside investors in defendant
OvaScience, Inc. In doing so, the court rejected arguments that the
control person claims were untimely. Citing a line of cases
requiring allegations of "actual control" to adequately plead
Section 20(a) claims, the court held that the two-year statute of
limitations applicable to the control person claims does not begin
to run until a plaintiff uncovers, or should have uncovered,
evidence that the control person actually controlled the primary
violator. In denying motions to strike and dismiss the Section
20(a) claims, the court held that public documents showing a
relationship between the control person defendants and OvaScience
were evidence of merely the control person defendants' ability to
control, but not evidence of their actual control, as would be
necessary to start the clock for the statute of limitations on
Section 20(a) claims.
DELAWARE CHANCERY COURT DISMISSES $700M INSIDER TRADING SHAREHOLDER
SUIT FOR LACK OF STANDING
On May 28, 2021, in In re SmileDirectClub, Inc. Derivative
Litigation, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed a stockholder
derivative suit against directors and officers of SmileDirectClub
Inc. ("SDC") arising out of SDC's September 2019 $1.3 billion IPO.
The stockholder suit alleged that SDC's directors and officers
breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched when
they agreed for the Company to use the majority of the IPO proceeds
to buy back nearly $700 million in pre-IPO units from various
insiders, including certain of SDC's directors and officers.
In connection with its IPO, SDC's Form S-1 registration statement
disclosed that SDC intended, and the board agreed, to use IPO
proceeds to complete certain insider transactions for SDC stock
that was pre-valued at the opening IPO price of $21.85 per share.
SDC's Form S-1 also disclosed that these transactions would dilute
its public stockholders. SDC's sales in the IPO ultimately never
reached $21.85 per share, but SDC followed through with its pre-IPO
agreements and used the majority of the IPO proceeds to make the
pre-planned insider transactions at the $21.85 price per share.
The co-lead stockholder plaintiffs, who purchased SDC stock in the
IPO, alleged that SDC's board members breached their fiduciary
duties by opting to cause SDC to pay an "excessively high price"
for the stock acquired in the insider transactions. The defendant
board members moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue the derivative claims because the transactions'
terms were determined before the IPO, and as a result, before the
plaintiffs became SDC stockholders.
Citing Delaware Supreme Court precedent, Vice Chancellor Zurn held
that it is proper to assess standing to assert a breach of
fiduciary duty claim based on when the terms of a challenged
transaction are established, as opposed to when the transaction
ultimately is carried out. Thus, VC Zurn held, where a plaintiff
acquires stock only after a challenged transaction's terms are set
by the board, the stockholder plaintiff lacks standing to bring a
derivative claim challenging those terms. Because the SDC
stockholders plaintiffs in this case purchased SDC stock in the IPO
-- and not before it -- they could not establish that they were SDC
stockholders when the board approved the insider transactions'
terms before the IPO, and thus lacked standing to pursue their
derivative claims.
FLORIDA FEDERAL JUDGE DISMISSES PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION INVESTOR SUIT
OVER COVID-19 RESPONSE
On May 28, 2021, in In re Carnival Corp. Securities Litigation, a
Florida federal judge held that investors failed to show "severe
recklessness" on the part of Carnival Corporation in connection
with the cruise line's public statements regarding its commitment
to and prioritization of health and safety during the height of the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The co-lead shareholder plaintiffs alleged that Carnival "publicly
downplayed the risk of COVID-19" in a January 2020 news article and
in its 2019 Form 10-K, even after one of Carnival's vendors --
based in Wuhan, China -- had alerted Carnival of the "scale and
severity of COVID-19." Plaintiffs further alleged that passengers
and crewmembers became severely ill aboard various Carnival ships,
including 712 people on just one of Carnival's cruise ships who
tested positive for coronavirus, of whom 12 died. The Complaint
alleged that, despite these tragic events, Carnival still
encouraged its sales staff to push selling cruises and to continue
to tout its commitment to health and safety while omitting
references to the risks of COVID-19 in public statements.
In the months that followed, Carnival's stock price declined, and
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in December
2020, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore, however, disagreed with
plaintiffs' allegations that Carnival failed to warn its customers
of the risks of COVID-19. Notably, Judge Moore found that Carnival
was not required to choose a different course of action -- "based
on a conversation with a battery manufacturer in Wuhan, China" --
rather than basing its decision on "guidance and recommendations
from public health officials," such as the Center for Disease
Control or World Health Organization. Judge Moore also found that
most of Carnival's statements concerned its business goals, which
"cannot be objectively measured in the face of a rapidly evolving
global pandemic such as coronavirus." Judge Moore also refused to
"infer" that just because passengers and crewmembers ultimately
fell ill aboard its ships, Carnival was noncompliant with health
and safety standards.
Finally, Judge Moore held that plaintiffs failed to allege a strong
inference that Carnival acted with the requisite scienter, as it
was "plausible" that Carnival believed that the risk to its
business and passengers was relatively low, given that cases
outside of China were only then starting to surface, and because
Carnival took measures to further its health and safety goals,
"even if those efforts [] ultimately prove[d] to be unsuccessful in
the face of a global pandemic." [GN]
PARAGON METALS: Roberts Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIA ROBERTS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PARAGON METALS LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00426-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Section 216(b)
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that provides for the
following:
1. Conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective defined as:
"All hourly production employees employed by Paragon Metals
at any time three years before the filing of this complaint
until the date of final judgment in this matter;"
2. Approving the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent form
for dissemination to members of the proposed FLSA Collective
by regular U.S. mail, email, text message, and social media;
3. Requiring the Defendant to identify all putative members of
the proposed FLSA Collective by providing their full names,
dates of employment, last known address, telephone number,
and email addresses in computer-readable and searchable
format (e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet) within 14 days
of the entry of the order;
4. Giving putative members of the proposed FLSA Collective 60
days from the date the Court-authorized notice and consent
form is mailed to join this case if they so choose; and
5. Requiring that throughout the 60-day notice period requested,
Defendant must post Plaintiffs' proposed notice in its
facility in places likely to be viewed by all members of the
proposed FLSA Collective and to make consent forms available
to them upon request.
The Plaintiff Roberts filed this collective action on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated against Defendant Paragon
Metals LLC under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
violated the FLSA's overtime requirements by failing to compensate
Roberts and others for 14 minutes (or more) of pre-shift work that
they performed before each shift despite Defendant's knowledge that
they performed this work.
Paragon distributes engineered precision components.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gYzR21
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Wilkinson, Esq.
PALADIN EMPLOYMENT LAW PLLC
251 North Rose Street, Suite 200
Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3860
Telephone: (269) 978-2474
E-mail: mark@paladinemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
KREIS ENDERLE HUDGINS
& BORSOS PC
One Moorsbridge
P.O. Box 4010
Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
Telephone: (269) 321-2311
E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com
PHARMACARE US: Court Narrows Claims in Corbett Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTIQUENO CORBETT,
DAMARIS LUCIANO, and ROB DOBBS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. PHARMACARE U.S., INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00137-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
The court also denies the Defendant's motion to strike. The
Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within 20 days of the
filed date of this order, the Court adds.
The Court said, "The Defendant argues that Plaintiff's illegal
products theory fails for lack of Article III standing and
statutory standing. Plaintiffs claim they have Article III standing
to pursue their claims that Defendant's products were not legally
sold supplements under the FDCA and DSHEA, that if they had known
about the illegality of the Products, they would not have purchased
them and they suffered an injury in fact because they lost money
when they purchased the Products. As to statutory standing,
Plaintiffs merely distinguish the cases cited by the Defendant.
As a starting point, both parties conflate the legal analysis and
standard of Article III standing and statutory standing under the
UCL, CLRA and warranty claims. However, Article III standing and
statutory standing are distinct legal analyses. Cetacean Community
v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting distinction
between constitutional and non-constitutional standing); In re
Capacitors Antitrust Litig., 154 F. Supp. 3d 918, 925 (2015)
("Article III standing is different from, and not to be measured
by, statutory standing."); City of Los Angeles v. Well Fargo & Co.,
22 F. Supp. 3D 1047, 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ("Statutory standing is
a different inquiry from Article III standing."). Moreover, to
support its argument, Defendant merely summarily argues that
Plaintiffs' illegal products theory have been rejected by numerous
courts citing to a number of cases. However, Defendant fails to
conduct a legal analysis explaining what element of Article III
standing or statutory standing is deficient and fails to explain
why the allegations in the complaint do not support standing.
Therefore, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of standing as not legally or factually
supported. Nonetheless, the Court must consider Article III
standing because "[s]tanding is a threshold matter central to our
subject matter jurisdiction."
On January 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs Montiqueno Corbett, Damaris
Luciano and Rob Dobbs filed a putative class action complaint
against Defendant PharmaCare for violations of California's
consumer fraud statutes for its sale of twelve dietary supplement
products (Products) under the name Sambucol that include
elderberry. Elderberry is derived from a flowering plant called
Sambucus which has become a popular dietary supplement and has
recently generated $100 million in sales in the United States.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a national class of "All persons in
the United States who purchased the Products (the 'National Class')
for personal use and not for resale." They also seek to certify a
California, Massachusetts and Missouri subclass.
The Plaintiffs allege two theories of consumer fraud: 1) an illegal
products theory; and 2) false and misleading labels, packaging and
advertising theory as well as omissions claims.
PharmaCare offers condition-specific formulas for building immune
health, prostate health and women's health.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vMELEF at no extra charge.[CC]
POSTAL FLEET: Gaugh et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE GAUGH and ZAN KIRBY, individually and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POSTAL
FLEET SERVICES, INC., THE STAGELINE COMPANY, VILANO EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES, INC., LESLIE DON DORRIS, individually, BRENDA DORRIS,
individually, and CRAIG R. GREGORY, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02419 (W.D. Tenn., June 18, 2021) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated persons are current
or former truck drivers and mail carriers of the Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have suffered and
permitted them to perform work, but refused to pay them any
compensation at all for the pay period beginning May 16, 2021
through May 28, 2021. The Plaintiffs also allege the Defendants of
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs seek unpaid minimum wages for themselves and other
similarly situated employees, as well as liquidated damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, litigation costs, expenses and
disbursements together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expert
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The Corporate Defendants operate fleets of trucks, jeeps and other
vehicles for providing dedicated surface transportation services
for the UPS, and jointly employed Plaintiffs and the putative
classes. Leslie Don Dorris is the owner and President of PFS,
Stageline and Vilano, while Brenda Dorris has been the Vice
President and Craig R. Gregory has been the Treasurer. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER,
HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 759-1745
E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
- and –
Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
101 N. Highland Ave.
P.O. Box 266
Jackson, TN 38302
Tel: (731) 423-5565
Fax: (731) 423-5450
E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com
PRIME ENERGY: Roney Seeks Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY RONEY, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PRIME ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00586 (W.D. Tex., June 18, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Inspector from
approximately November 2019 until March 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated inspectors regularly worked more than 40 hours a week
throughout their employment with the Defendant. However, instead of
paying their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they
worked in excess of 40, the Defendant paid them a flat amount only
for each day worked.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and an
additional liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief a the
may be necessary and appropriate.
Prime Energy Services, LLC is a full-service Survey and Inspection
firm that specializes in oil and gas pipelines, gathering systems
and facilities for midstream and exploration & production
companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
William R. Liles, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjospehson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
wliles@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
PROGENITY INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Investor Losses
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Progenity, Inc. (NASDAQ: PROG) against certain current and former
officers and directors.
In June 2020, Progenity completed its initial public offering (the
"IPO"), in which it issued approximately 6.7 million shares for
$15.00 per share.
Several months after the IPO, a class action lawsuit was filed in
federal court against the Company. The complaint filed alleges that
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: (1) that Progenity had
overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early
2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings,
and cash flow from operations for the historical financial periods
provided in the Registration Statement; (2) that Progenity would
need to refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the
same quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting
its quarterly results; and (3) that Progenity was suffering from
accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with
respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues, and product
pricing.
If you have continuously held shares in Progenity long- term, you
may have standing to hold Progenity harmless from the alleged harm
caused by the Company's officers and directors by making them
personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming
the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing.
[click here to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.
If you have continuously held shares in Progenity long-term, you
can click https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/ProgenityInc2
There is no cost or obligation to you.
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
Tel: 619-814-4471
E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
PROVENTION BIO: Gross Announces Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in publicly traded
Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB). Shareholders who purchased
shares in the following companies during the dates listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.
Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)
Investors Affected: November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Provention Bio, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made 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.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17018&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.
Contact:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
E-mail: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Tel: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
PROVENTION BIO: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of July 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Provention Bio, Inc. ("Provention" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: PRVB) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and docketed under 21-cv-11613, is 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 caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Provention securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 20, 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.
Provention is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics
and solutions to intercept and prevent immune-mediated diseases.
The Company's product candidates include, among others, PRV-031
teplizumab and monoclonal antibodies, in Phase III clinical trial
for the interception of type one diabetes ("T1D").
In 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").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (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.
On April 8, 2021, Provention issued a press release "announc[ing]
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 [T1D],
the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of
labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments at this
time."
On this news, Provention's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or
17.78%, to close at $8.00 per share on April 9, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
PURDUE FREDERICK: OxyContin Class Action Moved to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Ray, writing for Altona Mirror, reports that a class action
lawsuit over the marketing of OxyContin has been moved from Bedford
County to the U.S. District Court in Johnstown.
Bedford County is suing on behalf of Pennsylvania's 67 counties and
more than 2,000 municipalities seeking redress for the thousands of
drug overdoses and deaths caused by the oversupply of OxyContin.
The move came late last week when McKinsey & Co. of New York
through its attorney, John J. Berry of Pittsburgh, sought the
case's removal from the Bedford County Court due to the amount of
money involved in the legal action and the fact that McKinsey is a
New York City-based consulting company.
The notice of removal also suggests the case eventually will be
transferred for trial, possibly to the Northern District of
California.
McKinsey's attorney said he would have no comment concerning the
litigation other than what is expressed on the public record.
Bedford County, through its commissioners, filed the case in late
April, and McKinsey was served with a copy of the lawsuit on May
18.
McKinsey had 30 days to seek removal from the county, a step it
took June 10, according to court records.
The civil lawsuit seeks damages based on many different counts, but
all stemming from McKinsey's hiring by the Purdue Frederick Co.,
the parent corporation of Purdue Pharma LP, which distributed the
pain medication, OxyContin.
The hiring came after Purdue was convicted in 2007 of the
"misbranding of OxyContin," contending it was less addictive and
less likely to cause withdrawal symptoms than other similar drugs.
According to the lawsuit, the use of the popular prescription drug
led to "scores" of deaths.
As a result of the 2007 case, Purdue was to be monitored for five
years and the company was to submit annual compliance reports
concerning its marketing and sales practices.
That led Purdue to hire McKinsey, which was described in the
lawsuit as a "global management consulting firm."
McKinsey, it is charged, designed a strategy to increase opioid
sales by "hundreds of millions of dollars annually." Its marketing
strategy was labeled "Project Turbocharge."
This national sales campaign eventually became known as Evole 2
Excellence or E2E.
So, while OxyContin sales decreased after the 2007 court
proceedings, the lawsuit states, the McKinsey strategy brought the
drug back to prominence with a flourish.
In 2018, Purdue decided to no longer market opioids and disbanded
its OxyContin sales force.
The petition filed in the federal court concluded that McKinsey's
marketing plan tripled sales of OxyContin.
The lawsuit pointed out that the result of the campaign was "a
final spasm of OxyContin sales before the inevitable decline of the
drug."
Pennsylvania suffered
That "spasm," as revealed in the lawsuit, had a dramatic impact on
opioid abuse in Pennsylvania:
— In 2009 when the McKinsey campaign was first introduced, the
opioid overdose death rate was 5.2 per 100,000 population. In
subsequent years, the death due to opioid abuse tripled.
— By 2014, overdose deaths increased to 21.9 per 100,000. This
was well above the national average, according to the lawsuit. In
that year, 2,732 Pennsylvanins died due to opioid-related
overdoses.
— The opioid death rate soared to 37.9 deaths per 100,000 as
Project Turbocharge and E2E took hold in 2015 and 2016. In 2016,
Pennsylvania experienced the fourth highest death rate among the
states.
— The abuse of OxyContin eventually led to heroin abuse, and
other problems — with many newborns testing positive for
prescription medication.
The lawsuit goes on to charge that McKinsey's "deceptive marketing
strategies" have caused Bedford County and other class members, its
residents, its businesses and communities to bear enormous social
and economic costs including increased health care, criminal
justice and lost work productivity, among others."
It charges McKinsey civilly with negligence, gross negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, as public nuisance, fraud and deceit,
civil conspiracy (McKinsey and Purdue allegedly violated
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer protection Law),
and unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit seeks reimbursement from McKinsey for medical care
expenses, costs for providing care to children of addicted parents,
the increased costs of law enforcement and costs associated with
drug courts.
The lawsuit asks damages for an "abatement fund" for other expenses
associated with the opioid abuse crisis. It askes punitive damages
as well.
McKinsey strategy
Two of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit, Philadelphia attorney
Barry J. Scatton of the Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group,
and Dallas attorney Matthew Browne of Browne Pelican PLLC, are
experienced in the field of opioid litigation, which is occurring
throughout the country.
They have sought damages from manufacturers and distributors of
opioids but only recently discovered the impact McKinsey's role as
"consultant" had on the opioid problem.
Scatton, a native of Bedford County and a graduate of Bedford Area
High School, became acquainted with Bedford County officials when
they joined another opioid lawsuit, which is still pending.
The Bedford commissioners were willing to go ahead and file the
present class action lawsuit on behalf of 67 counties in
Pennsylvania and its 2,561 municipalities.
The federal court must still certify the group of counties and
municipalities as a "class."
The lawsuit was signed by the chairman of the Bedford Board of
Commissioners, Barry J. Dallara.
The lawsuit stated that Purdue hired McKinsey "to devise a sales
and marketing strategy to increase opioid sales" despite the
agreement Purdue had with the federal government to decrease opioid
sales.
"In short, Purdue would pay money to McKinsey in exchange for
McKinsey telling the company how to sell as much OxyContin as
conceivably possible," the lawsuit stated.
From 2009 through 2014, Purdue relied on McKinsey to oversee its
sales and marketing strategy, it is charged. The company was more
than a consultant, but instead "insinuated" itself into all aspects
of Purdue's business, according to the lawsuit. It estimated that
Purdue could generate up to $400 million in additional revenue per
year by following the McKinsey strategy.
McKinsey advised Purdue to address the "emotional messages from
mothers with teenagers that overdosed on OxyContin." They did this
by marketing OxyContin as a drug that can provide "freedom" and
"peace of mind," thereby reducing stress and isolation.
McKinsey had the company sales force focus on physicians who tended
to prescribe OxyContin "to specifically target prescribers with a
marketing blitz to encourage even further prescribing."
The consultant suggested Purdue strengthen its prescription
strength per-pill. Purdue implemented McKinsey's suggestion through
adoption of a marketing slogan to "Individualize the Dose."
By following McKinsey's advice, OxyContin sales eventually
increased from a billion dollars to $3 billion dollars annually,
according to the lawsuit.
Damages sought to help communities
Scatton and Browne said their lawsuit did not request a specific
amount of damages.
Browne said it was too difficult to estimate damages in view of the
toll opioid abuse has taken across the country.
The lawsuit is seeking money to help counties like Bedford provide
drug treatment, improve social services, provide treatment
facilities and improve law enforcement, Browne said.
Another uncertainty at the moment is where the case will be tried.
Scatton pointed out there are multiple cases presently being filed
against McKinsey, and the federal courts normally try to
consolidate the cases for trial purposes. Many opioid cases have
been consolidated for trial in Cleveland, but he noted that, at the
moment, the McKinsey cases are being transferred to San Francisco
in the Northern District of California.
Many opioid cases were ready for trial last year but the pandemic
"provided a huge punch in the gut" to the opioid litigation,
Scatton said.
He clarified, however, he is willing to go anywhere in the country
to try the case against McKinsey.
Attempts to obtain comment from Bedford County Commissioner
Dallara, or from Pennsylvania's Attorney General were unsuccessful.
[GN]
PURECYCLE TECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT)
Class Period: November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021
Deadline: July 12, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/pct
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter &
Gamble is not proven and presents serious issues even at lab scale;
(2) the challenges posed by the availability and competition for
the raw materials necessary to commercialize the licensed
technology are significant; (3) PureCycle's financial projections
are baseless; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER)
Class Period: December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021
Deadline: July 12, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/ater
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose 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, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
Danimer Scientific Inc. (NYSE: DNMR)
Class Period: October 28, 2020 and May 4, 2021
Deadline: July 13, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/dnmr
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Danimer had deficient internal controls; (2) as
a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter alia, its
operations' size and regulatory compliance; (3) Defendants had
overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in oceans and
landfills; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT)
("PureCycle") f/k/a Roth CH Acquisition I Co. ("Roth Acquisition")
(NASDAQ: ROCH) that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired PureCycle
securities between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired PureCycle
securities during the Class Period may, no later than July 12,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/purecycle-technologies-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=purecycle
PureCycle commercializes a purification recycling technology,
originally developed by The Procter & Gamble Company ("Procter &
Gamble"), for restoring waste polypropylene into resin with
near-virgin characteristics. Roth Acquisition was organized as a
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC").
The Class Period commences on November 16, 2020, when PureCycle
issued a press release announcing plans to become a publicly traded
company via a merger with Roth Acquisition. On March 18, 2021,
PureCycle and Roth Acquisition announced that their anticipated
business combination had been completed after having been approved
by Roth Acquisition's stockholders at a special meeting held on
March 16, 2021. Throughout the Class Period, PureCycle touted the
technology it licensed from Procter & Gamble.
However, the truth was revealed before the markets opened on
May 6, 2021, when analyst Hindenburg Research published a report on
PureCycle entitled "PureCycle: The Latest Zero-Revenue ESG SPAC
Charade, Sponsored by the Worst of Wall Street." In the report,
Hindenburg wrote, among other things, that: (1) Hindenburg "spoke
with multiple former employees of" PureCycle executives' former
companies "who said PureCycle's executives based their financial
projections on 'wild ass guessing', brought companies public far
too early, and had deceived investors"; (2) unlike most "leading
plastics companies [who] publish peer reviewed studies that detail
their advancements in the field," Hindenburg was "unable to find a
single peer reviewed study in any scholarly journal citing or
reviewing PureCycle's licensed process"; (3) "multiple competitors
and industry experts . . . explained that PureCycle faces steep
competition for high quality feedstock, and called the company's
financial projections into question"; and (4) "PureCycle represents
the worst qualities of the SPAC boom; another quintessential
example of how executives and SPAC sponsors enrich themselves while
hoisting unproven technology and ridiculous financial projections
onto the public markets, leaving retail investors to face the
ultimate consequences." Following this news, PureCycle's stock
price fell from a May 5, 2021 closing price of $24.59 per share to
a May 6, 2021 closing price of $14.83, a one-day drop of
approximately 40%.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter &
Gamble was not proven and presented serious issues even at lab
scale; (2) the challenges posed by the availability and competition
for the raw materials necessary to commercialize the licensed
technology were significant; (3) PureCycle's financial projections
were baseless; and (4) as a result, PureCycle's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
PureCycle investors may, no later than July 12, 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]
RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz to Represent Investors in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Pomerantz LLP, with an assist from a local law
firm, will represent a proposed class of investors in a suit in
Pittsburgh federal court alleging natural gas and oil company Range
Resources Corp. improperly reported the status wells it owns and
operates in Pennsylvania. [GN]
READY WIRE: Beaver FLSA Suit Wins Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Beaver, et al., On
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Ready Wire
Electrical Contractors L.L.C., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-05109-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James L. Graham
entered an order:
1. granting the parties' joint motion to conditionally certify
the case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b);
2. granting that notice be provided to putative class members of
plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act suit; and
3. approving the proposed Notice to Potential Class Members,
Consent Form, and Cover Email to the parties' joint motion.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zUf9cw at no extra charge.[CC]
RECONNAISSANCE ENERGY: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Reconnaissance Energy Africa Ltd. (OTC: RECAF)
resulting from allegations that ReconAfrica may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased ReconAfrica 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-2100.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 11, 2021, National Geographic published
an article entitled "Oil company exploring in sensitive elephant
habitat accused of ignoring community concerns: Namibians allege
ReconAfrica disposed of wastewater unsafely, without permits, and
ignored concerns about potential impact of oil drilling on water
and wildlife." The article reported, among other things, that
"ReconAfrica, a Canadian company exploring for oil and gas in
Namibia . . . is disposing of wastewater without permits, according
to a government minister." The article detailed that "[d]rilling
for the first test well began in January, and waste fluids are
being stored in what appears to be an unlined pond, where they
could leach into the ground and contaminate the water supply in
this desert region[,]" and "Namibia's minister of agriculture,
water, and land reform, the agency responsible for water-related
permits, told National Geographic in a written statement that
ReconAfrica does not yet have permits approved to extract water to
use in its drilling operations nor to dispose of the waste
water[.]"
On this news, ReconAfrica's stock price fell 6% to close at $7.50
per share on May 11, 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.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ROMEO'S PIZZA: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 11
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Branning v. Romeo's Pizza,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02092 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Solomon Oliver, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for extension of Rule 23 Motion for Class
Certification until August 11, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
RYAN GILBERTSON: Loses Bid to Decertify Class in Gruber Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON D. GRUBER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RYAN R. GILBERTSON, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-09727-WHP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge William H. Pauley III entered an order:
1. denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment;
2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
to exclude expert testimony;
3. denying the Defendants' motion to decertify the class.
The Court said, "The Defendants finally argue that Gruber's claims
are not typical of all class members because he purchased his
shares after the initial fraud scheme. Defendants note that Gruber
did not begin purchasing shares until February 2013 -- almost a
year after the twenty-day stock manipulation period. Defendants
assert that by then, the APP had been disclosed and digested by the
market. First, Defendants mischaracterize the fraudulent conduct.
The fraud was that Gilbertson and Reger owned a substantial portion
of the notes and conducted a scheme to trigger
the APP, not the existence of the APP. That scheme was never
disclosed throughout the class period. Moreover, the Defendants'
argument omits that Dakota Plains failed to disclose that
Gilbertson and Reger were significant beneficial owners of Dakota
Plains. When Gruber traded in Dakota Plains securities, Gilbertson
and Reger's scheme had not been disclosed. Second, the class
representative is not required to purchase throughout the class
period.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gQGwwD at no extra charge.[CC]
SACRAMENTO, CA: $550K Settlement Over 2019 Protest Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
KXTV reports that a judge has approved a settlement between the
City of Sacramento and demonstrators who took part in a protest in
East Sacramento in March of 2019.
Sacramento officials agreed in March 2020 to pay more than $500,000
in a settlement with 84 people who were arrested during a March
2019 protest in East Sacramento over the district attorney's
decision not to prosecute the officers who shot and killed Stephon
Clark.
According to court documents, The City of Sacramento has 20 days to
deliver a check in the amount of $496,800.00 to the Law Office of
Mark E. Merin, who represented the members of the class-action
lawsuit. The County of Sacramento must deliver a $50,000 check in
the same timeframe. [GN]
SAFECO INS: Filing of Class Status Bids Due March 14, 2022
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSS MOUBER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. SAFECO INS. CO. OF
ILLINOIS, Case No. 4:21-cv-00293-HFS (W.D. Mo.), the Hon Judge
Howard F. Sachs entered an scheduling order that:
1. All motions to join additional or other parties to this
action shall be filed on or before August 16, 2021.
2. All motions to amend pleadings previously filed shall be
filed on or before August 16, 2021.
3. Plaintiffs' motion to certify class shall be filed on or
before March 14, 2022. Defendant's opposition to
certification shall be filed on or before April 14, 2022.
4. Plaintiff's reply shall be filed on or before May 6, 2022.
If the court conditionally certifies a class, the parties shall
submit a proposed schedule for discovery on class member damages
and all remaining issues, including those matters indicated in
the issued Notice of Pretrial Procedures, says Judge Sachs.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vJ8fDy at no extra charge.[CC]
SAFEWAY INC: Sullivan Suit Gets Final OK of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENDRA SULLIVAN, MARIANNA
WILLIAMS, JOHANNA MATHEWS, SHARMARRAY ROSS, STACI GILMAN, KYSHA
DREW AND JEANNIE JONES, individually and as representatives of the
class, v. SAFEWAY INC., THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., VONS SHERMAN
OAKS, LLC, SAFEWAY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., AND SAFEWAY LEASING,
INC. Case No. 3:19-cv-03187-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine
M. Chesney entered an order granting motion for final approval of
class action settlement; granting in part and denying in part
motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and representative service
payments.
-- Final Class Certification for Settlement Purposes
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the
Court finally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the
following class, to be known as the "Settlement Class,"
which
consists of two subclasses as defined in the Agreement:
the "Safeway Subclass" and the "Vons Subclass:"
"All employees and/or prospective employees of Defendants
within the United States who were the subject of a consumer
report by Defendants anytime between and including June 6,
2017, and November 25, 2019, inclusive, for the Safeway
Subclass, and February 20, 2018, and November 25, 2019,
inclusive, for the Vons Subclass;"
"Safeway Subclass" means:
"All employees and/or prospective employees of Defendant
Safeway Inc. within the United States who were the subject of
a consumer report anytime between and including June 6, 2017,
and November 25, 2019, inclusive;" and
"Vons Subclass" means:
"All employees and/or prospective employees, if any, of The
Vons Companies, Inc., including the banner or trade name
Pavilions, Vons Sherman Oaks, LLC, Safeway Southern
California, Inc., and/or Safeway Leasing, Inc. within the
United States who were the subject of a consumer report
anytime between and including February 20, 2018, and November
25, 2019, inclusive.
-- Exclusions
Settlement Class Members were notified in the Settlement
Notice of this 25 class action Settlement and of their
opportunity to request to be excluded from, or to opt out of,
the Settlement Class. Ninety-three (93) individuals, or
approximately 0.06% of the Settlement Class, submitted
timely
written exclusion/opt-out statements to the Claims
Administrator.
-- Final Approval of Settlement and Agreement
The Court grants final approval to the proposed Settlement
and the Agreement submitted with Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
The Court finds that settlement on the terms set forth in the
Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and that the
Settlement is, in all respects, in the best interests of the
Settlement Class.
The Court further finds that the Settlement set forth in the
Agreement resulted from arm's-length negotiations. The
Parties are ordered to consummate the Agreement in accordance
with the terms and provisions of the Agreement.
-- Payment to Settlement Class
The Claims Administrator shall cause payment to be issued to
Settlement Class Members who submitted valid Claim Forms
pursuant to the terms for calculating Individual Settlement
Payments set forth in Paragraph 42 the Agreement.
The Claims Administrator shall either mail settlement checks
to Settlement Class Members at their last-known addresses via
first class United States mail or send payments
electronically as requested in the claim form submitted,
within 21 calendar days of Defendants remitting the Gross
Settlement Sum to the Claims Administrator as set forth in
Paragraph 50(d) of the Agreement.
-- Service Payment to Plaintiffs
The Plaintiffs have applied for awards of service payments
as
Class Representatives in the amount of $11,000.00 to each
Class Representative (the "Service Awards").
Plaintiffs' requests for the Service Awards are granted in
part as follows: $7,000.00 is awarded to Kendra Sullivan,
Marianna Williams, Johanna Mathews, and Sharmarray Ross;
$6,000.00 is awarded to Staci Gilman; and $5,000.00 is
awarded to Kysha Drew and Jeannie Jones.
In accordance with the Agreement, the Claims Administrator
shall make these Service Awards payments to the Class
Representatives.
The Service Awards shall be delivered to the Class
Representatives within 21 calendar days after receipt of the
Gross Settlement Sum.
-- Attorneys' Fees to Class Counsel
Class Counsel has applied for an award of attorneys' fees
and
costs incurred in this Action in the amount of $608,169.37.
Class Counsel's request for attorney's fees and costs is
granted.
The Court awards $608,169.37 to Class Counsel for attorneys'
fees and costs incurred in this Action. In accordance with
the terms of the Agreement, the Claims Administrator shall
make this payment to Class Counsel within 21 calendar days
after receipt of the Gross Settlement Sum.
-- Settlement Expenses
The Court approved the use of American Legal Claims
Services,
LLC, as the Claims Administrator. The Court hereby approves
fees and costs to be paid to the Claims Administrator in the
amount of $105,000. In accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, Settlement Expenses shall be paid from the Gross
Settlement Sum.
Safeway is an American supermarket chain founded by Marion Barton
Skaggs in April 1915 in American Falls, Idaho. Vons is a Southern
California and Southern Nevada supermarket chain owned by
Albertsons. It is headquartered in Fullerton, California, and
operates stores under the Vons and Pavilions banners.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jgg5BV at no extra charge.[CC]
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Garrett Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY GARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00970 (C.D. Cal., June 9, 2021) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Garrett was employed by the Defendant as nurse.
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. provides claims and
productivity management services. The Company offers claims
administration, managed care, program management, workers
compensation, liability, and other related services. Sedgwick
Claims Management serves customers worldwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
-and-
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN LLP
402 West Broadway, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net
-and-
Richard D. Daly, Esq.
Donald C. Green II, Esq.
DALY & BLACK, P.C.
2211 Norfolk St., Suite 800
Houston, Texas 77098
Telephone: (713) 655-1405
Facsimile: (713) 655-1587
E-mail: rdaly@dalyblack.com
dgreen@dalyblack.com
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Court Reopens Gaffney Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAFFNEY v. SELECT
PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-12233 (D.N.J.
Filed: July 31, 2018), the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti entered
an order reopening the case and certifying class for preliminary
approval.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.
Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as
Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and
Jacksonville, Florida.[CC]
SELF-HELP FEDERAL: Poe Hits Illegal Bank Charges
------------------------------------------------
Veronica Poe, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Self-Help Federal Credit Union, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-00938 (E.D. Cal., June 15, 2021), seeks damages,
restitution and injunctive relief arising from the Bank's routine
practice of assessing more than one insufficient funds fee on the
same item in breach of contractual promises, and in violation of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Self-Help is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers. Self-Help has its headquarters in Modesto,
California. Poe is a resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and holds a
Self-Help checking account.
Poe alleged that Self-Help reprocessed a previously declined item
four times and charged an additional fee upon each reprocessing,
for a total assessment of $100 in fees on the same item. Poe
attempted a payment to AT&T that was rejected due to insufficient
funds in her account and charged a $25 insufficient funds fee for
doing so. Self-Help processed the same item yet again, coded it
again as an "Insufficient Funds Return Fee" and yet again rejected
the item for insufficient funds, and again charged Poe a $25 NSF
Fee for doing so. Self-Help assessed Poe a total of $100 in fees on
a single payment she attempted to make to AT&T. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Moyer, Esq.
SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A.
401 W. A street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
SOLARIS WATER: Misclassifies Inspectors, Jones Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN JONES, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SOLARIS WATER MIDSTREAM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00567 (D. New Mexico, June 18, 2021) brings this class and
collective action complaint seeking to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Assistant Chief
Inspector from approximately August 2019 until March 2021 in and
around the Delaware and Permian Basins in Southeast New Mexico.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant misclassified him and other
similarly situated Inspectors as independent contractors throughout
their employment with the Defendant. Despite regularly working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all the hours they have worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid a flat amount for each day
worked regardless of the number of hours worked, the Plaintiff
alleges.
Solaris Water Midstream, LLC builds integrated produced water
infrastructure systems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Jones A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjospehson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
SOMCHAI AND COMPANY: Yang Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAO YU YANG, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SOMCHAI AND
COMPANY d/b/a Sky Thai; MADEE INC d/b/a Sky Thai; and JC62 INC
d/b/a Sky Thai; AMPAWUN SILRAKSA, and CHIN YING LAU a/k/a Lau Chez
Ying, Case No. 2:19-cv-12742-CCC-JBC (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. directing the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
containing first and last name, last known address with
apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location,
dates of employment and position of ALL current and former
non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time
from May 21, 2016 to the present within 21 days of the entry
of the order;
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website
or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of
the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete
and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants
certifying that the list is complete and from existing
employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice
on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may
also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the communities of Chinese-speaking and Spanish-
speaking American immigrant worker;
7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice
in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed
locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members
of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted
throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at
Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel
list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in
English, and Chinese; and
9. equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit
be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in
Period.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xQHn5N
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class, is:
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
SONIC DRIVE: Henderson Seeks Certification of Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMAREUS "A.J." HENDERSON.,
Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated as a
class, v. SONIC DRIVE IN, MEMPHIS, POPLAR, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
ET. AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-02604-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective action of:
"all individuals Defendant employed within the last three
years as hourly-paid, non-managerial employees at any of the
Defendants' franchised Sonic Drive-In restaurants. Plaintiff
claims he and others were not paid for all "off-the-clock"
hours worked at the applicable Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) overtime compensation and/or minimum wage rates of
pay;"
2. authorizing Plaintiff's claims to proceed as a FLSA
collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly
situated;
3. directing the Defendants to immediately provide the
Plaintiff's counsel a computer-readable file containing the
names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last
known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of
employment and last known telephone numbers of all putative
class members;
3. providing that Court-approved notice be posted at all of the
Defendants' restaurants, enclosed with all of Defendants'
currently employed putative class members' next regularly-
scheduled paycheck/stub, and be mailed and emailed to
putative class members Defendants employed during the last
three years so that they can timely assert their claims;
4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as
of the date this Motion is fully briefed; and
5. requiring that the Opt-in plaintiffs' Consent to Join Forms
be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d9bSfy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
SPREEMO INC: Extension of Class Cert. Deadlines by 60 Days Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D.,
P.C., a Philadelphia corporation, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SPREEMO, INC. and THE HARTFORD
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, Case No. 5:18-cv-01902-CFK (E.D. Pa.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending current
deadlines by 60 days as follows:
Event Existing New
Deadline Deadline
Fact and Expert Discovery June 30, 2021 Aug. 30, 2021
Motions for Summary Judgment July 12, 2021 Sept. 10,
2021
and Class Certification
-- Responses Aug. 12, 2021 Oct. 11, 2021
-- Replies Aug. 23, 2021 Oct. 22, 2021
-- Oral Arguments Sept. 21, 2021 Nov. 22, 2021
This putative class action is brought pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and alleges that the Defendants
violated the TCPA by sending -- to Plaintiffs and the putative
class -- unsolicited fax advertisements.
On March 28, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded an earlier ruling granting Defendants’ motion to
dismiss, finding that the Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the
Defendants' faxes may be considered advertisements within the
meaning of the TCPA.
Spreemo Health is operates a healthcare platform that connects
employers and their insurers with healthcare providers. Hartford is
a United States-based investment and insurance company. The
Hartford is a Fortune 500 company headquartered in its namesake
city of Hartford, Connecticut.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3db5cO1 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
P.O. Box 7255
New Castle, PA 16107
Telephone: (412) 716-5800
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
- and -
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Molly E. Stemper, Esq.
BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-658-5500
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bart T. Murphy, Esq.
ICE MILLER LLP
2300 Cabot Drive, Suite 455
Lisle, IL 60532
E-mail: Bart.Murphy@icemiller.com
SQUARE A: Giron Loses Bid to Conditionally Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN PABLO GIRON, v.
SQUARE A CONSTRUCTION INC. et al. Case No. 3:20-CV-00626-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge David S. Cayer entered an order that:
1. "Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective
Action, for Disclosure of Contract Information for Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs, and to Distribute Court-Approved Notice
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(B)" is denied.
2. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum and
Order to the parties' counsel.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff has set forth only vague allegations
with meager factual support that the putative class members are
similarly situated. While some Fourth Circuit courts hold that a
plaintiff need only show that "a common policy, scheme, or plan
[that violated the law] exists," in practice, conditional FLSA
class certification is only granted when the plaintiff provides at
least minimal evidence that the proposed class also has manageably
similar job duties. Here, the Plaintiff has not established “at
least a manageably similar factual setting with respect to
[putative collective members'] job requirements [or] pay
provisions." The Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden and
demonstrate that he and potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly
situated."
The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed as a commercial truck
driver by Defendants from March 23, 2016 to September 22, 2019. He
worked between 65-80 hours per week and was denied time-and-a-half
overtime pay for work performed over forty hours per week. The
Plaintiff contends that he was also misclassified as an independent
contractor and paid via IRS Form 1099. During his employment, he
interacted with 15-40 individuals who were also employed by the
Defendants to assist with construction projects as hourly
independent contractors. These employees' job titles included
drivers, mechanics, warehouse workers, repairmen, bricklayers,
framers, and concrete masons. They have informed Plaintiff that
they were also classified as independent contractors and denied
time-and-a-half wages for their work performed over forty hours per
week.
The Plaintiff seeks to bring his FLSA claims on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated "current and former laborers who
are hourly, non-exempt employees of [Defendants] within the
state of North Carolina."
Square A is a residential and light commercial masonry company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gWwTMZ at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: June 30 Extension to File Class Cert. Reply Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a
LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00265-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting the consent motion to extend by seven days
the deadline to file reply in support of motion for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) up to and including June 30,
2021.
The Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification Under Rule
23(b)(2) on May 27, 2021. On May 26, 2021, the Plaintiff also filed
a Motion to Bifurcate the Issues of Liability and Damages and Amend
the Scheduling Order to Apply to the Putative Rule 23 (b)(2) Class
Only ("Motion to Bifurcate"). On June 2, 2021, Defendants filed an
Emergency Motion to File a Response to the Motion for Class
Certification and Motion to Bifurcate ("Motion for an Extension").
On June 3, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for an
Extension, extending the deadlines to file oppositions to the
Motion for Class Certification and the Motion to Bifurcate by seven
days. On June 16, 2021, the Defendants filed their Opposition to
the Motion to Bifurcate and on June 17, 2021, Defendants filed
their Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification.
State Farm operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gO5qwF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class, are:
William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
Marc C. Greco, Esq.
Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
Michael A. Glasser, Esq.
GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
580 East Main Street, Suite 600
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 625-6787
Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com
marcg@glasserlaw.com
kip@glasserlaw.com
michael@glasserlaw.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
Jordan Jacobson, Esq.
Lauren M. McGinley, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
jjacobson@ktmc.com
lmcginley@ktmc.com
– and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
decklund@carellabyrne.com
STATE FARM: Loses Bid to Stay Sheldon, Hunsberger Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON R. SHELDON and
STEVEN HUNSBERGER, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY; STATE FARM LIFE AND ACCIDENT ASSURANCE COMPANY; STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01080-JES-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Tom
Schanzle-Haskins entered an order that the Defendants State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, State Far Life and Accident
Assurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, and State
Farm General Insurance Company's Motion to Stay Pending Resolution
of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleadings is
denied.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs will need to prepare the class
certification motion and State Farm will need to respond, but the
parties have already had ample time to research and prepare for the
class certification issue. State Farm is so well prepared for class
certification that it determined it did not need a damages expert
to respond to a motion that has not even been filed yet. Given the
extensive preparation both sides already made for litigating class
certification, briefing the class certification motion will not be
a significant burden. In weighing all the factors under the
particular circumstances of this case, the Court finds that a stay
is not appropriate."
According to the complaint, Sheldon and Hunsberger worked for State
Farm as Term Independent Contractor Agents (Term Agents or TICA).
Sheldon and Hunsberger allege that State Farm wrongfully
misclassified Plaintiffs and all other Term Agents as independent
contractors when, in fact, Term Agents were employees of State
Farm.
The Plaintiffs allege for themselves and all similarly situated
Term Agents that State Farm wrongfully failed to provide to
Plaintiffs and all other Term Agents benefits available to State
Farm employees under State Farm's benefits and welfare plans
qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
29 U.S.C. sections 1101 et seq., including 401(k), retirement, and
pension plans. Plaintiffs bring class action claims for all
similarly situated Term Agents under ERISA sections 404(b),
502(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3), 29 U.S.C. §1104(b), 1132(a)(1)(B) and
(a)(3) for declaratory relief; reformation of State Farm's
qualified plans; payment of improperly withheld benefits; and
equitable relief for "restitution in the form of a surcharge or
otherwise credit Plaintiffs and Class Members for all ERISA
benefits to which they are retroactively entitled under the State
Farm Plans." The Plaintiffs Sheldon and Hunsberger also allege
personal claims for fraud and deceit. Complaint, Counts IV and V.
State Farm does not seek a stay with respect to the individual
claims.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xT0vR0 at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Sisia Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY K. SISIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02376-ELR (N.D. Ga.,
July 9, 2021) alleges that the Defendant engaged in unlawful
practice in administering medical payments insurance coverage under
its standard automobile liability insurance policy.
According to the complaint, on May 19, 2009, the Plaintiff
sustained physical injuries in a motor vehicle collision in Fulton
County, Georgia. The Plaintiff's car was struck from behind by
another vehicle. The Plaintiff submitted a claim to State Farm for
medical payments insurance coverage, pursuant to the terms of the
State Farm automobile insurance policy under which she was insured.
After paying a part of the initial charges for chiropractic care,
State Farm denied the remainder of Plaintiff's medical payments
claim based on its determination that the remaining medical
expenses Plaintiff incurred were not "reasonable medical expenses"
within the terms of her medical payments coverage, the suit says.
The Defendant allegedly took advantage of ambiguous Policy terms to
deny medical payments coverage to the Plaintiff, and enforced the
same ambiguous terms to deny medical payments coverage to other
State Farm insured.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers vehicle, auto, accident,
homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and
casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance
products and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ford, Sr., Esq.
JAMES LEE FORD, P.C.
2957 Hardman Court, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (678) 281-8750
E-mail: jlf@jlfordlaw.com
STEMILT AG: Court Stays All Class Certification Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia et al v. Stemilt AG
Services LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254 (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Salvador Mendoza, Jr. entered an order that all deadlines in the
Court's Order Setting Class Certification Briefing Schedule are
stayed pending the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.
Stemilt AG was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes providing farm management services.[CC]
SUNSHINE MAKERS: September 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you Purchased a Simple Green Cleaner, you may be entitled to
compensation under a class action settlement.
LEGAL NOTICE
IF YOU PURCHASED ONE OF MORE OF THE FOLLOWING PRODUCTS: (1) Simple
Green All-Purpose Cleaner; (2) Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner
(Fresh); (3) Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner (Lemon); (4) Simple
Green All-Purpose Cleaner (Lavender); (5) Simple Green Oxy Solve
Total Outdoor Cleaner; (6) Simple Green Oxy Solve House and Siding
Cleaner; (7) Simple Green Oxy Solve Concrete and Driveway Cleaner;
(8) Simple Green Oxy Solve Deck and Fence Cleaner; (9) Simple Green
Wash & Wax; (10) Simple Green All-Purpose Wipes; (11) Simple Green
All-Purpose Wipes (Lemon); (12) Simple Green Multi-Purpose Foaming
Cleaner; (13) Simple Green Carpet Cleaner; (14) Simple Green Marine
All-Purpose Boat Cleaner; (15) Simple Green Heavy Duty BBQ & Grill
Cleaner; (16) Simple Green Heavy Duty BBQ & Grill Cleaner
(Aerosol); (17) Simple Green Oxy Dog Stain & Odor Oxidizer; (18)
Simple Green Bio Dog; (19) Simple Green Advanced Dog Bio Boost
Stain & Odor Remover; (20) Simple Green Cat Pet Stain & Odor
Remover; and (21) Simple Green Outdoor Odor Eliminator, in any size
or packaging type ("SETTLEMENT CLASS PRODUCTS") , BETWEEN MAY 12,
2016 AND May 17, 2021, THEN YOU COULD BE ENTITLED TO MONEY FROM A
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
O'Brien et al. v. Sunshine Makers, Inc., San Bernardino Superior
Court, Case No. CIV-SB-2027994
WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT?
A lawsuit brought by Christopher O'Brien and Tiffany Kipikasha
("Plaintiffs") pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Bernardino ("Litigation") may affect your
rights. The Litigation resolves two lawsuits alleging Sunshine
Makers, Inc. ("Defendant") deceptively advertised, labeled, and
packaged the Settlement Class Products as being "non-toxic" despite
the products allegedly posing a risk of harm. Defendant denies
these allegations, including denying that its products are toxic.
The Court did not rule in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendant. The
parties instead agreed to settle. The other lawsuit included within
this settlement was brought by Plaintiff Michelle Moran in Moran v.
Sunshine Makers, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California Case No. 4:20-cv-03242.
AM I A MEMBER OF THE CLASS?
The class is defined as all persons residing in the United States
who purchased one or more Settlement Class Products between May 12,
2016 and May 17, 2021.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
With Court approval, the settlement provides cash payments based on
the number of Settlement Class Products purchased and the number of
Valid Claims submitted. Class members with proof of purchase may
submit a claim for $3.00 for each Settlement Class Product
purchased. Class members without proof of purchase may submit a
claim for up to $30.00. These amounts will be increased
proportionally (pro rata) if the total amount of claims does not
exhaust all settlement funds and reduced proportionally (pro rata
dilution) if the total amount of claims exceeds the settlement
funds. The settlement also agrees to remove certain representations
from the Settlement Class Product labels.
WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS?
You have three options:
1. You Can Accept the Settlement. Class Members who wish to receive
a Cash Payment must submit a Claim Form on or before August 16,
2021 either online at www.SimpleGreenNonToxicSettlement.com or by
mailing it to Digital Settlement Group, LLC; P.O. Box 301;
Valparaiso, IN 46384. If you don't submit a timely Claim Form and
don't exclude yourself from the settlement, you will be bound by
the settlement and will not receive a Cash Payment. If you stay in
the Class, you will be bound by all orders and judgments of the
Court, and you won't be able to sue or continue to sue Defendant as
part of any other lawsuit involving the same claims as in this
lawsuit.
2. You Can Object to the Settlement. You can ask the Court to deny
approval of the Settlement or any part of the Settlement by
objecting with the Court. You can't ask the Court to order a larger
settlement. If you want the lawsuit to continue instead of
settling, you must object. You may hire your own lawyer to appear
in Court for you if you wish; however, you will be responsible for
paying your lawyer. Objections will be considered by the Court only
if filed in writing and mailed by August 16, 2021 to Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District
– Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA
92415-0210 and also mailed to counsel for the parties. Objections
must state your name, address, telephone number, name of this
Litigation, factual and legal grounds for your objection, name,
address, telephone number, and email address of any attorney
representing you and any case in which you or your attorney has
objected to a class action settlement previously and the result of
that objection.
3. You Can "Opt Out" of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself
from the Class – which is sometimes called "opting-out" of the
Class – you won't get a payment from the settlement but won't be
barred from asserting claims against Defendant in a separate
lawsuit. Such notice shall include your name, address, telephone
number, and signature and a statement that you want to be excluded
from the lawsuit O'Brien et al. v. Sunshine Makers, Inc., Case No.
CIV-SB-2027994. Send the written notice postmarked by August 16,
2021 to Digital Settlement Group, LLC; P.O. Box 301; Valparaiso, IN
46384.
THE FAIRNESS HEARING
On September 21, 2021, at 10:00 am, the Court will hold a hearing
at the San Bernardino Superior Court to approve: (1) the proposed
settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (2) the
application for Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of up to $1,450,000,
plus costs and expenses, and payment of up to $5,000 to each of the
named plaintiffs. Class Members who support the proposed settlement
do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to
indicate their approval.
HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?
Please visit www.SimpleGreenNonToxicSettlement.com or contact Class
Counsel at info@clarksonlawfirm.com, or call the Settlement
Administrator at 1-877-426-0034.
BY ORDER OF SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO [GN]
TEAM HEALTH: Seeks Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS SANCHEZ v. TEAM
HEALTH, LLC, f/k/a TEAM HEALTH, INC.; and PARAGON CONTRACTING
SERVICES, LLC f/k/a PARAGON CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.; TEAM HEALTH
HOLDINGS, INC.; AMERITEAM SERVICES, LLC; HCFS HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-21174-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order enlarging the time to
respond to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification through
and including July 9, 2021, and for such other relief this Court
deems just and proper.
On June 11, 2021, the Plaintiff filed it 20-page Motion for Class
Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Pursuant to Local
Rule 7.1(c), Defendants' response is currently due June 25, 2021.
Due to a jury trial in another matter and the complex legal issues
raised in the Motion, the Defendants request an additional two
weeks to file their response, through and including July 9, 2021.
TeamHealth offers careers for physicians plus hospital management
and staffing services for facilities across the country. Paragon is
a provider established in Birmingham, Alabama specializing in
emergency medicine.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vVipRq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua R. Gale, Esq.
D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
Craig Lowell, Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
101 N. Woodland Blvd. Ste. 600
DeLand, FL 32720
Telephone: (386) 675-6946
E-mail: JGale@wigginschilds.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Peter R. Goldman, Esq.
Christina Lehm, Esq.
Nina C. Welch, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL
One Financial Plaza, Suite 2700
100 S.E. Third Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Telephone: (954) 764-7060
Facsimile: (954) 761-8135
E-mail: peter.goldman@nelsonmullins.com
christina.lehm@nelsonmullins.com
nina.welch@nelsonmullins.com
TELEXFREE LLC: Opinion from Trustee's Expert Not Admissible
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Melvin S. Hoffman granted the Class Defendants'
motion to exclude the expert witness testimony of Timothy Martin.
Judge Hoffman held that Martin's opinion is inadmissible.
Stephen B. Darr, the Chapter 11 trustee of the estates of
TelexFree, LLC, TelexFree, Inc., and TelexFree Financial, Inc.,
commenced adversary proceedings to recover funds from the class of
TelexFree participants who profited or were "net winners" in
TelexFree's fraudulent schemes. To assist him in accomplishing
that task, the trustee retained Huron Consulting Group, LLC, led by
Timothy Martin, to develop a methodology for making net winner
determinations. The professionals' work forms the basis for the
claims asserted by the trustee in these adversary proceedings, and
the trustee wishes to introduce that work as an expert opinion
through the testimony of one of his professionals. The defendants
retained their own expert, and based upon his evaluation, they seek
to exclude the opinion of the trustee's expert as unreliable.
According to Judge Hoffman, the trustee has not shown by a
preponderance of the evidence the reliability of his expert's
opinion as to the selection and application of his method for
aggregating user accounts to determine in these adversary
proceedings the identities and gains of the net winners in the
TelexFree scheme. Thus, the expert's opinion is inadmissible.
The cases are Stephen B. Darr, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin Argueta et
al., Defendants. Stephen B. Darr, Plaintiff, v. Paola Zollo Alecci
et al., Defendants. Adv. Proc. Nos. 16-04007-MSH., 16-04006-MSH
(Bankr. D. Mass.).
The class defendants are represented by:
Ilyas J. Rona, Esq.
Michael J. Duran, Esq.
Milligan Rona Duran & King, LLC,
50 Congress St #600
Boston, MA 02109
E-mail: ijr@mrdklaw.com
mjd@mrdklaw.com
A copy of the Court's June 22, 2021 Memorandum of Decision is
available at:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/inbco20210623668
About TelexFree, LLC
TelexFREE -- http://www.TelexFREE.com/-- is a telecommunications
business that uses multi-level marketing to assist in the
distribution of voice over internet protocol telephone services.
TelexFREE's retail VoIP product, 99TelexFREE, allows for unlimited
international calling to seventy countries for a flat monthly rate
of $49.90. TelexFREE had over 700,000 associates or promoters
worldwide.
TelexFREE though was facing accusations of operating a $1
billion-plus pyramid scheme.
TelexFREE LLC and two affiliates sought bankruptcy protection
(Bankr. D. Nev. Lead Case No. 14-12525) on April 13, 2014.
TelexFREE estimated $50 million to $100 million in assets and $100
million to $500 million in liabilities.
Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC, is serving as restructuring
advisor and Greenberg Traurig, LLP and Gordon Silver are serving as
legal advisors to TelexFREE. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC
serves as claims and noticing agent.
In May 2014, the Nevada bankruptcy court approved the motion by the
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission to transfer the venue of the
Debtors' cases to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Bankr. D. Mass. Case Nos. 14-40987, 14-40988 and
14-40989).
On June 6, 2014, Stephen Darr was appointed as Chapter 11 trustee.
THINK FINANCE: Funders Wants Class Certification Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that companies that funded the now defunct online
lender Think Finance accused of charging illegally high interest
rates urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse a California federal
court's certification of a class of consumers, arguing it was done
too hastily while ignoring "serious issues" such as how to identify
class members. [GN]
TOM GIRARDI: Attorney to Prove Erika Jayne Involved in Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Schaffstall, writing for The Sun, reports that a class
action lawsuit attorney has "vowed to prove" Erika Jayne was
"incredibly involved" in ex Tom Girardi's "scheme to steal clients'
money."
The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star has denied knowing what
Tom, 82, was up as he allegedly embezzled from victims that he
pledged to protect while he represented them against corporate
giants in court.
The new Hulu special The Housewife and the Hustler reveals the
inner workings of the multimillionaire's legal career and his
wife's over-the-top spending habits.
Following the doc's release, attorney Jay Edelson shared his plans
to prove Erika, 49, was involved while appearing on the Reality
Life with Kate Casey podcast.
Jay said: "We believe we're going to be able to prove that Erika
was incredibly involved in not just the law firm, but also, he was
loaning money to her company 10s of millions of dollars to her
company. And we think that money came from client funds.
"And we're going to look into all of that. And that's all going to
be, you know, part of proof that we showed to a jury -- that she
was knee-deep in this fraud, and she can say, 'Oh, she didn't know
anything about it.'
"And I think that's going be hard for her to convince a jury of."
The new doc examines Tom's questionable legal practices while he
worked as a hotshot lawyer in Los Angeles, which contributed to
Erika's extremely lavish lifestyle.
Tom's friend, LA attorney and former president of the Bar
Association Brian Kabateck, said that the way multimillionaire was
depicted on RHOBH was bad for his career and showed that the couple
lived beyond their means.
Back in November, Erika shocked the world when she filed for
divorce from Tom after 21 years together.
It was later rumored that Tom had cheated on Erika multiple times
and she was over it, while the lawyer never denied or confirmed the
allegations.
Following the divorce filing, Tom began getting hit with lawsuit
after lawsuit for fraud, embezzlement and contract breach.
The Bravo star became involved when it was claimed that they upheld
their luxurious lifestyle with the money he had allegedly stolen
from his clients.
However, Erika has denied ever knowing what Tom was up to and how
he funded their lifestyle.
A source previously told Us Weekly: "Erika was completely unaware
of the very serious allegations that were being made against Tom in
court.
"Tom always handled all of the finances and that was how they
handled things. Erika feels betrayed by Tom because she completely
trusted him." [GN]
TOTAL INSURANCE: August 31 Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW PERRONG,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, v. TOTAL INSURANCE BROKERS, LLC, CONSUMER
DIRECT MEDIA LLC AIFY LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-01905-JSM-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order regarding
class certification deadlines:
Event Old Proposed New Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiff Expert June 21, 2021 August 31, 2021
Disclosure
Class Certification June 21, 2021 August 31, 2021
Motion Deadline
Defendant's Expert July 19, 2021 October 18, 2021
Disclosure
Discovery Deadline August 16, 2021 Nov. 15, 2021
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 18, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35L363e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Counsel for Plaintiff and the putative class, are:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26 th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
TOTAL RENAL: Hesketh Seeks to Certify Class of Employees
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph J. Hesketh III, on
his behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v.
Total Renal Care, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, Case No. 2:20-cv-01733-JLR (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the following class of Plaintiffs:
The class is comprised of all non-exempt employees of DaVita as the
umbrella corporation of the captive Defendant Class Members who:
a. Worked their regularly scheduled hours for Defendant from
January 31, 2020; and
b. Were not paid the premium pay equal to one and 1/2 times
their base rate, for any work performed after the declaration
of emergency on January 31, 2020.
This definition seeks to only include those employees who fall
under the provision of the Disaster Relief Policy that is set forth
above. It is not intended to include any employees that may fall
under the other categories set forth in the Disaster Relief
Policy.
The Plaintiff has sued individually and on behalf of the other
employees subject to the same DaVita Disaster Relief Policy.
Whether the Disaster Relief Policy can be enforced resolves any
claims of the employees of Total and all of employees of the other
DaVita controlled entities. The claims of every class member are
identical and if Plaintiff is entitled to the premium pay for the
hours he worked pursuant to the Disaster Relief Policy then all of
the employees that worked under DaVita’s Disaster Relief Policy
are also entitled to the premium pay promised in the Teammates
Policies. The Plaintiff and the other employees have the same claim
and are entitled to the same relief. This case is not about whether
the DaVita Teammates Policies provide Plaintiff or any of the
employees the right to continued employment. All of the claims
arise from during their employment as at will employees.
Total Renal offers health care services. The Company offers kidney
and renal dialysis, transplant, disease management, and emergency
care.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TVjqvC
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina L Henry, Esq.
HENRY & DEGRAAFF, PS
119 1 st Ave, Ste 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 330-0595
Facsimile: (206) 400-7609
E-mail: chenry@hdm-legal.com
- and -
J. Craig Jones, Esq.
Craig Hill, Esq.
JONES & HILL, LLC
131 Highway 165 South
Oakdale, LA 71463
Telephone: 318-335-1333
Facsimile: 318-335-1934
E-mail: craig@joneshilllaw.com
- and -
Scott C. Borison, Esq.
BORISON FIRM LLC.
1900 S. Norfolk Rd. Suite 350
San Mateo CA 94403
Telephone: 301-620-1016
Facsimile: 301-620-1018
E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in Hassell Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENT HASSELL, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-04062-PJH (N.D. Cal. ), the
Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the defendant's motion to dismiss and denies
defendant's motion to strike as follows:
-- The motion to dismiss is denied to the extent it is premised
on the argument that Business and Professions Code section
7451 abates the authorities underlying plaintiff's
employment misclassification allegation. Such denial is
without prejudice. The Defendant may renew its abatement
argument on a motion for summary judgment.
-- The motion to dismiss the Labor Code section 1194 claims for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime is denied. On a
motion for summary judgment and following the opportunity
for merits-based discovery on defendant's control-related
practices, defendant may renew its argument that the time
spent waiting on the Uber Eats App between deliveries is not
legally compensable.
-- The motion to dismiss the Labor Code section 226 claim for
failure to provide accurate wage statements is denied.
-- The motion to dismiss the Business and Professions Code
section 17200 claim is granted in its entirety. The court
dismisses that claim with prejudice.
The Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the
allegations underlying the 12 Labor Code section 2802 claim
for failure to pay business expenses. The court finds that
plaintiff's amendments to that claim cure its prior
deficiencies. As a result, the following four claims remain
live in this action: (1) the claim for failure to pay
minimum wage; (2) the claim for failure to pay overtime
wages; (3) the claim for failure to provide accurate wage
statements; and (4) the claim for failure to pay business
expenses.
The Court said, "In its opening brief, the defendant requests that
the court strike plaintiff's class action allegations "to the
extent the putative class includes persons bound to arbitrate."
First, defendant asserts that plaintiff failed to dispute in his
opposition to defendant's prior motion that "only a small number of
putative class members both opted out of arbitration and are not
covered by prior releases compared to hundreds of thousands of the
putative class members who are bound to arbitrate their claims on
an individual basis." Second, defendant argues that "[t]he fact
that most putative class members are bound to arbitrate necessarily
precludes commonality, defeats superiority, and renders [plaintiff]
atypical and an inadequate class representative because he is not
bound to arbitrate." Third, defendant asserts that plaintiff lacks
standing to represent persons who chose not to opt out of
arbitration. The court summarily denies defendant's motion to
strike the allegations. The court finds that this action's record
is insufficiently developed to even entertain the propriety of the
requested relief. Defendant may seek leave to file a
special,limited Rule 56 motion aimed at summarily adjudicating the
viability of the allegations pertaining to putative class members
bound by an enforceable arbitration provision. In that event, the
parties should be prepared to brief that motion prior to any motion
for class certification."
This case is a putative wage and hour class action premised on the
alleged violation of various California labor laws. The Defendant
provides food delivery services through its "Uber Eats" mobile
phone application (the "Uber Eats App"). The Plaintiff has worked
as an Uber Eats driver since January 2020. The Plaintiff seeks to
certify a class comprising "all Uber Eats drivers who have worked
in California."
Uber is an American technology company. Its services include
ride-hailing, food delivery, package delivery, couriers, freight
transportation, and, through a partnership with Lime, electric
bicycle and motorized scooter rental.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zWLf7h at no extra charge.[CC]
UCAL SYSTEMS: Westfield Says Not Liable to Cover BIPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Westfield Insurance Co. hit UCAL Systems Inc.,
Illinois-based machine and plastics manufacturer, with a suit in
federal court on June 16, saying it isn't responsible for a class
action accusing the manufacturer of illegally distributing its
workers' fingerprint scants to third parties. [GN]
UEZU CORPORATION: Abe Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HISAMI ABE, on her own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. UEZU
CORPORATION d/b/a Kurumazushi II; TOSHIHIRO UEZU; and KUMIKO UEZU,
Case No. 1:20-cv-09725-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this
Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and
last name, last known address with apartment number (if
applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-
mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames
(if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and
position of:
"ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
employees employed at any time from November 18, 2017 (three
years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when
the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to
Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list,
whichever is later;"
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website
or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of
the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete
and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants
certifying that the list is complete and from existing
employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice
on Plaintiff counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may
also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the Japanese, Spanish-speaking American immigrant
worker community;
7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice
in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed
locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members
of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted
throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at
Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel
list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in
English, and Japanese; and
9. equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit
be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in
Period.
Uezu is located in New York, NY, United States and is part of the
Restaurants Industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 18,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xHlXbk
at no extra charge.[CC]
The attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class, is:P
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
UNITED ARMOR: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. UNITED ARMOR, INC., UNITED ARMOR OF
FLORIDA INC., and EDISSOON LOZADA, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-22258-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from approximately
October 1, 2018 through October 28, 2020 as a technician and cash
auditor.
The Plaintiff asserts that while he was employed by the Corporate
Defendants, he worked approximately an average of 50 hours per
week, but the Defendant did not properly pay him overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid
overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other
relief as the Court deems equitable and just.
United Armor, Inc. and United Armor of Florida Inc. are armored
transportation companies that offer services for clients utilizing
ATM machines. Edissoon Lozada is the owner and operator of the
Corporate Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Walls Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 503-5131
Fax: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
UNITED AUTOMOBILE: Loses Bid to Strike Experts' Opinions
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Case No.
1:20-cv-20887-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that
the Defendant United Automobile Insurance Company's Motion to
Strike the Opinions of Plaintiff's Experts Daniel Regard and
Richard Sabetta is denied.
The Court declines to consider a separate Motion to Strike, which
will make full briefing of the Motion for Class Certification
unwieldy, as the issues will be submitted in multiple submissions
and at different times. If Plaintiff is not in compliance with its
obligations regarding expert disclosures, the Court will certainly
not consider non-compliant reports to the prejudice of Defendant.
UAICis a property and casualty insurance organization specializing
in automobile insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j6Ldnu at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: July 2 Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSCAR D. TORRES, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THOMAS W. HARKER,
UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (ACTING), UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00306-RCL
(D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for an
extension of time to file his Motion for Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel until July 2, 2021.
The Plaintiff has consulted with counsel for the Defendant Acting
Secretary Thomas Harker, who does not oppose the relief sought by
this motion.
LCvR 23.1(b) sets forth a 90 day timeline for the filing of a
motion for class certification, which may be modified in the
exercise of the Court's discretion. This Court previously granted
an extension of time via an Order dated May 4, 2021. Via this
unopposed motion, the Plaintiff requests additional time to
incorporate the extensive administrative record produced in this
matter into its motion for class certification and continue
discussions with government counsel regarding potential consent to
a class definition in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests
an extension of 14 days to file its class certification motion.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gSTB8G at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barak Cohen, Esq.
Donald J. Friedman, Esq.
David P. Chiappetta, Esq.
Maria A. Nugent, Esq.
Geoffrey A. Vance, Esq.
Thomas J. Tobin, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 654-6200
Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
E-mail: BCohen@perkinscoie.com
DFriedman@perkinscoie.com
DChiappetta@perkinscoie.com
MNugent@perkinscoie.com
GVance@perkinscoie.com
TTobin@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Barton Stichman, Esq.
David Sonenshine, Esq.
Rochelle Bobroff, Esq.
Esther Leibfarth, Esq.
NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM
1600 K Street, N.W. Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006-2833
Telephone: (202) 265-8305
Facsimile: (202) 223-9199
E-mail: Bart@nvlsp.org
David@nvlsp.org
Rochelle@nvlsp.org
Esther@nvlsp.org
VALEANT PHARMA: Investors' Claims May Advance Under Tolling Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Third Circuit ruled on June 16 that
individual securities claims by Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International Inc. investors may advance under the class action
tolling rule established in the Supreme Court's landmark American
Pipe decision, siding with circuit courts that fund the time limit
clock doesn't resume until litigants leave the class. [GN]
VIGI MONT-ROYAL: Class Action Over Covid-19 Deaths Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Grillo, writing for CTV News Montreal, reports that a Quebec
judge granted permission on June 16 for a class action lawsuit to
proceed against a CHSLD that became infamous for being home to
dozens of COVID-19-related deaths.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of residents who lived at the Vigi
Mont-Royal during the months of April and May 2020.
According to the lawsuit, every resident of the CHSLD contracted
COVID-19, as did at least 125 employees. In total, 68 people died
of the virus.
Should the lawsuit succeed, there are several tiers of payouts,
with resident being eligible for $20,000. Children of residents
could be eligible for $2,500 and grandchildren would be eligible
for $500.
Residents who survived the outbreak would receive an additional
$30,000, while partners who lost a spouse would receive $100,000.
Caregivers would receive $5,000.
Also on June 16, an inquiry into the failures of Quebec's CHSLD
system during the pandemic heard testimony from nurses working at a
Laval facility that was home to over 100 deaths.
An assistant heart nurse at CHSLD Ste-Dorothee said there was a
major scarcity of vital resources, with an emergency red zone
quarantine area lacking running water. She said there were also no
connections for oxygen concentrators for people with respiratory
issues.
A separate class action suit has been launched against the Laval
facility. [GN]
VIRGINIA DOT: Winks Loses Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET AMANDA WINKS,
individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, v.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00420-HEH
(E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Henry E. Hudson entered an order denying
the n Plaintiff's motion to certify class filed on November 16,
2020.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the
putative class is either similarly situated or subject to a common
policy that violated the law. As the Virginia Department of
Transportation ("VDOT") explains, there is significant variety in
the job responsibilities and required skills for the
Architect/Engineer I position, which precludes the class from being
similarly situated. With over 53 different sub-categories, the
employees in the Architect/Engineer I position have significant
differences in crucial details like day-to-day responsibilities and
skill requirements. The diversity of roles and duties within the
Architect/Engineer I positions would make proceeding as a class
impracticable given a reasonable variance in salary for different
job functions.
The Plaintiff, an employee of the VDOT, filed a Second Amended
Complaint on October 5, 2020, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Equal Pay Act ("EPA").
The Plaintiff works as an Architect/Engineer I for VDOT and is
based in Lynchburg, Virginia. She alleges that, as a female, she is
paid less than the other male employees with the same
qualifications and experience for the same work.
The Virginia Department of Transportation is the agency of the
state government responsible for transportation in the state of
Virginia in the United States. VDOT is headquartered at the
Virginia Department of Highways Building in downtown Richmond.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qrzqld at no extra charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON PRIME: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Washington Prime Group Inc. (NYSE:
WPG) between November 5, 2020 and March 4, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important July 23, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Washington Prime Group securities during
the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Washington Prime Group class action,
go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2102.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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than July 23, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
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.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Washington Prime Group's
financial condition was deteriorating substantially; (2) as a
result, there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's
ability to meet its capital structure obligations as they became
due; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Washington Prime Group's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Washington Prime Group class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2102.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.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WESTERN UNION: Radulescu Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IBOLYA RADULESCU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
WESTERN UNION COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation headquartered in
Colorado; WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., A Delaware
Corporation headquartered in Colorado, Case No.
1:19-cv-03009-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the following Class pursuant to
F.R.Civ.P. 23:
-- Rule 23 (b)(3) Nationwide Damages Class:
"All persons and entities wherever they reside in the United
States who sent money using Western Union's money transfer
services between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and whose
money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60 days,
and who were not members of the Settlement Class in the
Tennille Action;"
-- Rule 23 (b)(3) State Sub-Class(es):
a. All persons and entities who are residents of Colorado
and
who sent money using Western Union's money transfer
services between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and
whose money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60
days, and who were not members of the Settlement Class in
the Tennille Action.
b. All persons and entities who are residents of Washington
and who sent money using Western Union's money transfer
services between January 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013, and
whose money went unredeemed and was not returned within 60
days, and who were not members of the Settlement Class in
the Tennille Action.
This class action is brought by customers who sent money through
Western Union ("WU") but whose money was not picked up or redeemed
by the recipient and WU unjustly retained possession of the money
without notifying the sender or returning the money. Instead, WU
waited years until the money was set to escheat to the state to
finally notify customers their money was never picked up. In 2009,
WU was sued for the exact same business practice in the Tennille
Action. In December 2012, WU settled the Tennille lawsuit for
approximately $180,000,000.00, involving thousands of customers and
1.2 million transactions.
WU has been unjustly enriched by holding for years their customers'
unredeemed money while earning interest from that money, while
refusing to pay interest to the customers whose money WU kept. WU's
practices violate various consumer protection statutes as well as
the common law of unjust enrichment and conversion, as well as
giving rise to other causes of action, as alleged in the
Complaint.
Western Union is an American worldwide financial services and
communications company, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Until it
discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union was the leading
American company in the business of transmitting telegram.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SWN4R3
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Waller, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT A. WALLER, JR.
P.O. Box 999
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, CA 92007
Telephone: (760) 753-3118
Facsimile: (760) 753-3206
E-mail: robert@robertwallerlaw.com
WHOLE FOODS: Warren Hits Misleading Coffee Creamer Label
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaaron Warren, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04577 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 2021), seeks
to recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and
costs for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability and for violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.
Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells coffee creamers under its 365 Everyday Value
brand. Warren alleges that their vanilla-flavored coffee creamer
contains vanilla flavor or vanilla extract despite its labelling
indicating "naturally flavored." [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Tel: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
- and -
Scott C. Borison, Esq.
BORISON FIRM, LLC
1900 S. Norfolk St., Ste. 350
San Mateo CA 94403
Tel: (301) 620-1016
Fax: (301) 620-1018
Email: scott@borisonfirm.com
[*] Biometric Privacy Class Action v. Property Companies Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a proposed
biometric privacy class action against two Chicago property
management companies was dismissed after an Illinois federal judge
found the plaintiff's claims were preempted by a federal labor
law.
Judge Gary Feinerman dismissed the proposed class action without
prejudice, because plaintiff Trevor Carmean didn't "grieve the
dispute" using the process outlined in his collective bargaining
agreement before bringing the Biometric Information Privacy Act
lawsuit, the judge said in an opinion filed on June 16 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]
*********
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 ***